The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-01-02 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 2, 2007 - - - 6:45 p.m. Time: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 6:45 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association and Police Association Non -Sworn 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. 5. Adjournment - City Council Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited.during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, January 2, 2007, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioner meeting held November 21, 2006. Acceptance is recommended. Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners January 2, 2007 Page 2 2 -B. Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. 2 -C. Approving Budget Revision Number 2. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1) Approve the proposed budget revision, and 2) Adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza) 2 -D. Approving Award of Contracts for Painting and Repair Projects. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend to the Board of Commissioners to: 1. Approve awarding a contract to G & S Painting for $144,000 plus up to an additional 10 percent for change orders for the Housing Authority office painting project and 20 percent for change orders for the Esperanza repair and painting project for a not to exceed amount of $171,300; and 2. Approve awarding a contract to Bayview Painting for $293,000 with an additional 20 percent for change orders for the Independence Plaza repair and staining /painting project for an amount not to exceed $351,600; and 3. Authorize the Executive Director to execute both contracts. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT * ** Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Tuesday, January 2, 2007 Meeting will begin at 7:29 p.m. Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public. 2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006. 2 -B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) (Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. Notes: ARRA Agenda — January 2, 2007 Page 2 • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. AGENDA CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY JANUARY 2, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public'Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:45 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:29 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on December 19, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement to extend the Agreement for an additional year. (Human Resources) 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the Management and Confidential Employees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. (Human Resources) 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Part -Time Classification Salary Schedule Effective January 1, 2007. (Human Resources) 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments within the Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. (Development Services) 4 -G. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Ordinance Nos. 2559, 2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 and Approving and Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. (Development Services) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Use Permit, 06 -0016, allowing operation of a health studio at 2215B South Shore Center; and adoption of related resolution. (Planning and Building) 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal for Major Design Review, 06 -0081, for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review, 06 -0096, for Building 500 at 2246 South Shore Center; and adoption of related resolution. Appellant: Harsh Investment Properties. (Planning and Building) 5 -C. Recommendation to appropriate Capital Improvement Project funds in the amount of $1,094,293 and request Proposals to program the Carnegie Library Building for use as the City of Alameda One -Stop Permit Center. (Planning and Building) 5 -D. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA -06 -001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and /or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office /Research and Development Uses; • Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended; • Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space; • Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. (Development Services) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:36 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner deHaan moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Torrey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Award Contract to Complete Playground Rehabilitation at Parrot Village and Eagle Village to Community Playgrounds. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Approved a contract with Community Playgrounds, Inc. to complete the rehabilitation of the playgrounds at Eagle Village and Parrot Village for $88,629, allowing up to $8,863 in change orders, for a total not to exceed $97,492 for both projects; and 2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract. 3. AGENDA None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. Agenda Item #2 -A CC HABOC 01 -02 -07 Minutes of the November 21, 2006 Special Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Beverly Johnson, Chair Attest. Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 Date: January 2, 2007 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer RE: Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006 BACKGROUND The financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, are now complete and have been audited by the firm of Wallace Rowe and Associates, Certified Public Accountants. DISCUSSION This report submits the annual Financial Statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. The auditors, Wallace Rowe and Associates, opined that "the financial statements... present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, as of June 30, 2006, and the results of its operations and the cash flow of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with accepted accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America." The Financial Statements provide a brief review of all funds. There were no findings for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the audited financial statements and voted to recommend acceptance. The Financial Statements are on file at the Housing Authority and the City Clerk's Office. RECOMMENDATION The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. MTP:AJO Respectfully sub Michael T. Executive Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Agenda Item #2 -B CC HABOC 01 -02 -07 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 - 7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 January 2, 2007 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Budget Revision Number 2 BACKGROUND On April 4, 2006, the Board of Commissioners approved a two -year operating budget for all programs covering the fiscal years July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008. On October 3, 2006, the Board of Commissioners approved Budget Revision Number 1. Since that time, the Housing Authority auditor recommended a new format for budgets which complies with Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements. In addition, the Housing Authority has been advised the amount it will receive in capital funds for Esperanza, and the cost estimates for several projects have been updated. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the proposed budget revision. The Commission recommends approval. DISCUSSION This budget revision proposes to change the budget format, update the public housing capital fund from HUD for Esperanza, and update the budget estimates for several ongoing projects. The GASB- required formatting changes include removing Replacement Reserve Funds, Operating Reserves, Transfers In and Out, and Parrot Village and Eagle Village bond funds from Income. From Expenses, the Mortgage and Replacement reserves line items are removed. Depreciation and Interest are added to expenses. Mortgage principal payments of $361,584 are eliminated because under GASB and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) these payments are not considered expenses. Depreciation is added at $846,358. Depreciation is only a paper transaction and does not affect cash. A second page of the Budget Detail spreadsheet (Exhibit A) has been added to illustrate the GAAP to cash basis adjustments. Extraordinary Maintenance Expenses (EMP's) will remain; however, Capital Improvements, as defined by GAAP, are now removed from the EMP schedule because Capital Improvements are not considered expenses under GAAP. A separate schedule for Capital Improvements has been added. In general, EMPs are maintenance - related and do not add value to the properties, such as Agenda Item #2 -C CC HABOC 01 -02 -07 Honorable Chair and Members January 2, 2007 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 4 painting and pothole repairs. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are those that add value to the property, such as replacing windows and siding at Eagle Village and adding parking spaces at Independence Plaza. The proposed revised EMP and CIP schedules are attached as part of Exhibit A. The Authority has recently been notified by HUD regarding its Capital Fund grant for fiscal year 2007. The Original Budget as well as Budget Revision Number 1 estimated Capital Funds to be on the same level as 2006; however, federal appropriations have been reduced for all housing authorities to save federal dollars. Alameda's Capital Fund has been reduced by $22,778, from earlier budget estimates of $228,000, to $205,222. Changes are recommended in the budget for several EMPs, most of which are now included as CIPs. In a separate report, a recommendation is made to award two contracts for painting projects. The bids are lower than anticipated and the EMPs reflect the lower amounts (GF1 -07, ESP6 -07, and IP2 -07). The project at Anne B. Diament Plaza (ABD) to replace the gate on the Otis side of the property is recommended to be revised. Upon examination, it was discovered that the fence posts and the section of fence to which the gate is attached also need to be replaced. The increase from $1,500 to $4,500 in the budget would cover the full cost of this repair and replacement of the lock. The Authority received three quotes to replace the interior finishes in the ABD elevator. The lowest quote was $7,700, which is reflected in the proposed budget revision. Replacing the ABD elevator emergency call button with a telephone and upgrading the China Clipper elevator are proposed for deletion in this budget. One EMP is proposed for addition. The floor in a second -story unit at Rosefield Village was damaged. Because of the type of flooring system in these modular units, it was necessary to have an engineer determine how to repair the problem. The total cost for the engineer and the repair is reflected in the proposed budget increase to $15,400. An increase in the budget from $2,000 to $2,800 for the handrail to the laundry area at Stanford House is based on an actual bid. On the new Capital Improvements Projects schedule, several project budgets are proposed to be changed. The full cost of the repairs to the office lobby was $36,700, less than the $43,000 originally anticipated. Completing the playground project at Parrot Village is expected to cost about $17,000 less with the new contractor. An analysis of the drainage problem at ABD reveals that it will be more complicated than anticipated to repair. The engineer has advised that the drainage system is inadequate for the site and a major grading work in the courtyard will be necessary to address the problem. The landscaping and walkways will need to be repaired after the drainage issue is addressed. This budget revision proposes an increase from $3,500 to $80,000 for these repairs. Repairing the decks and trellises is expected to be nearly $10,000 less based on the bid received. Other projects are anticipated to cost more than originally anticipated. These include replacing the fencing along Main Street (ESP3 -07), replacing the windows at Honorable Chair and Members January 2, 2007 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 4 Eagle Village (EV1 -07), replacing the door hardware and doors as needed (EV2 -07), replacing the closet doors at Parrot Village (PV3 -07) and replacing the common area floor covering in Building 711 at Independence Plaza (IP4 -07). These changes are minor adjustments except for EV2 -07. It was originally anticipated that only five to 10 doors would have to be replaced. Maintenance workers, however, are advising that almost all doors are damaged and need to be replaced and that the door hardware needs to be replaced on the back doors as well as the front. The increase proposed from $20,000 to $106,000 would include replacing all 84 doors as well as replacing the door hardware on front and back doors. The increase requested to replace the stair rail at China Clipper Plaza from $16,100 to $23,100 is based on an actual bid. Finally, there are two additional changes reflected in the proposed budget revision. Considering the high cost to upgrade elevator interiors and the inadequacy of the current elevator, it is not prudent to spend any money on the existing elevator at China Clipper. This elevator needs to be replaced. This budget revision proposes adding $20,000 to the Maintenance Contracts Cost line item for an architectural and engineering design for this replacement. The cost for police services has been reallocated between funds based on the latest cost allocation plan which distributes the cost to properties calculated on the previous three years' crime statistics. Changes to the Esperanza budget must be accompanied by a Resolution (form HUD - 52574); a copy is attached as Exhibit B. FISCAL IMPACT The net result from all proposed changes to the budget would be an increase in the net surplus of $45,175 from $418,596 to $463,771. The formatting changes result in line items moving or being eliminated making the changes in the total budget somewhat difficult to describe. Total Income is reduced by $22,778 from $27,266,649 to $27,243,871. The Maintenance Contract Costs line item is increased by $20,000 for the China Clipper elevator design. The Extraordinary Maintenance line item is reduced by $334,320, primarily based on the lower bids for the three painting projects. The result is that Total Expenses are $26,690,139 or $314,323 Tess than the current budget. On page 2 of the Budget Detail, the Capital Assets line item reflects the changes in the Capital Improvements Projects. This $167,583 increase in CIP cost and the $22,778 Income reduction are more than offset by the $314,323 reduction in other expenses. With the first budget revision, the Board of Commissioners approved the loan of $165,610 from the Housing Authority's General Fund for Esperanza's Capital Improvement Projects and a transfer of $472,000 from the Authority's General Fund operating reserve for the painting project, still leaving a deficit of $67,283 for Esperanza. This budget revision includes a slight increase in anticipated cost for the Esperanza fence replacement and a substantial decrease in the cost to paint the complex. The loan amount will increase by $2,000 to $167,610, and the operating reserve transfer will decrease by $178,669 to $293,331, which will cover the painting project and eliminate the deficit. Honorable Chair and Members January 2, 2007 of the Board of Commissioners Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1) Approve the proposed budget revision, and 2) Adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA- 062 (Esperanza) especffully submitte Michael Pucci Executive Director MTP:AO /ED Attachments et E Q O 0 E 1 Total All Programs Proposed 2.007 22,439,484 i 1 1 d I 07 N' 1,551,407 41,520 419.160 55,821 11 cnn 301,925 119,439 60.200 810,743 189,240 1 _017.847 210,000 149,423 15,450 802,263 28 400 . M 1 1 0 N M M N 00 � M C M) 0 V! I•• „ Or 514,680 50.000 , 0°D , A. 1 10 1A 0 0 )0 41 N 553,732 2dr g a 0 22,439,484 N ' N 1,551,408 41,520 439.160 55,821 11_Snn 301,925 119,439 60.200 810,743 189,240 997.841 210,000 149,425 15,450 802,263 25.400 5.806.335 I 19,538,196 760.931 849,000 50.000 'o 0 00 e o 0 N ON - 0 N 1 Section 8 Voucher Proposed 2,007 18,946,848 ' 0 h M 0 04 872,331 11,030 139.075 b Me N O .. 000 0 0 00 M VI e r M 00 a0, r M 10 00 000..0 0 0 o 000.. N 7 00 0 00 0000400 VI VI 0 00 N or O N N N 0 M 00 r N VI M • ... 00000 e 00 '0 0 00 e 00 0 0 0■ 000 V ^ N M 0 N M 0 VI O N v 2 0 0 0O a N 1 o rr - 0,004 , or "1 h N IM.1 N 872,331 11,030 139.075 0 100 0 NOn 0 0, enengren. or 00 00 1 b0 ON00 N O 00 19,000 7,059 0 290,102 0 316,160 1,362,228 1 Q° 00 vp e 00 - 0 0 0 r O O. M N 23,643 1 Independence Plaza Proposed 2,007 749,847 1 747 864 00 M1• O N 192,732 7,460 62,266 19,305 100 57,380 41,406 19,063 117,849 225,054 42,500 222,015 b e O M ° 04 0 M O O Q �� .. 1,102,039 I 0 503,200 503,200 287,780 0 1,893.019 1 Q 00 O 0.. E.°. Q N 749,847 1.747.864 M O N N NRN N 0-04 - b 19,305 100 57,380 41,406 19,063 117,849 225,054 42,500 222,015 00 O- Q V°I M °040 cc. s oe N- y „e. 1,098,588 0 503,200 503,200 326,500 0 1,928,288 I 85,575 HA Owned Proposed 2,007 957,828 794.556 O Off. 06. 193,231 12,770 136,715 0 1� N 0 00000- ^ 76,450 41,231 32,857 150,538 211,862 56,415 284,139 a 0 0 0, 0 e r M 0 N tr Q N 1,248,779 I 0 2 e N 35,400 0 1,308,639 I 470,317 App,ovcd 2,007 957,828 794.556 1,778,956 Mf O N Nrh ON ^01 17,891 100 76,450 41,231 32,857 150,538 211,862 56,415 264,139 r 7 M r.`O. 0 VI 0 M O bh Me1M0 or 0 04 1,279,040 0 24,460 24,460 15,500 L 0 1,319,000 1 459,956 Parrot & Eagle Village Proposed 2,007 1,032,132 433.200 00 00 0 e .-• 120,766 4,080 50,708 2,470 100 71,595 14,708 5,200 91,503 181,816 47,800 247,247 00 0 • r e C, 717 O N .0 °.e O.T el. VO .. 181 R 0 M 964,138 [ °r N 1M'1 N 0[ 0 1,197,409 I 273,4731 200 a^' 1,032,132 433.200 1,470,882 120,766 4,080 50,708 2,470 100 O h V I 0 1,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r N r— 181,816 47,800 247,247 M ' 0 00 R 0 V) 0 e 0 N 04 0 a 0, N O • ee O.M. 948,648 [ 0 •-• - r r N N NN 0 0 0 0 0. O M 10 0 04 Esperanza Proposed 2,007 161,481 571,956 N b e O 140,724 6,180 50,396 197,299 16,155 33,100 96,150 14,554 2,607 113,311 186,352 37,900 255,549 O 00 r e M 00 O 00 40 M CO 0- a � M ,... ... 1,080,786 I O O O 175,000 0 000 r N M .. • . N v e o 0104 0 161,481 571,956 987,433 1 0 0 01 N CO O. 0 1- .. M N � ° 0 10 Il0 0 .N. ° - H 96,150 14,554 2,607 113,311 186,352 37,900 255,549 479,801 0 0 0- 0 0 0 .. 