2004-01-06 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: December 22, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re:
Regular City Council Meeting, Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting, and Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Community
Improvement Commission of January 6, 2004
Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular City Council Meeting,
Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council and Community Improvement Commission of January 6, 2004.
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
1. Introduction of Ordinance Approving Sale of Property
Associated with the Bridgeside Shopping Center from the City
of Alameda to the Community Improvement Commission. [City
Council]
This ordinance authorizes the City Manager to convey a City -owned remnant parcel
adjacent to the Bridgeside Shopping Center to the Community Improvement
Commission who in turn will convey that remnant to the Regency Realty Group.
Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Purchase
of a Parcel of Land from the City of Alameda and the Transfer
of Said Parcel Pursuant to a Disposition and Development
Agreement and Further Authorizing the Executive Director to
Take Any Actions in Connection Therewith (Bridgeside Shopping
Center). [Community Improvement Commission]
This resolution accepts the property known as the Bridgeside Shopping Center at
Tilden Way and Blanding, and thereafter sells the property to Regency Realty
Group, Inc. for development.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 22, 2003
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, the Special City Council
Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on December
16, 2003.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City
Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, the Special
City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on December 16,
2003.
4 -B. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$118,500,including contingency, to Simco Construction, Inc.
for Alameda Fire Station No. 3 Facade Repair and Apparatus
Upgrade, No. P.W. 08 -03 -17 and allocate $150,000 from General
Fund Reserves.
It is recommended that Simco Construction, Inc. be awarded the contract to do the
facade repair and apparatus upgrade to Fire Station 3. It is further recommended
that funds be appropriated from the General Fund Reserves for this project.
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $950,000,
including contingency, to International Parking Design, Inc.
for Architectural Services for the Alameda Longs /Parking
Structure, No. P.W. 08- 02 -12.
It is recommended that Council award the contract for architectural services to
International Parking Design, Inc. (IPD) in conjunction with the proposed parking
structure in the vicinity of Longs Drugs at Santa Clara and Oak Streets. The IPD
group has been involved with this project through the site selection analysis and
would be responsible for planning, additional traffic studies, design development,
construction documents and representation during construction.
4 -D. Recommendation to endorse preferred option [Option VI, State
Relinquishes State Route 260 (Webster Street) from Atlantic
Avenue to Central Avenue] for proceeding with Webster Street
Renaissance, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07.
Due to the challenges in working with Caltrans on the Webster Street Renaissance
Project, it is recommended that the Webster Street portion of State Route 260 be
relinquished and that the City and State enter a Cooperative Agreement. The staff
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers December 22, 2003
report identifies this scenario as Option VI, which is supported by the West Alameda
Business Association's resolution.
4 -E. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and Call for
Bids for the Traffic Striping Program, No. P.W. 12- 03 -19.
It is recommended that Council approve plans and specifications for the annual
traffic striping.
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Wastewater Capital
Reserve Fund for the State Revolving Fund Program for Sanitary
Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement Program.
This resolution establishes a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund in accordance with
the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board for purposes of
participating in the State Revolving Fund Loan Program. These funds are used for
our Inflow and Infiltration, Phase 8 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.
4 -G. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by
Repealing Section 22 -7 (Newspaper and Periodical Vending
Machines) of Article I (Streets), Chapter XXII (Streets and
Sidewalks) and Adding a New Section 22 -7 (Newspaper and
Periodical Vending Machines).
Introduction of this ordinance will amend the Alameda Municipal Code by repealing
and replacing Section 22 -7 providing new criteria for design and placement of
newspaper and periodical vending machines.
4 -H. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between
Mariner Square & Associates, as Lessee, and the City of
Alameda, as Lessor, to Include an Additional 2,739 Square Foot
Parcel [Requires four (4) Affirmative Votes].
Introduction of this ordinance is necessary to approve a second amendment to a
Lease Agreement with Mariner Square & Associates to lease an additional 2,739
square foot water parcel (Tidelands) to allow improved and reconfigured boat docks.
As noted, on October 27, 2003, the Planning Board approved Planned
Development and Design Review amendments for this project.
4 -I. Bills for ratification.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers December 22, 2003
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment GPA 03-
0003, Amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan;
[Hearing to be closed and noticed for future date.]; and
• Adoption of Resolution Amending the 2001 -2006 Housing
Element of the General Plan. [Hearing to be closed and
noticed for future date.];
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed
General Plan Amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan. In Tight
of the amendments requested by the office of Housing and Community
Development, it is recommended that after the public hearing is closed, this item
be removed from the Council's agenda so that a comprehensive presentation of
all proposed changes be brought before the Council at a future date. This future
date would then be re- noticed for the convenience of the public.
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 03-
0005, relating to second units; Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 03-
006, creating inclusionary housing requirements for
residential projects; Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 03 -007,
creating residential density bonus provisions and incentives
for affordable housing [Hearing to be closed and noticed for
future date.];
• Introduction of Ordinance Amending Article XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code Relating to Second Units [Hearing to
be closed and noticed for future date.];
Introduction of Ordinance Adding Section 30 -16 of Article
XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code to Create Inclusionary
Housing Requirements for Residential Projects [Hearing to
be closed and noticed for future date.]; and
• Introduction of Ordinance Adding Section 30 -17 of Article
XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code to Create Density Bonus
Provisions and Incentives. [Hearing to be closed and
noticed for future date]
These amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to second units, will be brought
back to the Council at a future date along with the proposed amendments to the
Housing Element. This hearing will be re- noticed for the public.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
Honorable Mayor and Page 5
Councilmembers December 22, 2003
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
conditional approval of Major Design Review, DR02 -0161 at 1510
Encinal Avenue to allow the demolition of a two -story single -
family dwelling /daycare facility and the construction of two
duplexes; and adoption of related resolution. The newly
created dwelling units would consist of three two - bedroom
units and one three - bedroom unit. Eight off - street parking
spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in
conformance with the parking standards of the Alameda
Municipal Code. The site is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue
within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Tam Nguyen. Appellant: John Faris.
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on an appeal of a
major design review approval by the Planning Board regarding demolition of an
existing structure and the construction of four (4) units at 1510 Encinal Avenue.
The Planning Board recommends that their decision be sustained.
5 -D. Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs.
This annual hearing is scheduled to allow citizens to comment on housing and
community development needs. After the public hearing has been concluded,
Councilmembers comments are welcomed.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
From: James M Flint
City Manager/Executive Director
Date: December 17, 2003
Re:
• Adopt an Ordinance Approving Sale of Property Associated with the Bridgeside
Shopping Center from the City of Alameda to the Community Improvement
Commission
• Adopt a Resolution Directing the City Manager to Execute all Necessary Documents to
Implement the Sale of Same Property from the CIC to Regency Realty Group, Inc.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2003, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) to convey ownership of the Bridgeside Shopping Center to
Regency Realty Group, Inc.
DISCUSSION
As a result of approval of the DDA, the CIC sale of the center to Regency was initiated. The DDA
also provides that Regency will purchase a small remnant parcel, currently owned by the City and
located directly adjacent to the Bridgeside Shopping Center, for $1.00 from the CIC. The DDA
calls for the City of Alameda to transfer ownership to the CIC and the CIC would, in turn, sell the
parcel to Regency.
CEQA
This proposed action was incorporated in the environmental review process associated with the
DDA.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Report #1 Special Joint
Council/ CIC Meeting
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Members December 17, 2003
of the City Council Page 2
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this action is included as part of the DDA. There is no fiscal impact to the
general fund.
RECOMMENDATION
• The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance transferring
ownership from the City' of Alameda to the CIC.
• The Executive Director recommends that the CIC adopt aresolution accepting ownership of the
property from the City for $1.00 and selling the property to Regency Realty Group, Inc. for
$1.00, including payment to the City and approval of all necessary documents to complete the
sale.
Respectfully submitted,
Pa 1 Benoit
Development Services Di or
By: Kathleen Kelley
Management Analyst
JMF/PB/MJF/KK:ry
cc: Doug Wiele, Foothill Partners
Tom Engberg, Regency Realty Group, Inc.
Economic Development Commission
Teresa L. Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney
Gerald Ramiza, McDonough, Holland and Allen
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:1BMAJLWinal City-CIC Purchase Staff Report 12- 29- 03.doc
F: CP/Bridgeside Shopping Center/Escrow Closing — Sale to Regency
e
u..
ton
c..
..a
c.
T;)
C
C
s-
a-
ck
c
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
APPROVING SALE OF PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE BRIDGESIDE SHOPPING CENTER FROM THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
( "Commission ") is carrying out the Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan") for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Community Improvement Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has approved a Disposition and Development
Agreement ( "DDA ") by and between the Commission and Regency Realty Group, Inc.
( "Developer "), dated December 3, 2003, which provides for the acquisition and sale of
certain real property located in the City of Alameda bounded by Blanding Avenue, Tilden
Way, and the Oakland Estuary, which, as and if assembled, is approximately 9.0 acres in
size (the "Site ") to the Developer for construction and installation of an approximately
108,000 square foot conununity shopping center consisting of an approximately 58,660
square foot high - quality grocery store, in -line retail space and office space, out parcel
uses and appurtenant on -site and off -site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to purchase the City Parcel from the City for
a sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and transfer it to the Developer in accordance with the
DDA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City
shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmation vote
of four members of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda
and by four affirmative votes that:
Section 1. The City Manager of the City of Alameda is hereby authorized to
execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, the transfer of the above referenced
Site from the City of Alameda to the Community Improvement Commission for a sum of
One Dollar ($1.00).
Introduction of Ordinance # 1
Special Joint CC & CIC Meeting
1 -6 -04
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of _, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
LE
_o
2
CC
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A
PARCEL OF LAND FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE
TRANSFER OF SAID PARCEL PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TAKE ANY
ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda ( "Commission ") is carrying out the Community Improvement Plan
f( "Plan") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Community
Improvement Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has approved a Disposition and
Development Agreement ( "DDA ") by and between the Commission and Regency
Realty Group, Inc. ( "Developer "), dated December 3, 2003, which provides for the
acquisition and sale of certain real property located in the City of Alameda
bounded by Blanding Avenue, Tilden Way, and the Oakland Estuary, which, as
and if assembled, is approximately 9.0 acres in size (the "Site ") to the Developer
for construction and installation of an approximately 108,000 square foot
community shopping center consisting of an approximately 58,660 square foot
high - quality grocery store, in -line retail space and office space, out parcel uses
0 and appurtenant on -site and off -site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Site consists, in part, of that certain real property owned
by the City of Alameda and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "City
Parcel "); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda has adopted
Ordinance No. approving the conveyance of the City Parcel to the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to purchase the City Parcel from the
City for a sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and transfer it to the Developer in
accordance with the DDA.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Resolution # 1
Special Joint CC & CIC Meeting
1 -6 -04
The Commission hereby approves the purchase of the City Parcel from the
City for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00). The Executive Director and Secretary of
the Commission are hereby authorized and directed to take such further actions
and execute such documents as are necessary to effect the acquisition by the
Commission of the City Parcel and the transfer of the City Parcel to Developer,
including without limitation execution of a Certificate of Acceptance and Grant
Deed, and to implement the provisions of the DDA.
EXHIBIT A
Leval Description of the City Parcel
All of the real property in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California,
described as follows:
Parcel Nine:
Commencing at the intersection of the Northeastern line of Blanding Avenue with the
Southeastern line of Broadway; Thence along said Northeastern line of Blanding Avenue
South 55° 36' 03" East 266.70 feet to the point of intersection with the Northwesterly
line of the land described in the Deed dated March 28, 1907 from Martha A.Cornelius, et.
vir, to.the Southern Pacific Company, recorded March 30, 1907 in Book 1337 of' Deeds,
Alameda County Records, Page 160, which is the True Point of Beginning; Thence South
34° 23' 57" west along saki Northwesterly line 60.00 feet to the southwesterly line of
said Blanding Avenue: Thence along last said southwesterly line of Blanding Avenue north
55° 36' 03" West 9.43 feet; thence from a tangent bearing North 14° 45' 13" West along
the arc of a 271 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle Of 28° 46'. 05" a
distance of 136.07 feet to a point of cusp on the Northeasterly line of of Blanding Avenue,
Thence along last said line South 55° 36' 03" East 129.98 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
Assessor's Parcel No: 070- 196 -028
Assessor's Parcel No: 070 - 0196 -042
Exhibit A
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a
Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of
2004 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said
Commission this day of , 2004.
Lam Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 22, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $118,500, including Contingencies, to
Simco Construction, Inc., for Alameda Fire Station No. 3, Facade Repair & Apparatus
Upgrade, No. P.W. 08 -03 -17 and Allocate $150,000 from General Fund Reserves
BACKGROUND
Fire Station Number 3 was built in 1924 of hollow clay masonry units. The building is not currently
occupied due to its seismic instability. Fire crews have been relocated to a leased residence next
door at 1709 Grand Street. In addition to the structural instability of the building's masonry shell, a
fire truck exiting the equipment bay damaged the Grand Street facade further compromising building
stability. Plans for Alameda Fire Station No. 3, Facade Repair & Apparatus Upgrade were prepared
by Holmes - Culley, Inc. and were adopted at the November 18, 2003, Council meeting.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The seismic upgrade project will remove and repair the damaged Grand Street facade and seismically
upgrade an apparatus room. These repairs will provide seismic safety for fire station personnel and
allow the apparatus room to once again accommodate a fire engine.
To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided
to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was
published in the Alameda Journal. Staff also conducted a pre -bid walk - through at the site.
Bids were opened on December 18, 2003. Two contractors submitted bids. The list of bidders from
lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows:
Bidder
Location
Bid Amount
Simco Construction
Oakland, CA
$98,986
W. Chapot Construction Co.
Alameda, CA
$119,500
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
teiblintib
Report #4 -B CC
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 29, 2003
The construction cost to make Grand Street exterior structural repairs and to seismically retrofit the
interior of the equipment bay is $118,500, including contingency. An estimated 20% contingency is
recommended due to the fact that the building is historic, has several non - standard structural
elements, and the work is likely to involve unforeseen conditions. The engineer's estimate for the
project is $100,000. Additional funds in the estimated amount of $31,500 are necessary for project
administration, inspection, material testing, and submittal review, for a total project cost of
$150,000. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This work was funded in fiscal year 2003 -04 under CIP 03 -02, Alameda Fire Station No. 3 Facade
Repair & Apparatus Upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17, in the amount of $150,000. In order to expedite
the project, staff recommends that the project funds be appropriated from General Fund Reserves in
the total amount of $150,000, which represents all anticipated project costs. The Fire Department is
evaluating a Mercantile Inspection Fee which if approved will provide funding for future CIP
projects for the Fire Department.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager reconunends that the City Council, by motion, award the contract in the amount
of $118,500, including contingency, to Simco Construction, Inc., for Alameda Fire Station No. 3
Facade Repair & Apparatus Upgrade, No. P.W. 08 -03 -17 and allocate $150,000 from General Fund
Reserves for the project.
MTN /JVW:ms/d1
cc: Jim Christiansen
Corey Merrick
Respec�yi'ully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
blic Works Director
7 h „ie,„ ,
By: ohn V. Wankum
upervising Civil Engineer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 17, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $950,000, Including Contingency, to
International Parking Design, Inc. for Architectural Services for the Alameda Longs/Parking
Structure, No. P.W. 08- 02 -12.
BACKGROUND
In August 2002, the City Council awarded a consultant agreement to International Parking Design,
Inc. (IPD) to provide a feasibility study for a parking structure for the Park Street business district.
IPD evaluated seven potential parking structure sites including the Longs Drugstore site at Oak
Street and Santa Clara Avenue. Because of the proximity of the Longs site to the New Alameda
Theater site, it is the first option for construction of a parking structure. On May 6, 2003, Council
approved a consultant agreement with IPD to provide additional studies for this location.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Representatives of Longs and the surrounding business community have reviewed and approved the
conceptual design proposed by IPD. Based on the conceptual design, staff is negotiating with Longs
to develop the final project design.
Staff wishes to continue using the services of IPD for the design phase because of their familiarity
with the site, their reputation for quality projects throughout northern California, and their ability to
expedite project design. In addition, there were no firms, until just recently, that had expressed an
interest in performing this specialized kind of design work for the City.
Since this is a high priority for the City, staff recommends beginning work on the preliminary design
of the parking structure in parallel with the City's negotiations with Long's. The contract with IPD
states that the consultant cannot proceed to a subsequent phase of the work without authorization
from the City. In addition, the City reserves the right to stop work within a phase after providing
notice to the consultant. The total cost of services for the project is $794,875, and includes planning,
additional traffic studies, design development, construction documents and representation during
construction. Staff recommends entering into a not to exceed services contract for $950,000, which
provides a 20% contingency. The proposed contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Report #4 -C CC
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 17, 2003
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The project is identified as CIP 90 -19 with a current budget of $6,590,000 in the fiscal year 2003-
2004 budget. Funding will come from the Parking Meter Fund and redevelopment bonds.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, award a contract in the amount of
$950,000, including contingency, to International Parking Design, Inc. for architectural and
engineering services for the Alameda Longs/Parking Structure, No. P.W. 08- 02 -12.
Respectful submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
a
By: John V. Wankum de
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN:JVW /ms:dl
cc: M.K. Raphel, Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.
Marc Fontes
Sue Russell
G:PUB WORKS\ PWADMIN\ COUNCJ L\2004t010604HPOConnact2.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
bblicVVarls
martment
�m /focfEN!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date. December 18, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manger
Re: Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Option for Proceeding with Webster Street
Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07 -02 -07
BACKGROUND
In October 2001, the City received a federal Transportation for Livable Communities ,(TLC)
Grant for $881,000 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The grant is
administered by Caltrans and will be used for construction of the Webster Street Renaissance
Project (Project) along State Route 260 (Webster Street) from Central Avenue (State Route 61)
to Pacific Avenue. The Project consists of streetscape improvements including transit plazas,
pedestrian amenity plazas, corner curb extensions, landscaping, irrigation, street furniture, street
lights, and undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines. MTC approved the project in 2001
based on conceptual drawings prepared by BMS Design Group and received letters of support
from many groups and individuals including Caltrans. The West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) also endorsed the project, signing the grant application as a co- applicant with the City.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
In July 2003, staff submitted plans and specifications to Caltrans for review. In August 2003,
Caltrans advised staff that they would not approve the plans based on Caltrans' requirement that
plazas and curb extensions have a minimum 1.2 -meter (approximately four feet) clearance from
the face of the curb extensions to the edge of the travel way.
City staff has since met with Caltrans staff on several occasions to review design options and
develop a mutually acceptable solution to have the project approved and construction begin. In
addition, members of WABA strongly recommend that the Project proceed as currently
designed. Plans are available for review in the Public Works Department.
A list of options and their associated pros and cons was developed by staff and discussed with
Caltrans and is provided below.
maesw
NbiliclAWonStrArliwf
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -0 CC
1-6 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
December 18, 2003
Option I. Retain existing design features and provide one travel lane in each direction with
left turn pockets at intersections
Pros
Cons
1. Utilizes the current design as shown on
the plans with modification to the
striping.
2. Provides a more pedestrian oriented
environment.
3. Meets WABA and City objectives to
enhance transit use, improve pedestrian
movement and beautify the street.
4. Better sight distance and visibility.
5. Easier for parking maneuvering.
6. Shorter pedestrian crossing time at the
crosswalks.
7. Creates more planting area.
8. Meets the street furnishing and
landscaping objectives of the project.
1. Level of service fails for 2025 volumes at
all intersections.
2. Queuing for 2025 reached about 600 ft.
3. Fire trucks right -turn from the streets
crossing Webster Street encroach into the
left -turn pocket.
4. Traffic backs up when a delivery truck is
loading or unloading close to the mid -
block plaza or the intersection.
5. Traffic backs up when a bus stops at the
transit plaza.
6. Parking maneuvering can cause traffic
back up.
7. It will have a huge impact on the block
between Taylor Avenue and Central
Avenue because of existing left-turn on
S/B direction that extends from Taylor
Avenue intersection to Central Avenue
intersection.
8. Meets ADA specifications but requires
standard wheelchair ramps.
9. Does not allow for the full development
at Alameda Point.
10. Additional cost for removing existing
striping and restriping ($20,000).
11. Additional cost for signal modification at
Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue
intersections with Webster Street. New
loops and signal heads ($180,000).
12. Requires revised Project Study Report/
Project Report to include the signal
modification. Would delay construction.
Dedicated to Excellence, Co
mitred to Service
maw�.4
ItW%tks
tl 16aeM
wxeuet xnnhaw
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
December 18, 2003
Option IIA. Reduce transit plazas from 7 -foot to 3 -foot curb extensions and provide full 7 -foot
curb extensions at mid -block pedestrian plazas with 6 -inch curb instead of a 12 -inch
wall
Pros
Cons
I. Meets Caltrans' 4 -foot shoulder
requirement at transit plaza and corner
extensions.
2. Fully functional area for pedestrian
gathering at the mid -block plaza.
3. Wheelchair ramps are consistent with
Caltrans Standard Plans.
4. Cost savings for the project by
eliminating culvert drains, steps, railing,
raised platform at transit plaza 17%
($250,000).
5. Addresses Caltrans' concem about the
vehicles' side view mirrors.
6. Requires less maintenance.
7. Reduces bicyclist safety concerns at
transit plaza and corner extension.
8. Allows for full development at Alameda
Point.
9. Does not change current parking
maneuvering.
10. Loading and unloading will not cause
major backup due to two lanes in each
direction.
11. Addresses Caltrans' concern about the
fixed object by reducing the curb height
to 6" at mid -block plaza.
12. Maintains the preferred design at mid -
block plaza.
13. Maintains current striping.
1. The shoulder width at mid -block plaza is 0'
which does not meet Caltrans' requirement.
2. Does not meet WABA's goal to build the
project as designed.
3. Does not provide for the bike refuge area at
mid -block plaza.
4. Significant redesign of the streetscape
project; reduces pedestrian amenities.
5. Longer pedestrian crossing distance at the
intersections.
6. Increases pedestrian crossing time.
7. Needs more grinding of the street.
8 Less planting areas
9. Additional design cost ($20,000).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GWd Ia.d.
bi�
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Option IIB. Same as Option IIA, but stagger mid -block pedestrian plazas
Page 4
December 18, 2003
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
atu...m
lehdtab
Public ”itallient,4frIbli
Pros
Cons
1.
Meets Caltrans' 4' shoulder requirement
1. Does not meet WABA's goal to build the
at transit plaza, and comer extensions.
project as designed.
2.
Meets Caltrans' 4' shoulder requirement
2. Loss of additional on- street parking, 23%
at mid -block plaza by staggering the
with the project alternative.
plazas and moving the striping.
3. Requires Technical Transportation Team
3.
Fully functional area for pedestrian
(TTT) action and may be denied.
gathering at the mid -block plaza.
4. Travel lanes meander between mid -block
4.
Wheelchair ramps are consistent with
plazas to provide for the 4' shoulder.
Caltrans Standard Plans.
5. Not safer for motorists and bicyclists.
5.
Cost savings for the project by
6. Significant redesign of the streetscape
eliminating culvert drains, steps, railing,
raised platform at transit plaza 15%
project, reduces pedestrian amenities.
7. Longer pedestrian crossing distance at the
($230,000).
intersections.
6.
Addresses Caltrans' concern about the
8. Increases pedestrian crossing time.
vehicles' side view mirrors
9. Needs more grinding of the street.
7.
Requires less maintenance.
10. Less planting areas.
8.
Reduces bicyclist safety concerns.
11. Additional design cost ($40,000).
9.
Allows for full development at Alameda
Point.
10.
Loading and unloading will not cause
major backup due to two lanes in each
direction.
11.
Minimizes Caltrans' concern about the
fixed object by reducing the curb height
to 6" at mid -block plaza.
12.
Maintains the preferred design at mid -
block plaza.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
atu...m
lehdtab
Public ”itallient,4frIbli
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 5
December 18, 2003
Option III. Retain existing design features and eliminate parking lanes as needed to provide 4-
foot shoulders required by Caltrans at all features with 7 -foot curb extensions
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Pros
Cons
1.
Retains transit plazas as designed
1. Eliminates one -third of major design
I
(preferred design alternative).
elements (Corner extensions and mid
2.
Retains 4 mid -block plazas as designed.
block plazas) at some locations.
3.
Maintains half the comer extensions.
2. Loss of additional on- street parking, 30%
4.
Meets Caltrans' 4 -foot shoulder
with the project alternative.
requirement.
3. Requires TTT action and may be denied.
5.
Provides for a refuge area for bicyclists.
4. Does not meet WABA and City
6.
Cost saving ($120,000).
objectives for pedestrian and transit plaza
7.
Shorter pedestrian crossing time at
meant to enhance transit usage, improve
crosswalks.
pedestrian mobility and beautify the
street.
5. Center stripes do not line up at the
intersections.
6. Additional cost associated with re-
striping ($35,000).
7. Travel lanes meander at several locations
between Pacific Avenue and Central
Avenue.
8. May not be safer for motorists and
bicyclists because of meandering lanes.
9. Parking maneuvering will be difficult in
the transition zones.
10. Needs current plans revision at an
estimated cost of ($50,000).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
December 18, 2003
Option IV. Retain existing design features and transfer state right -of -way from Webster Street
to Constitution Way from Tubes to Lincoln Avenue, Lincoln Avenue (from
Constitution Way to Grand Street), and Grand Street (from Lincoln Avenue to
Encinal Avenue)
Pros
Cons
1. Utilizes current design as shown on the
plans.
2. Meets WABA and City objectives.
3. Less street maintenance cost to the City
in the long term.
4. Decreased liability to the City.
5. Does not need a legislative act.
6. Allows for the development of Alameda
Point.
7. Provides for fully functional mid -block
plazas for pedestrian gathering.
8. Does not change current parking
maneuvering, except at plazas.
9. Allows for bus, and fire truck
maneuvering at intersections.
10. Delivery trucks loading/unloading will
not cause back up.
11. Does not cause traffic back up when
buses stop at transit plazas.
12. Does not need signal modification within
the project limits.
13. Shorter pedestrian crossing distance at
the crosswalks.
14. Safer for pedestrians.
15. Adds more planting areas.
16. Does not change current street striping
except for the parking Ts.
17 Less asphalt grinding on Webster Street.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Potential opposition from residents affected
by the new route designation.
Requires new contract for the signals
maintenance and operation between the
City and Caltrans (City owns and operates
a master controller for all the City signals
at Constitution Way and Atlantic Avenue).
Additional cost associated for the route
upgrade is estimated at ($3,300,000) and
includes the following:
• Signal modification at 3 intersections on
Grand Street.
• New controller cabinet at Constitution
Way and Atlantic Avenue.
• Remove existing median on Constitution
Way.
• New striping on Constitution Way.
• Street resurfacing and striping on Lincoln
Avenue.
Design cost ($450,000).
Triggers encroachment permit from
Caltrans for work within the new Right -of-
way (ROW).
Additional cost ($85,000) for the
following:
• ROW research
• Environmental study
• Traffic study and evaluation
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
wIn0xaxl xef. w.!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 7
December 18, 2003
Option V. Retain existing design features and transfer state right -of -way from Webster Street
to Constitution Way from Tubes to Lincoln Avenue, Lincoln Avenue (from
Constitution Way to Ninth Street), and create one -way couplet on Eighth Street and
Ninth Street (from Lincoln Avenue to Central Avenue)
Pros
Cons
1. Utilizes current design for Webster
Street as shown on the plans.
2. Meets WABA and City objectives.
3. Less street maintenance cost to the City
in the long term.
4. Allows for the development at Alameda
Point.
5. Provides for fully functional mid -block
plazas for pedestrian gathering.
6. Does not change current parking
maneuvering, except at plazas.
7. Allows buses, and fire trucks to
maneuver at intersections.
8. Delivery trucks loading/unloading will
not cause back up.
9. Does not cause traffic back up when
buses stop at transit plazas.
10. Does not need signal modification
within the project limits.
11. Shorter pedestrian crossing distance at
the crosswalks.
12. Safer for pedestrians.
13. Adds more planting areas.
14. Does not change current street striping,
except for the parking Ts.
15. Less asphalt grinding on Webster
Street.
16. Improves traffic level of service at the
intersection of 8th Street/Central
Avenue and Westline Drive.
17. Improves A.M. queue on Westline
Drive.
1. Potential opposition from residents affected by
route designation.
2. Creates longer driving distance for residents
th
(8 and 9'h streets) traveling in the opposite
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
direction.
Creates difficulty for residents parking on/off
8th and 9'11 streets.
Complicates access to Washington School
(one -way streets).
Safety concerns because of changed traffic
circulation.
Requires new contract for signal maintenance
and operation between the City and Caltrans
(City owns and operates a master controller for
all the City signals at Constitution Way and
Atlantic Avenue intersection).
Additional cost associated for route upgrade -
estimated at ($2,600,000) and includes:
• New signals at Lincoln Avenue /9th Street and
Central Avenue/9th Street.
• Signal modification at Sth /CentrauWestline
and Constitution Way /8th/Lincoln Avenue.
• New street signs.
• New controller cabinet at Constitution Way
and Atlantic Avenue.
• Removes median on Constitution Way.
• New striping on Constitution Way.
• Street resurfacing and striping on Lincoln
Avenue /8th Street and 9th Street.
Design cost ($400,000).
Triggers Caltrans encroachment permit in the
ROW for any work in the future.
Additional cost ($85,000) for the following:
ROW research, Environmental study, Traffic
study and evaluation
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
OgMNn 1.
iah
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 8
December 18, 2003
Option VI. State Relinquishes State Route 260 (Webster Street) from Atlantic Avenue to
Central Avenue
Pros
Cons
1. Utilizes current design for Webster Street
as shown on the plans.
2. Meets WABA and City objectives.
3. Future work in the ROW does not require
Caltrans encroachment permit.
4. Allows for the development at Alameda
Point.
5. Provides for fully functional mid -block
plazas for pedestrian gathering.
6. Does not change current parking
maneuvering, except at plazas.
7. Allows for the buses and fire trucks
maneuvering at intersections.
8. Delivery trucks loading/unloading will
not cause back up.
9. Does not cause traffic back up when a
bus stops at a transit plaza.
10. Does not need signal modification within
the project limits.
11. Shorter pedestrian crossing distance at
the crosswalks.
12. Safer for pedestrians.
13. Adds more planting areas.
14. Does not change current street striping,
except for the parking Ts.
15. Less asphalt grinding on Webster Street.
16. Existing environmental study and traffic
study with some modifications can be
used for route relinquishment process.
17. Does not require alternative route
improvements. Cost saving ($3,835,000).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Requires an act of legislation.
Additional maintenance cost to the City in
the long term. Average annual estimated
maintenance cost ($52,400) includes the
following:
• Resurfacing sinking fund ($40,000)
• Street sweeping ($3,000)
• Signal maintenance ($3,000)
• Street lights maintenance ($6,400)
The cost does not include sanitary and
storm maintenance.
Increased liability to the City as a result of
route relinquishment by Caltrans.
Additional cost for environmental, ROW,
traffic, maps and exhibit required for the
relinquishment process ($60,000).
Time:
• Staged implementation
• City Council to approve the process by a
Resolution
• WABA must agree to the establishment
of an Assessment District by the City
• City to revise Project Study Report/
Project Report
• City assumes full liability in the interim
period to start construction
• Coop agreement will be prepared by
Caltrans
• Caltrans may agree to the project
construction upon the execution of the
co -op agreement.
• Requires California Transportation
Commission action as well as an Act of
Legislation.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
w gEnthrtillellt
Honorable Mayor and Page 9
Councihnembers December 18, 2003
Based on staff and Caltrans discussions, it was generally agreed that option VI, Route
Relinquishment, would best satisfy the objectives of both agencies. This process would take an act
of the Legislature and, if approved, the Project could begin as soon as the City and State adopt a
Cooperative Agreement containing appropriate indemnification and hold harmless clauses. In the
event the State and City move forward with the relinquishment process, the State would be the
Lead Agency for the environmental approval process. Relinquishment of the route to the City
would not change or affect the operation or function of Webster Street. It would, however, give
the City, rather than Caltrans, the authority to grant encroachment permits on Webster Street and
require the City to be responsible for all maintenance activities. Staff recommends pursuing the
relinquishment option as the preferred option. WABA concurs with this determination and has
approved a resolution (attached) endorsing this as their preferred option.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted at $1,200,000. The Project is funded by an MTC grant in the amount of
$881,000 and $319,000 in Redevelopment Funds.
In the event the State and City move forward with the preferred option of relinquishment of
Webster Street to the City, the initial costs for environmental analysis would be approximately
$60,000. Staff will work with Caltrans to have them fund this work. If not, this could be funded
from Redevelopment Funds. In addition, the City would have to assume maintenance duties that
were previously the responsibility of Caltrans. The two agencies currently have an agreement for
street sweeping, sidewalk maintenance, and streetlights for which Caltrans reimburses the City
approximately $5,000 per year. This amount could reasonably be absorbed by the City. In
addition, Caltrans performs pavement maintenance, such as the overlay of the street that was
completed in 2002. Relinquishment of the portion of Webster Street would increase the City's
current centerline inventory of 131 miles by 0.6 mile or 0.5 %. Future resurfacing costs are
estimated at $400,000 over the next ten years. The additional maintenance costs could be offset by
a future assessment district along Webster Street, redevelopment funds, existing maintenance
fiords or a combination of any of these sources. Should Council endorse this preferred option, staff
will work with WABA and other City departments to determine the best way to proceed for on-
going maintenance costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Webster Renaissance Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Section 15301, minor alterations to existing facilities.
The relinquishment of the State Highway by Caltrans would be subject to review in accordance
with CEQA. Caltrans would be the lead agency for this document.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 10
Councilmembers December 18, 2003
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, endorse a preferred option for
proceeding with the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07.
Respectful y S mitted
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: ,John V. Wankum
upervising Civil Engineer
MTN /JVW:di
Attachment: WABA Resolution
G:1PUB W ORKS\P W ADMQN\COUNCIL\2004 \010604 \W ebsteroptions24oc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ttalkWeib
P�-
West Alameda Business Association
Whereas:
• The City of Alameda (City) and the West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) jointly applied for and received a 2001 grant in the amount of $881,000
to fund the development of a new streetscape for Webster Street.
• The City of Alameda agreed to contribute $500,000 in additional funds to develop
this streetscape.
• The design of this streetscape, referred to as the preferred design alternative, was
shaped through a long history of community involvement that 1) began long
before the grant application and 2) included representatives of the City of
Alameda, Metropolitan Transit Commission, Caltrans, AC Transit, WABA, West
End merchants and citizens of Alameda.
▪ As designed, the streetscape is intended to be a key piece of a much needed
renaissance for the merchants and citizens in Alameda's West End and will make
Webster Street much more pedestrian- and transit - friendly.
• Groundbreaking on phase I of the streetscape was scheduled for January or
February 2004. Phase I was expected to be completed before summer 2004.
• On August 6, 2003, Caltrans declined to grant a variance necessary to build the
streetscape as designed because Webster Street is designated as a state highway
and the preferred design alternative would not meet Caltrans' uniform standards
for state highways. Because of this, many projects started years after the Webster
streetscape project are closer to fruition than is the streetscape project.
• At its November 19, 2003 meeting, the WABA Board passed a resolution urging
the City to help WABA preserve the funding for its grants and build the preferred
alternative streetscape plan as designed. .
• Further, in its resolution, the Board asked the City to remove Caltrans'
designation of Webster Street as a state highway because, as illustrated by this one
of many recent conflicts, the restrictions and standards set for state highways often
are contrary to the policies and goals of the National Main Street program under
which WABA is to operate to revitalize the West End Business Improvement
Area.
• Completing the streetscape in 2004 is important, not only to preserving funding,
but for revitalization efforts on the West End. The West End has suffered through
the closure of the Naval base, the nationwide economic downtown especially
hurting the California economy and nightly closures of the Webster/Posey Tubes
closures. After so many years of economic hardship, and with hundreds of
PO Box 215 Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: 510.523.5955 E -mail west_alameda@yahoo.com
Page -2
Bayport homes going on the market in early 2004, the West End needs a big
revitalization project as soon as possible to improve its image and attract and
retain businesses.
• Because it is very important to revitalization efforts that the streetscape be
completed as soon as possible in 2004, based on Caltrans' representations that it
would be much more expeditious to accomplish WABA's goals by transferring
the state highway designation to Constitution Way than to have Caltrans
relinquish the designation, the November 19, 2003 resolution urged transfer of the
designation.
• Subsequent to the resolution, WABA understands that the City and Caltrans
entered into discussions that make relinquishment at least as feasible as transfer.
In light of the changed circumstances, the Board of the West Alameda Business
Association resolves to strongly urge the City of Alameda, through its Mayor, Council,
and City Manager's office and staff to take all possible steps to:
• help WABA preserve the funding for its grants and build the preferred alternative
streetscape plan as designed as expeditiously as possible in 2004 and
• remove Caltrans' designation of Webster Street as a state highway.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date. December 16, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for the
Traffic Striping Project, No. P.W. 12 -03 -19
BACKGROUND
The City has an annual Capital Improvement Project to provide striping of City streets as necessary
for public safety. Staff wishes to accomplish the striping for fiscal year 2003 -2004 by means of
formal bids.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Staff has completed the necessary plans and specifications for the proposed striping project. Plans
and specifications for the Traffic Striping Project , No. P.W. 12 -03 -19 are complete and available for
review at the City Clerk's office.
The proposed contract also provides for renewal of the contract by the Public Works Director for a
period of up to four years with mutual agreement of both parties.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The project is budgeted as CIP # 92 -29 and utilizes Measure B funds. Required GASB -34 forms for
the project have been complete and forwarded to the Finance Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Section 15301, as "Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or
facilities."
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
HMS
N... N4a r
Report #4 -E CC
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 16, 2003
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt the plans and specifications
and authorize call for bids for the Traffic Striping Project, No. P.W. 12- 03 -19, and direct the City
Clerk to advertise for same.
Respectfu
ed,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: John V Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN:JV W:dl
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G: \PUB W ORKS\P W ADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \ 010604\AdoptStriping.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 17, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manger
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Establish a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund for
the State Revolving Fund Program for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 1994, the City Council authorized participation in the State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Loan Program for sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement. The City has used the loan program
in recent years to fund the Inflow and Infiltration Sanitary Sewer Replacement Program. The SRF
program provides for a low- interest loan of approximately 2.5% for eligible project costs.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
On November 20, 2001, the City Council authorized the City Manager or his designee to sign and file
for an SRF loan to fund the design and construction of the Infiltration and Inflow, Phase 8, Sanitary
Sewer Replacement Project, No. P.W.04- 01 -12. The City also dedicated the Sanitary Sewer Fund as
the funding source for the repayment of the loan. The project is complete and has been accepted by
Council. However, as part of the close -out of the project, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) discovered that their requirement to have the City establish a Wastewater Capital Reserve
Fund as outlined in its "Policy for Implementing the State Revolving Fund for the Construction of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities" was not required by them. They are asking the City to establish one
prior to final signoff of the project.
The Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund is required by SWRCB to insure the City has a funding source
available for future expansion, major repair or replacement costs, and loan repayment. An amount
equivalent to 0.5 percent of the loan amount, or approximately $8,120 per year, must be deposited in
the fund each year beginning in fiscal year 2004 -2005 for a minimum of ten years in order to satisfy
Board policy. After the SRF loan is repaid the City may use the funds as it deems appropriate. The
Finance Director has reviewed and accepted the approach.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
tublkWotks
PD
Re: Resolution #4 -F CC
1-6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 17, 2003
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. The City previously dedicated the Sanitary Sewer Fund as the
funding source for the repayment of the loan. Infiltration and Inflow, Phase 8, Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project, No. P.W.04 -01 -12 was budgeted under CIP 81 -03, and the amount of
$1,623,600 for eligible project costs can be reimbursed to the City from the SRF loan program. Funds
for the Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund may be transferred from the Sanitary Sewer fund or from the
actual loan proceeds.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, establish a Wastewater Capital
Reserve Fund for the State Revolving Fund Program for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and
Replacement.
Respect -' Sutznitted
atthew Naclerio
Public Works Director
91 /41.4
By: John V Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN /JVW:ge/d1
GAPUB W ORKS\P W ADMINICOUNC Q .\2004\010604 \watoncilmemo.dac
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Mi is
PNk MbNent
09
03
0
0
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING A WASTEWATER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
FOR THE STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM FOR
SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT
WHEREAS, on January 18, 1994, the City Council of the City of Alameda authorized
participation in the State Revolving Loan Program for sanitary sewer rehabilitation and
eplacement; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13414, adopted by the City Council on November 20, 2001,
authorized the City Manager to apply for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan to fund the design
and construction of the infiltration and inflow, Phase 8, Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project No.
P.W. 04- 0I -12; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board requires, as a condition of
approval of the loan, the establishment of a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund for future
expansion, major repair or replacement costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby establishes a Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund for the State Revolving Fund Program for
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund shall be
administered by the City of Alameda, as required by the "Policy for Implementing The State
Resolving Fund for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities" adopted by the State
Water Resources Control Board.
Resolution # 4 -F CC
1 -6 -04
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
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: December 3, 2003
Re: Introduction of Ordinance to repeal and replace AMC §22 -7, Newspaper
and Periodical Vending Machines
Background
Both the Park Street and Webster Street Business Districts are continuing with efforts to
upgrade their respective streetscapes. Two features warranting improvement are the
location and design of newsracks. Currently, newspapers and magazines are distributed in
a random way on both Park and Webster Streets. Papers are vended from unmatched
boxes, which often block the opening of car doors and exiting of passengers. The existing
newsracks generally result in clutter, both physically and visually.
Discussion /Analysis
Many jurisdictions in the Bay Area have either begun or completed the process of
standardizing vending boxes and prescribing locations. In Alameda, the Downtown Vision
Task Force has had a key role in working with City staff (Development Services, City
Attorney and Public Works) in developing an amendment to the City's current code on
newsracks. The Amendment would replace the existing City Code on newsracks with new
provisions to allow for the creation of "special newsrack areas."
The special newsrack areas would be designated by Council upon request of either an
established business association or retail shopping center, or by 60 percent of the property
owners within a proposed special area. The request must identify a funding source for the
purchase, installation and maintenance of the standardized fixed pedestal unit acceptable
in a special area. The "fixed pedestal units" will contain individual cubicles for the insertion
of papers. All units will be uniform in style and color and set in prescribed locations.
The Park Street Business District would like to be the first area to ask Council for the
special designation in the event Council adopts the amended Code. The Webster Street
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:EMAILtSR for Dec 16 council mtg#2 doc
F: CRlNewsrack Ordinance
Re: Intro of Ordinance #4 -G CC
1 -6-04
The Honorable Mayor December 3, 2003
and Members of the City Council Page 2
Business District is also interested in obtaining the designation and will likely do so in
conjunction with the implementation of its streetscape project in early 2004.
On October 6, 2003, the Downtown Vision Task Force voted unanimously to endorse the
amended code section and referred it to the Economic Development Commission (EDC)
for its review. On October 16, the EDC considered the amended code and also voted
unanimously to refer it to Council for adoption.
Municipal Code Cross Reference
AMC §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines
Fiscal Impact
Costs associated with the creation of the special newsrack areas (cost of newsracks,
installation, maintenance, etc.) will be handled on a case -by -case basis. These financial
details are required by the amended code and must be submitted to Council along with the
request to create the area. It is likely that private funds or some combination of private
funds and redevelopment funds could be used. No impact on the General Fund is
anticipated.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance that would
repeal and replace AMC §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines.
ectful submitted,
,..No
Development Services Director
QJ
By: Marc J. Fontes
Business Development Manager
JMF /PB /MJF /SGR:ry
cc: Park Street Business Association
West Alameda Business Association
Greg McFann, Building Official
Julie Harryman, Deputy City Attorney
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:\EMAIL\SR for Dec 16 council mtg#2.doc
F: CR/Newsrack Ordinance
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 22 -7
(NEWSPAPER AND PERIODICAL VENDING MACHINES) OF ARTICLE I
(STREETS), CHAPTER XXII (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) AND ADDING A
NEW SECTION 22 -7 (NEWSPAPER AND PERIODICAL VENDING MACHINES)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Section 22 -7 (Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines) of Article I (Street), Chapter
XII (Streets and Sidewalks) in its entirety.
E Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new
® 1 Section 22 -7 (Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines) to Article I (Streets) of
Ls. - Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) thereof to read:
0
4
22 -7 NEWSPAPER AND PERIODICAL VENDING MACHINES.
22 -7.1 Purpose
The purposes of this section are to:
a. Promote the City's substantial interests in preserving and enhancing the public health,
safety, welfare and convenience by ensuring that the public streets, sidewalks and
parkways are not unreasonably obstructed by newspaper and periodical vending
machines.
b. Recognize and support the use of public streets, sidewalks and parkways as public
forums for the sale and distribution of newspapers and periodicals through vending
machines.
c. Establish reasonable regulations that balance the right to distribute information
through newspaper and periodical vending machines with the right of persons to
reasonably access and use public property.
d. Provide for the designation of "Special Newsrack Areas" upon findings that the
special circumstances of an area require special design, placement and other standards
for newspaper and periodical vending machines in order to promote less congested
and more visually appealing public streets, sidewalks and parkways.
e. Ensure that the regulations on the time, place and manner of the placement, location
and maintenance of newspaper and periodical vending machines set forth in this
section are carefully tailored to implement the purposes stated in this section while
still providing ample opportunities for the distribution of information through
newspaper and periodical vending machines to the public.
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -G CC
1-6 -04
22 -7.2 Definitions
As used in this section:
a. "Newsrack" shall mean any city - authorized self - service or coin operated box,
container, cubicle, storage unit or other dispenser installed, used or maintained for the
display and sale or free distribution of newspapers, news periodicals, commercial
handbills, or other publications.
b. "Special Newsrack Area" shall mean any area of the City so designated by the City
Council upon findings that the special circumstances of the area require special
design, placement and other standards for Newsracks. The Council shall designate a
Special Newsrack Area by resolution.
c. "Special Newsrack Container" shall mean a permanently affixed container or pedestal
provided by or on behalf of the City within which shall be the exclusive location for
the placement of permitted Newsracks in a Special Newsrack Area.
d. "Special Newsrack Insert" shall mean a self - service or coin operated insert, cubicle,
box, container, storage unit or other dispenser installed, used or maintained within a
Special Newsrack Container for the display and sale or free distribution of
newspapers, news periodicals, commercial handbills, or other publications. All
Special Newsrack Inserts installed within an approved Special Newsrack Area shall
conform to the exact specifications of the approved Special Newsrack Container for
that area.
e. "Abandoned Newsrack" shall mean any Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert, which
remains empty for fourteen calendar days. However, a Newsrack or Special
Newsrack Insert remaining empty due to labor strike or any temporary or
extraordinary interruption of distribution or publication by the newspaper shall not be
deemed abandoned.
f. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Public Works Director or the Director's
designated agent.