00 1'00 �M? r.. ... ^ - •• N 0 VI '00 O n. 0 0 0 472,000 0 1,524,516 al Fund O o o o 06 0 it ■ 00 0 11 co, o 01 00 0 CO 0 0 m 4; r) M VI 0 r N OD 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V I 0 0 e 10 0 0 00 0 M Q 00000000 M N 0 00 00 e 1- 0 N .N... N 04 M b 591,348 0 591,348 0 0 000 04 0 •-. V°i ,0 0 V1 0 0 N r 7. 2 g Z. N a 591,348 0 `O CA 31,624 0 0 31,624 o 00 0000 -00 00 100, 0 04. e O 0,00000 V N V - 65,313 1 ION 591,348 0 591,348 35,000 50,000 b '0 v r (58,864)[ Budget Line Items OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy Rents (TOTAL INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries Legal Sundry TOTAL TENANT SERVICES Salaries Tenant Activities Water & Sewer Electricity Gas TOTAL MAINTENANCE• Salaries Materials Contract Costs TOTAL GENERAL• Police Services Insurance Claims Account Employee Benefits Collection Losses TOTAL TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES I MORTGAG E/HAP/DEPRECIAT HAP Mortgage Interest TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. Pre - development/Admin costs TOTAL (TOTAL EXPENSES M 00 00 go M 000 N e N M O e O 0 e O.. O 0 O 0 N r VI O 04 R N 00 N Depreciation (paper expense) b 0. N 00 00 M 0 O N e 0 M 01 M C r 0 V 0- N 00 0 r 00 0 Operating Income after Depr. E 44 z 0 O Oft 40 44 9 p o ° 0. N Q p N Section 8 Voucher O p O p 0 N un Es as' R 00 u e '0 C 0) 'O r'a o p 6p V a Pe"' 0) a o re ao 2 N a o a p Q yW L 00 °u o Lo 0 . N e .4 C 1 1. O 6 p Y N d 'po ap Q N General Fund 'O c 6 2 0 6. E 9 0 m 6 00 a 6 0 00 to b M .1. N O V R '0 O. 00 b N m CO 0 M VI 00 N o co - y wo o0 to oo en b n N '0 M N O' r M N N ..1. N 0 O O ON N r O 7 M o a o 0 h N 0 a h R M a a O 0000 b 0 V M to e 00 $ N o N v M 00 0 N M oo 24 M 0 N N v N N M 00 00 T 0 a 00 n se Cc; Crit- M 1' o e '1N ° 4 � ^ n v a o CO ''' ON S O. a IN M o to N N N O 0 N to N 676' to h N S R o 0... N to r- est 00 so 0 0 NO to oo 00 'T O N N 0 0 a NO N M S O N N r N v Operating Income after Depr 44 a r Addback Depreciation Subtract Mortgage Prin Paymts Subtract Replacement Reserve Subtract Equipment Reserve Total Adjustments O. M V VNi 00 as V 0 N - Q o O o 00 D O `7 sos N '0 0 M b N v O 7 000 Q VI 7 ON a e 00 est 0 Q 00 est 00 7 ON Q b 00 M M O t 00 o r N N N 0 00 01 O b N 0 0 h 0 oo N tat 0 O O 0 00 0 00 V) O O O M o o O— tri - M OD � 00 v e oD ° °0 0 N 00 00 0 00 010 0! 0 0 to to o_ 0 M M b ON b os 0 ∎ co Oo O_ O O_ N O '0 'O 7O T N V) h V) v R ti b b b O O O N 00 0 re1 4. b Adjusted Net Cash/Operations Reserve Transfers and Loans e m 0 e O Replacement Reserve O Total Non - Operating Capital Assets o O O a CO Capital Asset Additions Bond Loan Funds-ay A. t tn oo 00 n 04 V) O 0 O N CO est oo v O 0 b O N O 0 O n 0 0 0 Net Cash for CopiI I Asia r b M C4 4.1 N M N CCn O 0 O Q 40 N 00 0 Net Adjustments PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS JULY 1, 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007 (FY2007) TOTAL -I GF1 -07 APPROVED FY2007 PROPOSED FY2007 Repair siding damage and paint exterior $ 35,000 16,500 35,000 ESPE ESP6 -07 TOTAL Paint all buildings, repair dry rot as needed $ 472,000 Sl HORITY -OWNED $ 472,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 ABD2 -07 ABD3 -07 ABD4 -07 CC2 -07 PG 1 -07 RV1 -07 SH1-07 TOTAL Replace .... gate ...,(0tis).,. and key for tenants .................................................................,........, ,,,....................,......, Repair /repl,ace,., elevator ...phone ,., system .............................................................................................. ............................... Replace interior finishes of elevator Replace interior finishes of elevator and add emergency phone Repair potholes in parking lot Repair damaged flooring system in one unit Add handrail to laundry (basement) area 1,500 3,000 2,000 2,000 ................ 5,000 2,000 INDEPENDENCE PLAZA $ 15,500 4,500 7,700 ................ ............................... 5,000 15,400 2,800 $ 35,400 IP2 -07 Repair, paint/stain exterior Replace pond strainer housings, add cooling fans for pumps, IP5 -07 and move electrical controls to Bldg. 705 TOTAL 320,000 6,500 $ 326,500 281,280 6,500 $ 287,780 9,000 514,680 PROPOSED SCHEDULE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS JULY 1, 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007 (FY2007) APPROVED FY2O07, PROPOSED FY2007 GF2-07 TOTAL Repair damage to office lobby due to auto accident 45,000 45,000 ESP1 -07 ESP2 -07 ESP3 -07 ESP4 -07 ESP5 -07 ESP6 -08 TOTAL Previously deleted Previously deleted $ 36,700 36,700 Replace 200 ft. of fencing along Main Street Replace approximately half of the exterior light fixtures and replace underground wiring_ where necessary Complete replacement of kitchen /bath cabinets /countertops project in 15 units Security System - Video Cameras 10,000 36,500 109,110 10,000 165,610 12,000 36,500 109,110 EV1-07 EV2 -07 EV3 -07 EV4 -07 PV1 -07 PV2 -07 PV3 -07 TOTAL Replace all windows $ 142,450 Replace door hardware and all doors,, -„ee^'d Complete playground rehab project, including new equipment Complete residing project Upgrade landscaping 20,000 35,000 167,200 Complete playground rehab project, including new equipment Complete project to replace closet doors 30,000 117,000 75,150 $ 586,800 10,000 167,610 168,450 106,000 35,000 167,200 30,000 100,000 78,035 $ 684,685 ABD1 -07 CC 1 -07 TOTAL INDEP: Install drainage system rear of building Replace metal stair rail and extend handrails at landings $ 3,500 $ 16,100 $ 19,600 $ 80,000 $ 23,100 $ 103,100 LAZA IP1 -07 Build new parking area for 20 cars IP3 -07 Repair damaged decks and trellises IP4 -07 Replace common area floor coverin• Bld•. 711 TOTAL $ 150,000 80,000 25,822 $ 255,822 $ 150,000 70,320, 28,000 $ 248,320 2,832 $ 1,240,415 PHA /IHA Board Resolution Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing Exhibit B OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (JHA), as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): II 1 ✓1 II Operating Budget Submitted on: Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) 01/02/2007 I certify on behalf of the: (PHA /IHA Name) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low- income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PIN /11-IA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Signature Beverly Johnson Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 • Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 January 2, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Award of Contracts for Painting and Repair Projects BACKGROUND This year's budget includes three extraordinary maintenance projects (EMPs): to paint the buildings at the Housing Authority office, Esperanza and Independence Plaza and one Capital Improvement Project to repair the decks and trellises at Independence Plaza. The office painting project is budgeted at $35,000. The Esperanza project, which may require minor dry rot repairs, is to paint all 22 townhouse buildings and the Head Start and Multi -Use Centers. The budget for this project is $472,000. The projects at Independence Plaza involve repairing decks and trellises and staining and painting all five buildings. These projects have a budget of $400,000. Budgeted amounts include an additional 10 percent for change orders. DISCUSSION The Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids for the above - described projects. Five responsive bids were received to repair and paint the office, with G & S Painting being the lowest bidder: Fix Painting, Woodland Hills $47,000 C & J Painting, Napa $28,750 Euro Style Painting, Roseville $28,357 Armstrong Painting, Stockton $27,000 G & S Painting, San Bruno $15,000 Six responsive bids were received to repair and paint Esperanza with G & S Painting again being the lowest bidder: Fix Painting, Woodland Hills $361,000 Armstrong Painting, Stockton $355,000 Euro Style Painting, Roseville $336,800 Metro Structural Painting, S. San Francisco $322,000 C & J Painting, Napa $187,450 G & S Painting, San Bruno $129,000 Agenda Item #2 -D CC HABOC 01 -02 -07 Honorable Chair and Members January 2, 2007 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 3 Four responsive bids were received to repair decks and trellises and to stain and paint Independence Plaza, with Bayview Painting being the lowest bidder: Fix Painting, Woodland Hills $495,000 C & J Painting, Napa $460,000 Euro Style Painting, Roseville $324,455 Bayview Painting, Burlingame $293,000 The bid analyses of the G & S Painting bid for the office and Esperanza and Bayview Painting's bid for Independence Plaza determined that they were within reasonable limits. Both contractors are required to submit a Payment and Performance bond for 100 percent of the contract amount or a cashier's check for 20 percent of this amount. The bond or cash provides the Housing Authority with a guarantee of job performance. Both contracts are on file at the Housing Authority and City Clerk's Office. FISCAL IMPACT The office project is budgeted at $35,000. A contract with G & S Painting for this project would cost $15,000. If an additional 10 percent is added for change orders, the total cost would not exceed $16,500. The Esperanza project is budgeted at $472,000. A contract with G & S Painting for this project would cost $129,000. Due to the size of this project and the potential for dry rot repairs, a 20 percent contingency is recommended bringing the total cost to $154,800. A contract with G & S Painting is recommended for both projects not to exceed $171,300. The Independence Plaza project is budgeted at $400,000. A contract with Bayview Painting would cost $293,000. Due to the age of the inspection report on the decks, there may be more dry rot repairs needed than would be covered by the usual 10 percent contingency. A 20 percent contingency for change orders is recommended. This would bring the total not to exceed contract amount to $351,600. Bids are all well within budget. The budget revision being recommended reflects decreases based on these amounts. RECOMMENDATION The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend to the Board of Commissioners to: 1. Approve awarding a contract to G & S Painting for $144,000 plus up to an additional 10 percent for change orders for the Housing Authority office painting project and 20 percent for change orders for the Esperanza repair and painting project for a not to exceed amount of $171,300; and Honorable Chair and Members January 2, 2007 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 3 2. Approve awarding a contract to Bayview Painting for $293,000 with an additional 20 percent for change orders for the Independence Plaza repair and staining /painting project for an amount not to exceed $351,600; and 3. Authorize the Executive Director to execute both contracts. Respectfully submi MTP:ED Michael T. Pucci Executive Director UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday. December 6, 2006 The meeting convened at 7: 22 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2-Al 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 1, 2006. 2 -B. Approval of Sublease for Architectural Glass and Aluminum at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Approval of a 7.5 -year lease with Area 51 (retroactive to October 2005), including a Workout Plan as Conditions of the New Lease for Hangar 24. Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Alameda Point Project Update David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, gave an update of the Alameda Point RFQ process. Responses were due by 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2006. Five development firms /partnerships submitted proposals: Catellus, Corky McMillin, Lennar Urban, SunCal Companies, and United World Infrastructure. A press release with this information was distributed today, Dec. 6`". Staff will be providing the Board with fairly elaborate investigation and dossier -level information on each of the development firms, with qualitative evaluation resulting in a numerical ranking. Evaluations will be completed and presented to the Board in February. Chair Johnson clarified that the ARRA is not required to accept any of the proposals and that the decision is the ARRA's and not the Navy's. She had concerns that the $1M earnest money is a fairly small amount of risk and wanted to make sure any proposed developer has the ability and willingness to go forward on the $108M deal, and not try to renegotiate it. She cited the former master developer spent almost $10M and was still not able to proceed. Agenda Item #2 -A CC ARRA 01 -02 -07 Page 2 David Brandt stated that we'll do our best to evaluate the developer's ability to execute development, focusing less on their proposed plan and probe why they believe they can do the deal that has been negotiated. Member Daysog discussed the status of the no -cost EDC analysis. David Brandt responded that staff has presented the Board with a non - agenda memo that analyzed different conveyance options, including the existing no -cost EDC and that there are significant hurdles to going back. He explained that it's not necessarily impossible, but it's certainly not a sure thing that if we revised our numbers and go back to the original plan, that we would be able to get the Navy to convey based on that plan; that we cannot hold the Navy to it. Chair Johnson said it's important to note to prospective developers that we are not committed to a certain number of housing units — they need to see if this financial deal works even if we say we're going to reduce the number of housing units. David Brandt stated that we were clear to inform them that the PDC, which the pro forma numbers were based on, is not an entitlement. Member Daysog asked if the memo references the fact that the EDC is a signed contract. David Brandt explained that, in military re -use law, you cannot get specific performance from a contract from the Federal Govt., so even if we were to establish that they breached it, it's not technically enforceable in court. Those agreements are enforceable politically, but not legally. David Brandt stated that the five proposals will be made available to the public and will be posted on the Alameda Point website (www.alameda- point.com) in a few days. The Board congratulated staff on receiving the five proposals. They agreed that the response demonstrates that Alameda Point is a viable project. No action was taken on this item — it was an update and for informational purposes only. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. At the last RAB meeting there was a presentation on Site 2 Feasibility Study and Site 1 Proposed Remediation Plan. The RAB came to the same conclusion the ARRA did regarding the scoop and haul as the preferred method of clean -up vs. an engineered cap (as discussed at the Nov. 1 ARRA meeting), citing a comment letter from the RAB that stated, "complete removal is the only acceptable solution for soil in Area 1A ". Member Matarrese requested that staff bring all environmental studies comments and preferred options to the ARRA Board before submitting to the Navy. He does not want the comments to be handled administratively (by staff) as was always done previously — but rather, would like the ARRA Board to have the opportunity to vote on a recommendation. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speaker slips. Page 3 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Chair Johnson, along with the other Boardmembers, thanked Member Daysog for all his hard work over the past 12 years, as this is his last ARRA meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i•ma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 2, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Approve Subleases at Alameda Point Background At the December 2004 ARRA Board Meeting, the ARRA elected to review and approve all subleases at Alameda Point. Discussion The following leases are renewals for existing tenants whose leases have expired. All renewal rates are 3% greater than the previous year: 1) Antiques by the Bay, a monthly antique fair operator is renewing its lease in Building 13. The rent will be $0.57 per square foot or $27,192 annually for this structure, which is office space in fair condition. 2) Antiques by the Bay, a monthly antique fair operator is renewing its lease in Building 459. The rent will be $0.28 per square foot or $38,340 annually for this structure, which is shop space in fair to poor condition. 3) Cameron -Cole, an environmental consulting company is renewing its lease in Building 90. The rent will be $1.08 per square foot or $58,404 annually for this structure, which is office space in good condition. 4) City of Alameda, Main Street soccer field and adjacent parking lot. There is no rent associated with this lease. 5) Coach Specialties, an industrial vehicle paint and body repair shop is renewing its lease in Building 24. The rent will be $0.38 per square foot or $59,112 annually for this structure, which is light manufacturing space in good condition. 6) Mason Dixon Intermodal, Inc., formerly Tristar Express, a trucking company is renewing its lease of a fenced lot. The rent will $0.13 per square foot or $80,340 annually for this fenced lot in fair condition. 7) Petras Air Work Industries, Inc. doing business as Alameda Aerospace, an aviation component repair business is renewing its lease in Building 398. The flat fee is $750 per month for the use of a test cell approximately two times per month in this building. The tenant will not occupy the entire building and uses the test cell infrequently for testing engines for aircraft ground support equipment. Agenda Item #2 -B CC ARRA 01 -02 -07 Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 2, 2007 Page 2 8) Petras Air Work Industries, Inc. doing business as Alameda Aerospace, an aviation component repair business is renewing its lease in Building 530. The rent will be $0.10 per square foot or $84,000 annually for this structure, which is light manufacturing space in good condition. Petras' sole business is to service a government contract. If that government contract is extended, the ARRA lease reserves an option to negotiate an increased rental rate. If the contract is not renewed and Petras exercises its option to stay, the rent will increase 3 %. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed subleases. Fiscal Impact The rent for Antiques by the Bay in Bldg. 13 is $27,192 annually. The rent for Antiques by the Bay in Bldg. 459 is $38,340 annually. The rent for Cameron -Cole in Bldg. 90 is $58,404 annually. The rent for City of Alameda is waived. The rent for Coach Specialties in Bldg. 24 is $59,112 annually. The rent for Mason Dixon Intermodal in fenced lot is $80,340 annually. The rent for Petras Air Work Industries in Bldg. 398 is $9000 annually. The rent for Petras Air Work Industries in Bldg. 530 is $84,000 annually. Recommendation Approve the proposed subleases. By: Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map Respectfully submitted, 6),( L L Leslie Little Development Services Director Nanette B. s Finance & Administration Manager Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS January 2, 2007 Page 3 TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Antiques by the Bay Portion of Building 13 4,000 2 years plus 1 year renewal option. $2,266/mo. Antiques by the Bay Building 459 11,493 2 years plus 1 year renewal option. $3,195/mo. Cameron -Cole Building 90 4,500 3 years. $4,867/mo. City of Alameda Soccer Field + Parking Lot 4.5 acres + 1.5 acres 1 year plus 4 one- year renewal options. Waived Coach Specialties Portion of Building 24 12,927 2 years. $4,926/mo. Mason Dixon Intermodal, Inc. Fenced Lot 53,280 2 years. $6,695/mo. Petras Air Work Industries dba Alameda Aerospace Portion of Building 398 27,570 1 year plus 1 year renewal option. $750 /mo. Petras Air Work Industries dba Alameda Aerospace Building 530 70,270 1 year plus 1 year renewal option. $7,000 /mo. ATTACHMENT B u X X 8 T TAXIWAY 'E' sa'J1snp sap}s O_ D 0 3 0 a 0 O 0 0 cD CD a 0 D > 0 7 7 (3D .n _O C C O N N 0 o 6 rt rr 7• co CD lD aooco 0 0 0 (0 z 0 CO co ti E. n up up SANTA 1 0 0 O 00 ...=111=3...0 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum January 2, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613 BACKGROUND As required by the federal Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) worked with the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development and an organized group of homeless service providers, known as the Alameda County Homeless Providers Base Conversion Collaborative (currently known as the Alameda Point Collaborative [APC]) to determine the quantity of residential and commercial square footage that would constitute a reasonable accommodation of the homeless at the former Alameda Naval Air Station (Alameda Point). On May 3, 1995, the ARRA adopted the Standards of Reasonableness (SOR) that outline general commitments related to future reuse goals at Alameda Point. In July 1995, the APC submitted a detailed Request of Property at Alameda Naval Air Station. The Request was considered by staff; and, following negotiations, specific allocations of property were included in the Housing Element of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan approved by the ARRA in January 1996. As required by federal law, the request was subsequently approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. As part of the SOR, the Davis Street Community Center was assigned Building 613 for use as a childcare center. In 1998, due to the impending lease -up of the housing units at APC, the ARRA approved an Interim Sublease for Building 613 with another service provider, the Emergency Services Network. This short-term lease provided office space for multiple support service providers. (According to the SOR, these support services were to be located in Building 101. However, in 1998, Building 101 still required extensive rehabilitation and was later destroyed by a fire.) Following the initial lease -up of housing units at APC, Davis Street Community Center, along with the APC, reevaluated the need for infant and pre - school care and determined that alternative programs could better serve the residents. In lieu of providing infant and toddler care at Building 613, APC provided 21,000 sq. ft. for Alameda Family Services to establish a head start program on the Building 101 property. In addition, APC families have access to pre - school care at the Alameda Point -based Bay Area School of Enterprise's program called Home Sweet Home. APC also Agenda Item #2 -C CC ARRA 01 -02 -07 Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 2, 2007 Page 2 maintains an 800 sq. ft. children's activity center at its Multi- Service Center (677 W. Ranger) to support parents' participation in other APC- provided services such as case management, counseling, job preparation, etc. DISCUSSION The 1998 interim sublease, which expired on December 31, 2006, allowed Building 613 to be "used by subtenant or authorized contractors, subcontractors, or licensees of the APC, for administrative offices for the provision of homeless assistance programs." In 1999, APC subleased the building to the Alameda Red Cross, which provides critical safety net services for APC residents and low - income residents throughout Alameda. The Alameda Red Cross provides community and social services including: two food programs, rental assistance, and administration for the Alameda Power & Telecom EAP and EASE utility programs. APC has requested that the new lease, in the approved form of the 59 -year Legally Binding Agreement (51 remaining years), allow Building 613 to be "used by subtenant or authorized contractors, subcontractors, or licensees of the APC, for the provision of homeless assistance programs. The homeless assistance programs may include, for example, child care, food services, health care and related referrals, life skills training, addiction recovery support, job training and placement, individual and family therapy, case management, and assistance in maintaining housing ". Staff recommends that the SOR be amended to allow Building 613's continued use for the provision of homeless assistance programs. Attachment A explains the original SOR, interim sublease and proposed Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) use description for Building 613. The amendment to the SOR will eliminate inconsistency in documents related to the Homeless Accommodation and memorialize the APC agreed uses for Building 613. The revised permitted use language will be an exhibit to a LBA with the APC for Building 613. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to amending the SOR to modify the allowable uses at Building 613. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613, consistent with Attachment A. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority January 2, 2007 Page 3 Re ?pe Ily submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Debbie Potter Base Reuse & Community Development Division Manager Attachments A. Original and Proposed Use of Premises for Building 613 B. Map G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \ARRA \STAFFREP \2007 \01 Jan \3 -B SOR.doc Proposed LBA Use Description oA 0 0 0 r,3 o w 'd 'y 0 U s.., v) 0 0- ''''' O U a c0 • y cd H ,sue ti Uli 0„10 0Eg cd 0 0 ti ,g 0 .- 5 0 cd .5, ct- 0 0 0 ,� � >, 0 a) p g 0 � al 0 H& w 0 ' Q 0 N O V N 0 g vi v] g 0 U 0 N N w5 � U O .N Gs ',73 co U j ' r 0 .N E-+ Li, 0 O. Q., ». U ca 03 ca Interim Sublease Use Description -0 I. 2, 0 0 •-' 0 U O >~ 0 N LI 7, s"' .> • , 0 v w �4 C/] ) N 7 0 0 t i o, ci, w 0 0 01 cn 0 g w 0 cn cn 0 0 > •y 0 2 N E .5 '4: E 0 4 o 0 ,. b O H Q., cd O cd 'o Original SOR & Reuse Plan Commitments: v] 0 N 0 0 a. a� I I A o• 0 U eu 0 5 0 5") co El U 0 o 00" ,. U ,_. v) 0 C//) U N 0 ti cd k/•1 cd g f V cd v0i O 0 C4 1 , 0 cci O y cd cd •� p4 0 a) Q. CID N. 1 4 0 0. x w O N g. 0 0 0 '''' F'i O 0 v > O v; a4 0 N .ca-, �s, O y 0 0 0 0 'b .�A p.1•� cn a(7cO.4 .o�i .. N 4� U U 0 p CA O W O U ts, O U N O .b 0 0 '5 G w O 00 E� �w OcgN ov) —. 4.1 0 p - -0 - 0 p., ,) 0 0 U N 0) 0 0 ��" Off•' ' vA 0 0 O 5 "b O tb b 0.. U O OP 5 '' w a pQ , cd 0 0 ri V] bA • -. N 0 P. > V b 0 Q, A 0• ,-4 E-Z es UW 0 C/D M b ..en—, aq C:\ DOCUME- 1 \cm_user\LOCALS-1 \Temp\2 -D Attch A.doc ATTACHMENT B .4:U: -VW PLOUGHSHARES .__._. NURSERY DIP 3..'41 ALAMER,�"'POMA�• COMMUNIV <aNTE'I di: 101 V/ Esp< riEtUDE [1Lr son 1-- czt Agit u ° 1 { 0 414 romleR A/C. APC MULTI - SERVICE CTR. Blda. 607 INDUSTRY & WAREHOUSE Bldg. 92 1CJ116R AVE,. BUILDING 613 COMMUNITY GARDEN UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 19, 2006- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Minutes (06- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board held on December 4, 2006; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 5, 2006. Approved. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Resolution No. 14051, "Commending Tony Daysog for Ten Years of Service to the City of Alameda as Councilmember and Vice Mayor." Adopted. Mayor Johnson read and presented Councilmember Daysog with the Council resolution, a City plaque, and commendations from Senator Perata, Governor Schwarzenegger, Congressman Stark and Congresswoman Lee. Supervisor Alice Lai -Biker read and presented Councilmember Daysog with a Resolution from the Board of Supervisors. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Mayor and Councilmembers made comments and thanked Councilmember Daysog for his service. Farewell Comments by Council (06- ) Councilmember Daysog made comments and thanked his family, girlfriend and supporters. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 19, 2006 1 * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 8:40 p.m. * * * REORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL Installation (06- ) The Honorable Judge C. Richard Bartalini administered the Oaths of Office to: Office of Mayor Beverly Johnson Office of City Councilmember Frank Matarrese Lena Tam Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Consideration of Appointment of Vice Mayor (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of appointing Lena Tam as Vice Mayor. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson noted that selecting Councilmember Tam continues the tradition of appointing the Councilmember who received the highest number of votes. Comments by New Council (06- ) Councilmember Matarrese, Mayor Johnson and Vice Mayor Tam each made comments and thanked their supporters. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 19, 2006 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,702.16. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 19, 2006 3 December 28, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 155103 - 155560 EFT 288 EFT 289 EFT 290 EFT 291 EFT 292 EFT 293 EFT 294 Void Checks: Amount $3,036,235.87 $79,442.99 $122,222.28 $41,000.00 $17,300.00 $55,535.61 $12,943.50 $4,000,000.00 154106 ($95.00) 154254 ($95.00) 154261 ($95.00) 150364 ($16,910.50) 153802 ($1,843.40) 154121 ($1,500.00) 153488 ($285.00) 131877 ($55.00) 131878 ($55.00) 140782 ($30.00) 130915 ($42.00) 130916 ($14.00) 137815 ($15.00) 141080 ($30.00) 141173 ($30.00) 145745 ($32.00) 147885 ($192.00) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Council Warrants 01/02/07 $7,343,361.35 BILLS #4 -B 1/2/2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager DATE: January 2, 2007 RE: Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement to Extend the Agreement for an Additional Year BACKGROUND The City of Alameda entered into an employment agreement on August 1, 2005 with Debra Kurita to serve as its City Manager. The duration of the agreement was for three years through July 31, 2008. Any amendments to the terms of this agreement require approval of the City Council. DISCUSSION On December 5, 2006, City Council met in closed session to review the performance of City Manager, Debra Kurita. In accordance with the provisions of the employment agreement, Council took administrative action by awarding the City Manager the maximum performance bonus allowed under the terms of the employment agreement and also extended the term of the agreement by an additional year. With this action, the term of the employment agreement will be for four years through July 31, 2009, as set forth in Attachment 1. BUDGET CONSIDERATION Funds for this position are already part of the City Manager's department budget. There is no immediate fiscal impact of this action. RECOMMENDATION Adopt amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement to extend the Agreement for an additional year through July 31, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Director Attachment 1: First Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement Agenda Item #4 -C CC 01 -02 -07 Attachment 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "FIRST AMENDMENT "), entered into this second day of January, 2007, by and between City of Alameda a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and Debra L. Kurita (hereinafter referred to as "EMPLOYEE "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On August 1, 2005, EMPLOYEE and CITY entered into an employment agreement (the "AGREEMENT ") retaining the services of EMPLOYEE as City Manager of CITY. B. EMPLOYEE and CITY desire to amend the AGREEMENT to be effective August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2009. C. CITY has determined to amend EMPLOYEE'S compensation and benefits for a four year term. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and conditions contained herein, EMPLOYEE and CITY agree as follows: 1. Paragragh 2 of the AGREEMENT entitled "TERM" is amended in it's entirety to read as follows: "2. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2005 and expire on July 31, 2009. As part of the Kurita annual performance review, the City Council may decide to extend the contract term." 2. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms, promises, covenants and conditions set forth in the AGREEMENT shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMPLOYEE and CITY have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, effective January 2, 2007. This agreement is executed on the 2nd day of January, 2007 at Alameda, California. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ALAMEDA City Attorney ATTEST: By: Mayor Beverly Johnson EMPLOYEE: City Clerk Debra L. Kurita C:\DOCUME- 1 \CATT U -1 \LOCALS -1 \Temp\XPgrpwise \CM First Amendment.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager DATE: January 2, 2007 RE: Resolution approving revised Memorandum Of Understanding between the Management and Confidential Employees Association and the City of Alameda for the period commencing January 1, 2005 and ending December 20, 2008 BACKGROUND The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda is for the period commencing January 1, 2005 through December 20, 2008. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda Labor Relations Representatives have met in closed session with the City Council and the Public Utilities Board to discuss negotiations with the MCEA. The revised MOU is a result of those negotiations and falls within the parameters authorized by the City Council and the Public Utilities Board. The MOU provides for a 2% wage increase on June 25, 2006; a second 2% wage increase effective December 24, 2006; an additional 1% wage increase effective December 24, 2006, deferred from January 2006; a wage increase adjusted by the amount of the change as measured by the difference in the October 2006 through October 2007 Consumer Price Index (SF, OAK, SJ 1982 -1984 =100), effective January 6, 2008 with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 4 %; benefit adjustments and language modifications through the term of the contract. The MOU is on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 is approximately $550,592. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $259,328 and within the budget as adopted for the fiscal year. The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2007 -08 is approximately $859,097. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $404,635 of which $134,813 is new appropriation. For budget purposes, the January 2008 wage increase is calculated based upon a Consumer Price Index maximum of four percent. Agenda Item #4 -D CC 01 -02 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 January 2, 2007 The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2008 -09 is approximately $495,335. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $233,303 and will be appropriated in future year's budgets. For budget purposes, the January 2008 wage increase is calculated based upon Consumer Price Index maximum of four percent. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution approving the revised Management and Confidential Employees Association Memorandum of Understanding for the period commencing January 1, 2005 and ending December 20, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Karen Willis ;ej Human Resources Director of r CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2005 AND ENDING DECEMBER 20, 2008 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council a Memorandum of Understanding between the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined said proposed Memorandum of Understanding, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and thereby finds and determines adoption of said documents to be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City. Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said revised Memorandum of Understanding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith. * * * * ** 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #4 -D CC 1 -2 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager DATE: January 2, 2007 RE: Resolution Updating the Part-Time Classification Salary Schedule BACKGROUND The City's Part-Time Classifications Salary Schedule (Attachment 1) is updated periodically to reflect increases in minimum wage requirements or changes in the departmental staffing needs. As State law requires an increase in the minimum wage from $6.75 to $7.50 per hour effective January 1, 2007, the subject action incorporating this increase in the salary schedule is recommended. Additionally, the departments have reviewed their part-time staffing needs and have recommended changes or additions to classifications in this category. DISCUSSION The Part-Time Classifications Salary Schedule has been reviewed by the Human Resources Department in concert with the user departments to incorporate the increased minimum wage requirements and to accommodate departmental part-time staffing needs. The increase in the minimum wage is integrated into the schedule by eliminating those salary steps that were below the $7.50 per hour level, with one exception. The proposed action will establish a Recreation Learner or Counselor -in- Training classification, at $7.00 an hour, in order to provide an opportunity for individuals with limited or no experience to enter the City's workforce as a trainee, in conformance with the State Learner and Federal Youth Opportunity programs. The employees hired at this level will be in a training program for approximately four weeks and, contingent upon successfully completing all of the requirements, will then transition into a Recreation Leader I position. In addition to adjusting the schedule to accommodate the minimum wage requirements, the Human Resources Department conducted reviews with the Recreation and Parks, Golf, Library, and Police Departments, the major departments employing part-time workers, to evaluate their hiring and compensation needs and to provide recommendations to address the recruitment and retention of part-time employees within their specializations. Classifications that are no longer utilized by the departments and those that do not meet minimum wage requirements have been deleted. Further, the proposed schedule establishes part-time classifications for professional, administrative and maintenance classifications in order to provide sufficient options for hiring employees with these specialized knowledge and skills on a part-time basis. The ranges for these classifications are extended to accommodate both the rates based on the new Agenda Item #4 -E CC 01 -02 -07 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers minimum wage and the existing rates of incumbents currently employed on a part-time basis using the existing full -time classifications. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The increases in departmental part-time employment costs resulting from these changes will be absorbed within the existing budget. Although the departmental decisions regarding the classification and step placement of incumbents and future employees will determine the actual cost, the departments estimate that increased costs for the second half of Fiscal Year 2006/2007 will be as follows: Recreation and Parks, $20,000; Golf, $3,800; Library, $3,500; Police, $3,200. For Fiscal Year 2007/2008, these departments estimate that increased costs will be as follows: Recreation and Parks, $45,000; Golf, $7,900; Library, $7,200; Police, $6,600. This is a total cost of approximately $66,700 and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 budget update. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution approving revised Part-Time Classifications Salary Schedule effective January 1, 2007. Respectfully submi ;y Karen Willis Human Resources Director Attachment 1: Part-Time Classifications - Salary Schedule Attachment 1 CLASSIFICATION O U E Cn N W a w C O a w co cn co a N W F W N a E W a W co a GO Recreation co 0 • d- • CO d' d' Attachment 1 O N O N ).o M N t f) N co 6 M d• N d a N M tf) N CV ).0 «) c+o CO d•ch00�O c+0 0 CO d- 0` — a1 O O N 6■ O M N M co O - N o0 • N N co ■o u) c0 N CO 0) if) O ch to N 61 -1 d' 00 MNO0o0 6 N d O -�-N 1- O ch O co 00Nd'6 � �,-I - N ■6 d m to d' (31 00 1-1 r, .--I ONNd' ▪ c0 0 00 O N o0 — — — ▪ to co 00 d' N --� N O N N co r+ 00 N ▪ N 0) N CO c'0 ■6 -v-I tf)0N N 1/4.6 N — 1-1 - oO O Cr) O N O 0) ,--i — N oo co 0) O c O � — - tf) u) c0 N 0 • c- tf) 00 ).6 N c'') 0 cr) 0 0 cc o0d- ONC'') O 00 N ri O •--; ▪ - .--I N CO N 0) oo to u) 0) O O tt N d- 10 CO d- N CO CO -I N CS 0) .-1 0) d• 0).ONNN •-. 0 00 d- N CO. c+O d O O d- 00 r-+ . o0 00 00 N M ON -. tf)N ■o to - -. Nd'd O 00 6 d 00 O N N .-i — — — N N r-i 0 -ON 00 N d 0) 6 c") 00 O r, q : ; - — — — (NI 00 co N + N N co tf) 00 0o N N N oo If) O co N N 6 O u) 001f)CO)6 -I N to )600N 0 N - 0).0 tno0o0 O u) O CO u) d' 00 If) If) If) If) N O c7 N 6 .6 6 0 cr) 6 N 6 o0 N . 6 O t1) I., 0 E b d 0 ▪ ▪ ti ▪ cd U 0 C CA y Q al 09) .c.-/?, 0`.a) a) g E t a) a a) a, a a 1a vi C/) K.,4) to a6 '1 ' , a) ... UU RS ~ '" c y x aa a aaa a a ' lsco,n. O 0 0 0 0 � o a d cdnialciccl 000 00,,,t) cd O ▪ 0000 ▪ o o o p w • 5 w •�, I C i. 1. p;fxp:fxA: Q¢Q E. E-. C7O ( v) ( - �aCn.1.4.1 w -I c) cc) Chd- d- N'- d'c0N 44 - N N al Nd'cr)o0CS NN -I 00 -' N-I d• d-«) ... 1. 00000 000 000 qq N N N . 0)0)11)0)0) to to to to to to to to to to 1n G7 to to in a co co co co co W N 4° o ° E w c 4 Step /classification assignment of incumbents may be adjusted upon implementation of this schedule. G: \PERSONNEL \SALARIES \PART- TIME \JAN 01 2007 PART -TIME SCHEDULE.DOC December 27, 2006 (10:15AM) Attachment 1 CLASSIFICATION 0 U N 00 N O 00 CO O N � L O d' 0. O - 00 co cO d• O - oo to O N LO c+00 O O N 000 0 00) O co too O 000 uo to 00 6 to -- [ 00 N co to Lt) 00 O 0 d• O 1.0 00 a• O to 00 Nto d • tor, .-+ O O N N 6 O 00 0 r, - to O co ttoo to N N CO O O d- co d' 00 ri d\ L CY) Li) O d' cf) to co � O co 00 CO O N ▪ N. 00 co O l-1 N O in co O O r, r, C -c CO 6 4 N 00 N O N 6■ r, Ln d co r-1 O 00 O CO O O o0 N co to co to Ln N. O 1.0 l- ccoo) Nf) CO • LO N N co to I"-• 00 S• - 00 N0 Nr` 0000 C\ to[� Ito CO O N- CO CO A 0000 00 10 CO CO co 6 tri r) 6 Or: t`N6 ON 00 N o0 d• d- cY) O Police Assistant I A • w a Police Officer Rec. • LO 1.0 00 CO LO a° ° ° d- 0 Admin /Prof CO 10 N --- -, y 2 0 4) a-, U U U Q� co co O O co p. O. C C d < <cD V)C/O Si r• N 00 d• to q r, • N CO d Lt) .� 10 10 N o 0 If) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 01 6 10 N Step /classification assignment of incumbents may be adjusted upon implementation of this schedule. G: \PERSONNEL \SALARIES \PART- TIME \JAN 01 2007 PART -TIME SCHEDULE.DOC Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED PART -TIME CLASSIFICATIONS SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council a part -time classification salary schedule; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined said proposed schedule, and thereby finds and determines adoption of said document to be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said revised Salary Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the position classifications, salary rates, salary ranges and salary steps set out in said schedule are hereby designated as those applicable to the respective classifications in the service of the City of Alameda, effective January 1, 2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith. Resolution #4 -E CC 1 -2 -07 EXHIBIT "A" Recreation A i, " o, ro N 1 a 0 A co 8 5 8 c4 cg 00 v oa a VD M a O N O N N O M46 ,, N o0 6od46 TJ P. 0 2 o 00 m 0 co , i. cn M oo cl o Ei �O%ONO � O M NM00 O oOMM,--.N a qO u) 0o N " N d' "' u) 00 N M O M b 00r)1)O� N000 NW O O M o -0N07 y 6MV) --I NN00 Mqd O . i N - .ti .--I 1 00 " " od c5 N M >, A b Ch ,-1 d 00 01 ,-1 00 c0 LO '� 1, 0 00 ~ N � U M1�0000 SON, -� MON N to 1n �00�N00 OWN TI: C6 ,-4 N[- CV q3 0 O t!) 00,,NO60 ,-, .1 (N .- ,--1 - - _ .■I 1--1 1--1 N 9 b d'OMO1 00 CO 0 00001 OONNN 0h -+ 00 O VD M Oh N 10 O 00 - N co M y DD N d O to O O d od - -i od a0 C p .-1 .--I ,-r 1--1 1-4 1-1 1--1 1-1 1-1 .--( .-- .-4 .--1 ,--1 N 0 d +NVOd' 10 0000 •- VD 00 00 L- M O6-10l-- U u u 4 N O O 00 W -� DD %O u) d .+ - 00 O —.1.--4.4o 0 0 ,-I _l - .a ,-I .-I t,: .p cd o 45 ONN f ii, in l- l- u) .--i 0 O 10 N00 0 U) ,--I0h000 0 0 00 000010 N r, d' ONNvOl� 000600 OOd' OMO o0 6 M 000--, udN cs 1 0 H .- 1 LAO r -i00 l-1)M LO,-1) CO CO N r- ,NNM1) o 0 00 d. N ,-- 1) O r i M N O 00 O 00 N t h o0 1) U Is:ONI- 6O4 OMO l� 00 N 1�0'Oui 4 d a ..q 1-1 1-1 � r...1 1-1 - .-a .-1 ,-, N 0 q .0 U O O U7 M VD ,-1 Cs O O co .c, O N ti O O 1) 00 co O Oto��M �� a01)1) u) N N �NMOM b l � l � 6 r~ O Q • 6 01 6 6 r 00 N 6 O ui M 0 o y"". -.I-, a' U it d b U v / a 33363' co `, . 0 El 0 b co " y 0 4") CO •.r V U 0 0 0 0 0 a a q O ff.+ ,., uS cd .x d" �i a s � o '=7 '4C1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0" " " o ad) v v v adi N cad F F U U U o `� og axxxx d¢Q FFGO c7U cD0) Oa av)aaa gl ,- 010,M� d'N•-+ �MN .-4 N N NTh M000h a' NN- OO ,- +N,- -1 Ct 1) ts [� N. NNNNN +°; 00000 000 000 Q N N N . 1)1)1)1)1) 0) ii) 1)1)tn1) LID 0LO LO0N v+ up tip 11) a MMMMM G: \PERSONNEL \SALARIES \PART- TIME \JAN 01 2007 PART -TIME SCHEDULE.DOC December 20, 2006 (9:56AM) CO M O r-i N •--■ u) ■•+ 10 d• 0 ri 00 00 00 O N 00I1)t NN &)0000 Nv) 0 00 c+) CO to ON 4 CO M l0 d- M t` O tf) M l� N O •-■ N d VD N If) 0 N tl) d• If) f &) &) d• 00 to cO 0 c+') -4 0 CO 0 M •-i N 4 c0 N Lo to N 00 O O O? c N M `D. Q\ CO oo O M l0 � ti N 0 4 cO 00 if) N ° ttt tn -4 N r4 O CO to co to •■ a0 6 &) — [• 00 6 (-6 4 [. 00 N -�N M&) •.+N 0D 11) 0 O 4 LO co 1/46 O d d co O t` -+ C'1 N tnCO 60 &) CO cr)� to • + N to ,- 0 • O [. to a' 1/40 00 ;ft, N LO 0c1 0O0f 0 N7oA O O 1O f 00 d- 00 M 0 .-+ _l .-+ ,--1 cy t &) & j M &) O M 1f) cs O M N • M N O O\ 00 c6 c6 N N N CO N CO 00 00 N 0011) O coin CA M N Mtn N- CO l'- a• ,-1 CO N 0 to N. 00 00 0' . u) C- U) &) CO l0 l� 00 00 to oO 00 00 &) 00 00 00 0 to M N 6 O N O O [- .-, ,-, ■•• (y ,-4 _I CY) d 14 ,1 M •� d' .-4 to CO 0 d' CO ON 0 ,-{ d 00 ON CO N00 If) . to N0' Mto to N0) co in O d' M N [- N M 6 N 00 0 u) ,-I N ,-, N ••• N b A co t'" W y _ ., .r . . I. O y .y U U b 0 QQ UdQ (1)V) V) (Q h 0,P. .c d .0 O v o cd o ++ a, a, « ct 1 i ++ O U O O V'-0 —N r- .a ,- -,NM ,4- LO q ,-iNM cF &) :4 ■0 c0 CO CO cn 14 1I) to to 1) &) ^" c0 k0 NO ∎0 t0 0 00 00 O '0 000 00 000 00 C1+ 'td- d'd' d' •4 NNN NN N N N NN li December 20, 2006 (9:56AM) 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: January 2, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments within the Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions BACKGROUND The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) is a joint powers authority sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. The member agencies of CSCDA include approximately 230 cities and 54 counties throughout California, including the City of Alameda. The Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) was instituted by CSCDA in 2002 to allow owners of property in participating cities and counties to finance the development impact fees and public infrastructure costs required of their projects that would be payable by property owners upon receiving development entitlements or building permits. DISCUSSION CSCDA is a joint powers authority with the ability to issue tax - exempt bonds. SCIP is a financing program available to CSCDA members. Once a city or county joins SCIP, developers may apply to SCIP for their individual projects. Participation in SCIP by property owners is strictly voluntary. If a property owner chooses to participate, a portion of the development impact fees owed to the City will be financed by the issuance of tax - exempt bonds by CSCDA. CSCDA will impose a special assessment on the owner's property to repay the portion of the bonds issued to finance the fees paid with respect to the property. The property owner will either pay the impact fees at the time of permit issuance, and will be reimbursed from the SCIP bond proceeds when the SCIP bonds are issued, or the fees will be prepaid from the proceeds of the SCIP bonds. Th'e fees are not paid directly to the City. They are paid to SCIP and deposited into an interest bearing account to be withdrawn by the City for any public infrastructure project. Agenda Item #4 -F CC 01 -02 -07 Honorable Chair and January 2, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 The benefits to the property owner include: • The repayment of the bonds is only the obligation of property owners who choose to participate in the program via assessments imposed on their property. • Instead of paying cash for development impact fees, the property owner receives low - cost, long -term, tax - exempt financing of those fees, releasing capital for other purposes. • The property owner has the option to retire the special assessments at any time. • Bonds can be used to finance commercial, industrial or residential projects. Typically, fees and infrastructure costs need to be a minimum of $250,000 to benefit from the financing. • Owners of smaller projects can have access to tax - exempt financing of infrastructure. (Before the inception of SCIP, only projects large enough to justify the formation of an assessment or communities' facilities district had access to tax - exempt financing.) The benefits to the City include: • As with conventional assessment financing, the City is not liable to repay the bonds issued by CSCDA or the assessments imposed on the participating properties. • CSCDA handles all district formation, district administration, bond issuance and bond administration functions. A participating city can provide tax - exempt financing to property owners through SCIP while committing virtually no staff time to administer the program. • Providing tax - exempt financing helps protect property owners from the rising development impact fees. • The availability of financing will encourage developers to pull permits and pay fees in larger blocks, giving the participating city immediate access to revenues for public infrastructure, rather than receiving a trickle of revenues stretched out over time. As part of the entitlement negotiation process, the possibility of tax - exempt financing of fees can be used to encourage a developer to pay fees up front. The proposed resolution authorizes CSCDA to accept applications from owners of property within the City to apply for tax - exempt financing of development impact fees through SCIP. It also authorizes CSCDA to form assessment districts within the City, conduct assessment proceedings and levy assessments against the property of participating owners. It also authorizes miscellaneous related actions and makes certain findings and determinations required by law. Attached to the resolution as Exhibit A is a "Form of Resolution of Intention to be Adopted by CSCDA." This is for informational purposes and does not require Council action. Finally, the City has been asked by a property owner interested in using SCIP to encourage East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) to join SCIP as well. Water and sewer fees can be significant development impact fees; and in the City of Alameda, these fees are paid directly to EBMUD and not to the City. Subject to Council approval of this item the Honorable Chair and January 2, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 City Manager will send a letter to EBMUD encouraging them to participate in this program. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT There is no cost to the City to participate in SCIP. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE SCIP helps further the Economic Development Strategic Plan goal to support private sector property owners in their efforts to create primary jobs through clean, light- industrial and office business attraction and expansion. RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution Joining the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment Proceedings and Levy Assessments within the Territory of the City of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Respectfully submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: ,yr) Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DK/LAL /DES /RS:ry Honorable Chair and January 2, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 G: \econdev \SCIP \SCIP staff report.doc F: \File designation Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority ") is a joint exercise of powers authority the members of which include numerous cities and counties in the State of California, including the City of Alameda (the "City "); and WHEREAS, the Authority has established the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program ( "SCIP ") to allow the financing of certain development impact fees (the "Fees ") levied in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 and following) and other authority providing for the levy of fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements (collectively, the "Fee Act ") through the levy of special assessments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 10000 and following) (the "1913 Act ") and the issuance of improvement bonds (the "Local Obligations ") under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the "1915 Act ") upon the security of the unpaid special assessments; and WHEREAS, SCIP will also allow the financing of certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of property owners for acquisition by the City or another public agency (the "Improvements "); and WHEREAS, the City desires to allow the owners of property being developed within its jurisdiction to participate in SCIP and to allow the Authority to conduct assessment proceedings under the 1913 Act and issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act to finance Fees levied on such properties and Improvements, provided that such property owners voluntarily agree to participate and consent to the levy of such assessments; and WHEREAS, in each year in which eligible property owners within the jurisdiction of the City elect to participate in SCIP, the Authority will conduct assessment proceedings under the 1913 Act and issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act to finance Fees payable by such property owners and Improvements and, at the conclusion of such proceedings, will levy special assessments on such property within the territory of the City; Resolution #4 -F CC 1 -2 -07 WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Resolution of Intention to be adopted by the Authority in connection with such assessment proceedings, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "ROI ") and the territory within which assessments may be levied for SCIP (provided that the owner of any property subject to assessment consents to such assessment) shall be coterminous with the City's official boundaries of record at the time of adoption of each such ROI (the "Proposed Boundaries "), and reference is hereby made to such boundaries for the plat or map required to be included in this Resolution pursuant to Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the City will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings; the levy or collection of assessments or any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of the Local Obligations or any other bonds issued in connection with SCIP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6586.5, notice was published at least five days prior to the adoption of this resolution at a public hearing, which was duly conducted by this Council concerning the significant public benefits of SCIP and the financing of the Improvements and the public capital improvements to be paid for with the proceeds of the Fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda as follows: Section 1. The City hereby consents to the conduct of special assessment proceedings by the Authority in connection with SCIP pursuant to the 1913 Act and the issuance of Local Obligations under the 1915 Act on any property within the Proposed Boundaries; provided, that (1) Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to one or more Resolutions of Intention in substantially the form of the ROI; and (2) The legal owner(s) of such property execute a written consent to the levy of assessment in connection with SCIP by the Authority and execute an assessment ballot in favor of such assessment in compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the State Constitution. Section 2. The City hereby finds and declares that the issuance of bonds by the Authority in connection with SCIP will provide significant public benefits, including without limitation, savings in effective interest rate, bond preparation, bond underwriting and bond issuance costs and the more efficient delivery of local agency services to residential and commercial development within the City. Section 3. The Authority has prepared and will update from time to time the "SCIP Manual of Procedures" (the "Manual "), and the City will handle Fee revenues and funds for Improvements for properties participating in SCIP in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Manual. Section 4. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to make SCIP applications available to all property owners who are subject to Fees for new development within the City and /or who are conditioned to install Improvements and to inform such owners of their option to participate in SCIP; provided, that the Authority shall be responsible for providing such applications and related materials at its own expense. The staff persons listed on the attached Exhibit B, and any other staff persons chosen by the City Manager from time to time, are hereby designated as the contact persons for the Authority in connection with the SCIP program. Section 5. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents, including but not limited to such documents as may required by Bond Counsel in connection with the participation in SCIP of any districts, authorities or other third -party entities entitled to own Improvements and /or to levy and collect fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the City, as are reasonably required by the Authority in accordance with the Manual to implement SCIP for property owners who elect to participate in SCIP and to evidence compliance with the requirements of federal and state law in connection with the issuance by the Authority of the Local Obligation and any other bonds for SCIP. To that end, and pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 -2, the staff persons listed on Exhibit B, or other staff person acting in the same capacity for the City with respect to SCIP, are hereby authorized and designated to declare the official intent of the City with respect to the public capital improvements to be paid or reimbursed through participation in SCIP. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Authority. EXHIBIT A FORM OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO BE ADOPTED BY CSCDA RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO FINANCE THE PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. (CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA), APPROVING A PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAP, MAKING CERTAIN DECLARATIONS, FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING RELATED MATTERS, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, under the authority of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "1913 Act "), being Division 12 (commencing with Sections 10000 and following) of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Commission (the "Commission ") of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority ") intends to finance, through its Statewide Community Infrastructure Program, the payment of certain development impact fees for public improvements as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Improvement Fees ") and to finance certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of the property owner(s) and to be acquired by the City or another local agency (the "Improvements "), all of which are of benefit to the proposed Assessment District No. (City of Alameda, California) (the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the land specially benefited by the Improvement Fees is shown within the boundaries of the map entitled "Proposed Boundaries of Assessment District No. (City of Alameda, California)," a copy of which map is on file with the Secretary and presented to this Commission meeting, and determines that the land within the exterior boundaries shown on the map shall be designated "Assessment District No. (City of Alameda, California) "; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct, and the Commission so finds and determines. 2. Pursuant to Section 2961 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (the "1931 Act "), being Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800) of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Commission hereby declares its intent to comply with the requirements of the 1931 Act by complying with Part 7.5 thereof. 3. The Commission has or will designate a registered, professional engineer as Engineer of Work for this project, and hereby directs said firm to prepare the report containing the matters required by Sections 2961(b) and 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code, as supplemented by Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution. 4. The proposed boundary map of the Assessment District is hereby approved and adopted. Pursuant to Section 3111 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Secretary of the Authority is directed to file a copy of the map in the office of the County Recorder of the County of within fifteen (15) days of the adoption of this resolution. 5. The Commission determines that the cost of the Improvement Fees and Improvements shall be specially assessed against the lots, pieces or parcels of land within the Assessment District benefiting from the payment of the Improvement Fees. The Commission intends to levy a special assessment upon such Tots, pieces or parcels in accordance with the special benefit to be received by each such lot, piece or parcel of land, respectively, from the payment of the Improvement Fees. 6. The Commission intends, pursuant to subparagraph (f) of Section 10204 of the California Streets and Highways Code, to provide for an annual assessment upon each of the parcels of land in the proposed assessment district to pay various costs and expenses incurred from time to time by the Authority and not otherwise reimbursed to the Authority which result from the administration and collection of assessment installments or from the administration or registration of the improvement bonds and the various funds and accounts pertaining thereto. 7. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12 %) per annum, will be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10, Streets and Highways Code), and the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed thirty (30) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. 8. The procedure for the collection of assessments and advance retirement of bonds under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 shall be as provided in Part 11.1, Division 10, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. 9. Neither the Authority nor any member agency thereof will obligate itself to advance available funds from its or their own funds or otherwise to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund. A determination not to obligate itself shall not prevent the Authority or any such member agency from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds. 10. The amount of any surplus remaining in the improvement fund after completion of the improvements and payment of all claims shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10427.1 of the Streets and Highways Code. 11. To the extent any Improvement Fees are paid to the Authority in cash with respect to property within the proposed Assessment District prior to the date of issuance of the bonds, the amounts so paid shall be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds to the property owner or developer that made the payment. [End of Form of Resolution of Intention] EXHIBIT B CITY OF ALAMEDA CONTACTS FOR SCIP PROGRAM Primary Contact Name: Eric Fonstein Title: Development Coordinator Mailing Address:950 West Mall Square, 2nd Floor, Alameda CA 94501 Delivery Address (if different): E -mail: efonstei @ci.alameda.ca.us Telephone: (510) 749 -5823 Fax: (510) 749 -5808 Secondary Contact Name: Jennifer Ott Title: Redevelopment Manager Mailing Address:950 West Mall Square, 2nd Floor, Alameda CA 94501 Delivery Address (if different): E -mail: JOtt@ci.alameda.ca.us Telephone: (510) 749 -5831 Fax: (510) 749 -5808 [Add additional contacts as needed] 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2559, 2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559, the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area "); and WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is a community redevelopment agency organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq., ( "CRL ") and is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Plan for the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended a total of five (5) times (as amended, the "Existing Plan "): on December 7, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2681, to establish time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290 (Stats. 1993, Chap. 942); on June 7, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2835, on September 20, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2844, on April 3, 2001, by Ordinance No. 2857, to make site - specific land use changes to conform with the amendments to the City of Alameda's General Plan ( "General Plan ") and Zoning Code; and on March 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2896, merging the Project with the West End Community Improvement Plan, extending eminent domain except over residential uses, and adding territory (approximately 123 acres) to the Project Area that was previously included within the Alameda Point Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, the ordinances adopting the Existing Plan (collectively, the "Original Ordinances "), including the findings and determinations made by the City Council therein are made a part hereof by reference, and are final and conclusive, there having been no action timely brought to question the validity of the Existing Plan; and Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -G CC 1 -2 -07 WHEREAS, the Commission has proposed a Sixth Amendment to the Existing Plan ( "Amendment" or "Sixth Amendment ") for the purpose of amending the permitted land uses for the Project Area to provide that they shall be the land uses designated in the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda ( "Planning Board ") has reviewed the Amendment and recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment, together with its certification that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Commission the proposed Amendment, a copy of which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380, Alameda, California, together with the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment, including• the reasons for the Amendment; proposed projects and programs; the proposed method of financing the continued redevelopment of the Project Area; the method or plan for relocation; the implementation plan; the report of the Planning Board of the City with respect to the conformity of the Amendment with the General Plan; a neighborhood impact report; environmental compliance; a summary of consultations with Project Area property owners, businesses and community organizations; and a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies; and WHEREAS, a Project Area Committee was not required to be formed in connection with the Amendment because the proposed Sixth Amendment does not alter the Commission's authority to use eminent domain and does not add any territory to the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Commission held a joint public hearing on November 21, 2006, on the adoption of the Amendment in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, 3rd Floor, Alameda, California; and WHEREAS, notice of said joint public hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of such joint public hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Commission; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Alameda; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first class mail to all residents and businesses in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Board, the Commission's Report to the City Council, the Amendment to the Existing Plan, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amendment and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity, if any, filed with the City Clerk before or during such joint public hearing; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate public bodies. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment is to amend the permitted land uses for the Project Area to provide that they shall be the land uses designated in the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. Section 2. Based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment prepared in accordance with CRL Section 33457.1, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Amendment held on November 21, 2006, the City Council hereby makes the following findings and determinations as warranted by the Amendment: a) The Amendment will permit the continued redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the CRL and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the Amendment will provide for the ongoing consistency of permitted land uses between the Plan and the City's General Plan for property within the Project Area. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. b) The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that under the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, the Commission will continue to be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment revenues; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance within the Project Area will continue to depend upon the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment generated by new investment in the Project Area; that under the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, no public redevelopment activity can be undertaken unless the Commission can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity; and that the Amendment does not alter the financing plan previously prepared and included within the Commission's Reports to the City Council prepared for the Existing Plan. c) The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, including, but not limited to, the Housing Element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the General Plan and the findings of the Planning Board that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan as set forth in its Resolution No. PB- 06 -38. d) The carrying out of the Amendment would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the CRL. This finding is based on the fact that the Amendment will provide for the ongoing consistency of permitted land uses between the Plan and the City's General Plan for property within the Project Area. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. e) The Commission has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the facts set forth in the Commission's Report to the City Council, in particular that 1) the Commission has adopted the relocation guidelines promulgated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development requiring that relocation assistance and benefits be provided; and 2) the Amendment does not contemplate any actions that would lead to the displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. f) There are, or shall be provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33411 and 33411.1, and dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there are suitable housing units available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. The City Council is satisfied that written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity received either before or during the noticed joint public hearing on the Amendment. Having considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any aspect of the Amendment, the City Council hereby overrules all written and oral objections to the Amendment. Section 5. Based on the evidence contained in the record, including, but not limited to, the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that there is no possibility that the Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. Upon approval and adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council directs Commission staff to prepare the Notice of Exemption on behalf of the City and the Commission, and, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, Commission staff will file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Alameda County. Section 6. The Existing Plan, as adopted by the Original Ordinances, is hereby further amended as set forth in the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A. As so amended, the Existing Plan is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to combine the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A with the Existing Plan prepared for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, and when filed with the City Clerk and the Secretary of the Commission, shall constitute the official Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Amendment, (b) authorizes and directs the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Amendment, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Amendment. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Commission, whereupon the Commission is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of the County of Alameda a notice of the approval and adoption of the Amendment pursuant to this Ordinance containing a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, have been instituted under the CRL. Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same or a summary thereof to be published in a. newspaper of general circulation, which is published and circulated in the City of Alameda. Section 12. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Section 13. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment which it approves, is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Amendment, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area ") was adopted by the.City C ouncil of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559. The Project Area is comprised of one contiguous area containing approximately 900 acres and includes the Park Street and Webster Street business districts, two neighborhood com mercial districts along Lincoln Avenue, most of the estuary waterfront from Tilden Way to the former Alameda Naval Air Station (now Alameda Point), the Civic Center, and the primary entrances to the City of Alameda. The Plan has been am ended previously a total of five (5) times. The City Council adopted the first amendment to the Plan on December 7, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2681, establishing certain time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290. The second amendment to the Plan was adopted on June 7, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2835, which made site specific land use changes to conform with amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. The third amendment to the Plan, adopted on September 20, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2844, and the fourth amendment, adopted on April 3, 2001, by Ordinance No, 2857, also made site specific land use changes to conform with amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. The fifth amendment was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2896, and merged the Project with the West End Community Improvement Plan, extended eminent domain except over residential uses, and added terr itory (approximately 123 acres) to the Project Area that was previously included within the Alameda Point Improvement Project. PROPOSED SIXTH AMENDMENT The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is proposing a sixth amendment ( "Sixth Amendment ") to the existing Plan, the purpose of which is to amend the existing Plan land use references to refer to the City of Alameda's General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be a mended from time to time. No amendment is proposed to the boundaries of the Project Area or the fiscal or time limits. The fiscal and time limits stated in the existing Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force as adopted. The Community Improvement Plan, as amended by the first amendment, second amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, and the fifth amendment, is hereby further amended to delete certain text and to add certain text to Section IV (A. — B., §401 through 411), Uses 1 PA060 9008. A LA: CK: g bd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 Permitted in the Project Area, and to amend and replace Attachment No. 3 (Redevelopment Land Use Map) in its entirety, as follows: IV. [ §400] USES PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA Deleted text: B. [ §102] Designated Land Uses 1. [ §103] Residential USCG 2. [ §101] Commercial Uses 3. [ §105] Commercial /Residential Uses 4. [ §106] General Industrial Usce 2 PA0609008. ALA: C K: g b d 10004.501.001/09/19/06 5. [4107] Mixed Uses amended-. 6. ( §'08) Commercial Recreation Uses 7. [ §'09] Parks and Public 0 c Space Uses 8. [§110] Public Institutional U sob 9. [§111] Federal Facilities Uses Added text: A. [ §401] Permitted Land Uses The "Redevelopment Land Use Map ", attached hereto as Attachment No. 3 and incorporated herein by reference, illustrates the location of the Project Area boundaries, 3 PA0609008. A LA: C K: g bd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 major streets within the Project Area, and the land uses authori zed within the Project Area by the City's current General Plan. The City will from time to time update and revise the City's General Plan. It is the intention of this Plan that the land uses and overall street layout to be permitted within the Project Area shall be as provided within the City's General Plan, as it currently exists or as it may from time to time be amended, and as implemented and applied by City ordinances, specific plans, resolutions and other laws. Uses other than those designated in the City 's General Plan and its land use map may be authorized by the City from time to time by amendments to the City's General Plan as authorized by law. B. [ §402] Reserved 1. [ §403] Reserved 2. [ §404] Reserved 3. [ §405] Reserved 4. [ §406] Reserved 5. [ §407] Reserved 6. [ §408] Reserved 7. [ §409] Reserved 8. [ §410] Reserved 9. [§411] Reserved 4 PA0609008. A LA: C K: gbd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 REDEVELOPMENT LAND USE MAP .....__..J a I 1$ auilae� uezoyy. Q i qr IS uagaM 'S 416. /app a1 7"" °ale•' f 1 i rt'1: egmg qu IQ auillseM �• f IS y1B 7 1 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 , 2006, 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 , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: January 2, 2007 Re: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Approval of Use Permit UP06 -0016, by 24 Hour Fitness Corporation, for the Operation of a Health Studio Located at 2215B South Shore Center BACKGROUND On November 13, 2006 the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted to approve a Use Permit for operation of a Health Studio within an existing 2,000 square foot tenant space located at 2215B South Shore Center. There were no public speakers for the item. On November 22, 2006, the appellant, Paul plaisdell owner and president of the Alameda Athletic Club, submitted a petition for appear of the Planning Board's decision, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Board Resolution and deny the Use Permit for the Health Studio. (Attachment #2) DISCUSSION The Alameda Athletic Club is located at 1226 Park Street, approximately half a mile from the proposed Health Studio. The appellant contends that the operation of a health studio in the area will adversely affect Alameda Athletic Club's business and that of other locally owned fitness centers, and he also states that growth of this fitness center is not limited and requests limitations on the square footage and number of exercise machines. The appellant argues that: 1. The Planning Board Resolution implies or assumes that no other easily accessible Health Studio is in the Area. The General Plan calls for continuing to improve Alameda's shopping centers and maintaining full - service community shopping centers. The Planning Board finding determined that a Health Studio use located within the Towne Centre shopping center is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. 2. The Resolution does not contain sufficient conditions to insure that it does not Agenda Item #5 -A 01 -02 -07 Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 2 of 3 exceed the scope of the project as described in the Use Permit application. Staff reviewed the project for compatibility with nearby properties and imposed conditions to limit the use of operations to those described on the application materials. These include limiting the number of customers served to no more than 36 customers at a time and not having more than 5 employees on a particular shift. Furthermore the use permit was granted only for the retail space at 2215B as shown on project plans. To address the appellant's concerns further, staff is recommending an additional condition that limits this Use Permit approval to the 2,000 square foot floor area shown on project plans. Future expansions would be subject to use permit approval. The applicant is in agreement with the addition of this condition. 3. The opening of the proposed Health Studio would adversely impact the Alameda Athletic Club and other locally owned Health Studios. City zoning regulations allow the operation of health studios in C -2 districts subject to the approval of a Use Permit AMC 30- 4.9(c)(7)(b). There is no restriction in the AMC governing or limiting the proximity of health studios to one another. The proposed Fit -Lite facility offers substantially different services than the Alameda Athletic Club. Unlike the Alameda Athletic Club, Fit -Lite will not be a full service facility and will not offer: - Showers, sauna, or jacuzzi - Free weights - Facilities for aerobics, yoga, martial arts, or other classes - Massage BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary relating to Planning & Building activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this subject does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, the current application entails a minor alteration to an existing structure and this project is exempt from further environmental review. Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Board's approval of Use Permit (UP06 -0016) as amended to include specific square footage to the use based on the findings and conditions therein. By: ATTACHMENTS: Respectfully submitted, Cathy ,1 oodbury Planning an Building Director Bria Planner 1. November 13, 2006 Planning Board Staff Report 2. Appeal: AP06 -0002 cc: Applicant: Chris Lincoln, 24 -Hour Fitness Corp. Appellant: Paul Blaisdell, The Alameda Athletic Club Attachment #1 ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. STAFF REPORT 8 -C UP06 -0015 and UP06 -0016 – Harsch Investments Realty LLC – 2215 South Shore Center. The applicant requests approval of Use Permits allowing operation of a Health Studio (Fit -Lite) between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm in an existing retail space in Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center). The Use Permits are required for health studios in the Central Business (C -2) District and for the extended hours of operation. The project is located in the Central Business – Planned Development (C – 2 PD) District Categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. Brian Stanke, Planner Approve the Use Permit AMC — Alameda Municipal Code CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act Draft Resolution for UP06 -0015 Draft Resolution for UP06 -0016 Site Plan I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The proposed Fit -Lite health studio will be located in an existing 1,978 square foot commercial space in the Alameda Towne Centre shopping center. Two Use Permits are required. One Use Permit is required for the use as a "health studio" in the Central Business (C -2) District. A second Use Permit is needed for the proposed operations between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm. The fitness club will have approximately 25 exercise machines and a warm up area. The business is oriented towards customers coming in for 30- minute workouts and relatively fast client turnover. There will be no external changes to the building. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2006 Attachment 1 Agenda Item #5 -A 01 -02 -07 11. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center) is an existing shopping center established in the late 1950's. The shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses. Within the shopping center, the Safeway grocery store and Walgreen's both operate twenty -four hours a day under valid Use Permits. The project is in Building 100, surrounded on all sides by the shopping center. Building 100 is set back from Otis Drive approximately 220 feet. 2215 is the second retail space behind Trader Joe's, on the east side of the building. B. Use Permit Requirements • In the C -2 zoning district, businesses that typically require Use Permits include liquor stores, gas stations, car washes, drive - through restaurants, and other businesses that remain open later than 10:00 PM or open earlier than 6:00 AM. The purpose of the Use Permit is primarily to ensure that late night or outdoor activities do not adversely affect neighboring residential areas. Under Alameda Municipal Code 30- 4.9.b.7 (b) a use permit is required for "health studios" in a C -2 district. To ensure compatibility with neighboring land uses, Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) requires that specific findings be made when evaluating a Use Permit application. These findings are included in the attached draft resolution and are supported by evidence included in this staff report. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2006 Page 2 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review under Section 15301 — Existing Facilities. The current application entails minor interior alterations to an existing retail structure. IV. ANALYSIS A. Project Compatibility Noise and Traffic Early morning operations will be of a relatively low intensity use, when compared to other uses that would typically require a Use Permit such as taverns or restaurants. The proposed maximum capacity of the health studio is 30 customers and an average expected usage of approximately four customers at a time. Customers will use exercise machines indoors. There will be no outdoor activities. Due to the low intensity nature of this land use and the location within an existing shopping center, operations of a health studio between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm will not substantially increase noise to levels that would be incompatible with nearby uses, nor affect peak hour traffic volumes. B. Findings Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) requires that specific findings be made when evaluating a Use Permit application. Staff can make all of the findings for the granting of the Use Permits. Finding 1: The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area. The project is located in an existing shopping center. It is surrounded by a variety of retail stores and services, including some that operate twenty -four hours a day. Finding 2: The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities. Fit -Lite will be operating in an existing retail space in the shopping center. Traffic impacts for the shopping center were evaluated in 2003 when the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the shopping center that included traffic mitigations. Recommended traffic mitigations have been implemented, including two AC Transit bus stops located within the shopping center. The opening of this fitness center will not substantially affect peak hour traffic volumes or require additional services. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2006 Page 3 Finding 3: The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions, upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Fit - Lite's use of the existing space will not be an intensification of use. Fit - Lite's operation of a health studio between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm will not create significant amounts of noise. Project design and location minimizes or eliminates potential noise impacts that could otherwise adversely affect neighboring uses. Finding 4: The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan. Policy 2.5.3 of the General Plan states that the City should "maintain full - service shopping centers serving all sectors of the City." Allowing the Fit -Lite to operate within the existing retail space in the shopping center will provide Alamedans with an easily accessible health studio within close proximity to the Alameda Hospital, assisted living facilities and other population centers. C. Conclusion: Fit -Lite will be opening in an existing location, 2215 South Shore Center, that has been in use for many years. The health studio will have approximately 25 exercise machines and a warm up area. The design, intended use, and location of the studio minimizes or eliminates potential noise and glare impacts that could otherwise adversely affect neighboring uses. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Use Permit UP06 -0015 and Use Permit UP06 -0016 based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the draft resolution. G:\ PLANNING \PB\ Reports\ 2006 \11- 13- 06 \SouthShore_2215_UP06 -0015 UP06 -0016 Fit -Lite Staff Report.doc Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2006 Page 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION Draft APPROVING USE PERMIT UP06 -0015 ALLOWING OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF SIX AM AND TEN PM. WHEREAS, an application was made on September 11, 2006, by 24 Hour Fitness Corporation requesting Use Permits to allow operation of a Fit -Rite fitness center at 2215 South Shore Drive between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm; and WHEREAS, the applications were accepted as complete on September 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2 -PD, Central Business District Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and WHEREAS, businesses that are located in C -2 zoning districts, are adjacent to a residential zone or on a street abutting a residential zone and that operate between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM require a Use Permit, pursuant to AMC Section 30- 4.9(c)(8); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006 and has made the following findings, pursuant to the requirements of Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code, concerning the Use Permit application: Finding 1: The proposed use relates favorably with the General Plan. Policy 2.5.3 of the General Plan states that the City should "maintain full - service shopping centers serving all sectors of the City." Allowing Fit -Lite to operate within the existing retail space in the shopping center will provide Alamedans with an easily accessible fitness center within close proximity to the Alameda Hospital, assisted living facilities and other population centers. Finding 2: The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(1)]. The project is located in an existing shopping center. The shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses. Within the shopping center, the Safeway grocery store and Walgreen's both operate twenty -four hours a day under valid Use Permits. Finding 3: The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service 1 Attachment # Item #8 -C /13/06 Plan r' g Board Meeting facilities [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(2)]. Fit -Lite will be operating in an existing retail space in the shopping center. Significant additional traffic is not anticipated from the use of the existing space. Two AC Transit bus stops are located within the shopping center. The opening of this fitness center will not affect peak hour traffic volumes or require additional services. Finding 4: The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions, upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(3)]. Fit - Lite's use of the existing space will not be an intensification of use. Fit - Lite's operation of a Health Studio between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm will not create significant amounts of noise. Project design and location minimizes or eliminates potential noise impacts that could otherwise adversely affect neighboring uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines current application entails a minor to an existing structure and pursuant to Sections 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), this project is exempt from further environmental review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Use Permit UP06 -0015 to allow the operations between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm, subject to the following conditions: 1. VESTING. The Use Permit approvals shall expire two (2) years after the date of approval or by November 13, 2008, whichever is later, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the Planning Board prior to the date of expiration. 2. Code Compliance. All improvements shall conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. 3. Compliance with Laws. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and shall file with relevant federal, state and local agencies for required permits. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of such permits. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of the Use Permit. All required Federal, State, regional, and local permits shall be obtained prior to occupancy. 4. Limit on Intensity of Use. The applicant shall not serve more than 36 customers at a time. Furthermore the applicant shall not have more than 5 employees on a particular shift. 5. Staffing. The applicant will have at least one staff person on premise at all times 2 during operating hours. 6. HOLD HARMLESS The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City 7. Acknowledgement of Conditions. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. 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 any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 competing and submitting an appeal form paying the required fee. G:\ PLANNING \PB \Resolutions \2006\11- 13- 06\SouthShore 2215 UP06 -0015 Fit -Lite Resolution.doc 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION Draft APPROVING USE PERMIT UP06 -0016 ALLOWING OPERATION OF A HEALTH STUDIO. WHEREAS, an application was made on September 11, 2006, by 24 Hour Fitness Corporation requesting Use Permits to allow operation of a Fit -Rite fitness center at 2215 South Shore Drive; and WHEREAS, the applications were accepted as complete on September 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2 -PD, Central Business District Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and WHEREAS, businesses that are located in C -2 zoning districts and that include activities that fall under the definition of a "health studio" require a Use Permit, pursuant to AMC Section 30- 4.9(c)(7)(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006 and has made the following findings, pursuant to the requirements of Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code, concerning the Use Permit application: Finding 1: The proposed use relates favorably with the General Plan. Policy 2.5.3 of the General Plan states that the City should "maintain full - service shopping centers serving all sectors of the City." Allowing Fit -Lite to operate within the existing retail space in the shopping center will provide Alamedans with an easily accessible fitness center within close proximity to the Alameda Hospital, assisted living facilities and other population centers. Finding 2: The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(1)]. The project is located in an existing shopping center. The shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses. Finding 3: The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(2)]. Fit -Lite will be operating in an existing retail space in the shopping center. Significant additional traffic is not anticipated from the use of the existing space. Two AC Transit bus 1 stops are located within the shopping center. The opening of this fitness center will not affect peak hour traffic volumes or require additional services. Finding 4: The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions, upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(3)]. Fit - Lite's use of the existing space will not be an intensification of use. Project design and location minimizes or eliminates potential noise impacts that could otherwise adversely affect neighboring uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines current application entails a minor to an existing structure and pursuant to Sections 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), this project is exempt from further environmental review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Use Permit UP06 -0016 to allow the operation of a health studio, subject to the following conditions: 1. VESTING. The Use Permit approvals shall expire two (2) years after the date of approval or by November 13, 2008, whichever is later, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the Planning Board prior to the date of expiration. 2. Code Compliance. All improvements shall conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. 3. Compliance with Laws. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and shall file with relevant federal, state and local agencies for required permits. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of such permits. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of the Use Permit. All required Federal, State, regional, and local permits shall be obtained prior to occupancy. 4. Limit on Intensity of Use. The applicant shall not serve more than 36 customers at a time. Furthermore the applicant shall not have more than 5 employees on a particular shift. 5. HOLD HARMLESS The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or 2 proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City 6. Acknowledgement of Conditions. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. 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 any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 competing and submitting an appeal form paying the required fee. G: \PLANNING \PB \Resolutions \2006 \11- 13- 06 \SouthShore 2215 UP06 -0016 Fit -Lite Resolution.doc 3 - ..rs-w-- Sr100- `i IMO s■ VIvIlilfin OW nrs rtra 121..1= 9ux'. 2a 4r� '° � JO NO NOILVWL1OdN1 to g &¢ ■ Mdtd 3L8 DNILSIX yyp � d a_ i°t $ 1 i 1 F O vJ 'vp3rvvltl klaN33 3llpHS igloos LIU J1 1N3W3A0ddlli iNVN31 1 in 514:0 .. kNk 01111111111111111:11RO :vuacu�•u� N � 0OZBB BM 11,700/3f1 G 00C 71.9 VZV1d MOWN 00L9 mitakrtrarag 1 g i OT 11 NV-1d L001! 11V LIA0 El : m a " P. 0 r Q V0 •v0WV1v 831N30 380HS HLf10S LIZZ 1N3013A02:Id14I VOLP9 s11 'NVOR12.1 CCC 2Dre V2V1.1 'oak& 00L. SNMV11 I` CIOUVI■ g 1 alii.v.j. Mild Lt001.4 0303V1Na it ) < VD 'VCOVIVIV aal.N3D 3b0HS Hinos LLZZ IN3113A0eldill INVN3.1. .008 i0 /2.111H3HY D Nair 1 MI 0- CITY OF ALAMEDA 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ROOM 190 ALAMEDA; CA 94501 Attachment #2 (510) 747 -6800 FAX (510) 747 -6804 . APPEAL: AP06 -0002 Applicant Information PAUL BLAISDELL 1226 PARK ST ALAMEDA, CA 94501 510 -521 -2044 Contractor Information Owner Information HARSCH INVESTMENT REALTY LLC SERIES C 1121 SW SALMON ST PORTLAND, OR 97205 -0000 Project Information Status: APPLIED Applied: 11 /22/2006 Issued: Type: APPEAL Finaled: Category:NA Sub -Type: NA Parcel Number: 074 - 1200 - 002 -19 Valuation: $100.00 Job Address: 2215 SOUTH SHORE CTR Work Description: APPEAL OF UP06 -0016 • INSPECTIONS Building: (510) 747 -6830 (7:30 -9:30 AM) Electrical: (510) 747 -6830 (7:30 -9:30 AM) Plumbing & Mechanical: (510) 747 -6830 (7:30 -9:30 AM) Fire: (510) 337 -2120 Design Review: (510) 747 -6850 ITEM # FEE DESCRIPTION 710 710- Design Review Fees - (minor) Commercial (retail, office, industrial, etc.) RECEIPT # 436222 PAYMENT METHOD Check CHECK # ACCOUNT CODE UNITS FEE AMOUNT PAID 4110 - 37090 (1410) 100 • $100.00 $100.00 COMMENTS/PAYEE Total Fees: $100.00 RECEIPT RECEIPT DATE AMT $100.00 1376 AMERICAN FITNESS CENTER 11/22/2006 INC. Total Payments: $100.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Rpt6001 Attachment 2 Agenda Item #5 -A 01 -02 -07 PLANI1NG.68UGDING PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR REVIEW This petition is hereby filed as an appeal or call for review of the decision of the P` 0.1n r 13 a Q V which (Planning Director /Zoning Administrator /Planning Board/Historical Advisory Board) for application U s te- f _ v- ►-.-.. (Denied /Granted /Established Conditions) (Application type) at £P06- 00 /6 Z. / S fIo (Application Number) (Street Address) on // %/3 / 2 ° °6 (Specify Date) The basis of the appeal or call for review is: sz_ . A__[ (If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach additional sheets.) Appelland: Pa CA pellant Name(s), Tanning Board Member or Council Member) Address: / 2- 2 P- v k s�- .) % �. -� �a cam , 9' /s0 (Appellant Address) AMC Section 30 -25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides that within ten (10) days a decision of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board, and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City Council. In addition to the appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be called for review within ten (10) days to the Planning Board by the Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or the Historical Advisory Board may be called for review by the City Council or a member the City Council. A processing fee of $100.00 must accompany the Petition for Appeal. No fee is required for a Call for Review. (For Office Use Only Received By: ./ Receipt No.: 11,7°6- 0°0,2 Date Received Stamp RREeEtVE13*-H: PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94 * ****** Appellant: Paul Blaisdell Address: 1226 Park St., Alameda, CA, 94501 Petition for Appeal Finding 1 of the Resolution Draft implies and/or assumes that there are no other easily accessible fitness centers in the C -2 business district. The Alameda Athletic Club is an easily accessible fitness center within close proximity to the Alameda Hospital, assisted living facilities, bus stops, and other population centers. In the Proposal Summary Fit -Life is said to be located in an existing 1,978 square foot commercial space and that they will have approximately 25 exercise machines. The Resolution Draft does not limit the square footage of the proposed fitness center or the number of exercise machines located at the fitness center. Are concerns is that once these permits are granted there will be no limiting boundaries about the future growth of this fitness center. We request that the Draft Resolution include limitations on square footage of fitness center and quantity of exercise machines in fitness center. These concerns are based on the fact that nearly every proposal at the Alameda Towne Center have grown way beyond the scope of the original proposal. Over recent years 24 Hour Fitness has been very eager to open a Big Box Fitness Center in Alameda. Past City Councils have seen this threat as detrimental to locally owned and operated fitness centers and have denied all such requests. Finding 4 of the Draft Resolution states that the fitness center will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Alameda Athletic Club is located three blocks from the proposed location of the Fit -Life Health Studio. The close proximity of the proposed health studio will adversely affect the Alameda Athletic Club's business and property and other locally owned fitness centers. We request that the City Council deny these Proposals and Draft Resolutions based on the facts and evidence brought forth in our Petition For Appeal. RECEIVED ri *12 1006 RERMITCENTER A AMEDA, CA 94501 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT UP06 -0016, ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A HEALTH STUDIO AT 2215B SOUTH SHORE CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made on September 11, 2006, by 24 Hour Fitness Corporation requesting Use Permits to allow operation of a Fit -Lite fitness center at 2215B South Shore Drive; and WHEREAS, the applications were accepted as complete on September 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2 -PD, Central Business District Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and WHEREAS, businesses that are located in C -2 zoning districts and that include activities that fall under the definition of a "health studio" require a Use Permit, pursuant to AMC Section 30- 4.9(c)(7)(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006 and approved the issuance of the Use Permit; and WHEREAS, as a petition of appeal was made on November 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on January 2, 2007 and has made the following findings, pursuant to the requirements of Section 30- 21.3(b) of the Alameda Municipal Code, concerning the Use Permit application: Finding 1: The proposed use relates favorably with the General Plan. Policy 2.5.e of the General Plan states that the City should "maintain full - service shopping centers serving all sectors of the City." Policy 2.5.d of the General Plan states that the City should "Encourage continuing improvements to the South Shore Center and other shopping centers." Allowing Fit -Lite to operate within the existing retail space in the Towne Centre shopping center is consistent with the General Plans vision of a continually improving regional shopping center. The proposed .Health Studio will provide Alameda residents with an easily accessible fitness center within close proximity to the Alameda Hospital, assisted living facilities, and other population centers. Resolution #5 -A 1 -2 -07 Finding 2: The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(1)]. The project is located in an existing shopping center. The shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses. Finding 3: The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(2)]. Fit -Lite will be operating in an existing retail space in the shopping center. Significant additional traffic is not anticipated from the use of the existing space. Two AC Transit bus stops are located within the shopping center. The opening of this fitness center will not affect peak hour traffic volumes or require additional services. Finding 4: The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions, upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity [AMC §30- 21.3(b)(3)]. Fit - Lite's use of the existing space will not be an intensification of use. Project design and location minimizes or eliminates potential noise impacts that could otherwise adversely affect neighboring uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines current application entails a minor to an existing structure and pursuant to Sections 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), this project is exempt from further environmental review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves Use Permit UP06 -0016 to allow the operation of a health studio, subject to the following conditions: 1. VESTING. The Use Permit approvals shall expire two (2) years after the date of approval or by January 2, 2009, whichever is later, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. 2. Code Compliance. All improvements shall conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. 3. Compliance with Laws. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and shall file with relevant federal, state and local agencies for required permits. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of such permits. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of the Use Permit. All required Federal, State, regional, and local permits shall be obtained prior to occupancy. 4. Limit on Intensity of Use. The applicant shall not serve more than 36 customers at a time. Furthermore the applicant shall not have more than 5 employees on a particular shift. 5. Limitation of Location. The Use Permit approval is limited to the location and 2,100 square foot area shown on project plans prepared by Harold J. Havens, consisting of 3 sheets, received 11 September 2006 and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department. 6. HOLD HARMLESS The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City 7. Acknowledgement of Conditions. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. 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 any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: January 2, 2007 Re: Public Hearing to consider an appeal by Harsch Investment Properties, for Major Design Review DR06 -0081, for Building 300, at 2245 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096, for Building 500, at 2246 South Shore Center. BACKGROUND The Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center) is an existing shopping center that was originally developed in the late 1950's. The center is undergoing a phased redevelopment. Currently, the applicant has applied to replace three existing buildings. These three buildings are identified as Buildings 300, 400 and 500 on current site plans (See Attachments 1 and 2). Building 300 will replace the old Walgreen's and extend the building northward consistent with the new Safeway frontage. Buildings 400 and 500 will replace the old Velvet Grill and Ross / PETCO buildings and will occupy the same general location and floor area as the existing buildings. The Planning Board approved the location and design of Building 300 (old Walgreen's site) in 2003 (PDA02 -0003 and DR02- 0095). However, due primarily to the addition of a second floor in a portion of the building, the currently proposed building is taller than the approved design. The roof parapets are eight to nine feet higher than proposed in 2003 and a decorative tower has been added to the northeast corner of the building (See Attachment 1 for building elevations). Consequently, a new Design Review approval is required. The 2002 Planned Development Amendment (PDA) that was partially approved by the City in 2003 included a new Building 400, in a new location. The currently proposed Building 400 is not the Building 400 that was proposed in 2003. Rather, the current proposal includes the reconstruction of the existing Buildings 400 and 500 in a more compact design that occupies much of the existing building footprint and will result in a net decrease in floor area. Pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), these improvements are permitted subject to Design Review approval (see Attachments 3 and 4, November 13 and December. 