22 -7.3 Standards and Prohibitions for Newsracks
a. No person shall install, use or maintain any Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container
which rests on, projects onto, into or over any part of the roadway. Roadway shall
mean the paved travelway curb to curb.
b. No person shall install, use or maintain any Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container
which in whole or in part rests on or projects over any sidewalk when such
installation, use or maintenance endangers the safety of persons or property, or when
such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes
or other government use, or when such Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container
unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
the ingress into or egress from any residence, place of business, or the use of poles,
posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, parking meters, or other objects
permitted at or near the location. For the purposes of this ordinance, "sidewalk is
defined in section 22 -16.1 of the Municipal Code.
c. No Newsrack shall exceed five (5') feet in height, thirty (30 ") inches in width, or two
(2') feet in depth.
d. Newsracks or Special Newsrack Containers shall only be placed near a curb or
adjacent to the wall of a building. No portion of any Newsracks or Special Newsrack
Containers placed near the curb shall be placed less than eighteen (18 ") inches or more
than twenty-four (24 ") inches from the edge of the curb. Newsracks and Special
Newsrack Containers placed adjacent to the wall of a building shall be placed parallel
to such wall and not more than six (6 ") inches from the wall. No Newsrack or Special
Newsrack Container shall be placed or maintained on a sidewalk opposite a
newsstand, or another Newsrack or another Special Newsrack Container.
e. Newsracks, which otherwise conform to the provisions of this subsection, may be
chained, bolted or otherwise attached to any pole or standard located within the public
right -of -way, provided that any such rack shall be removed immediately upon request
of the City Engineer Public Works Director when removal is in the public interest or
when the rack is subject to seizure pursuant to subsection 22.7 -5 22 -7.6.
f. Newsracks may be chained or otherwise attached to one another provided that there is
a three foot (3') space between each fifteen feet (15') of Newsracks.
g. Newsracks or Special Newsrack Containers may be installed using recessed tie down,
concrete rack holders, or other methods subject to the approval of the Public Works
Director.
h. No Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container shall be placed, installed, used or
maintained:
1. Within any neighborhood that is zoned residential;
2. Within five feet (5') of the curb return of any signalized intersection;
3. Within fifteen feet (15') of the curb return of any unsignalized intersection;
4. Within three feet (3') of any fire hydrant, fire call box, police call box or other
emergency facility;
5. Within three feet (3') of any driveway;
6. Within fifteen feet (15) to the rear of any sign marking a designated bus stop, or
three feet (3') ahead of such marking or designation where another pole or
standard, which conforms to the provisions of this subsection, is located within
ten feet (10) of each marking or designation;
7. Within three feet (3) of any bus bench;
8. At any location whereby the clear space for the passageway of pedestrians is
reduced to less than six feet (6');
9. Within three feet (3') of any area improved with lawn, flowers, shrubs or trees.
i. No Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container shall be used for advertising signs or
publicity purposes other than that dealing with the display, sale or purchase of the
newspaper or periodical sold therein.
j. Each Newsrack, Special Newsrack Container, or Special Newsrack Insert shall be
maintained in a neat, painted, graffiti-free and clean condition and in good repair at
all times and shall be cleaned on a regular basis. For example, without limitation,
every Newsrack, Special Newsrack Container, or Special Newsrack Insert shall be
reasonably free of dirt and grease, be reasonably free of chipped, faded, peeling or
cracked paint, be reasonably free of rust and corrosion, have no broken or cracked
plastic or glass parts, and have no broken structural parts.
k. Every person who places or maintains a Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert within
the public right -of -way in the City of Alameda shall install a permanent (i.e.
reasonably vandal proof) plaque or sticker on the Insert, no smaller than a standard
business card [i.e. approximately two inches (2 ") by three inches (3 ")], specifying
his/her name, current address and current phone number affixed thereto in a place
where such information may be easily seen.
1. Abandoned Newsracks or Special Newsrack Inserts may be removed pursuant to
subsection 22 -7.5 of this ordinance if the owner of the Newsrack or Special Newsrack
Insert fails to remedy the violation to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Further, the City may revoke the encroachment permit of the Abandoned Newsracks.
m. It shall be unlawful to locate a Newsrack within a Special Newsrack Area.
n. It shall be unlawful to locate a Special Newsrack Insert within a Special Newsrack
Container without first obtaining an encroachment permit as outlined herein.
22 -7.4 Special Newsrack Areas
a. The City Council hereby finds that special circumstances require special design,
placement and other standards for newsracks Special Newsrack Containers and
Special Newsrack Inserts located within certain areas of the City; and such areas are
hereby designated as "Special Newsrack Areas."
b. In order to designate an area as a Special Newsrack Area, a written request must be
made to the Development Services Director by either an established business
association or retail shopping center or by sixty percent of the property owners within
a proposed Special Newsrack Area. The request must identify the boundaries of the
proposed Special Newsrack Area and the locations of each Special Newsrack
Container. The boundaries of the Area and locations of the Containers must be
approved by the Public Works Director. The request must also identify a funding
source and plan for the purchase, installation, maintenance, and enforcement of any
Special Newsrack Containers and Special Newsrack Inserts.
c. In detennining whether to designate an area as a Special Newsrack Area, the City
Council will also consider the characteristics of an area, including but not limited to:
whether the area is in a downtown area; is congested with street furniture and other
sidewalk encroachments, automobiles and other means of travel competing with
pedestrians for the public space; and whether special standards for the design and
location of newsracks is appropriate to help create a Less congested and more visually
appealing environment for those who come to the area.
d. The City Council shall determine whether an area should be designated as a Special
Newsrack Area and shall do so by resolution.
e. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this section, the following special
standards shall apply to Special Newsrack Inserts and placement of publications in
Special Newsrack Containers within any Special Newsrack Area:
1. No Special Newsrack Inserts shall be located in a Special Newsrack Area except
in City approved Special Newsrack Containers at locations approved by the
Public Works Director. In order to be able to place a Special Newsrack Insert
within the Special Newsrack Container, the owner must first obtain an
encroachment permit in accordance with subsections 22.7 -6 through 22 -7.8.
2. The Special Newsrack Insert shall meet the special design standards established
by the City and on file with the Permit Center. The name and/or logo of the
publication shall be on the front face of the Special Newsrack Insert only and
shall be displayed in the color white or an alternate color approved by the Public
Works Director.
3. A plan designating the locations of City approved Special Newsrack Containers
shall be on file with the Permit Center.
f. Within thirty days from the effective date of a resolution designating a Special
Newsrack Area, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Public Works Director shall
establish a date (the "cut -off date ") by which existing Newsracks shall be removed
and application shall be made to the Permit Center for every Special Newsrack Insert
proposed to be located in the Special Newsrack Area. No application shall be
considered that is filed later than the cut -off date established for that area. The Public
Works Director shall give notice of the cut -off date by publication once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City. The Public Works Director shall also
make a reasonable effort to mail notices of the cut -off date to the owners and/or
distributors of Newsracks existing within the Special Newsrack Area; provided,
however, that failure to provide mailed notice to any person shall not invalidate any
action taken pursuant to this section.
22 -7.5 Abatement of Violation
a. The City has discretion in deciding whether to relocate or seize Newsracks or Special
Newsrack Inserts that are in violation of this ordinance. The City may move the non-
compliant Newsrack or Special Newsrack Inserts to another Location nearby or may
seize the Newsrack, or Special Newsrack Inserts in accordance with the procedures
set forth below. If the City (or its designated agent) chooses to relocate the non-
compliant Newsrack to a location within fifty yards, the owner will not be notified. A
Newsrack or Special Newsrack Container that is placed in a Special Newsrack Area
in violation of this ordinance will not be moved to another location by the City but
will be seized in accordance with the procedures set forth below.
b. Before any Newsrack, Special Newsrack Container or Special Newsrack Insert is
seized, the owner shall be notified and given ten (10) calendar days to remedy the
violation or to appear at the office of the Public Works Director to contest seizure in
an informal administrative forum.
c. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) above, prior notice of
seizure is not required where the Newsrack, Special Newsrack Container or Special
Newsrack Insert poses a danger to pedestrians or vehicles, provided notice of the
seizure and opportunity to contest is given the owner within ten (10) calendar days of
the seizure.
d. Owners shall be notified of the seizure of a Newsrack, Special Newsrack Insert, or
Special Newsrack Container within ten (10) calendar days of seizure. An owner shall
have ten (10) days from the date notice was mailed to file an appeal with the Public
Works Director stating why the owner believes the seizure was made in error.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving an appeal, the Public Works Director
shall render a written decision as to whether the Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert
violated this section.
e. Seized Newsracks, Special Newsrack Containers or Special Newsrack Inserts shall be
retained and may be recovered by their owner within thirty (30) calendar days from
their seizure upon payment by the owner of the cost of' removal and storage. If the
Public Works Director determined that the seizure was made in error, the owner will
not be charged for the cost of the removal or storage and may place the Newsrack,
Special Newsrack Container or Special Newsrack Insert in its previous location.
f. Newsracks, Special Newsrack Containers or Special Newsrack Inserts which have
been seized and are not claimed within thirty (30) calendar days shall be deemed
abandoned and may be disposed of or destroyed by City or its designated agent.
g. In addition to the seizure and abatement remedies described above, the City may also
pursue civil and/or criminal remedies. For purposes of a criminal action, violations of
this ordinance constitute a misdemeanor.
22 -7.6 Liability Coverage
a. Each owner of a Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert shall, within thirty (30) days
of the effective date of this section, furnish to the Permit Center a certificate that the
owner has then in force public liability and property damage insurance, naming the
City as an additional insured, in an amount not less than three hundred thousand
($300,000.00) dollars minimum liability combined single limit (bodily injury and
property damage) per person and per occurrence. The owner shall provide and keep in
force the policy of public liability insurance during such time as it continues to locate
any Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert within the City. The evidence of insurance
filed with the City shall include a statement by the insurance carrier that thirty (30)
days notice shall be given to the City before any cancellation. Copies of these policies
or certificates evidencing the same shall be filed with the City Clerk.
b. Every person who places, maintains or causes the placement or maintenance of a
Newsrack or Special Newsrack Insert in the public right -of -way shall file a written
statement with the City Clerk satisfactory to the City Attorney whereby he /she/it
agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City, its City Council, boards and
commissions, officers and employees from any loss or liability or damages, including
expenses and costs for bodily or personal injury related to or caused by the Newsrack
or Special Newsrack Insert, and for property damage sustained by any person as a
result of the installation, use or maintenance of such Newsrack or Special Newsrack
Insert. Such statement shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the effective
date of this section.
22 -7.7 Encroachment Permit — Requirement for Special Newsrack Area
a. In addition to complying with subsection 22 -7.6 regarding Liability Coverage, in
order to place a Special Newsrack Insert within a Special Newsrack Container an
owner must first obtain an encroachment permit and pay all applicable pLmiit fees.
b. Unless sooner suspended or revoked, the term of the encroachment permit shall be for
one year. The permit owner shall pay an annual renewal fee as set forth in the Master
Fee Resolution.
c. Encroachment pemuits are non - transferable and may not be sold, assigned, or
otherwise transferred. If the Public Works Director determines that a Special
Newsrack Insert in a Special Newsrack Area has been Abandoned, the City (or its
designated agent) may revoke the encroachment permit and issue that permit to
another publication.
d. The City will use its best efforts to approve an application for an encroachment permit
within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the application if the type of Special
Newsrack Insert and the location(s) proposed meet the standards set forth in this
ordinance.
e. If an application is disapproved, in whole or in part, the Public Works Director shall
notify the applicant(s) in writing and by explaining the reasons for denial of the
encroachment permit. The applicant(s) shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the
mailing of such notice to file an appeal of the decision with the Permit Center. The
City Clerk shall schedule the appeal before the City Council who may reverse, affirm,
or modify the decision so long as such action is in conformity with the provisions of
this ordinance.
22 -7.8 Encroachment Permit - -- Allocation of Space within Special Newsrack
Container
a. In the event that there are more applications for Special Newsrack Inserts than there
are spaces in a particular Special Newsrack Container or in a particular Special
Newsrack Area, then the Public Works Director shall issue permits as set forth below.
b. The Public Works Director shall allocate spaces in Special Newsrack Containers as
follows:
1. First priority shall be given to daily publications;
2. Second priority shall be given to twice weekly publications;
3. Third priority shall be given to weekly publications;
4. Fourth priority shall be given to publications published less than weekly but more
than monthly;
5. Fifth priority shall be given to publications published monthly or less frequently.
c. In the event of a tie in any of the above categories, the following rules shall apply to
break that tie.
1. No publication may receive a space in the particular Special Newsrack Container
until the other publications that have applied for a space in that Container have
had an opportunity to select a space in at least one Container within the Special
Newsrack Area.
2. In the event that this does not break the tie, no publication may receive more than
one space for a Special Newsrack Insert in any particular Special Newsrack
Container until the other publication that applied for a space in that Container has
had the opportunity to select a space.
3. Finally, if a tie still exists, priority shall be given to the publication that has been
"historically located" closest to the location where the Special Newsrack
Container will be placed. Prior to designating an area as a Special Newsrack
Area, the City (or its designated agent) will completed a survey of the Area in
order to identify the location of every publication's freestanding Newsrack in the
Area. The publication which is "historically located" closest to the Special
Newsrack Container according to the City's (or its designated agent's) survey will
take priority in selecting a space within that Container.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M Flint
City Manager
Date: December 17, 2003
Re: Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Second
Amendment to Lease Agreement Between Mariner Square & Associates, as
Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, to Include an Additional 2,739 -
Square -Foot Parcel (Requires Four [4] Affirmative Votes)
BACKGROUND
On July 31, 2003, John Beery, General Partner of Mariner Square & Associates, submitted a
request (Attachment A) to amend the Lease to add an additional 2,739 -square-foot, pentagon -
shaped parcel of water adjacent to submerged lands owned in fee simple by Mariner Square &
Associates (on which is constructed the Mariner Square Pavilion [also known as the Pasta
Pelican Restaurant] and adjacent docks).
At their meeting of November 19, 1985, the City Council approved an Ordinance authorizing
execution of a Lease with Mariner Square & Associates for property located at the end of
Mariner Square Drive, and including two parcels; one to be maintained as a public park by
Mariner Square & Associates, and the second parcel to be used as private marine berthing
facilities. On January 4, 2000, City Council approved the First Amendment to the Lease adding
an additional 3,072 -square-foot, triangularly shaped parcel of water near the parcels previously
leased in 1985.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Second Lease Amendment (Attachment B) would add a 2,739 -square-foot water
parcel owned by the City of Alameda and subject to the Tidelands Trust. The adjacent water
parcel containing docks and the Pasta Pelican Restaurant is owned by Mariner Square &
Associates. Docks have been located outboard of the restaurant for years. The Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) issued permits for Pasta Pelican and other uses at
Mariner Square since the 1970s. Mariner Square & Associates has been in contact with the City
about the docks that extend across its property line and into the City's Tidelands Trust property,
varying from 5 to 20 feet per dock (Exhibit A to July 31, 2003 letter). Mariner Square &
Associates had originally constructed five docks in the shape of a "V" (Attachment C), and has
since reconstructed and reconfigured the docks as part of Mariner Square Dry Boat Storage,
Aegis Assisted Living, and public waterfront access projects. During the process of final BCDC
review, it came to BCDC's attention that the docks had been extended into City of Alameda
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Intro of Ordinance #4 -H CC
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Councilmembers Page 2
Tidelands property. BCDC is prepared to issue their permit just as soon as Mariner Square can
demonstrate that they have property control over the additional area.
On October 27, 2003, the Planning Board considered the item and approved Resolution Number
PB- 03 -54, which approved Planned Development Amendment PDA03 -0007 and Design Review
Amendment DR03 -125 regarding extension of double -sided docks outboard of the existing
restaurant, currently occupied by Pasta Pelican, by approximately 5 to 20 feet so that all docks
are the same length subject to BCDC approval and subject to subject to City Council approval of a
Lease amendment to add the additional 2, 739 square feet of water area.
Proposed Lease Terms:
AREA: The proposed lease amendment would add 2,739 square feet of water only to the total
area leased to Mariner Square & Associates.
ANNUAL RENT: Mariner Square would increase their annual rental payments for the existing
parcels, except for Parcel 2 (used as a public park) from $0.3085 psf to $0.899 psf, based on
current market rental valuation.
ANNUAL RENT ADJUSTMENT: Rent would continue to be adjusted annually based on increases
in the Consumer price Index.
TERM: The expiration of the initial term 2011, and the optional 25-year extension (City approval
not required) would be the same as is now contained in the existing Mariner Square Lease.
ADDITIONAL ONE -TIME RENT PAYMENT: In consideration for execution of the Lease
Amendment and to recognize that the City would otherwise have been collecting increased rent
had the amendment been processed approximately one year ago at the time of construction of the
dock extensions, Mariner Square & Associates agrees to make an additional one -time payment to
the City of $7,000.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed Lease amendment would increase annual lease revenue to the Tidelands Trust by
$6,617 from the current annual payment of $2,156.88 to a new annual payment of $8,774. There
would also be additional revenue to the General Fund from the Possessory Interest Tax, which
would be calculated and billed by Alameda County.
It is proposed that the one -time additional rent payment of $7,000 be used to defray the cost of
Development Services Department Staff time devoted to preparation of the Second Lease
Amendment.
Mariner Square & Associates is current in their lease payments to the City. The City billed
Mariner Square & Associates on January 17, 2003 for two amounts under the lease:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\ccoudev\Comm Projects0V1ariner Squareu..rastCC 12- 17- 03.doc
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Councilmembers Page 3
• In April 2003, Mariner Square & Associates paid $947.69 for Parcel #6, a 3,072- square-
foot Tidelands Trust Parcel 6, which was deposited to the Tidelands Trust Fund; and,
• In July 2003, Mariner Square & Associates paid $1,208.19 for Parcel #3, a 3,946- square-
foot parcel, which accrued to the General Fund. This payment covers the period April 5,
2003 through April 4, 2004.
• In July 2003, Mariner Square & Associates paid $1 for Parcel #2, a 5,205- square -foot
parcel used as a public park, which accrued to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
There is no change to the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action to approve an amendment to the Lease does not constitute a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to the meaning of section 15378 because the
lease does not permit the occupancy or use of the leased premises without the lessee obtaining all
necessary permits and completing the appropriate environmental review. Permit and
environmental review of the dock extensions were addressed in the Planning Review of October
27, 2003: "The Planning and Building Director has determined that the proposed ...dock
extensions are substantially addressed in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and no
additional environmental analysis is required."
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that City Council introduce an Ordinance approving and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement
Between Mariner Square & Associates, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, to include
an additional 2,739 -square-foot parcel under the terms and conditions outlined above (four votes
required).
JMF/PB/BK:ry
Respectfully submitted,
aul Benoit
Development Services Dire
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Q:lecoodcv\Comm Projects■Mariner SquareV PAsecCC 12- 17- 03.doc
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Councilmembers Page 4
cc: Mariner Square & Associates
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev \Comm Projects\Mariner Square\Lease \CC 12- 17- 03.doc
MARINER SQUARE & ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT A
July 31, 2003
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square, Suite 215
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: Mx. Bruce Knopf
Redevelopment Manager
Re: Amendment of Lease
Dear Mx. Knopf:
We have recently obtained our building permit for the construction of a marine oriented
storage facility at 2415 Marines Square Drive. As part of the permit review process we
worked extensively with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to
design and agree to construct a public park promenade along the Alameda Estuary from
Mariner Square Drive to the eastern edge of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC).
Mariner Square and Associates presently own the land and submerged lands on the waterside
of the Pasta Pelican restaurant. The existing docks on our property extend past our property
line into submerged lands owned by the City of Alameda (see exhibit A). We would like to
amend our existing City of Alameda lease (see exhibit B) to include this area. The area we
would like to lease is approximately 2,739 square feet or 0.0629 acres.
We have prepared a parcel plan (see exhibit C) and the parcel legal description (see exhibit
D) for your review. The parcel is adjacent to the parcel already owned by Mariner Square &
Associates, and near parcels previously leased from the City of Alameda.
We propose that this amendment to the lease contain the same initial term and the optional
25 year extension as is now contained in the existing Mariner Square & Associates lease
adapted November 15, 1985 by Ordinance No. 2257. The rental rate would be at the
existing rate in that lease i.e. $0.3085 per square foot per year which would be an annual
rental of $845.00. Please note that the parcel we propose to lease is an empty "water locked"
parcel with minimal economic value except to the adjacent property owner (Mariner Square
& Associates).
Please review our request and let us know if any additional information is required, which we
will be happy to provide
Sincerely,
John Beery
General Partner
CC: OMG, Matthew Gabes
R('Dr, Adrienne KlesD
2900 Main Street, Suite 100 Alameda, CA Phone 510- 521 -2727 Fax 510 -523 -0391
MSQ- CityLeaseAmend.doc
■
3
N •
r
41 y.�
O .}1
Q
r
•
0
"C
J
•
3
O
z
Z
I
■
•
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDNANCE NO. 2822
New Series
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF FIRST
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MAR NER
SQUARE AND ASSOCIATES, AS LESSEE, AND THE CITY OF
ALAly EDA, AS LESSOR, TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL
PARCEL OF 3,072 SQUARE FEET
WHEREAS, at the November 15, 1935 City Council meeting, by Ordinance No.
2257, the City Council approved execution of Lease with Mariner Square and Associates for
property located at the end of Mariner Square Drive; and
WHEREAS, Mariner Square and Associates, a California limited partnership, desires
to lease an additional parcel of 3,072 square feet that is adjacent to a parcel already owned by
Mariner Square and Associates, and near the parcel previously leased from the City to Mariner
>- Square and Associates; and
w
WHEREAS, the expiration of the initial h,nu, and the optional 25 year extension
would be the same as is now contained in the existing Mariner Square Lease adopted November 15,
$ ti H 1985 by Ordinance No. 2257; and
• > WHEREAS the Council of the City of Alameda finds and determines that the use
I-- - of the property proposed in the Amendment of Lease to provide for additional marine berthing space
is in the best interests of the City and that said property be leased to Mariner Square and Associates;
s
• and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City shall
be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmation vote of four
members of the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda,
by four affirmative votes that:
Section 1. That the form of Amendment of Lease referred to in the memo from
Matthew NacIerio, Public Works Director, dated December 14, 1999, presented at the City Council
meeting of December 21, 1999, and the terms, conditions and covenants therein be, and the same
are hereby approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda is hereby authorized to
execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, an Amendment to Lease substantially in the form
and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the Amendment to Lease and
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the same.
EXHIBIT B
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
a .4 411
City Clerk
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 4th day of
January 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and
Mayor Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
5th day of January , 2000.
ane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda
w
J ,
EXHIBIT C
A PORTION OF LAND (WATER) IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT STATION 168 ON THE PERALTA GRANT LINE, SUCH LINE BEING
A PORTION OF THE PERALTA RANCHO OR GRANT THAT WAS CONFIRMED AND
PATENTED TO ANTONIO MARIA PERALTA BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AS DELINEATED AND DESCRIBED UPON THE "MAP OF
ALAMEDA MARSH LAND ", FILED JULY 30, 1900, MAP BOOK 25, PAGE 74,
ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,
THENCE; ALONG SAID GRANT LINE, NORTH 58° 36' 14" WEST, 59.00 FEET,
THENCE; NORTH 20° 00' 00" EAST, 10.00 FEET,
THENCE; SOUTH 70° 07' 43" EAST, 166.42 FEET,
THENCE; SOUTH 25° 00' 00 ", 12.00 FEET, TO THE PERALTA GRANT LINE,
THENCE; ALONG SAID GRANT LINE NORTH 75° 21' 14" WEST, 108.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING +1- 2,739.5 SQUARE FEET, OR +1- 0.0629 ACRES
EXHIBIT D
MSQ- EASMT- CITY -1
ATTACHMENT B
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of
2004, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City ") and MARINER SQUARE & ASSOCIATES a California Limited
Partnership whose address is 2900 Main Street, Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501, (hereinafter
"Lessee "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On January 3, 1986, an agreement was entered into by and between City
and Lessee (hereinafter" Agreement ").
B. On February 15, 2000 the City and Lessee modified the agreement by
approving the First Amendment of the Agreement.
C. City and Lessee desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and
conditions set forth herein ( "Second Amendment ").
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. Exhibits C and D are a legal description of 2,739 square feet of additional water parcel
leased area, attached and hereby incorporated into this Amendment.
2. Paragraph 1 is modified to read as follows: "Effective January 1, 2004, LESSEE hereby
covenants and agrees to pay to the said LESSOR, as rent for said property, a total Annual
Rental of $8,774.00, which is comprised of an annual rental of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00),
for Parcel 2; an annual rental of Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty -Eight Dollars
($3,548) for Parcel 3; and an annual rental of Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty -
Two Dollars ($2,762) for Parcel 6; and an annual rental of Two Thousand, Four Hundred
and Sixty -Three Dollars ($2,463) for 2,739 square feet of water area (Exhibits C and D)
during said term. Said rentals shall be payable January 1st each and every year to
LESSOR at City Hall, City of Alameda. The Subsequent year rental fees will be the base
year amount plus an adjustment for inflation as measured by the Department of Labor
Cost of Living Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. Furthermore, in consideration for
execution of the Second Lease Amendment, Lessee agrees to make an additional one-
time payment of $7,000 to City, due upon full execution of this Second Agreement.
3. Paragraph 4 is modified to read as follows: "LESSEE agrees and covenants to maintain
all of the leased area to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director for the City of
Alameda. The City of Alameda will review and inspect the condition of the public
improvements on said properties on an annual basis, and will notify the LESSEE whether
maintenance is being performed to the satisfaction of the City."
G:\econdev\Comm Projects\Mariner Square \Lease \I2 -I6 -03 Mariner Square SEcond Lease Amcndmentdoc
4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the
Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in hill force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of
Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.
MARINER SQUARE & ASSOCIATES CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
By
John Beery /Z
Mariner Square & Associat
U3
By:
James M. Flint
City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Development Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By:
Te -sa Highsmith
Assistant City Attorney
GAQcondev \Comm Projectt\Mariner Square\Lease\12 -1603 /gather Square SEcond Irate Amendmentdoc
3
0
1 Evv N
. 7? r A
w
a +1
G
/ U
U1
/
3 .00 -01
EXHIBIT B
A PORTION OF LAND (WATER) IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA,
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT STATION 168 ON THE PERALTA GRANT LINE, SUCH LINE BEING
A PORTION OF THE PERALTA RANCHO OR GRANT THAT WAS CONFIRMED AND
PATENTED TO ANTONIO MARIA PERALTA BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AS DELINEATED AND DESCRIBED UPON THE "MAP OF
ALAMEDA MARSH LAND ", FILED JULY 30, 1900, MAP BOOK 25, PAGE 74,
ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,
THENCE; ALONG SAID GRANT LINE, NORTH 58° 36' 14" WEST, 59.00 FEET,
THENCE; NORTH 20° 00' 00" EAST, 10.00 FEET,
THENCE; SOUTH 70° 07' 43" EAST, 166.42 FEET,
THENCE; SOUTH 25° 00' 00", 12.00 FEET, TO THE PERALTA GRANT LINE,
THENCE; ALONG SAID GRANT LINE NORTH 75° 21' 14" WEST, 108.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING +/- 2,739.5 SQUARE FEET, OR +/- 0.0629 ACRES
EXHIBIT D
MSQ -EA SMT- CITY -1
ATTACHMENT C
5CDC rERMIT #5 -72, DATE 5/20/72
--
----. 22
_J
PASTA PELICAN
RESTAURANT
325.13__
EXISTING MARINA AREA
SEE SHEET A2/5 FOR
ACCESS DETAILS,__
PUBLIC
PUBLIC LREjTR00
1 RESTROOM
S1EPI -
YACHT BROKERS BU11
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SECOND
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARINER
SQUARE AND ASSOCIATES, AS LESSEE, AND THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA, AS LESSOR, TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL PARCEL
OF 2,739 SQUARE FEET
WHEREAS, at the November 15, 1985 City Council meeting, by Ordinance No.
2257, the City Council approved execution of Lease with Mariner Square and Associates for
property located at the end of Mariner Square Drive; and
WHEREAS, at the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting, by Ordinance No.
2822, the City Council approved execution of the First Amendment to the Lease with Mariner
hSquare and Associates for property located at the end of Mariner Square Drive; and
WHEREAS, Mariner Square. and Associates, a California limited partnership,
desires to lease an additional parcel of 2,739 square feet that is adjacent to a parcel already
owned by Mariner Square and Associates, and near the parcel previously leased from the City to
Mariner Square and Associates; and
WHEREAS, the expiration of the initial team, and the optional 25 year extension
would be the same as is now contained in the existing Mariner Square Lease adopted. November
15, 1985 by Ordinance No. 2257; and
O
a. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda finds and determines that the use
of the property proposed in the Amendment of Lease' to provide for additional marine berthing
space is in the best interests of the City and that said property be leased to Mariner Square and
Associates; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City
shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmation vote of four
members of the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda,
by four affirmative votes that:
Section 1. That the form of Amendment of Lease referred to in the memo from
The City Manager, James M. Flint, dated December 17, 2003, presented at the City Council
meeting of January 6, 2004, and the terms, conditions and covenants therein be, and the same are
hereby approved.
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -H CC
1 -6-04
Section 2. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda is hereby authorized to
execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, an Amendment to Lease substantially in the
form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the Amendment to
Lease and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the same.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES-
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2004.
Lan Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Date:
To:
Memorandum
December 23, 2003
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
From:
James M. Flint,
City Manager
Re: Public hearing on General Plan Amendment, GPA03 -0003 - Amendments to
the Housing Element of the General Plan
BACKGROUND
On August 29, the City of Alameda received conditional certification of its Housing Element
from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Certification was
contingent, in part, upon adoption of several revisions to the adopted Housing Element. On
October 20, 2003, Planning and Building Department Director Greg Fuz sent a letter to HCD
requesting clarification of the conditional certification and a completion of HCD's review of the
third -party comments on the City's adopted Housing Element prior to the City's adoption of any
amendments to the Housing Element. On November 17, 2003, HCD agreed to provide the City
its review of third party comments by December 8, 2003. A letter from HCD doing so was
received by fax on December 8, 2003. A corrected letter from HCD was received on December
10, 2003. This letter from HCD indicated that all third party comment letters received to date did
not raise any new issues that affected HCD's determination to conditionally certify the Housing
Element. However, HCD also clarified that the City should adopt information into the Housing
Element relating to the conveyance from the Navy to the City of property designated for
affordable housing at Alameda Point.
On September 22, 2003, the Planning Board initiated General Plan Amendment, GPA -03 -003,
to consider three minor Housing Element amendments that had previously been requested by
HCD in its August 29th conditional certification. At the Planning Board meeting of November
10, 2003, the Planning Board recommended approval of that General Plan Amendment. At the
Dec. 2 meeting, the City Council opened the public hearing and made a motion to continue the
hearing on the proposed amendments to the Housing Element to January 6th in anticipation of
the December 8 correspondence from HCD.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
HCD's December 8th correspondence includes a specific requirement that the revisions to the
Housing Element include the latest information pertaining to the schedule for
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing #5 -A
1 -6 -04
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
December 23, 2003
Page 2
disposal /conveyance and remediation of Alameda Point. Staff is considering this letter and
upon receiving clarification from HCD may, if necessary, return to the Planning Board or City
Council in the future with a request for initiation of further amendments to the Housing
Element. The timing for completion of such amendments, if initiated, would be approximately
three months.
In order to provide one package of revisions to HCD and to eliminate multiple reviews of any
proposed amendments to the Housing Element, the City Manager recommends that the City
Council defer action on GPA -03 -003 at this time. That way the amendment can be packaged
with the implementing ordinances (second unit, inclusionary, and density bonus) and any
additional amendments that may be needed to address HCD requirements. GPA -03 -003 will be
re- advertised for public hearing at a later date.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
No new resources are required. The General Plan Amendment will be accomplished by existing staff
as part of their on -going efforts to implement the Housing Element.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
The General Plan Amendment does not impact the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council close the public hearing and remove General
Plan Amendment GPA03 -0003 from your agenda at this time pending consideration and response
to HCD's request for an additional amendment.
Attachments:
Respectfully submi tted,
c
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
1. Letter dated October 20, 2003 from Planning and Building Director Greg Fuz to
Matthew O. Franklin, Director, Department of Housing and Community
Development (Attachments A & B only provided)
2. Letter dated November 17, 2003 from Cathy E. Creswell, Director, Department
of Housing and Community Development to Planning and Building Director
Greg Fuz
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Page 3
December 23, 2003
3. Corrected letter dated December 8, 2003 from Cathy E. Creswell, Director,
Department of Housing and Community Development to Planning and Building
Director Greg Fuz
G:\PLANNING\CC\REPOATS\2004 \0l -Jan 06\GPA - Housing Elementdoc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
•—ins of Alameda • California
Matthew O. Franklin
Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
1800 Third Street
P.O. Box 952050
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2050
Re: City of Alameda Housing Element
Dear Mr. Franklin:
October 20, 2003
The City of Alameda has worked long and hard over the past several years to prepare a
Housing Element that addresses community and regional housing needs in compliance
with applicable law. We particularly appreciate the interest that you have shown in
helping our City complete the statutory review process for the Housing Element.
Consequently, when we recently submitted our adopted Housing Element to your staff
for certification review, we did so anticipating that we would receive a definitive
response given the extensive dialogue that we have had over past two years. We are
certainly gratified by Deputy Director Creswell's conclusion in her August 29, 2003
letter that the City of Alameda's adopted element "...subject to the adoption of the draft
revisions and further suitability information, as stated above, addresses the statutory
requirements described in the Department's December 16 2002 review letter."
Nevertheless, we are dismayed by Deputy Director Creswell's subsequent statement in.
the same letter indicating that the Department was unable to fully consider comments
'received from third parties (on the day before the end of the Department's 90 day
statutory review period) indicating that once this review is concluded, "...our (HCD's)
finding of compliance could be affected." We are also disheartened that Deputy Director
Creswell declared in her letter that failure by Alameda to submit an annual report by
October 1, 2003 (32 days after we finally received the Department's certification
determination) documenting our progress toward implementing the Housing Element
"...will trigger a review by the Department of the implementation status of these
programs." It is disappointing that rather than recognizing all of our efforts to collaborate
over the past year to produce a Housing Element that addresses the concerns of the
Department and the third parties, the City was instead threatened with additional
Department review within an unrealistically short period of time if we do not submit yet
another report to the Department to monitor our progress toward implementing the
element.
Planning and Building Deparimene
'S63 Sanra Clara Avenue. Room 190)
Alameda. CA q4501
510— i3.1c-“3 • Fax r, :0'hi8,iS93 • CDD 5V.;:2.1 ._
Attachment #1
Letter to Franklin Page 2
October 20, 2003
Please note that we have submitted our annual Housing Report pursuant to Government
Code Section 65585(c) to the Department on July 7, 2003, our adopted element to the
Department on May 31, 2003, we submitted a mutually agreed upon list of proposed
revisions to the adopted element for Department acceptance on August 14, 2003 and we
received the Department's determination that the element is certified to be in compliance
with statutory requirements on August 29, 2003. In the meantime, we have approved for
construction 99 affordable units at the FISC /Catellus site, and completed Phase 1 of
Marina Cove, which included 12 affordable units. Along with units constructed, and
those noted in our annual Housing Report, we have met more than half of our affordable
housing obligation.
We would like to be able to proceed as rapidly as possible to satisfy our remaining
housing obligations but in order to do so, we need to receive your Department's
concurrence that the remaining clouds over the certification of our Housing Element have
been removed. The remaining uncertainty concerning your Department's final
acceptance of the element can potentially affect the City's ability to conclude its plans for
reuse and redevelopment of the Alameda Point site which can in tum jeopardize our
ability to meet the remaining affordable housing requirements in the Housing Element.
We are certain that this is not an outcome that either the City or your Department would
find acceptable as it would mean that affordable housing for 351 households of low and
very low income would be further delayed.
Consequently, we request that you conclude your review of the third party comments
received on August 28, 2003 forthwith and issue a revised determination of compliance
that removes any remaining clouds affecting final acceptance of our element. In order to
assist you in your review, we would like to offer the comments /information in
Attachment A to provide the City's perspective on the August 28 comments you received
from the third parties. Upon reviewing the information that we are providing to you with
this letter, we respectfully request that your Department formally determine that the third
party comments have been fully considered and addressed now and not in the context of
your Department's future review of the mutually agreed upon proposed
revisions /clarifications to the element. We believe that timely resolution of this issue is
imperative for the reasons cited above.
The City is committed to providing a thorough and thoughtful Housing Element that
addresses our housing needs through attainable programs and policies. We pride
ourselves on an open planning process, which we have demonstrated through our
extensive public process on this Element and all our planning efforts. We look forward
to working with you and other interested parties to implement the City's ambitious
housing programs. Attachment B provides a summary of the actions that the City has
taken to implement the Housing Element since your Department issued its compliance
determination on August 29. Attachment C provides you with another copy of the
extensive annual housing report that was previously forwarded for your consideration in
July.
Letter to Franklin Page 3
October 20, 2003
Finally, with respect to Measure A, we understand your Department's continuing interest
in this matter; however. the adopted element, findings of conformance and your
Department's August 29 determination of compliance all conclude that the adopted
Housing Element is adequate as submitted. Our City Council is currently considering
public input on a proposal to further study Measure A, A second public hearing is
scheduled on this matter in November. We will be pleased to keep you and your staff
informed as to the status of this matter; however, we do not agree that the annual General
Plan progress report referenced in Deputy Director Creswell's correspondence is the
appropriate venue since Measure A is a provision of the City Charter and not a provision
of the General Nan. Attachment D provides a copy of the staff reports provided to our
City Council to date regarding this matter together with the minutes of the Council's
public hearing. As further information becomes available, we will forward it to your
staff. Thank you for considering the City's point of view. We hope that this information
will satisfy your Department's request for a progress report on implementation of the
element. We look forward to continuing our dialogue and collaboration on housing
issues.
Sincerely
Attachments
Gregory L. Fuz
Director of Planning and Building
xc: Mayor and City Council Members
James M. Flint, City Manager
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Paul Benoit, Development Services Director
Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell
Eve Bach, Arc Ecology
Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope
Attachment A
Response to August 28 Third Party Comment Letter
Substantive Content of the Proposed Revisions to the Housing Element
The proposed revisions were offered to your staff to provide clarifications regarding
certain aspects of our Housing Element. They do not represent new information or major
departures from the draft Housing Element we submitted for findings of compliance. No
new policies or new sites are proposed. These clarifications include how we intend to
write down land costs at Alameda Point, how our Zoning Ordinance supports emergency
shelters and how we intend to meet the provisions of Senate Bill 520. The purpose of the
City's letter to Deputy Director Cresswell dated August 14, 2003 was not to have the
wording adopted by HCD, as the third party commentors contend, but rather, to confirm
that the City had interpreted our conversations during the Department's statutory review
of the adopted element correctly in terms of the clarifications desired by the Department
in the future and to demonstrate the City's willingness to cooperate with the Department.
As you know, the City of Alameda has undergone a multi -year planning process to create
and adopt the Housing Element. To contend that there was inadequate opportunity to
provide comment on the Housing Element is disingenuous, particularly since these
organizations have provided your Department with several letters of comment and
participated in many of the public hearings and workshops. When the proposed revisions
are considered for adoption in the future, additional public hearings will be held in which
these organizations can provide comments. Your Department will also review the
proposed revisions for statutory compliance and will provide further opportunity for
public comment during that review.
Alameda's Alleged Error in Reading Navy Maps
The City has not misunderstood the conveyance information provided to it by the Navy
(Alameda Disposal Strategy, Aug. 21, 2003). The City understands that the seaplane
lagoon may not be transferred until December 2007. While the Housing Element
contemplates 53 units of housing to be provided as "live aboards" in the new marina to be
developed as part of the Alameda Point community, the Alameda Point Chapter of the
General Plan also includes specific language which permits shifts in residential density at
Alameda Point to make up for small amounts of housing that may not be available at
specified locations within the Housing Element tine frame (see General Plan Policy
9.2j).
Adjacency Issues
The City is committed to using its best efforts to facilitate housing development on clean
sites at Alameda Point prior to 2007. While it is true that some clean residential sites
may be adjacent to sites that have not yet been cleaned up, all clean up activities, on
residential sites as well as non - residential sites, are governed by regulator- approved site
management plans, and remedial health and safety plans when required. These plans
specify mitigation measures and monitoring to protect the health and safety of people
who may be impacted by the clean -up activities. It is our understanding that such plans
will allow residential activity to go forward as they will require measures to be put in
place as part of any adjacent clean -up activity to protect human health and safety.
Alleged Uncertainties in the West Neighborhood
The Navy is in the process of completing a time - critical removal of the top two feet of
soil in the West Neighborhood (EDC -5) due to the detection of elevated levels of PAH's
in certain areas. The Navy is fully engaged in the process of conveying this parcel via a
FOST (Finding of Suitability of Transfer) to the City and has not provided us with any
indication that the bulk of this 359 -acre site, designated for residential development,
cannot be transferred by the August, 2005 date identified in the U.S. Navy's Alameda
Disposal Strategy that we provided to your Department.
Source of Dates of Transfer for Non -IR Sites
The acronym RC, referenced in the Alameda Disposal Strategy. stands for Remediation
Complete. The Navy provided all information contained in the Alameda Disposal
Strategy and the City has no reason to believe that the information provided is inaccurate
or incomplete.
Other Unresolved Objections by HCD to the Draft
The letter from the third parties contends that there are additional deficiencies with the
sites proposed within the Housing Element. The City believes we have provided
sufficient sites and/or programs and policies regarding these sites and we believe that
your Department concurs based on the August 29 finding of statutory compliance. In
particular,
• Site 10 — Alameda Unified School District — The City has provided information about
the fact that the School District has several potential sites that could be developed
with housing and is working with the School District to locate a site or sites to
accommodate the units. The City also has dedicated funds to assist in the
development of those units.
• Site 19 — Alameda Beltline — The City recognized that the Alameda Beltline site is
subject to litigation and a ballot measure, neither of which is resolved. The City
added program (i) to redesignate adequate sites in the Northern Waterfront area
should the Alameda Beltline site not be available during the planning time frame.
Given that the Northern Waterfront Plan area is approximately 88 acres in total, there
is adequate acreage within this plan area to accommodate the housing units that may
need to be moved from Site 19, particularly since that area is within the Business and
Waterfront Community Improvement Plan area and will be subject to a 25%
affordable housing requirement. The City has estimated that the plan will allow for
the development of approximately 350 housing units.
• Site 21 — Former Rite Aid Site — The Housing Advocates are substituting their own
interpretation of the City's requirements under Housing Element law. The City is
under no obligation to use redevelopment powers to compel a property owner to
develop his property. In the December 14, 2001 letter from HCD to the City
providing comments on the draft Housing Element, the Department requested the
City indicate whether any zoning changes are required to allow development. The
City already has rezoned the site to permit residential development, thus
implementing the program in the Housing Element.
• Site 25 — Bachelor's Officer Quarters —The exact redesign of the Bachelor's Officers
Quarters is not known at this time, therefore it is speculative to assume how many
units will be single room occupancy and how many will be units with full kitchens.
The distinction, however, is not important to the Housing Element since either kind
of unit would qualify as a housing unit under the U.S. Census definition of housing
unit. The City included in its inventory two assisted living projects: however, these
projects were both Above Moderate private projects and therefore, were not counted
in the Housing Supply since the City already provided a sufficient number of Above
Moderate units.
Attachment B
Alameda Housing Element Implementation Efforts Since HCD Compliance Certification
on August 29. 2003
Initiated the following General Plan Amendments:
I) Add a program to provide further means of ensuring the availability of designated
affordable housing sites planned for Alameda Point;
2) Add a program to more clearly comply with the requirement of SB 520. The goal
of this action will be to determine whether there are constraints to the
development, maintenance and improvements of housing for persons with
disabilities. If limitations are found, the city will initiate all legal steps to
eliminate them.
3) Add a program to add clarification language to the Zoning Ordinance regarding
what constitutes a Community Care Facility.
4) Modify the Land Availability and Supply Table to reflect the inclusionary
housing ordinance, once adopted, and the modifications to the inclusionary
requirements in the redevelopment areas.
Initiated the following Zoning text Amendments:
1) Create an inclusionary housing ordinance.
2) Create a density bonus ordinance.
3) Modify the existing second unit provisions to meet State law.
4) Add language to the definition of Community Care Facility regarding emergency
shelters.
Initiated the following Rezonings:
I) Alameda Point
2) Alameda Mini - Storage
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4mods�n
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street. Suite 430
P. 0. Box 952063
Sacramento. CA 84252 -2053
(916) 3204777
FAX (919) 327.2843
November 17, 2003
Mr. Gregory L. Fuz
Director of Planning and Building
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
Dear. Mr. Fuz:
VG! VY
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Department of Hous: ng and Community
Development's (Department) review of the City's adopted housing element. Your letter also
requests the Departinent complete its review of third party comments regarding Alameda's
proposed revisions to the adopted housing element.
As you know, the Department agreed to concurrently review both the City's adopted housing
element and proposed revisions to the adopted housing element. Our August 29, 2003 review
found the proposed revisions would address the remaining statutory requirements and, when
adopted, bring the City's element into full compliance with the law. Pursuant to your request, the
Department expedited its review of the proposed draft amendment to facilitate the City's effort to
quickly adopt a final element. Given our expedited review of the proposed draft amendments
reduced the time allowed for public comment as required by Goverment Code Section 65585; our
August 29, 2003 review indicated we would consider any third party comment; during the review
of the City's final adopted element.
Your letter now requests the Department complete its review of any third party comments prior to
the City adopting the proposed revisions. We are pleased to be able to assist wih this request. For
your information, we have asked that public comments on the proposed amendments be submitted
by November 20, 2003. We will consider those comments and provide oar final review of'
Alameda's proposed amendments to the adopted element no later than December 8, 2003. We will
also commit to completing our review of the final adopted housing element within 30 days of
receipt (as opposed to the 90 days allowed by statute). We hope these expedited timelines will
facilitate your efforts to implement your housing element and conclude planning for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point. We share your commitment to the effective implementation of
these plans and would welcome the opportunity to assist Alameda's efforts to p) ovide housing and
economic development opportunities within the City.
I also wanted to clarify the requirement in our review loiter regarding annual getteral plan progress
reports. As you know, Government Code Section 65400 requires .local governments to complete
an annual progress report on the implementation of its general plan. This report is required to be
completed annually in October and submitted to the Department and the Governor's Office of
Attachment #2
Mr. Gregory L. Fuz
Page 2
r;aut ere.
Planning and Research. As a standard practice, our review letters remind local govemments of this
important reporting responsibility, The reference in our letter to the City reporting on its progress
in implementing specific programs relates to commitments necessary to ident fy adequate sites by
dates specified in the element. The requirement to report does not alter the dates or timelines
described in the element. If for example, a program or policy is not scheduled to be complete by
October, the City's annual report would report on the progress achieved up to that date.
Finally, your letter requests the Department reconsider its direction that Alameda report on the
status of its efforts to comprehensively review the impacts of Measure .A in its annual general plan
progress report required pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 65400. While we appreciate your
point that Measure A is a provision of the City Charter, it most certainly has a significant impact
on land -use and development within Alameda. As a result, we continue to believe it is appropriate
to report on the City's efforts to analyze and study Measure A in the annual general plan
implementation report.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and the City. If you has e any questions or
continents, please feel free to contact me at (916) 323 -3176.
Sincerely;
Cathy E. /reswell
Deputy Director
cc: Cynthia Eliason, Planning Manager, City of Alameda
Michael Colantuono, Attorney, City of Alameda
Eve Bach, Arc Ecology
Tom Matthews, .Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
Mike Rawson, The Public Interest Law Project
Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community, Development
Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office
Brian Gattridge, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Weiner, California Coalition. for Rural Housing
John Douglas, MCP, Civic Solutions
Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty
S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon
Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Richard. Marcantonio, Public Advocates
nru
Mr. Gregory L. Fuz
Page 3
David Booher, Califomia Housing Council
Sae Hestor, Attorney at Law
Paul Campos, Home, Builders Assoc. of Northern California
Shannon Dodge, Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California
William Litt, Bay Area Legal Aid
Allison .Brooks, Livable Communities Initiative
Charlie Carson, Home Builders Association — Northern .Division
Clifford Sweet, Alameda County Legal Aid Society
PAGE 04/0,
STA_ Fr.AI IFOR1116, C_INFSC TRA0. PORTpTION ARn H EIJry
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
ism Third Snot, Suite 430
P. 0. Sox 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252.2053
813x3.3177
f (91 FAX (916) 327.21343
December 8, 2003
Mr. James Flint, City Manager
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
RE: Review of Alameda's Revised Draft Housing Element
Dear Mr, Flint:
YMUt LIZ/ 04
O l n c•HWAR7FF)Fnr. - m112.91
* ** *CORRECTED * * **
Thank you for the October 20, 2003 correspondence regarding the Department of Housing and
Community Development's (Department) review of the City's housing element- As you know in
our July 31, 2003 meeting, the Department agreed to concurrently review both the City's adopted
housing element and proposed revisions to the adopted housing element As stated in our
August 29, 2003 review, the Department found the proposed revisions (draft amendments), listed
in our review lener, to the City's housing element adopted May 6, 2003 would address the
remaining statutory requirements and, when adopted, bring the City's etemeit into compliance
with the law. Pursuant to your request, the Department expedited its review of the proposed draft
amendment to facilitate the City's effort to quickly amend the adopted element with the proposed
amendments. Given our expedited review of the proposed draft amendments reduced the time
allowed for public comment as required by Government Code Section 65585; our August 29, 2003
review indicated we would consider any third party comments during the review of the City's final
adopted element.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c), the Department has now fully considered third
party comments from Ms. Eve Bach of Arc Ecology and Mr. Tom Matthews of Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates. Based on our review of these comments, the Department continues to find the
proposed revisions and documents reviewed in our August 29, 2003 .review Iattached) meet the
statutory requirements of housing element law described in the Department's December 16, 2002
review letter. Specifically, the Department's August 29, 2003 review and finding were predicated
on including (1) Changes to the draft housing element from the modification sheet, Exhibit B of
City Council Resolution Number 13582; (2) Findings of Conformance, Exhibit A of the
Resolution; (3) August 14, 2003 draft revisions and; (4) Information from a Jul d 31, 2003 meeting
regarding the suitability of identified lands, including the combination of :a) identified sites
planned to meet the regional housing need, (b) level of contamination and planned remediation of
identified sites (c) anticipated transfer schedule of identified sites. As you know, all of these
materials must be adopted into the housing element.
Attachment #3
rAtat a3/ i4
Mr. James Flint, City Manager
Page 2
As previously noted, the Department's prospective finding of compliance is conditioned on the
City's successful implementation of programs to rezone sites in conformance with recent general
plan amendments, including Programs h. i, j and k. The finding of compliance is also conditioned
on the City's successful implementation of the program proposed in the August 1.4, 2003 revision
to mitigate the constraints of Measure A and identify adequate sites through srategies, including
land donations, to ensure the production and affordability commitments described in the Land
Availability and Supply Table (pages V4 and V -5 of the adopted Resolution (Ethibit 13)).
The City should use its annual general plan progress report (Government Code Section 65400) to
report on the status of this and other housing programs. The reports are due b3 October 1 of each
year. If the City does not implement the program proposed in the August 14, 2003 revision, as
described above, by January 2006, the element will not identify adequate sites and will require
immediate and specific action to amend the housing element and identify alternate sites and
mitigation efforts. Failure to submit an annual report by the pertinent due dates will trigger a
review by the Department on the implementation status of these programs.
In addition, while the element proposes to mitigate the impacts of Measure A by assisting in
subsidizing units at Alameda Point, we continue to support the City's commitment, described in
the May 27, 2003 submittal of the adopted element, to initiate a comprshensive study of
Measure A. We appreciate the City's commitment to solicit input from the Department, local
housing advocates and other stakeholders in defining the scope and parameters of this study. We
look forward to following Alameda's progress in comprehensively reviewing the impacts of
Measure A. The City's annual general plan progress report should report on status of this
important effort.
We look forward to receiving a copy of the revised adopted element pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585 (g). If you have any additional questions, please contact Paul Plc Dougall, of our
staff, at (916) 322 -7995.
In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are fo warding a copy of
this letter to the individuals listed below,
Sincerely,
f'
Cathy E/ •swell
Deputy rirector
cc: Greg Thu, Director, City of Alameda
Michael Colantuono, Attorney, City of Alameda
Eve Bach, Are Ecology
Tom .Matthews, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
Mike Rawson, The Public Interest Law Project
Mark Slivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development
Suzanne .Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office
I11 U
Mr. James Flint, City Manager
Page 3
Brian Grattidge, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing
John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions
Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty
S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Alexander Abbe, Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon
Michael G. Colanmono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC
Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Richard Marcantonio, Public Advocates
David Booher, California Housing Council
Sue Hestor, Attomey at Law
Paul Campos, Horne Builders Assoc. of Northern California
Shannon Dodge, Non - Profit Housing Association of Northam California
Clifford Sweet, Alameda County Legal Aid Society
Mike Rawson, The Public Interest Law Project
William Litt, Bay Area Legal Aid
Allison Brooks, Livable Communities Initiative
Charlie Carson, Home Builders Association — Northern Division
HAUL 194/ 194
Agenda Item # 5 -B:
Public hearing to be closed and
noticed for future date.
City of Alameda
Inter-department _ Memorandum
DATE: December 17, 2003
TO:
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's conditional approval
of Major Design Review, DR02 -0043 to allow the partial demolition of the rear
portion of the two -story single-family dwelling/daycare facility (retaining most of the
front facade) and the construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling units
would consist of three two - bedroom units and one three - bedroom unit. Eight off -
street parking spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance
with the parking standards of the Alameda Municipal Code The site is located
within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Tam Nguyen.
Appellant: John Faris.
Background
On November 10, 2003, the Planning Board approved Major Design Review, DR02 -0043 to allow
the demolition of a two -story single - family dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two
duplexes. The demolition would remove most of the rear portion of the existing structure, retaining
most of the front facade to be used on the duplex fronting on Encinal Avenue. The architectural
style of the buildings would match the original "pre/post -war" building from the intact front facade
and including the rear building. .There would be two separate duplexes, with one building in the
front of the lot and one building at the rear of the lot. All of the required parking would be provided
under and between the two buildings.
The site is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. On November 20,
2003, John Faris (of 1417 San Antonio Avenue) filed an appeal of the Planning Board decision
conditionally approving this Major Design 'Review.
Discussion/ Analysis
John Faris submitted the appeal, citing six basis of appeal. The petition of appeal does not raise new
issues. Staff and the Planning Board considered all of the issues of Mr. Faris 's basis of appeal
through the public hearing process, prior to the Board taking action. Please refer to the Supplemental
Attachment (attachment # 1); which includes specific responses to the appellant's issues of appeal.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing #5 -C
1-6-04
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Councilmembers Page 2
This project, as conditionally approved by the Planning Board, meets all Zoning District, Measure A,
and General Plan standards. The Planning Board's approval requires that the final plans comply with
all Zoning and Building Code standards, includes arrangements to protect the three mature oak trees
on the site and limit pruning, install protective barriers and fences around the -site, provide
landscaping irrigation systems and landscaping, and assure that the design of the building minimizes
the reduction of privacy on adjacent lots. The structures' design would incorporate most of the
original facade of the original building, which will be moved to within 20 -feet from the front
property line to conform to current front yard setback standards. The Planning Board' s conditional
approval required that the final plans submitted for building permit approval, be altered to bring the
project into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance standards (i.e., all covered porches are required
to conform with building setback standards), show the installation of required barriers and fences,
and provide landscaping and irrigation that would meet the City's landscaping and irrigation
standards. The applicant is aware that the plans that are submitted for building permit approval must
include revisions required pursuant to the Planning Board' s conditions of approval. -
Budget Considerations/ Fiscal Impact
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary
relating to Planning activities for this project.
Recommendation '
The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent
testimony and information and then act to uphold the Planning Board approval of Design Review,
DR02 -0161, as provided in the draft City Council Resolution contained in the agenda packet as
Attachment 11.
Respectfully submitted,
gory L. Fuz
Planning and Building Director
By: i1?f4& , ._.
Dennis Brighton, P nner II
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Supplemental Attachment, January 6, 2004
2. Petition of Appeal from John Faris, received on November 20, 2003
3. Planning Board Resolution No. PB -03 -57
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Councilmembers Page 3
4. Supplemental staff report, distributed to Planning Board, November 10, 2001(without
attachments)
5. Planning Board Minutes, November 10, 2003
6. Planning Board Staff report for July 28, 2003 (without attachments)
7. Arborist's Report by Arbortech Tree Care Inc., September 17, 2003
8. Applicant's Amended Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Window Alignment Diagram, August 24,
2003
cc: John Faris, Appellant
Tam Nguyen, Property owner /Applicant
President, Planning Board
G PLANNINGiCf R EPORTS \200314DR020161 CC
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Supplemental Attachment
DISCUSSION
The appellant specifically defines the following six issues in his appeal (noted in bold print) with
staff response in standard type.
1. This project "has significant adverse impacts on persons and property in the vicinity ".
This places a 4 -unit apartment complex in close proximity to adjacent single - family
residences.
The Planning Board made this finding, as follows: "The proposed design maintains the architectural
integrity of the existing structure and the retention of the three mature oak trees and the cedar tree
would maintain the historical appearance of the site. In addition, the proposed provision of eight full
size parking spaces and a 10 -foot wide driveway would minimize the demand for additional
parking."
The proposal also conforms to all requirements of Measure A, the R -4 Zoning District, and as
conditioned, conforms to all setback and landscaping requirements. The proposal utilizes the
architectural style of the existing structure. Conditions of the Planning Board's approval included
requirements for landscaping and continued care of the existing mature oak trees, which will remain
on the site. The proposed 4 -unit development will be situated next to a commercial center that
maintains very contemporary architectural elements. Therefore, the proposed development will
serve as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses within the neighborhood.
2. This project is not "compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area ".
The Planning Board made this finding, as follows: "The proposed two duplexes are compatible with
this mixed -use neighborhood. The retention of the original architectural character of the original
building and most of the mature trees on the site would create a more harmonious transition to the
proposed use."
3. Will not have the same level of architectural interest and detail as the existing adjacent
residences.
While this project is neither a 3 -story Victorian nor is it designed as its contemporary commercial
neighbor, it will maintain the architectural interest of the original building on this site. The
applicant's architect has maintained the existing front facade for the new project by proposing that
the scope of the project would include a partial demolition of approximately 2/3's of the rear portion
of the building, with the retention of most of the front facade. The remaining construction will
match the architectural configuration of the original "pre /post -war" residence.
Attachment #1
Honorable Mayor and December 17, 2003
Members of the City Council Page 2
4. The project "does not have the minimum set back required by building codes and
zoning."
The Planning Board's conditional approval required that the final plans submitted for building permit
approval be revised to bring the project into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance standards (i.e.,
all covered porches are required to conform with building setback standards), show the installation of
required barriers and fences, and provide landscaping and irrigation that would meet the City' s
landscaping and irrigation standards. The applicant is aware that the plans that are submitted for
building permit approval must include revisions required pursuant to the Planning Board's
conditions of approval.
5. The project "has design elements that make it easy to create an illegal unit by
subdivision."
The potential to create illegal units is a possibility in many residential projects. If the design of the
project cannot be changed to reduce this potential, staff generally requires the preparation and filing
of a Deed Restriction to state the number of units and provide notification to the owners of the
property of the number of units allowed. A deed restriction was not required as a condition of the
Planning Board's approval, since review of the project floor plans did not result in a concern that
additional units could be legally or illegally created.
6. The project "will damage the 3 protected Heritage Oaks on the site by significant
pruning and construction."
This is contrary to the required arborist's report which indicates minimum detrimental impacts on the
oak trees providing protection measures are taken to assure survival of the oak trees. In addition,
conditions of the Planning Boards approval include measures to protect the oak trees.
The Planning and Building Director believes that the bases of appeal are without merit and do not
warrant an overturning of the Planning Board's decision to permit the proposed twin duplex
development.
G:\PLANNING\CC\REPORTS\2003 ADR0201 6IAPS.doc
T0:
CITY OF ALAMEDA
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara
Alameda CA 94501
PETITION FOR APPEAL
Cat CC U- IL/CIL,
(Planning Board or City Council)
Avenue #190
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the
(Planning Director /Zoning Administrator /Planning
Advisory Board)
which
GJe4&Vrf A
Board /Historical
for
for a
(Denied /Granted /Established Conditions)'
JX02.-o161 at
( Application Number)
X \' Design Review
Subdivision Map.
Development
Planned Development /Amendment
15)0 Euc i u�{L
(Street Address)
_ Use Permit
Rezoning
on li %/0 /ADS 5
(Specify Date)
The basis of the appeal is: Sc
Variance
Plannned
Other
(Specify)
A- 7 -Yi4Ci b
�l P-46e Derck <��
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach
additional sheets.)
ITd N rP' FA r2 t 5
(Name)
) 44 17 5 /Y ni 0-0A-1 v ,IQ V N∎
(Address)
A i, E P.4 C A-
(City /State)
5-)0 5oz r (645
(Telephone - Work)
cIv 152/
(Telephone - Home)
(For Office Use Only) Date Received Stamp
Received By:
Receipt No.:
G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL01.WPD
Attachment #2
The Major Design Review for 1510 Central should be rejected by the City Council
because Planning Staff and Board failed to follow the Existing Planning Board Design
Review Policy and the Existing Planning Board Infrll Policy
Specifically the Project:
1. has "..significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the vicinity" *
2. Is not ".. compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding
area" *
3. Will not "have the same level of architectural interest and detail as the existing
adjacent residences " **
4. Does not have the minim= set back required by building codes and zoning
5. Has design elements that make it easy to create an illegal unit by subivision.
6. Will damage the 3 protected Heritage Oaks on the site by significant pruning and
construction
* Violates Planning Board Design Review Requirement
**Violates Planning Board Inftil Policy
The proposed 4 -unit apartment project at 1510 Encinal will have significant adverse
impacts on all of the surrounding properties. All of the adjacent property owners,
including 6 single family residential neighbors, the owner of the commercial building at
the Morton Street Station, and a business tenant of Morton Street Station have sent letters
or appeared in person to express their outrage at the signfiicant adverse impact of tearing
down the single family residence with beautiful Heritage Oak trees and replacing it with
a cheap, characterless 4 -unit apartment complex with drastically reduced landscaping.
Why the planning board ignored these property owners is a mystery since their own
Design Review guidelines require them to insure that "The project will have no
significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the vicinity." As planning
professionals they clearly understand the reasons zoning usually separates high density
residential development from single family homes and the damage the absence such
restrictions imposes on the single family homeowners. As any real estate professional or
property accessor can tell you, placing a multi -unit rental development in the middle of a
group of single family homes will significantly reduce the value of the surrounding
holmes. Placing this stucco and wood siding project, with 1st floor parking, in the Gold
Coast area, immediately adjacent to Morton Street Station and surrounded by million
dollar homes is utterly inconsistent with the goal of maintainng the integrity of our
neighborhood. The adverse impacts include vastly changing the character of the
surrounding largely historic neighborhood , destroying or adversely affecting Heritage
Oaks and other large trees which mask the current residence and provide privacy to the
sunoundng single family homes, increasing noise, decreasing security, exacerbating
difficult parking for the nearby businesses, and significantly decreasing high property
values. This project is totally inappropriate for its location. It is frankly difficult to
understand how the Planning Board could have given approval to this project which will
be a blight on our neighborhood. The planning board is supposed to insure not only that
zoning, building codes, and minimum setbacks are observed, but their are no significant
impacts on neighboring properties. They have clearly failed to do this.
t
In addition, the Planning Department under its Design Review Process is supposed to
insure that the project is "compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area" and under its Infill Policy to insure that new housing on residential lots
should "have the same level of architectural interest and detail as the existing adjacent
residences." Despite the Planning Board's determination, this project is anything but
compatible and harmonious or has the same level of architectural interest and detail..
The lot in question is a flag - shaped lot that is surrounded by 6 single family dwellings
and one commercial structure. Two addition single family residences lie immediately
acrosss Encinal Avenue from this property. The closest next two buildings are another
single family dwelling and a single family dwelling which was converted to a duplex
with little external modifications. Simply stated, the property is completely surrounded
by single family residences. Five of these residences are zoned Rl while the rest are
zoned R4. The contiguous dwellings are historic Victorian or Arts and Crafts structures
with elaborate external ornamentation, on large lots of very high value. The proposed
stucco and wood siding apartment complex is neither compatible nor harmonious with
the surrounding single family dwellings or have the same level of architectural interest as
the existing adjacent historic single family residences or the historic Morton Street
Station. As such it is not compliant with the Infill Policy. The Planning Board says the
new structure will have some of the architectural features of the existing structure and is
thus compliant. What these features are is hard to guess, since the existing building will
be torn down and its facade moved forward so that its only 20' from the property line.
This Planning board justification is not revelant becauese the Infill Policy requires that
the architectural interest and detail of the new dwelling should be at the same level as the
"existing adjacent residences" not the same as the residence being replaced or modified.
The similarity of the new structure with the structure being replaced is not relevant to
compliance.
The Planning Board would have you believe that a 4 unit apartment complex "is
compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area" because this
is a mixed -use neighborhood., but that is not correct. The Planning Department staff
report points out several pre- Proposition A multifamily structures farther away on the
opposite side of Encinal Avenue. None of these structures are contiguous or adjacent to
1510 Central, and thus not included in the strict requirement of the Infill policy that
states new housing on residential lots should "have the same level of architectural interest
and detail as the existing adjacent residences." None of these multifamily structures
could be built today because they have inadequate parking, excessive density, inadequate
set backs and are not compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area.
Unfortunately they were built before the current Design Review , Infill Policy , and
Measure A were in effect. If they were developed today they would be limited to single
duplex. At any rate we should not let the existence of these preexisting noncompliant
multifamily projects down the block be used to justify spreading their blight to what is
currently a safe, quiet, attractive, and high value part of the block. .
The project has been reduced in scale and redesigned several times to comply with
minimum set back rules. Unfortunately the current design still does not comply with
minimum set back requirements. The project still shows 2 covered entry porches that
are too close to the property lines. Even more troubling is the design of Unit D which is
z
supposed to be a 2 bedroom unit. This unit has a complete 2 bedroom unit upstairs and
an additional bathroom, room and closet downstairs (which makes the unit at least 3
bedrooms). The downstairs area includes 2 entry doors with porches and a rear patio
door. One of these entry doors is at the side of the property, at the foot of the stairs for
the upstairs unit, and its covered porch is less than 10 feet from the property line (which
violates the minimum setback rules). The other entry door enters the downstairs area of
this unit from the front (Similar to the other unit in this building). This extra door at the
bottom of the stairs, makes if very simple to convert this unit to 2 units. Building a 3 foot
wall in the hall at the foot of the stairs effectively separates the units and allows them to
be rented separately. Adding an electric stove and a sink would enhance the rental value
and complete the transformation to a studio apartment with no parking. None of these
changes will be visible from the outside. The second front door is an unusual and
expensive addition for a 2 bedroom apartment, certainly not needed for trash removal.
The other unit in this building has a single front door and a patio door used for garbage
removal. Unit D% patio door could be used in the same fashion and the additional back
entry door eliminated. This change would eliminate one of the set -back violations, reduce
the cost of the project, as well as make it more difficult to subdivide the unit illegally
without it being seen by one of the neighbors.
After requiring an arborist report on the Heritage Oaks and other trees, the Planning
Board mistakenly accepted the representation of the paid -expert that cutting one -third of
the canopy of the Heritage Oaks would have no adverse impact on the trees and
permitted the building of one of the foundation immediately adjacent to the root system
of the Heritage Oak at the front of the property. It is readily apparent that inadequate
protection for these historic trees has been provided and that the likely result is the
destruction of some or all of those beautiful, legally- protected additions to our
neighborhood.
Alameda has a great deal of property that is zoned at a much higher density level than it
is currently used. In addition, addition planning for development of Alameda Point and
the Northern Waterfront are currently underway. The only access to Alameda west of
Park Street is the tube which has limited capacity. No additional bridges or tunnels are
being planned to increase that capacity. Under these circumstances, the amount of
development that can go forward west of Park Street, without ruining the quality of life
on Alameda because of traffic congestion is limited The City Council and Planning
Board must determine where that finite amount of development should occur. Should it
consist of a lot of high density infill in single family neighborhoods or new development
in Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront? Development in one place limits
development that can go forward in the other. What is the appropiate mix? Fortunately
we have planning guidelines that help us answer this question. Design review approval
requires that "the project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or
property in the vicinity ", a condition that is hard to avoid with Infill. The Planning Board
Infill Policy states "new housing on residential lots should ...(a) have the same level of
architectural interest and detail as the existing adjacent residences...." Both these
requirements are difficult to satisfy on Infill projects even when building codes and
zoning ordanaces can be satisfied. This project is a clear example of this. The zoning
ordances and building codes can probably be satisified with small changes in the plans
3
submitted for design review. This project violates these 2 planning principals. It will be
very expensivve to comply with item A) of the infill Policy, because the proposed project
is surrounded by historic residences. The mitigation of damages to neighbors probably
requires reduction in the scale of this project. Let us not loose track that this project is
designed at the maxim scale allowed (i.e. maximun number of units, minimum set backs,
minimum number of parking spaces, minimum distance between buildings, minimum
private space). Its easy to understand why a rental project with 10 bedrooms, 8 parking
spaces, 24 potential tenants, and minimal setbacks would have adverse impact on the
neighboring property owners. I don't believe any of the neighbors would object to the
conversion of this single family to a single dublex. It is the proposed scale and proposed
architectural design of the exterion that harms the adjacent property owners.
This project should not be approved as submitted. At a minimum, set back should be
strictly enforced, the thinly veiled attempt to facilitate adding an extra illegal unit should
be stopped by eliminating the extra entry door, and the projects architectural design
should be enhanced so that it has the same level of architectural interest and detail as the
adjacent residences. If the owner wants to avoid this Infill Policy requirement and leave
the building with the existing exterior, he can do that by leaving the building as a single
family or converting it to a duplex in its existing footprint, without significantly altering
the exterior. If he wants to demolish the existing building, he must comply with the Infill
policy and build a new building with the same level of architectural interest and detail as
the existing historical adjacent residences. Building to this level is expensive but new
Victorian or new Arts and Crafts buildings are built all the time in more expensive
projects.
Our entire neighborhood is opposed to this infll project because it is completely out of
character with our neighborhood, has large negative impacts on the neighboring homes
and businesses, and cannot possibly avoid decreasing our property values. The Planning
Board has narowlly focused on determining whether this project complies with the
building code and zoning without addressing the harder issues of negative impacts on the
surrounding single family homes and businesses. The City Council must decide whether
to inforce the Infill policy and save this historic neighborhood from this project. You
must decide whether this is the best neighborhood to add high density rental units or
whether they should better be placed in new developments like Alameda Point where
they will have less impact on established historic neighborhoods.. This is not a choice
you can avoid. Alameda is filled with opportunist real estate developers looking for ways
to make a quick buck at others expense. Alameda will only support a finite number of
residences because it is an Island with limited access. Please reject this Design Review
Approval and save our unique historic neighborhood. The existing Planning Review
Policies and Planning Infill Policies were created to protect our neighborhoods from
projects that may be permitted by zoning but are not in the public interest You have the
right to reject this project because it doesn't comply with existing policy and you have the
duty to protect our city from irresponsible development.
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB-03-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING
MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR02 -0161, AT 1510 ENCINAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on December 17, 2002 by Li -Sheng Fu for Tam
Nguyen, requesting a Major Design Review to allow for the partial demolition of a two -story single-
family dwelling/daycare facility and the •construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling
units would consist of three two - bedroom units and one three- bedroom unit. Eight off -street parking
spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the parking standards of the
Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on June 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium- Density Residential in the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 28, and
continued to November 10, 2003, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is able to make all of the following findings relative to
Design Review approval:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed design maintains the architectural integrity of the
existing structure and the retention of the three mature oak trees and the cedar tree would
maintain the historical appearance of the site. In addition, the proposed provision of eight
full size parking spaces and a 10 -foot wide driveway would minimize the demand for
additional parking.
2. The project will he compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This finding can be made. The proposed two - duplexes are compatible with this mixed -use
neighborhood. The retention of the original architectural character of the original building
and most of the mature trees on the site would create a more harmonious transition to the
proposed use.
Attachment *3
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed addition would utilize the same style and materials
as the existing residence /school and retain most of the mature trees on the site, which is
consistent with the neighborhood.
4. The project will be consistent with the City's Infill Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The new unit will maintain the existing architecture, the project
will have sufficient parking, the project will have developed landscaped open space, and
there are no existing code violations.
The project complies with all zoning development requirements as set out in the zoning
ordinance.
This finding can be made. The proposal complies with Measure A, development standards
for building height, lot coverage, parking, and open space. Pursuant to conditions of
approval, the proposal would comply with all other setback requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt underCalifomia Environmental Quality
-Act Guidelines, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, New Construction or Conversion of Small
.Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby
approve Design Review, DR02 -0161 for the construction of two duplexes, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plans submitted for the Building Permit and Final 'Design Review shall be in
substantial compliance with the plans titled "Unit Addition @ 1510 Encinal
Avenue "prepared by Lung HWA Associates, dated December 14, 2002, as last revised on
August 24, 2003, consisting of 4- sheets, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the City
of Alameda Planning Department, except as modified by the following conditions:
�. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
and Building Permit approval shall be obtained and construction must begin, under valid
permits by May 10, 2004, unless the applicant applies for and is granted a six (6) month
extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one (1) extension-may be
granted.
This project shall be reviewed by the Planning Board (1) year from the date of this approval
or by November 10, 2004. This review shall address the health, care, and continued viability
of the three mature oak trees located on the site and the progress of the applicant's fence and
on -site traffic safety installations.
2
4. Plans submitted for building permit approval and Final Design Review shall contain a
landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a registered landscape architect to the satisfaction
of the Planning and Building Director. This plan shall conform to landscaping and irrigation
requirements of AMC, Article 11/ (Water Conservation Landscaping).
5. Plans submitted for building permit approval and Final Design Review shall show the
following fence installations, which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Director:
a. An 8 -foot high wood "good neighbor" style fence shall be constructed around the
perimeter of the rear yard and shall end at the front facade of the rear structure at the
easterly side yard and at the intersection of the commercial building at the westerly
side yard. The top 2 -feet of this fence shall be lattice, pursuant to the requirements of
the Alameda Municipal Code.
b. A 6 -foot high wood "good neighbor" style fence shall be constructed along the side
of the property (between 1510 and 1512 Encinal Avenue). This fence shall begin
where the 8 -foot high fence ends and shall extend along the side yard to end no
further past the front facade of 1512 Encinal Avenue.
c. A 3 -foot high iron fence shall be constructed between the properties of 1510 Encinal
and 1500 Encinal Avenue. This fence shall begin at the open area of the commercial
complex and extend to the sidewalk. The construction of this fence shall be designed
to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
d. All fence/barrier alterations shall occur only on the property of 1510 Encinal Avenue.
e. A curb shall be constructed along the westerly side of the driveway.
6. The applicant shall include construction details to show how the mature trees would be
protected during construction. These plans should include, but not be Limited to the
following details:
a. Pruning of the two rear yard oak trees shall not include "crown raising" and "crown
thinning or reduction ".
b. All excavations shall not leave tree roots uncovered within the respective drip lines
of any tree.
c. All required root cuts shall be completed by a saw cut process in compliance with
recommendations of a licensed arborist.
d. Barriers shall be erected at the drip line of each tree to-protect against damage during
construction.
e. No equipment, construction materials, and refuse shall be stored on the drip -line of
any of the trees.
f. A licensed arborist shall complete required limb removal.
7. In the event that any one of the remaining Live Oak Trees become damaged or destroyed as a
result of the construction work and associated disturbance, all work shall cease until the
subject tree shall be replaced with a similarly mature tree, of no less than a 100 gallon root
ball, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
8. Final plans submitted for building permit approval shall contain details of the bollards
installed between the parking/maneuvering.area and the commercial building (1500 Encinal
3
Avenue). Details should be provided to show the installation of steel railing connecting the
bollards at the edge of the parking lot in order to assure that there would be no possible
vehicular damage to the adjacent commercial building, subject to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director.
9. Plans submitted for final design review and building permit approval shall include a drainage
plan which shall show spot elevations or directional arrows to verify that storm. runoff will
flow to Encinal Avenue and protect the right -of -way of any existing storm easements on the
property, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
10. Plans submitted for final design review and building permit approval shall contain window
details to show that all new windows Shall be casement, fixed frame, and/or awning style to
match the original windows, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
11. Details shall be provided on the final plans to show that the privacy screen to be constructed
on the balcony of "unit B" would be solid wood to match the texture and style of the wood
siding on the remainder of, the, structures, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
12. Encinal Avenue is part of State Route 61 and as such, falls under the jurisdiction of Caltrans;
therefore the applicant/property owner is required to obtain all necessary approvals from
Caltrans prior to commencing construction.
13. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final building inspection.
14. All covered parking shall remain as carports; unenclosed by doors.
15. Citywide Development Fees: Citywide Development Fees (CDF) for the Central / East End
District shall apply at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. CDF Fees
apply to new construction or to structures not in use within 24 months prior to permit
issuance. Construction within 100 feet of zone boundary pays average of two zones. The
CDF does not include L & TD staff review fees.
16. Compliance with Codes. Final plans submitted for building permit approval and all work
related to the proposal shall comply with the applicable Zoning, Uniform Building, and
Uniform Fire Codes.
17. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Variance and Design
Review to be exercised.
18. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires 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, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, anapproval of the City concerning this Design
Review approval, which action is brought within the time period provide for in Government
4
Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails
to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in
writing and within ten (10) days of the decision by completing and submitting an appeal form and
paying the required fee.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.¢.
NOTICE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other
exactions: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations
and other exactions, You are hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period in which you may
protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If
you fail to file a .protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10t day of November 2003 by the Planning Board of the
City of Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: (6) Bard, Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Piziali, Rossi
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
ABSTAIN: (1) Marian
ATTEST:
5
City of Alameda
Inter- department Memorandum
TO:
President Piziali and
Members of the Planning
Board
FROM: Dennis Brighton
Planner II
8 -A
November 10; 2003
RE: Supplemental Staff Report - Major Design Review DR02 -0161 - Li -Sheng Fu for
Tam Nguyen -1510 Encinal Avenue. The applicant requests Major Design Review to
allow the demolition of a two -story single - family dwelling /daycare facility and the
construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling units would consist of three
two - bedroom units and one three- bedroom unit. Eight off- street parking spaces would be
provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the parking standards of the
Alameda Municipal Code. The site is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential
Zoning District.
BACKGROUND:
On July 28, 2002, the Planning Board reviewed this project proposal. Based upon the results of this
public hearing, the Board adjourned the public hearing to September 8, 2003 and requested that the
applicant address the following issues:
1. Amend the plan (site plan) to show the windows on the adjacent residence (i.e. 1512 Encinal
Avenue).
2. Amend the plans to show that the new homes would not have windows that look directly into
the windows of the existing homes. These windows should be as small as possible,
obscured, and/or have a raised sill height. The window styles should be consistent with the
style of windows that already exist on the building.
3. Provide an arborist's report, prepared by a licensed arborist, on the remaining trees on the lot,
with respect to the status of their health, required protection during construction, structural
measures necessary to assure long -term survival of all trees, construction plan to assure that
the trees are not damaged during construction, and whether the two -story construction would
require significant pruning of these trees. The protection of the existing canopy of the rear
trees takes priority. Building redesign is necessary if current building design would threaten
the existing canopy.
4. The applicant shall meet with the neighbors to establish a mutually agreeable design for
fencing around all three sides of the property, including fence height.
5. Relocate the front porch of the street fronting dwelling unit in order to facilitate the
Alameda Planning Board
Supplemental Staff Report
Meeting of November 10, 2003
Page 1
Attachment #4
relocation of the driveway. Relocating the driveway would avoid the removal of the City tree
and the mature Japanese maple tree, located in the front yard. This would also provide
additional landscaping in the front yard at the westerly side of the property.
6. Show the installation of a privacy screen on the easterly side of the balcony. This screen
would provide a visual barrier between the balcony and the adjacent single - family residence
at 1512 Encinal Avenue.
7. Examine the necessity for expanding the installation of bollards in order to prevent vehicular
damage to the adjacent commercial property at 1500 Encinal.
8. No garage doors would be included in the carports.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the Board's requests. The following listing
represents the applicant's response in the order of the above requested issues:
1. The amended site plan shows the location of the second story windows on the abutting
property at 1512 Encinal Avenue. There are no proposed windows that align with the
windows of the adjacent property on the ground floor. However, second story windows align
at the bedroom in "unit A" and above the staircase in "unit B ". No information was provided
for the residences that back up to the rear of the site. Window alignment at the rear of the
site is not critical because of the distances between buildings and the existence of
landscaping/trees on all lots which block or filter views. However, windowsill heights could
be raised at the rear second story, subject to conformance with ingress and egress
requirements of the Building Code (see Draft Resolution, condition 12).
2. The plans have been amended to show that windows don't align with the adjacent property at
1512 Encinal except fora bedroom window in unit A and a staircase window in unit B. The
applicant reports that the second story windows at 1512 Encinal would also be looking down
at the second floor windows at 1510 Encinal Avenue. Therefore, no windows would align.
3. The Arborist's Report outlines methods that should be used to protect the trees during
construction and indicates that only one branch would be required to be removed from one of
the two oak trees in the rear yard. The report indicates that the construction requires the
removal of a limb. However, removal is also necessary because the limb is diseased as well
as being required in order to provide the installation of the second floor at the rear of the
property. The adjacent property owners have expressed concern about the removal of some
concrete work in the rear yard, which may have exposed the roots of some of the oak trees.
Staff finds that it is appropriate that protective measures are included in the Design Review
approval, which protects the trees from damage due to construction.
4. The applicant claims to have contacted the abutting property owners. He is proposing to
install 3 -foot high lattice to the existing 5 -foot high fence encircling the rear yard. The
neighboring property owners, abutting the rear, have expressed objections to any additions on
the fence, which they claim is located totally on their property. These neighbors have
requested that applicant/property owner erect an 8 -foot high fence on his property or provide
Alameda Planning Board
Supplemental Staff Report
Meeting of November 10, 2003
Page 2
a site survey by a licensed surveyor in order to substantiate that fencing would be located
only on the applicant's property. The abutting property owners on the sides of the property
have voiced no objections the applicant's fence proposals. Three -foot high wood fences are
proposed along the sides of the site, to extend to the street frontage. Staff recommends that
the applicant construct a new 8 -foot high fence around the rear of the property, with the top
2 -feet being of lattice, in conformance with City standards (see Draft Resolution,
conditions 3 and 6).
5. The amended plans show the proposed relocation of the front porch and the driveway. This
would avoid the necessity to remove the City tree and the mature Japanese maple. However,
the front porch and side porches would be required to be uncovered in order to conform to
front and side yard setback standards.
6. The amended plans show the proposed installation of the privacy screen on the second floor
balcony of "unit B ". Staff believes that the privacy screen should be solid instead of the
proposed lattice (see Draft Resolution, condition 12).
7. Bollards are proposed at 4 -feet on- center. A heavy steel railing may be installed to connect
the bollards to protect vehicular damage to the building (see Draft Resolution, condition 9).
8. Conditions of approval require that there will be no garage doors installed. In addition, a
deed restriction may be required to notice that no garage doors would be installed in future
developments (see Draft Resolution, condition 16).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Board continue the public hearing, consider all available testimony and
information, review the administrative record, and approve Major Design Review, DR02 -0161, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Resolution.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Nanning Board Draft Resolution
2. Planning Board Minutes, July 28, 2003
3. Planning Board Staff Report, July 28, 2003 (without attachments)
4. AppIicant's Window Overlay Study
5. Applicant's Fence Proposal, 3- Sheets
6. Letter of Objections to the Applicant's Fence Proposal by Sharon Bamhart
Avenue, September 7, 2003
7. Arborist's Report by Arbortech Tree Care Inc., September 17, 2003
8. Applicant's Amended Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation Plan, and Window
August 24, 2003
G:\ PIANNINGIP .B.VREPORTS1200314DR020161 SUP
f: DR02 -0161
Alameda Planning Board
Supplemental Staff Report
Meeting of November 10, 2003
of 1413 San Antonio
Alignment Diagram,
Page 3
8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8 -A. DR02 -0161 — Li -Sheng Fu for Tam Nguyen — 1510 Encinal Avenue (DB). The
applicant requests Major Design Review to allow the demolition of a two -story
single - family dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two duplexes. The
newly created dwelling units would consist of three two - bedroom units and one
three - bedroom unit Eight off - street parking spaces would be provided for the
housing complex, in conformance with the parking standards of the Alameda
Municipal Code. The site is located within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential
Zoning District. (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of September 22,
2003.)
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report. He advised that the project met all parking and
zoning requirements, and was consistent with Measure A. The Board previously requested
that the applicant address eight design issues, which were listed on the staff report. He noted
that the applicant has complied with all eight requests. The applicant has attempted to meet
with all the neighbors to discuss the fencing issue around the property. The neighbors
indicated that they were not willing to have their own fences extended as proposed by the
applicant, and wished that their own fences be left alone. They requested that the applicant
build his own eight foot high fence according to City standards; the applicant was willing to
build those fences. The applicant would build a three foot high wood fence between his
property and the adjacent commercial property. Staffrecommended approval of this project.
In response to Vice President Bard's question regarding the three foot fence, Mr. Brighton
confirmed that the fence would be built on the higher side of the grade.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Mr. Brighton noted that Mr. Jaber's request for a
wrought iron fence was presented to staff, not to the applicant.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that
this project was Largely surrounded by single family units. He stated that five of the six units
were zoned R -1, and the sixth was zoned R -4, with a commercial building on one side. He
noted that the applicants did not address any of the items regarding the window alignment
(Issue 42). He noted that the neighbors would lose any private use of their back yards
because of the window placement. He read the arborist's report, and did not concur with it as
much as staff did. He did not believe the arborist's recommendation ofpruning was specific
enough, and added that there were several different types ofpruning. He was most concerned
about crown thinning, which would cut up to one -third of the branches. He suggested that a
new eight foot fence so that it would not fall down.
Planning Board Minutes Page 9
November 10, 2003
Attachment #5
Mr. Ron Wong, 1512 Encinal Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and supported the
eight foot fence in the back, and a six foot fence extending to the front of the house.
Ms. Susan Jaber, noted that she would speak on behalf of her father, Jawad Jaber, who was
the owner of 1504 Encinal Avenue. He took great pride in the condition and quality of his
buildings, and was concerned about the proposed project. Some of his concerns had been
addressed from the last meeting, and he was pleased to see the curved driveway design. He
was pleased that the Japanese maple tree would be saved, and that a three foot fence and
bollards would be placed against the side of the building. Based on the high probabilility of
vehicular damage to the building by a minimum of 16 daily vehicle movements, each vehicle
would be required to drive forward into the driveway. She hoped that the tenants would
follow that directive. She invited the Board members to see the vehicular damage to the
building. She would like to see a 4 inch -by -4 -inch wrought iron fence, which would protect
both sides of the property from vehicular damage.
In response to Ms. Jaber's question whether bollards would be placed at the rear of the
building, President Piziali noted that the back of the property was too small for a car.
Mr. James Blamire, 1409 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed
that the developers were attempting to use a loophole to have a four unit complex so that it
would be allowable under Measure A. He noted that the daycare center has been abandoned
for over a year. He had requested information from the Planning Department on this issue,
but had not received it. He noted that this project would have a negative impact on the
neighbors, and added that all seven neighbors had protested it.
In response to Mr. Blamire's question regarding the exception provided in Measure A for this
project, Ms. Altschuler replied that the project consisted of two duplexes, and was
permissible under Measure A. She described the allowable buildings on lots of various sizes.
Mr. Blamire requested the documentation for that interpretation of Measure A.
Mr. William Smith, Sierra Club, 2822 Bayview Drive, spoke in support of this item, and
supported infill developments in the downtown area. He had reviewed Measure A very
closely, and agreed with staff that this project complied with the requirements of Measure A.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch requested staff s opinion with respect to the request for a wrought iron fence.
Planning Board Minutes Page 10
November 10, 2003
Mr. Brighton advised that staff was neutral on that issue, and added that the client was
concerned about the expenses that he has incurred in response to the Zoning and Design
review standards.
Mr. Lynch believed that cost was part of the due diligence in building a development. He
noted that the repeated replacement of a wood fence may approach or exceed the cost of a
wrought iron fence. He would support an additional condition of approval for a wrought iron
fence.
In response to Vice President Bard's question whether this project met the landscaping
requirement down the side of sideways, Mr. Brighton confirmed that it did comply. Staff
would ensure that there would be one foot of landscaping between the driveway and the
fence.
A discussion of pruning methods ensued.
President Piziali suggested that the arborist do a walk- through of the property with City staff.
He did not believe the walk - through should be done with the neighbors.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question regarding fee schedules for arborists, Ms. Altschuler
replied that the arborist consulted with the City, and provided information on the City's street
trees and park trees as well.
Ms. Altschuler emphasized that the current requirement or limitation to removing any parts
of the trees were associated with this development, and that it was not in perpetuity.
Vice President Bard noted that he would like the wrought iron fence to be both durable and
attractive.
President Piziali requested staff's assistance in designing a fence at a reasonable cost.
Ms. Altschuler expressed concern that a three foot metal fence may not contain a fast - moving
vehicle.
Mr. Brighton suggested extending the bollards.
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Jaber suggested that the fence should be four -by -four with thick gauge posts.
The public hearing was closed for further Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes Page 11
November 10, 2003
President Piziali suggested that the wrought iron fence should have the main support posts
four feet on center.
Ms. Altschuler suggested that the Board allow staff to device a design for a metal barrier
between the driveway and the garage, and that further discussion be held for the design.
Li -Sheng Fu, project architect, thanked the Board and the neighbors for their comments. He
believed the three foot metal fence along the commercial property may be too big to make it
attractive. He believed that a speed limit sign may be placed on the driveway as well.
M/S Bard/Cunningham and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -03 -57 to
approve Major Design Review to allow the demolition of a two -story single- family
dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling
units would consist of three two - bedroom units and one three - bedroom unit. Eight off-street
parking spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the parking
standards of the Alameda Municipal Code. The following modifications would be added:
1. A six -foot fence would be built on the east property line down to the front
edge of the building;
2. An eight -foot fence would be built around the back of the property, to include
all of the neighbors abutting the rear yard;
3. Staff would work with the applicant on a metal barrier that would be built
between the driveway and the commercial property; and
4. The curbing would be added along the driveway,
5. The City arborist would certify that there was a one -year review to be
performed properly, to ensure healthy trees and privacy.
6. No pruning would be done to raise the canopy and/or thin the canopy.
AYES — 6; NOES — 0; ABSTAIN —1 (Mariani)
President Piziali called for a ten minute break.
Planning Board Minutes Page 12
November 10, 2003
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Letter from James Blamire, May 23, 2003 (without attachments)
3. Letter from Ronald Wong (owner of 1512 Encinal Avenue), February 18, 2003
4. Letter from John & Lynn Faris (owners of 1417 San Antonio Avenue), February 14, 2003
5. Letter from Jawad H. Jaber (owner of Commercial Complex at 1504 Encinal Avenue),
February 14, 2003
6. Group letter, February 11, 2003
7. Photographic Delineation of the Proposed Project
8. Sit Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation Plans, drawn by Lung HWA Associates
ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
9 -C
Major Design Review DR02-0161 - Fu, Li -Sheng for Tam Nguyen
- 1510 Encinal Avenue. The applicant requests Major Design
Review to allow the demolition of a two -story single - family
dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two duplexes. The
newly created dwelling units would consist of three two - bedroom
units and one three- bedroom unit. Eight off - street parking spaces
would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the
parking standards of the Alameda Municipal Code. The site is
located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Medium Density Residential
Staff recommends that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act review under Section 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines, Modification to Existing Buildings.
Dennis Brighton, Planner 11
Approve design review with conditions
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The proposal includes the following:
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
1
Attachment #6
a. A partial demolition of the building, retaining approximately 30 percent of the front portion
of the building.
b. Moving the remaining front portion of the building approximately 6 -feet closer to the front of
the lot, while maintaining a complying 20 -foot front yard setback.
c. Removing the existing driveway and curbcut and restoring the sidewalk and curb.
d. Relocating the driveway closer to the commercial complex at the westerly side of the
property. The new driveway would maintain a conforming 1 -foot wide landscape strip
between the commercial property and the 10 -foot wide driveway.
e. Constructing two, two -story duplexes on the site to match the architectural characteristics of
the original residential structure. One duplex would be located in the front of the lot and
would incorporate the retained frontage of the original residence. The other duplex would be
located at the rear of the lot and would be designed to match the architectural characteristics
of the front building. The front duplex would consist of two, two - bedroom units. The rear
duplex would contain one, two bedroom unit and one, three- bedroom unit.
f. All yard setbacks would be conforming, with side yard setbacks exceeding current standards.
The side yard setback on the front building would be 7.5 feet, where 7 feet is required. The
side yard setback on the rear building is a conforming 10 feet and 7 feet from the commercial
property.
g. Eight full -size, off - street parking spaces would be provided in conformance with City
standards. Six of the parking spaces would be provided in covered and attached carports and
two parking spaces would be accommodated in the landscaped open space between the
structures. The unenclosed parking spaces would be buffered from the adjacent residence by
an approximately 15 -foot wide landscaped area, which would retain an existing mature tree.
h. All existing mature oak trees on the property would be retained.
i. Conforming open space would be provided for all dwelling units.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Existing Site Conditions
The subject property is 9,207 square feet and is shaped like an inverted "L" with the narrow leg
fronting on Encinal Avenue. The original two- story, single - family residence was built in 1938 and is
a simple, contemporary architectural style reminiscent of many pre and post -war residences. The
building was converted to a day -care facility (i.e., Peter Pan School) in 1974. The school was
structurally expanded in 1974, 1977, and 1982. Portions of the rear and side of the property were
devoted to playground use. '
B. Surrounding Land Use
The properties surrounding 1510 Encinal Avenue are a mixture of uses that include commercial,
single - family residential, duplexes and multi - family dwellings of varying story heights and
architectural styles.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
2
North (1513 Encinal, across Encinal Avenue)
complex.
— Two- story, eight unit, modern apartment
West (left side) — Commercial /office complex
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District.
. Contemporary architectural style. C -1,
South (right side) — Victorian, two -story (plus), single - family residence.
East (rear, 1413 San Antonio Avenue) — Single- story, single - family residence.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff analysis of the project identified the following issues: compliance with Measure A; a summary
table of compliance with development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, usable open space,
parking, landscaping, and building height; detailed explanation of compliance with parking and open
space standards; architectural character; Planning Board infill policy; responses to neighbors'
comments, and Design Review findings. Each is discussed in the following section.
Compliance with Measure A
The proposal is consistent with Measure A. The proposed 4- residential units contained within two -
duplexes, would be located on a 9,207 square foot parcel, where Alameda City Charter, Article
XXVI requires a minimum of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit and a maximum of two units per
building. The proposal complies with both of these standards.
Compliance with Development Standards for Height, Lot Coverage, and Setbacks (Summary Table)
Description
AMC Standard
Project Measure
Comparison
Front Setback
20 feet minimum
20 feet
Complies
Side Setbacks (front bldg)
7 feet minimum
7.5 feet
Complies
Side Setbacks (rear bldg)
10 feet minimum
10 feet
Complies
Rear Setback
20 feet minimum
20 feet
Complies
Lot Coverage
50% Maximum
23.78%
Complies
Usable Open Space
1600 sq. ft. minimum
2,545 sq. ft.
Complies
Parking
1.75 spaces for 3
dwelling units = 5
spaces. Plus 2 spaces
for 1 dwelling unit =
2 spaces for a total of
7 spaces.
8 full -size spaces
Complies
Parking Landscaping
3 feet minimum
3 feet/15 feet
Complies
Building Height
35 feet maximum
23 feet
Complies
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
3
The proposal is consistent with the development standards for height and lot coverage. The
proposed height of the building would be approximately 23 feet, where 35 feet is the maximum
height permitted in the R -4 Zoning District. The main building lot coverage would be approximately
21 percent, where 50% is the required maximum for the R -4 Zoning District.
All required yard setbacks are conforming. The front duplex would maintain a conforming 20 -foot
front yard setback, with a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet. The rear duplex would maintain a
conforming rear -yard of 20 feet and conforming side yard setbacks between 7 and 10 feet.
Parking
A total of eight full size parking spaces would be provided. The parking would also be designed so
that the vehicles could enter and exit the property in the forward direction.
Open Space
The project conforms to open space requirements by proposing a total of approximately 2,545 square
feet of usable open space, where a total of 1,600 square feet of open space is required by AMC. This
proposal provides private open space as follows:
Front Duplex:
a. Approximately 120 square feet of private open space for the front lower unit;
b. Approximately 70 square feet of private open space for the second upper -floor unit.
Rear Duplex:
• Approximately 160 square feet of private open space for each dwelling unit.
Approximately 345 square feet of common open space would be provided between the two
buildings.
Architectural Character
The applicant proposes to utilize the existing building facade in the front building and construct the
rear building in the same design format as the original building. This approach would maintain the
architectural character of the site. A throughway at the rear building would also reduce the
appearance of building mass, by maximizing the appearance of open space.
The height of the completed buildings would be little changed from existing conditions. The
addition to the structure would have siding, which would match the existing siding.
Planning Board Infill Policy
On April 22, 1996 the Planning Board adopted policy guidelines for infill residential development.
The following section compares policies (in bold) with the staff determination regarding meeting the
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
4
standard. New housing on residential lots should•
a. have the same level of architectural interest and detail as the existing adjacent
residences; the proposal extends the architectural features of the existing residence, which is
compatible with the adjacent residences;
b. have parking which is convenient and practical to use, with vehicles exiting nose first
where there is a long, narrow driveway; the six parking spaces enclosed in carports and
the two unenclosed parking spaces between the buildings would all be full sized spaces. The
parking layout would permit parking to enter and exit in a forward direction. The driveway
would be 10 -feet wide in order to limit the displacement of on street parking. The AMC
requires that the maximum driveway width be 10 feet. This driveway conforms to AMC
standards. Therefore, staff believes that the parking would be convenient and practical to
use.
c. have open spaces in which hardscape is not the dominant element of open space areas,
and would be clearly distinguished from driveways and parking, with open space areas
being appropriate for use as outdoor recreation areas; the open space areas would be
landscaped and separated from driveways and parking which would be concrete. Three
mature oak trees and one cedar tree would be retained to maintain the historical appearance
of the site;
d. have existing problems of property maintenance or code violations corrected; there are
no existing code violations at this site.
Neighbors' Comments
Staff has provided mailed public notice of this project on two occasions. A number of written
comments have been generated as a result of the early notifications. As a response to these
comments the applicant had been very cooperative and redesigned the project three times. The final
plan set represents the applicant's attempts to downsize the proposal from two duplexes with
between 3 and 4 bedroom units to a proposal with three of the units containing 2 bedrooms and one
unit containing 3 bedrooms. Side yard setbacks have been increased and parking is being proposed
to accommodate 8 -full size parking spaces.
Much of the correspondence objects to any other use for the site other than replacement with a
single - family residence. However, the proposal for multiple units complies with zoning standards
and is in conformance with Measure A. -
The adjacent commercial property owner objects to the placement of the driveway adjacent to his
commercial building and wishes to assure the protection of his drainage easement with 1510 Encinal
Avenue. While it is possible to protect the drainage easement through conditions of approval, staff
believes the location of the driveway adjacent to the commercial complex is a better solution than
locating the driveway abutting the property of the adjacent single - family residence. The applicant is
proposing to install bollards to protect the commercial property from vehicular related damage. The
proposed parking and circulation would also provide minimal impacts on the adjacent residential
properties by providing a landscaped buffer zone between the parking and residential property and by
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
5
retaining a mature cedar tree located between the two properties.
Design Review Findings
The following findings are required for approval of the Major Design Review application:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
Staff can make this finding. The proposed design maintains the architectural integrity of the
existing structure and the retention of the three mature oak trees and the cedar tree would
maintain the historical appearance of the site. In addition, the proposed provision of eight
full size parking spaces and a 10 -foot wide driveway would minimize the demand for
additional parking.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
Staff can make this finding. The proposed two - duplexes are compatible with this mixed -use
neighborhood. The retention of the original architectural character of the original building
and most of the mature trees on the site would create a more harmonious transition to the
proposed use.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
Staff can make this finding. The proposed addition would utilize the same style and
materials as the existing residence/school and retain most of the mature trees on the site,
which is consistent with the neighborhood.
4. The project will be consistent with the City's Will Guidelines.
Staff can make this finding. The new unit will maintain the existing architecture, the project
will have sufficient parking, the project will have developed landscaped open space, and
there are no existing code violations.
6. The project complies with all zoning development requirements as set out in the zoning
ordinance.
Staff can make this finding. The proposal complies with Measure A, development standards
for building height, lot coverage, parking, and open space. Pursuant to conditions of
approval, the proposal would comply with all other setback requirements.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
6
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all available testimony and
information, review the administrative record, and approve Major Design Review, DR02 -0161, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Resolution.
GS PLANNINGTB \REPORTS\2002 \4DR020161
f: DR02 -0161
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 28, 2003
7
Tam Nguyen
1510 Encinal Ave
Alameda CA
For
Tam Nguyen
September 17, 2003
By
Ronald E. Carden ISA Certified Arborist # WC -3445
ARBORTECH TREE CARE INC.
RD. Box 3188
Hayward CA. 94540 -3188
(800) 809-8733
0
Attachment #7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
Assignment 1 -2
Pruning - Mature Trees 3
Appendix 4
Species Abbreviations 5 -6
Tree Inventory 7
Terminology SA
Tree Protection Plan 10
References 11
Terms of Assignment 12
ASS1GNMrENT
ASSIGMNENT
An assignment has been requested by Tam Nguyen to determine what, if any, negative
impact shall occur to the 3 existing Oak trees and 1 existing Redwood tree. In
addition, respond to questions raised by Planing department and make
recommendations with respect to minimizing impact to existing trees.
OBSERVATIONS
Trees are in fair to good health and have been fairly maintained over the years. Some
prior pruning cuts on the Oak trees have not healed well due to poor pruning practice
and subsequent decay has occurred. Soil elevation on 2 of the Oak trees has been
slightly raised and a cement play structure was constructed around the base of tree
#313. A root flare excavation was performed on these 2 trees and the results and
recommendations can be found in the report appendix.
DISCUSSION
Based on my site observation and review of construction plans with Mr. Nguyen it is
my determination that minimal negative impact shall occur due to proposed
constriction if consideration is given to certain aspects of the project. Suggestions and
recommendations shall be presented for considerations base on my site inspection and
review of plans with Mr. Nguyen and the design architect. General recommendations
shall be discussed in this section of the report and specific recommendations by tree
can be found in the recommendation section of the inventory list and any additional
specific issues shall be outlined in the appendix. It is my recommendation that a tree
protection plan should be in place during the construction period and the plan should
be adhered to and reviewed by all subcontractors on site. (See attached tree protection
plan). Excavations or trenching of any kind within the drip line of the trees should be
under the direction of a Certified Arborist and if roots are encountered appropriate
measures should be taken to minimize damage to the root systems; Limb removal (if
necessary), shall only be performed by a qualified tree trimmer under the direction of a
Certified Arborist.
Pier and grade beam foundation construction or similar appropriate methods for
spanning root systems should be used where possible in areas where foundation is
within the drip -line of the tree. No major buttress roots should be cut or removed
without the express consent and under the direction of a Certified Arborist. Care
should be taken when excavating or drilling for piers as to not damage major roots. If
roots are encountered or damaged during drilling or excavation work should
discontinue in that area and a Certified Arborist should inspect and repair damage.
Tress should be properly pruned (See information on pruning of mature trees) prior to
work start and a thin layer of chip material should be placed on top of root system to
protect from soil compaction and root desiccation during the construction period.
Periodic hand watering 1 -2 times a week during summer months or dry seasons is
recommended. In addition an annual application of liquid fertilizer (Soil Drench or
Injection) would help to prevent stress during the construction period. Pedestrian
Arbart®6 Two Care Inc P.O. Box 3188 Hayward CA 94540 -3188 Ph: 510- 538 -1848 Fac:510-537 -1626
traffic including but not limited to construction workers should be directed away from
and around areas directly beneath the tree canopy and no materials of any kind should
be allowed to be stored under or within the drip -line of the trees.
Areas where flat cement is required such as walk paths, patios, decks, porch's etc.
alternative porous or more permeable materials should be considered within the drip -
line of the trees in order to allow oxygen and water to be more readily available to the
root system.
2
Azbortoh Tree Care Inc P.O. Box 3188 Hayward CA 94540 -3188 Ptc 510- 538•1808 Emc510-537 -1626
Pruning — Mature Trees
A. CROWN CLEANING
Crown cleating or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly
attached, and low-vigor branches and waterspouts frame tree crown.
B. CROWN THINNING
Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase
light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light stimulates and maintains
interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind
sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. 'Thinning the crown can emphasize the
structural beauty of the tank and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the
tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should
more than one -third of the foliage be removed.
At least one -half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two - thirds oftbe
tree. Likewise, when thinning laterals fidtn a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner
lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and
branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a
branch.
An effect known as "Lion's - Tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches.
,Removal of to many interior limbs and or inner foliage displaces the weight to the ends of the
branches often weakening branch suocnne and increasing limb breakage.
C. CROWN REDUCTION
Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most
effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the
time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should
be at least one -half the diameter of the cut being made.
D. CROWN RESTORATION
Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or
severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be
selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be
*armed to a lateral, or even beaded, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate
atrachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several pnmings over a number
of years.
E. CROWN RAISING
Crown raising removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for
buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and views. It is important that a tree have at
least one -ball of its foliage an the branches tbat originate in the lower two - thirds of its crown
to insure a well- fanned, tapered structure and to uniformly distributes stress within a tree.
When pinning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the three
rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown.
Courtesy of the International Society of Arboriculture
APPENDIX
TREE # 310 OAK Ouercus vhillvreoides
OBSERVATIONS
Tree is located near the front left comer of the existing building in a slightly raised planter.
Ivy has been planted around the base of the tree and slightly leaning toward the building. A
root flair inspection was performed to determine if root damage or disease had developed due
to Ivy and 611 material being placed around base of tree.
RESULTS OF ROOT FAIR INSPECTION
No significant root damage or disease was detected.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend pruning tree prior to commencing work. Follow guidelines outlined in tree
protection plan and Discussion section of Assignment primarily those issues pertaining to but
not limited to alternative materials, Foundation types and construction traffic. Additional
recommendations are outlined and should be considered such as deep root fertilization,
mulching and periodic watering during hot or dry season. Due to the close proximity of the
construction it will be necessary to work inside the RPZ of this tree. Special care should be
taken including but not limited to discussions between a Certified Arborist and construction
people working within the RPZ as to instructions on how not to cause damage to the tree.
'TREE # 313 OAK Ouercus vhillvreoides
Tree is located right rear corner of proposed construction. Soil has been raised around base of
tree and a concrete and wood play structure was constructed around base of tree. Play area
was removed by others and a root flair inspection ws performed to determine if root damage
or disease had developed due to soil and cement being placed over root system.
RESULTS OF ROOT FLAIR IO PECTION
No significant root damage or disease was detected however long term effects of this
condition could lead to decline and or failure in the future. See Reconunendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend pruning tree prior to commencing work. Excess soil and other foreign material
should be carefully removed under the direction of a Certified Arborist. Follow guidelines
outlined in tree protection plan and Discussion section of Assignmem primarily those issues
pertaining to but not limited to alternative materials, Foundation types and construction
traffic. Additional recommendations are outlined and should be considered such as deep root
fertilization, mulching and periodic watering during hot or dry season It will be necessary to
remove 1 small branch approximately 5" diameter to allow for construction. This limb is
poorly developed and has decay present on the lower portion of limb and should be removed
regardless of construction for safety purposes.
4
Abbrev
SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS
Botanical Name
Coalmen* Name
Ac
Aesculus californita
California Buckeye
L Aj
Albizia julibrissin
Silk Tree
Alt ______
Am
Maus Rhumb& lia
White Alder
___
Maim Melanoxylon
Black Acacia . . ___.
Japanese Maple
Red Maple
Ap
Ar
Acer palmatum .
Ater rubrum
As
Acer saccharinum
Silver Maple
Bp
Betula pendula
European White Birch
Cc
Cinnamomum camphors
Camphor
Cd
Dedrus deadara
Deodar Cedar
Cdc
Calocedrus decurrens
Incense Cedar
0
Citrus species
Orange
h._
Csp
Cupprcssus species
Cypress
Ds
Diospyros species
Persimmon
Ej
Eriobotrya japonica
Loquat
Ep
Eucalyptus polyanthemos
Silver Dollar Eucalyptus
F
Fraxinus species
Mb species
Fs
Ficus species
Fig
J.
Jr
in
Ej
Jacaranda acutifolia _ _
.....
Juglans regia
Juglans hindsii
.Lingustruva japonicum
jacaranda
________._______
English Walnut
California Black Walnut
Privit
Ls
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liquidasubar or Sweet Gum
Ma
Mono alba "Fruitless"
Fruitless Mulberry
1 Mf
MMus floribunda
Japanese Fluwering Crabapple
SMg
Oc
Metasequola glyptostrobotdes
_ Magnolia grandiflora
Olta Europa
Dawn Redwood
Sohern ut Magrudia
Olive
n
Plata:ills Racemosa
California SVC-S[110M
Pa
Prunus amenities'
Apricot
Canary Island Pine
Plum
Pc
Pce
Pious Canariansis
Prunus cnasifera
Pd
Prunus dulcis
Almond
Pg
Punica granaturn
,
Pomegranate ...
5
Abbitv
SPECIES ABBREVIATIONS
Botanical Name
Common Name
Pr Mons radiam
Ps Pri111115 serrula fa
Pt Pin u Ihuubugisn
Qu a
Qu do
Qu ke
Qu *4)
Qii ph
Qu sp.
Rh Ca
Quercus agrifulia
Quercus
Qantas kelloggii
Quercus Labata
Quern's phillyreoides
Quercus Sp.
ralifornicse
Monterey Pine
Cherry
Japanese Black Pine
Coast Live Oak
Blue Oak
Black Oak
Valley Oak
Mount Oak
Oak
California Csiffeeberry
Rp Robinia pscudoacacia .
Sa sp SaWc p.
Sam Mt Sanibucits mexicana
Sm Skimp. Milar
Mack Locust
Ss Sequoia sempervirons
sitinus terehlutkiinlius Brazilian _Pepper
---1
Blue Elderberry
. ...... .
California Pepper
I 1 Ta Uhn us americana Evergreen Elm
Umbrellularia californica California Bay
Washiolosiim ruluisi ic
a Mexan Pam l
_...,..
Tree#
ARBORTECH TREE CARE INC.
1510 Enthral
Species DBH Height Vigor Prior Comments/Recommendations
310 Qp 23" 55' 4 Tree should be premed prior to construction.
Care should be taken not to damage tree
during construction. See Appendix notes.
Further guidelines me outlined in discussion
section of assignment and tree protection plan.
311 Ss 17 50' 4 Light pruning is recommended prior to
construction. Care should be taken not to
damage tree. See guidelines in discussion
section of assignment and tree protection plan
312 Qp 24" 45 4 Tree is leaning toward the rear of the property.
Corrective Priming is recommended prior to
construction. Care should be taken not to
damage tree. See guidelines in discussion
section of assignment and tree protection plan
313 Qp 26" 45' Tree should be pruned prior to construction.
Care should be taken not to damage tree
during construction. See Appendix notes.
Further guidelines are outlined in discussion
section of assignment and tree protection plan.
TERMINOLOGY
Adventitious roots
Root tissue that develops from newly organized meristems; sometimes
associated with fill and or stem decay.
Aerial inspection
An examination ofthe trunk and branches in the upper portions of the tree,
to determine stability, presence of disease, decay, etc.
Box cable
A system of cables that connect the main limbs of a multi - branched tree
thatpennits movement of individual branches with safe limits.
Butt Rot
root crown are
Decay in lower trunk arm a
Buttress root
A large woody root located at the base of the trunk (the root crown).
Branch Taper
Relative change in diameter with length; reflects ability of stem or branch
to evenly distribute stress along its length
Canopy
The live foliage bearing part of the tree -
Cavity
An open wound, characterized by the presence of extensive decay and
resulting in a hollow.
Codosoinant
Equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with scaffold
limbs I the crown.
Compartmentalize
Physiological processes whicb creates the chemical and mechanical
boundaries that act to limit the spread of disease and decay organisms.
Crack
Longitudinal split in the stem, involving bark, cambium and xylem; may
be vertically and horizontally oriented.
DBH
Diameter of the trunk, measured at breast height (54" above the ground). If
the three has multiple trunks, measurements were taken at the narrowest
point between the ground and the division of the trunks.
Deca
Process of degradation of woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through
deco.. , osition of cellulose and li: 'n
Defect
Any structural weakness or deformity.
Die back
Death of shoots and branches, generally from tip to base_
Drip lice
The width of the crown, as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage.
Embedded Bark
Pattern of' development at branch junctions where back is turned inward
rather than pushed out (Same as Included bark)
End weight reduction
The removal of concentrations of foliage at the distal end of the branches.
Lateral
A side branch or twig.
!Warding
Tree cut back to essentially the same point seasonally, resulting in multiple
sprouts above the cuts.
Root collar
Area at the base of the tree where roots and stem merge (Same as Root
Crown).
Root crown inspection
Extensive examination of the junction of the root and stem, and the area
below, aimed at determining stability, presence of disease, decay, etc.
Scaffold
Primary structural branch of the crown.
Scan or injuries
Natural or man -made lesions of the bark in which wood is exposed.
Structural Defect
Internal or external points of weakness which reduce the stability of the
tree
8
TERMINOLOGY
Target
Any person or object within reach of a falling tree, or part of a tree, that
may be injured or damaged.
Thinning
Pruning technique where branches are removed at their point of origin or to
a large lateral (at least one -half the diameter ofthe removed branch).
Topping
The severe reduction of branches without consideration of the
specifications for cutting back. This is generally considered to be an
undesirable practice.
Overall health, capacity to grow and resist physiological stress.
Vigor
Water sprout
A vigorous shoot arising from the above- ground portion of the tree or
above thefiratt union.
Wound
Any injury which induces a compartmentalization response.
9
Tam Nguyen
1510 Encinal Ave
Alameda CA
Tree Protection Plan
Summary of tree preservation measures
Mr. Nguyen and his design team have taken evety effort to reduce the amount of impact to the
surounding trees and root system thereof. The location of existing tree within the project has
taken a direct impact on how the project design has been modified to retain the trees.
Measures to protect existing trees daring construction
In order to minimize damage to the existing Oak tree by the construction, the project will
observe the following measures during construction:
1. All construction activity (grading, filling, paving, landscaping etc.) shall respect a root
protection zone (RPZ) around all trees. The RPZ should be a distance of 1.0 times the
dripline radius measured from the trunk of the tree. Exception to this standard could be
considered on a case -by -case bases provided that h is demonstrated that an encroachment
into the RPZ will not affect the root system or the health of the tree, and it is authorized by
a certified Arborist or comparable specialist.
2. Temporary protective fencing shall be installed around the 'hipline of existing trees prior
to commencement of any construction activity conducted. within 25' of tree canopy. The
fence shall be clearly marked to prevent inadvertent encroachment by heavy machinery.
3. Drainage will not be allowed to pond around the base of any tree.
4. An Arborist or tree specialist shall be retained to perform any necessary pruning of trees
during construction activity.
5. Should any utility lines encroach within the tree protection zone, a single, shared utility
conduit shall be used where possible to avoid negative impact to trees.
6. Roots exposed, as a result of construction activities shall be covered with wet burlap to
avoid desiccation, and should be buried as soon as practicable.
7. Construction materials or heavy equipment shall not be stored within the root protection
zone.
8. Only a Certified Arborist or Tree specialist will make specific recommendations as to
where any existing trees can safely tolerate some level of fill within the drip line.
9. Trenches which are required within the root protection zone of existing native trees shall
be bored (tunneled) under the root(s) using an auger or drill, rather than trenched, to avoid
root disturbance.
10. Construction materials shall be properly stored away from existing trees to avoid spillage
or damage to trees.
11. A 2 " -3" layer of chip material shall be placed over root system of trees during
construction period to protect root system and help to retain moisture during construction
period.
10
REFERENCES
Costello, C. Nelsen, B. and Jones, D. 1999 Recognizing Tree Hazards A Photographic Guide
for the homeowner. University of California Press.
Flint, M. 1, and dreistadt, S. 1998. Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to
Biological Pest Control. University of California Press.
Barris R.W., Clark, J. and Matheny, N. 1991 arborculture: Integrated Management of
Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. Paintice Hall, Third Edition.
Hickman, G. and Perry, E. 1997. Ten Common Wood Decay Fungi on California
Landscaping. Western Chapter I.S. A.
Johnson, W. and Lyon, H. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Cornell University
Press.
Matheny, N.P. and Clark, J.R. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hagasd
Trees in Urban Areas. International Society of Arborculture, Savoy, IL.
Mattheck, C 1997 Design in Nature, Springer.
Petridis, G 1988. Eastern Trees. Houghton Mifflin.
Shigo, A. 1991. Modern Arborculture. Shigo and Trees Associates.
Sinclair, W., Lyon, H., and Johnson, W. 1987. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Cornell
University Press.
Various. 1995. Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Company.
11
Tam Nguyen
1510 Encinal Ave
Alameda CA
TERMS OF ASSIGNMENT
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining
to the consultations, inspections and activities of Arbortech Tree Care Inc_
1. All property lines and ownership of property, trees, and landscape plants and fixhtres are assumed
to be accurate and reliable as presented and described to the consults* either verbally or in
writing. The consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of
property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.
2. It is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in conjunction with any services
performed by Arbortech Tree Care Inc. is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances,
statues, or otter governmental regulations, and that any titres and ownership to any property are
assumed to be good and marketable. Arty existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded.
3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential, and are the property of Arbortech Tree Care
Inc. and its named clients and their assigns or agents. Possession of this report or a copy therof
does not imply any right of publication or use for any purpose, without the express permission of
the consultant and the client to whom the report was issued. Lou, removal or akerafion of any part
of a report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically
mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Arbortech Tree Care Inc. and their consultants
assume no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. The
consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not
specifically requested by the named client.
5. All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection,
excavation, probing, boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report. No
warrantee or guarantee is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants
or the properly will not occur in the future, from any cause. The consultant shall not be responsible
for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction ofdefects
or tree related problems.
6. The consultant shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed,
of to attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are
made, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the consultant or in
the fee schedules or contract.
7. Arbortech Tree Care Inc. Makes no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of
the information contained in the reports for any purpose. It remains the responsibility of the client
to determine applicability to his/her particular case.
8. Any report and the value, observations, and recommendations expressed therein represent the
professional opinion of the consultant and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported.
9. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches or other graphic material included in any report,
being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as
engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the reports. Any reproductions of graphic
material or the work product of any other persons is intended solely for the purpose of clarification
and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information does not constitute a representation by
Arbortech Tree Care Inc. or the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information.
Payment teens are net payable upon receipt of invoice. All balances due beyond 30 days of
invoice dates will be charged a service fee of 1.5 percent per month (I8.0 %APR). All checks
returned for insufficient funds or any other reason will be subject to a $25.00 service fee. Advance
payment of fees may be required in some cases.
Arbortech Tree Care Inc.
12 Ronald E. Carden, Consultant
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR02 -016I, AT 1510 ENCINAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on December 17, 2002 by Li -Sheng Fu for Tam
Nguyen, requesting a Major Design Review to allow for the partial demolition of a two -story single -
family dwelling/daycare facility and the construction of two duplexes. The newly created dwelling
units would consist of three two - bedroom units and one three - bedroom unit. Eight off - street parking
spaces would be provided for the housing complex, in conformance with the parking standards of the
Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on June 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium - Density Residential in the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 28, and
jcontinued to November 10, 2003, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents and
conditionally approved the application; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2003, John Faris filed an appeal to the action of the Planning
Board; and
U
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing and examined
pertinent documents as well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered staff responses to the bases of the appellants'
appeal as set out in the staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that there
are 110 merits to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Design Review application:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This fmding can be made. The proposed design maintains the architectural integrity of the
existing structure and the retention of the three mature oak trees and the cedar tree would
maintain the historical appearance of the site. In addition, the proposed provision of eight
full size parking spaces and a 10 -foot wide driveway would minimize the demand for
additional parking.
Resolution # 5 -C
1 -6 -04
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This finding can be made. The proposed two - duplexes are compatible with this mixed -use
neighborhood. The retention of the original architectural character of the original building
and most of the mature trees on the site would create a more harmonious transition to the
proposed use.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed addition would utilize the same style and materials
as the existing residence /school and retain most of the mature trees on the site, which is
consistent with the neighborhood.
4. The project will be consistent with the City's Infill Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The new unit will maintain the existing architecture, the project
will have sufficient parking, the project will have developed landscaped open space, and
there are no existing code violations.
6. The project complies with all zoning development requirements as set out in the zoning
ordinance.
This finding can be made. The proposal complies with Measure A, development standards
for building height, lot coverage, parking, and open space. Pursuant to conditions of
approval, the proposal would comply with all other setback requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council disaapproves the appeal and upholds
the Planning Board's conditional approval of Design Review, DR02 -0161 for the construction of two
duplexes, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plans submitted for the Building Permit and Final Design Review shall be in
substantial compliance with the plans titled "Unit Addition @ 1510 Encinal
Avenue... "prepared by Lung HWA Associates, dated December 14, 2002, as last revised on
August 24, 2003, consisting of 4- sheets, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the City
of Alameda Planning Department, except as modified by the following conditions:
2. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
and Building Permit approval shall be obtained and construction must begin, under valid
permits by June 6, 2004, unless the applicant applies for and is granted a six (6) month
extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one (1) extension may be
granted.
3. This project shall be reviewed by the Planning Board (1) year from the date of this approval
or by January 6, 2005.
4. Prior to final design review/building permit approval a survey shall be completed by a
licensed surveyor in order to assure that all required setbacks are met and that all fence
installations shall be retained on the property of 1510 Encinal Avenue. The survey shall
define the location of the existing fences that separate the properties in order to assure that all
fence improvements are located on 1510 Encinal Avenue. No fence/barrier alterations shall
occur on fences located on other properties.
5. Plans submitted for building permit approval and Final Design Review shall contain a
landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a registered landscape architect to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Building. This plan shall conform to landscaping and
irrigation requirements of AMC, Article IV (Water Conservation Landscaping).
6. Plans submitted for building permit approval and Final Design Review shall show the
following fence installations, which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building:
a. An 8 -foot high wood "good neighbor" style fence shall be constructed around the
perimeter of the rear yard. The top 2 -feet of this fence shall be lattice, pursuant to the
requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code.
b. A 6 -foot high wood "good neighbor" style fence shall be constructed along the side
of the property (between 1510 and 1512 Encinal Avenue). This fence shall extend no
further past the front facade of 1512 Encinal Avenue.
c. A 3 -foot high iron fence shall be constructed between the properties of 1510 Encinal
and 1500 Encinal Avenue. The construction of this fence shall be designed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
d. A curb shall be constructed along the westerly side of the driveway.
7. The applicant shall include construction details to show how the mature trees would be
protected during construction These plans should include, but not be limited to the
following details:
a. Pruning of the two rear yard oak trees shall not include "crown raising" and "crown
thinning or reduction ".
b. All excavations shall not leave tree roots uncovered within the respective drip lines
of any tree.
c. All required root cuts shall be completed by a saw cut process in compliance with
recommendations of a licensed arborist.
d. Barriers shall be erected at the drip line of each tree to protect against damage during
construction..
e. No equipment, construction materials, and refuse shall be stored on the drip -line of
any of the trees.
f. A licensed arborist shall complete required limb removal.
8. In the event that any one of the remaining Live Oak Trees become damaged or destroyed as a
result of the construction work and associated disturbance, all work shall cease until the
subject tree shall be replaced with a similarly mature tree, of no less than a 100 gallon root
ball, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
9. Steel railing shall connect between the bollards at the edge of the parking lot in order to
assure that there would be no possible vehicular damage to the adjacent commercial building,
subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
10. Plans submitted for final design review and building permit approval shall include a drainage
plan which shall show spot elevations or directional arrows to verify that storm runoff will
flow to Encinal Avenue and protect the right -of -way of any existing storm easements on the
property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
11. Plans submitted for final design review and building permit approval shall contain window
details to show that all new windows shall be casement, fixed frame, and/or awning style to
match the original windows, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
12. The privacy screen to be constructed on the balcony of `unit B" shall be solid wood to
exactly match the texture and style of the wood siding on the remainder of the structures, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
13. The rear facing windows, at the rear second story dwelling units shall have raised window
sills in the common rooms (i.e., living/dining room and study) to assure reduced views of
rear abutting properties, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
14. Encinal Avenue is part of State Route 61 and as such, falls under the jurisdiction of Caltrans;
therefore the applicant/property owner is required to obtain all necessary approvals from
Caltrans prior to commencing construction.
15. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final building inspection.
16. All covered parking shall remain as carports, unenclosed by doors.
17. Citywide Development Fees. Citywide Development Fees (CDF) for the Central/ East End
District shall apply at the rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. CDF Fees
apply to new construction or to structures not in use within 24 months prior to permit
issuance. Construction within 100 feet of zone boundary pays average of two zones. The
CDF does not include L & TD staff review fees.
18. Compliance with Codes: Final plans submitted for building permit approval and all work
related to the proposal shall comply with the applicable Zoning, Uniform Building, and
Uniform Fire Codes.
19. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Design Review to be
exercised.
20. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires 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, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Design
Review approval, which action is brought within the time period provide for in Government
Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails
to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. The time in which to seek judicial review of the appeal of this resolution is
governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 and Government Code, Section
65009 (c).
G :\PLANNING \CC\RESO\2003WDR020161 CR
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
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: December 17, 2003
Re: Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs
Background
As an "Entitlement" city, Alameda receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG
regulations require an annual public hearing to obtain citizens' views on current housing
and community development needs. Noticed in the November21 Alameda Joumal and the
City's website, this Hearing provides opportunity for input to the Action Plan for the coming
year, FY 2004/05.
Discussion /Analysis
The FY 2004/05 Action Plan will identify uses of CDBG funds to address priority needs in
eligible categories. Eligible activities include property acquisition or rehabilitation, public
facilities improvements, public services, accessibility improvements, economic
development, and planning and administrative activities. At least 70% of CDBG funds must
benefit low- and moderate- income residents or neighborhoods. A limited amount may also
be used to eliminate blight in selected areas. Activities not directly benefiting an eligible
individual or household must meet identified needs in low- income neighborhoods shown on
the attached map (Attachment A).
In general, Alameda's housing and community development needs include affordable
housing, structurally sound and well- maintained residential and commercial structures, and
public facility improvements and services to maintain and enhance neighborhood amenities
and quality of life. In this context, the City's Five -Year Housing and Community
Development Strategic Plan sets forth Priority Needs and Objectives for the FY 2000/01 -
2004/05 period. The FY 2004/05 Action Plan will address these Objectives (Attachment B),
but areas of emphasis may be identified through this needs process.
This year's public comment period will extend for46 days and included the opportunity for
citizens to address the Social Service Human Relations Board ( SSHRB) at its December
11, 2003 meeting. The SSHRB reviewed community conditions reflected in the 2001 Social
Service and Human Relations Needs Assessment (Assessment) and the less formal 2002
community participation process, and determined that these conditions remain constant.
Attachment C summarizes these needs with an emphasis on two outstanding themes: the
critical need for "safety net" services, particularly affordable housing access, and the great
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing #5 -D
1 -6 -04
The Honorable Mayor December 17, 2003
and Members of the City Council Page 2
importance of service diversity and integration. The Assessment indicated particularly high
levels of unmet needs in west Alameda. Additional comments, if any, received between
the date of this report and January 5, will be provided to the Council prior to the meeting.
In April 2003, public service funding was allocated in a 2 -year Request for Proposal (RFP)
process, covering FYs 2003/04 and FY 2004/05. This 2 -year cycle for public services
funding enhances program stability and directs resources towards program delivery instead
of grant - writing and proposal review. It is anticipated that the City Council will review and,
absent performance problems by currently funded community -based organizations or a
major change in available funding, formalize these projected allocations in April 2004
(Attachment D).
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund. However, the use of CDBG funds for housing,
public facilities improvements, and public services augments the General Fund and
leverages matching public and private investment. The City expects to receive
approximately $1,580,000 in CDBG Entitlement funds and approximately $195,000 in
Program Income in FY 2004/05. The City's public services allocation limited by CDBG
regulations that cap public services at 15% of the grant plus prior year's program income.
The public services cap is projected to be $268,630, as reflected in Attachment D. Should
additional public service funds become available, they may be used to enhance services in
west Alameda.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council proceed with the public hearing on
current and anticipated housing and community development needs. After the public
portion of the Hearing, Councils members may wish to identify additional needs that have
not been noted in citizens' comments.
ectfu
towline./
;'
' 1Y Be + t
elopme t Service. ' irector
By: Carol Beaver
Community Development Manager
CB /GP:sb
Attachments
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\ CDBG \CounRpt\NEEDSO4 \CCNeeds04.doc
F: 30.1(c)
CITY OF ALAMEDA
by Census Tract
(2000 Census)
ATTACHMENT A
Low/Moderate Income
Areas Shaded
'" y Block Groups Indicated
by Single Digits
-4279
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
4285,
* Income data for Alameda Point (Census Tract 4275,
formerly the Alameda Naval Air Station), does not reflect
the move -in of 200 formerly homeless families who moved
in after the Census 2000 count and are now served by the
Alameda Point Collaborative. Diagonal shading indicates
that current analysis would also classify this census tract
to be a low and moderate income area.
Created by: City of Alameda, Community Programs and Housing Division, April 2003
Data Sources: HUD http:/ /www.hud.gov/ offices /cpd /systems/census/lowmod /index.cfm
G: \GIS\Alameda2000\HUD Low Mod BlkGrp w CT 4275 shaded.mxd
G: \CDBG\CounRpt\Needs 041LMAreas w 4275- O0.doc
G: \CDBG\LMAreas w 4275- 00.doc
F: \Legal\Req\L -M Areas
F:\Statistics \Maps (General)
City of Alameda
2000 Census Low- and Moderate - Income Areas
Alameda is an 'Exception" community, with the criteria set at 48.4 %. Any Block Group where at least 48.4% of the
population does not exceed 80% AMI qualifies as a low -mod area.
CT 4271
BG 4
CT 4272
BG 2
BG 3
BG 4
CT 4273
BG 1
BG 3
BG 5
CT 4274
BG 2
CT 4276
Entire Tract
CT 4277
BG 1
CT 4279
BG 4
CT 4281
BG 4
CT 4286
BG 2
Percent
Low -Mod (UM)
UM Area
Boundaries
50.1 W -Park St., N- Estuary, S/E- Tilden/FernsideNersailles
53.3 W- Chestnut St, N- Clement Ave, E- Walnut St., S-
Lincoln Ave.
55.2 W -Grand Ave / Mintum St., N- Buena Vista/Clement
Ave., E- Chestnut St, S- Lincoln Ave.
48.4 W- Stanton St/Hibbard St. /Grand St., N- Buena
Vista/Eagle /Estuary, E- Grand Ave /Minturn St. /Oak
St. /Park St., S- Lincoln Ave./ Buena
Vista/Clement/Blanding Ave.
49.1 W -St. Charles St, N -Buena Vista Ave,
E- Sherman St/Stanton St., S- Lincoln Ave.
50.6 W -9th St./Wood St., N- Railroad tracks, E- Sherman
St. /St. Charles St, S -Buena Vista/Lincoln Eagle Ave.
73.1 W- Webster St., N- Stewart Ct., Railroad tracks, E-
Constitution /9th St., S -Buena Vista Ave.
60.0 W -Main St., N- Estuary, E- Webster St. /5th St.,
S- Atlantic Ave./Tinker Ave.
61.2 W -Main St. N- Atlantic Ave, E- Webster St.,
S- Pacific Ave /Marshall Way /Lincoln Ave.
54.4 W- Linden St/6th St., N- Lincoln Ave,
E- Webster St., S- Santa Clara/Central Ave.
54.4 W- Sherman St., N- Lincoln Ave/Santa Clara Ave.,
E- Stanton St. /Cottage St., S- Central Ave.
58.5 W -Park St., N- Lincoln Ave., E- Versailles
S- Central Ave.
54.0 W -McKay St., N- Central Ave., E -8th St/Westline St.
S -San Francisco Bay
HUD 2003 Income Limits as of March 21, 2003
Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very Low Income $28,050 $32,050 $36,050 $40,050 $43,250 $46,450 $49,650 $52,850
Low Income $44,850 $51,250 $57,650 $64,100 $69,200 $74,350 $79,450 $84,600
G, \CGBGLMAREAS w 4273 -00 doe
F: Legal \Req L-M Areas
Attachment B
Housing and Community Development Objectives (from City of Alameda Five -Year
Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan, FY 2000 /01 - FY 2004/05)
Priority Need: Affordable Housing*
• Preserve existing and increase the availability of affordable rental and ownership housing
for low- and moderate - income households.
• Assist low- and moderate - income (first -time) homebuyers.
Priority Need: Fair Housing Access *
• Reduce housing discrimination.
Priority Need: Homelessness *
• Increase and expand activities designed to prevent those currently housed from becoming
homeless
• Maintain and improve the current capacity of the housing and shelter system, expand
transitional and permanent supportive housing, and maintain and improve services for
homeless individuals and families, including through inter - jurisdictional cooperation in the
homeless Continuum of Care system
Priority Need: Supportive Housing*
• Increase the availability of service - enriched housing for persons with special needs.
Priority Need: Other Community Development (Non- Housing)
• Provide education, recreation, child care and other support services for low -and moderate -
income families and individuals.
• Provide employment and entrepreneurship opportunities for low- income individuals.
• Preserve and improve public facilities and infrastructure in low- and moderate - income
neighborhoods
• Revitalize blighted and underutilized buildings in redevelopment and neighborhood- serving
commercial areas
• Enhance accessibility for individuals with physical disabilities.
* These need areas and objectives are uniformly set, as required by HUD, by all member jurisdictions of the
Alameda County HOME Consortium, including the City of Alameda.
G:\ CDBG1 CounRpt \NEEDSO41AttachmentB.doc, F: 30.1(c)
Attachment C
SUMMARY OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
SSHRB Assessment (2001)
and
Community Participation (2002)
The Social Service Human Relations Board conducted the Assessment through a
random and anonymous phone survey of 429 Alameda households and follow -up focus
groups with providers and consumers in six areas. The Assessment was accepted by
City Council in 2001. Community input was also received in 2002 through interviews
and anonymous questionnaires distributed to clients of Alameda Emergency Food
Bank, and comments from community -based organizations (CBO's).
2001 Assessment
Breaking the Assessment results down by geographic area, income level, race /ethnicity,
age group, and length of residence in Alameda indicated particularly high needs for low -
income households and West Alameda residents. In 2001, the Assessment identified
the following specific areas of concern:
• "Safety net" of supportive services;
• Child care; youth services; employment and employability services;
• Violence prevention, intervention and recovery services;
• Parenting education and training; disaster preparedness; and
• Public information /outreach and internet access.
2002 Community Participation
"Safety net" issues received the greatest emphasis in 2002 surveys of households and
CBO's. These include food assistance services, homelessness prevention programs
that provide assistance with rent and utilities, emergency shelter, and day rehabilitation
programs for mentally ill clients. CBO's also emphasized the importance of sustaining
the City's commitment to fund safety net services in Tight of significant proposed cuts in
state and county budgets for emergency shelter, food assistance, and child care.
While there may have been some improvement in 2003, 71 % of respondents'
households had experienced a sudden or significant financial worsening during 2002.
63% of survey respondents had a household income of less than $15,000 annually.
People also identified the need for more affordable housing. Rent and utilities
assistance ranked highest in a question asking people to identify their top ten priorities
for City social service funding while assistance with job training and placement ranked
second.
Many people commented on the need for more affordable, quality after - school
recreation and enrichment programs for low- income youth. 23% of survey respondents
reported a household member had experienced discrimination in housing or
employment access, 10% reported a household member had experienced an act of
intolerance, and 20% reported a household member had a problem dealing with anger
within the previous year.
Attachment C
Public Service Focus Areas (FY 2003/04 - 2004/05)
Following public comment, the SSHRB supports the following focus areas for CDBG
public service funding:
• Improve access to rental housing, including through rental or utility assistance,
fair housing, landlord /tenant mediation, or independent living support
• Maintain or expand the safety net of supportive services (shelter, food, basic
needs, health access)
• Improve access to child care, after - school programs, or parenting assistance
• Strengthen neighborhood cooperation and /or multi - cultural communication and
understanding in Alameda
• Reduce or prevent violence, aggression or conflict among Alamedans
G:IC DB GICou n Rpt \N EE DS04IAttachmentC. doc
ATTACHMENT D
PROJECTED CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING
July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2005
Project Name /
Organization
TWO -YEAR FUNDING CYCLE
rotas
Areas
FY 03 -04 FY 04-05 TOTAL Program Description and Proposed Service Levels
1 2 3 5
Alameda Continuum of
Community,
Emergency, & Social
Services (ACCESS) /
American Red Cross -
Alameda Service
Center
$57,500 $56,000
$113,500 Safety net services to prevent homelessness, including coordinated
case management, referrals, and direct services such as food
programs, emergency rentaVutility assistance, housing deposit
assistance, and emergency food and baby supplies. 750 hh to be
served.
x
Alameda Kids Coach /
Development Services
Department
510,750 $1,500
512,250 Partnership for networked shuttle to transport children to/from child
care, childhood development and after - school programs and facilitate
parents' workforce participation.Match to $432k MTC grant.
Childcare Vouchers /
BANANAS
$50,000 $50,000
5100,000 Subsidy and administrative costs for childcare subsidy program
providing $200 /month voucher for a minimum of 23 children of low -
income working parents for up to 9 months each.
II x II
I II
I
x I
0
�IIII
Family Violence
Prevention Services /
Family Violence Law
Center
515,000 515,000
$30,000 mergency hotline, information and referrals for 125 Alamedans.
Legal counseling and/or court accompaniment for temporary
restraining orders for 32 Alamedans.
Food Bank / Alameda
Emergency Food Bank,
Inc.
512,500 512,500
525,000 Emergency food program. 750 hh to be served.
Four Bridges Creative
Living Center Program /
Bay Area Community
Services
$25,767 519,000
$44,767 Day rehabilitation program to serve 55 individuals with
mental/emotional illness, providing socialization, prevocational
training, and skills- building. Anticipate Adult School staffing will reduce
program expense when implemented in late FY 2003/04.
Housing Counseling /
Sentinel Fair Housing
512,500 512,500
$25,000 Tenant/landlord information and referral, counseling and /or mediation
for 360 households.
Midway Shelter /
Building Futures with
Women and Children
$37 500 $37,500
575,000 Provide emergency food, 24 -hour shelter and supportive services to
250 homeless women and children.
RAP Program
Scholarships /
Recreation and Parks
Department
$6,000 $6,000
$12,000 Subsidies for 10 -12 youths to participate in after- school recreation
program.
x II
Senior Services /
Recreation and Parks
Department
$7,500 57,500
515,000 Expansion of information and referrals and service coordination for
200 additional seniors in areas such as public assistance eligibility,
finance and health.
I�
I xll
West Alameda Teen
Club / Alameda Boys &
Girls Club
$22,000 $21,130
$43,130 Recreational and educational activities for 100 teenage youth,
including skill building. leadership and character development.
Woodchip After-School
Program / Alameda
Unified School District
$15,000 515,000
I
$30,000 Academic enrichment and recreation after - school program for 160 low
performing and at -risk students.
Program Delivery /
Development Services
De. artment.:.
$15,000 $15,000
530,000
5287,017 $268,630
if Public Service authority exceeds the anbcipated
funding cap by the amount bebw, this project will also be funded:
Independent Living
Support for Visually
Impaired 1Liens
Center for the Bfind
$2,500
$0
$2,500
Support group for 10 visually impaired individuals in Alameda to
promote their independence, safety, and well - being.
x
rotas Areas
1. Improve access o rental housing, including rental or utilit assistance, fair housing, landlord /tenant mediation, or independent livi g support
2. Maintain or expand the safety net of supportive services ( heftier, food, basic needs, health access)
3. Improve access o child care, after- school programs, or parenting assistance
4. Strengthen neighborhood cooperation and /or multi- cutturat communication and understanding in Alameda
5. Reduce or prevent violence, aggression or conflict among Alamedans
G:\ CDBG \CounRpt \Needs04\AttachmentD