11, 2006 Planning Board reports for more detailed discussion). Notices of the Design Review applications for Buildings 300, 400 and 500 were mailed to approximately 1,000 surrounding property owners and interested parties. Design Review Agenda Item #5 -B 01 -02 -07 Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 2 of 3 applications are typically approved administratively by the Planning and Building Director, however, due to the community's interest in the project these applications were referred to the Planning Board for consideration on November 13, 2006. The Planning Board approved the application for Building 400 (old Velvet Grill building), but the motion to approve Building 500 (old Ross / Petco) failed on a vote of 3 ayes to 2 noes because the City Charter requires that a majority of the entire Planning Board (4) cast an affirmative vote on a motion for the Board to take an action. A motion to approve the design of Building 300 (old Walgreen's) failed for lack of a second. After further discussion the Planning Board requested design modifications for both buildings and the applications were then continued to the next Planning Board meeting on December 11, 2006. In response to the Board's design comments, the applicant reduced the height of Building 300 by two feet and made a number of exterior design enhancements to Building 500, including additional windows, murals, wooden trellises and landscaping. On December 11, the motion to approve these two applications again did not garner the required four votes for approval (3 ayes, 1 no and 1 abstention). There were no additional design modifications requested by the Planning Board and there were no public comments about the designs at this meeting. Due to the amount of time that had passed since these Design Review applications were submitted and the applicant's need for a timely resolution of this matter, the applicant requested that these items not be continued again. Consequently, the Board deemed the projects denied for lack of a majority vote and on December 13, 2006, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Board's decision. DISCUSSION Staff reviewed the proposed designs for consistency with the City Design Review Manual and existing Alameda Towne Centre entitlements and determined that the projects meet the requirements established by the City. The proposed architecture is consistent with the design and scale of adjacent buildings and incorporates the craftsman elements of the recently renovated buildings throughout Alameda Towne Centre, including horizontal wood siding, decorative ceramic tile work and wooden trellises. Plans also include enhanced landscaping and pedestrian amenities. Building 500 incorporates an extensive installation of public art in the form of murals that exceeds the City's requirement. The applicant has responded to Planning Board and public comments concerning building design and modified the proposals accordingly as described above. Staff also determined that approval of these reconstructed buildings would not interfere with future site improvements such as, transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian paths, landscaping, vehicle circulation, parking and redevelopment of the shoreline area that may be required under existing and pending Planned Development Amendments. Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 3 of 3 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary relating to Planning & Building activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this subject does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the City has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time. RECOMMENDATION Uphold the applicant's Appeal and approve Major Design Review DR06 -0081, for Building 300, at 2245 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review No. DR06 -0096, for Building 500, at 2246 South Shore Center. By: ATTACHMENTS: Respectfully submitted, Cathy roodbury Planni g and Building Director Douglas Garrison Supervising Planner 1. Building 300 Plans 2. Building 500 Plans 3. November 13, 2006 Planning Board Staff Report 4. December 11, 2006 Planning Board Staff Report cc: Applicant: Harsch Investment Properties. Attachment 1 i:s.{t, lj r� y 6a i t? +.i iota EUCALYPTUS EVERGREEN OAK GOLDEN MEDALLION TREE CEDAR ELM BRISBANE BOX BUILDING 300 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 45400 - qo$t Vd 1111411111 {111111110 ° „ BIIII{IIIIIIIIIII{(I� _ ,J`�� 11111'0111911111411110 II II I ' 4111111111IIIII P AiIlII111111111 1 L r - -- i i7 77,,, -- — 1 Z 5 i� i .1 a .a -•�— as , m as _§ m i I °8 91 ; a i gar, PP 3ECl9 1 all Hifi x13 _ Q3ss o-= 0 Wr x O 5 W a� 3_ .,: w 3 x:: �E,3 dt °,gg }I=6 ip 3 a q� LLCM. a 3 a= BBBB9BBBBBBBBBB9BB®®BB00 ®B© Ha t5fit � Q f ' o 8® ° __ _ , ° • Y pJ i 1 Mike a II a r' 77I '� Qom, Q l_r_. _ .. ._.... �:0 0 �° — � p ( " T ,.. i a. o~ C L i _ t -- A� n , 1111, f r O 0 aY I1 r., o a �I gF A Y 0 • 0 .... = -� o H t' 0— .... I.. -, E FLOOR PLA N W 1- H Z W 0 O a k" a6 Lij 16131 azugsfooi • - "`�": r SliACL$ , Q ' I• _ } L 2003 2006 Delta 1 Irk . _` r c'. 5, c '.- �. etzt a lib le= • - ti 58,000 127 -..!.-.7.. -3',.• - - - - _ =i } ,' ` • `„ 200 Shops Ilb 15,099 15,378 � . 1. ! `i= 1 a, :.' I +277 is goo • - - ; LOT 2 _ • 0 ; I 300 40 293 14628 • 2ik lPACii- - - - Partial 600 lib 30,341 30,704 +363 1 • i .-'r __ j - _ - 1 1500 1 t ;� v . ! J 14,500 16,444 +1944 �, cx? „G `,`, t _ TOTAL 203,002 +7085 • Y� t, - ' �•-./`-• t •�\5 • a e % 1 $ — J I {' u 7%17 .;h 7c , ,\` •• - 1:` 1 11. •X • ;-,"'(.> , • A }.. �t ,X _ . E. 1�11t,a ` 4a l LGT _ {2', .2SI LJ � • I I _- ,4 A • roved Buildings: Comparison of 2003 vs 2006 Planar Alameda Towne Centre i Alameda, CA �11 s C 440441.,c 4•11ari• • - • 1', a n la- • 104-4is ‘1 • 4!'y• g I is IA.. • •• ,••• 0* '0 ' Se**. 4. INTERIM PLAN LLJ 1- z L1J ° LU tu Z wo cr) Hci) < r-1 • 0 w 0 0. N- 0 6 o ,- 0 )1 -21 V• -IIU rg i rrmurrMi In .: , !11141f1MIN-N-0 .0.1 1 01-MAIIIIIII ill, I Ea , , ,, i ,,, 0,1it ' 1 ,.... i 1 fiq ii r4r i :r 6,Z.X_I rill — - illf _ ■ ID. HI MITITITfr 'F, 1 ill = I iii, z ?:iii....5 111111; 11,111;1■11-M, I iir j „ , = I 11.140M-- 'il Ni1111,11filitillifi, ii_r...- g gii! 1. _. "B111■11111killtkt, ,,,., ,,--. --t1--- 1 ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,-.;,...„. , ii,, , „,,..-„,:,:„...1_ , 47---- ',1 r • „ §, Rh si IB g -1111 -PC krt. J.7.1 _/ @VW/ 43 - A•o1-4-14- - ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE 1ST FLOOR PLAN - NORTH M (1) w 1- z Z w U O $ o "5 w 1ST FLOOR PLAN - SOUT ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE n CO • 5 2ND FLOOR PLAN - N w 1— z w w 0 I— P. < e 3 w 06 5 • 1-thl 2ND FLOOR PLAN - SOUTH C0 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: 8-A APPLICATION: Major Design Review DR06 -0081 for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0092 at 2296 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096, 2246 South Shore Center. The Property is zoned C -2- PD. STAFF PLANNER: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner RECOMMENDATION: Approve DR06- 00081, DR06 -0092 and DR06 -0096 ACRONYMS: CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act DR — Major Design Review DRM— Design Review Manual EIR — Environmental Impact Report GLA — Gross Leasable Floor Area PDA — Planned Development Amendment FIGURES: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2003 Phasing Map 2. Comparison of 2003 and 2006 Plans 3. Comparison of Existing vs. 2006 Proposal 1. Draft Resolutions 2. Site and Building Plans 3. Comment Letters 4. PDA02 -0003 Approved Area Map 5. Planning Board Resolution No. 03-40 I. Project Summary The Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center) is an existing shopping center that was originally developed in the late 1950's. The center is undergoing a phased redevelopment. Three new buildings are proposed to replace three existing buildings. These three new buildings are identified as Building 300, 400 and 500 on current site plans (See Figures 1 and 2 of this report and Attachment 2). Building 300 will replace the old Building 300 (Walgreen's). Buildings 400 and 500 will replace the old Ross / PETCO and the Velvet Grill buildings. These buildings will occupy the same general location as the existing buildings and will result in a net reduction in floor area. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Attachment 3 Agenda Item #5 -B 01 -02 -07 II. PURPOSE OF THIS PLANNING BOARD HEARING The applicant has submitted Design Review applications for three new buildings that will replace three existing buildings in the shopping center. Under the Alameda Municipal Code and earlier entitlements, these proposed buildings are permitted, subject to Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director and do not require a Planned Development Amendment (PDA). In response to public noticing for these Design Review applications, the City received comments from the public concerning the appropriateness of processing these applications independently of the currently pending Planned Development Amendment application PDA05 -0004 which includes a new Target Store. These comment letters are attached (Attachment 3). Consequently, these Design Reviews have been scheduled for hearing before the Planning Board. In addition to these three Design Review applications, the applicant has submitted two Building Permit applications for parking lot improvements. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time. IV. Permit and Construction History The following entitlement summary provides information that is relevant to the evaluation of these Design Review applications. 1958 -1986 • The shopping center was originally developed in the late 1950's. Various buildings were added or reconfigured over the following years. • In 1986, the City rezoned this property adding the Planned Development (PD) overlay. No project specific standards were established through this rezoning. 1986 -2002 • Various new buildings were constructed including Trader Joe's and Office Max. 2002 -2003 • The applicant submitted a new master plan (PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095) that included renovation of the shopping center and approximately 112,000 sq. ft. of additional gross leasable floor area (GLA). • A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for that proposed expansion and reconstruction of the shopping center. In May 2003, the Planning Board adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration which evaluated the impacts of expanding the center Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 2 by 112,000 square feet, from 545,000 to 657,000 square feet, and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. • In July 2003, the Planning Board granted conditional approval to proceed with portions of PDA02 -0003 and Dr03 -0095. The Planning Board made approval of the remainder of PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 contingent upon the submittal and approval of revised plans that were to include a location for a new gas station and a more waterfront oriented design of the portion of the center that is closest to the San Francisco Bay. 2003 -2005 • PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 were vested by the construction of Building 600 and additions to Building 100. • In December 2004, the Planning Board approved an extension of the requirement to complete construction of buildings specifically approved by PDA02 -0003 and DR02- 0095. • Building permits for Building 200 were issued and construction was initiated. Reconstruction of Building 600 West and 700 and construction of Building 1500 were approved by Design Review and construction was initiated. Reconstruction of central courtyards, walkways and some parking Tots were approved by Building Permit and construction was initiated. • Restriping of travel lanes at the Otis Drive and Park Street intersection was completed as required in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. • The applicant submitted a revised master plan, to address modifications requested by the Planning Board in 2003 (PDA05 -0004 and DR05 -0073). This revised plan also included an additional expansion of GLA by approximately 49,100 square feet to accommodate a proposed Target Store. 2006 • A traffic signal was installed at the Otis Drive and Park Street intersection as required in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. • In September 2005 the Planning Board approved another extension of the requirement to complete construction of buildings, specifically approved by PDA02- 0003 and DR02 -0095, to October 2007. • Design Review and Building Permits were submitted and approved for Building 800. • Building Permit and Design Review applications, the subject of this item, were submitted for Building 300 (old Walgreeens), Building 500 (old Ross) and Building 400 (Velvet Grill /Petco). V. STAFF ANALYSIS The City received comments expressing concern that these three buildings should not be approved. Comments fall into two general categories: 1) The buildings cannot be approved without a PDA and new environmental review; and 2) The Design Review applications should not be approved due to the size of these buildings. The following analysis will address the PDA question first, the Design Review question second, and CEQA will be addressed last. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 3 A. Planned Development Requirements The purpose of the PD combining district is to provide more flexibility in site design than would normally be allowed in the underlying zoning district (AMC 30- 4.13.a). Under PD zoning, an applicant may request reduced parking or landscaping requirements, increased building height, reduced building setbacks or other exceptions to AMC development standards. PD zoning allows flexibility in site design, it does not limit the types of uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning district. Buildings and other improvements within an existing Planned Development (PD) may be altered without a PDA. Determining whether a PDA will be required is a two step process. If the project does not substantially increase floor area and it is determined that the project will not adversely affect adjacent properties, no PDA is required. AMC Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) and (e) require a PDA when project expansion meets the following criteria: Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) Additions to commercial or public uses which involve more than a twenty -five percent increase in floor area of existing structures associated with the use. Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) A building or use expansion which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, may have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property. In 2002 the applicant submitted a new master plan for the shopping center. The plan proposed a 112,000 square feet expansion, new buildings and a request to reduce parking requirements. Consequently, a PDA and Design Review were required (PDA02 -0003 and DR02- 0095). The Planning Board adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the effects of the full 112,000 square feet expansion and then conditionally approved portions of that master plan Attachment 4, shows the area specifically approved within hand drawn polygon. B. PDA02 -0003 Requirements Upon review of the staff reports, resolutions and meeting minutes from 2003, it is clear that the Planning Board allowed some flexibility in the redevelopment of the shopping center by allowing changes in floor area to be approved administratively by Design Review. It is also clear that the Planning Board intended for there to be some limitations on development. Relevant conditions from Resolution No. 03-40 are summarized below. Resolution PB -03- 40 is included as Attachment No. 5. Condition No. 1 notes that the approval excludes Phase III, IV -b and later phases but that these phases may be approved at a later date. This future approval would require the applicant to submit revised plans that included provisions for a gas station and redesign of the two acre portion of the shopping center referred to as the shoreline area. This condition Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 4 also notes that these changes may be subject to additional traffic analysis and CEQA review. Figure 1, delineates the phasing map proposed in 2003. Condition No. 2 noted that pursuant to the AMC, minor architectural changes such as storefronts, door and window openings with less than five percent change in floor area may be approved through Design Review by the Planning and Building Director. Condition No. 20 required the applicant to submit final architectural details, colors and materials and other improvements for final design review and Planning and Building Director approval, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. This condition allows minor alterations to be approved by the Planning and Building Director. The Planning and Building Director may also determine that significant alterations should be reviewed by the Planning Board. Condition No. 22 limited the maximum number of large stores within the shopping center. This condition allows one store of up to 90,000 square feet and two stores of up to 60,000 square feet. This condition does not specify the location of these stores. This condition notes that stores larger than this shall require a Planned Development Amendment. It also allows additions or modifications that are less than five percent in overall shopping center area to be approved by administrative Design Review. Building 300 Building 100, 200, 300, 600 and 1500 were specifically approved by the Planning Board in 2003. The Buildings, as proposed in 2003, total 196,917 square feet of gross leasable floor area (GLA). The total square footage of these buildings as built and including the currently proposed Building 300 totals approximately 203,000. If Building 300 is approved, as proposed, this would result in an cumulative increase of approximately 6,083 square feet; or, an increase of approximately three percent from the 2003 proposal. Figure 2 shows the building footprints, as proposed in 2003 and as currently proposed. The red cross - hatched areas represent the building areas proposed in 2003 and the black cross- hatched areas represent the current proposal. As shown in Figure 2, the footprint of Building 300 has not changed substantially from the 2003 proposal. The increased GLA is due primarily to the addition of a second floor in a portion of the building. Building 400 and 500 Throughout 2005 and 2006 the applicant has submitted applications to renovate or reconstruct existing buildings that are located outside of the area specifically approved by Resolution No. PB- 03 -40. These include Buildings 600 West, 700 and 800. These buildings have been approved by administrative Design Review. The result of these approvals has been a net reduction of approximately 1,000 square feet in shopping center GLA. All Design Reviews were publicly noticed. Only a handful of comments were received and they were generally favorable. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 5 6 • o ) ' „..- r co T d rid Gp f " a w r `q°� --a 4 ,EI .,,- ny?" + ,fo 1 „,„.41 145 t�f� 46{ (F? �--- ""`. �'' - -':mss ks'fi . 3 9% i {'"`g�i •,,.- ....r... r, . . is iq.; y` K T'7 s `r f tIY 4. 4: ,, t rz .h� ,x ter, • P' }t N 1 SAS.jAY ilk. J) 1 • ,i �T 1 r§ Vey * i j mw . * s 4r M i '. t r flirt- a L i 11, rs r ., ; I' «Fn h T::-,..„'-'..----,.,-„,',: , a *ice * Gr ' .. I V i, 1 * . - t fik ;iii - q q 7 Y i :' ,YE F ..0 t s + . ' n S ' .�as , t f + a' 47rt ° 'x 1 7 { - F Ry Y i 3 7. y � n t n IL L r 1r,Gi ^Pk ,3 „� „.. ■ , `4 4,E i dic. Y RI W , 1' ?i,; ., • p j .+ ”" Y,4',.a V '"I'' 's 1 S µ 1'.; ry. . e - , OISCvAlc PRO;ECTEP DATES LISTED on Tmts i P1 -wSIKG PtJY.' Rua,: TS u:TE'a!><;;;S OF THE . • • Dc .aCPEIt hC:Y@V;F,'MESE0AT_SLIAYBE ` SUUJEC: rOChANGE Dig 1G UItciAlsn.Nr:FS THAT 1 ARE BE'rONC•TMEDEVELCP . CGI:7RO; • i -2003 PDA Approved Area FIE La- Alameda Towne Centre 11.Y .0s � PACs! Alameda, CA 0< o 0 c o cc: a 7:: — E a) < co C) .) aS 0 .0 (Y) Figure 2 — Comparison of 2003 and 2006 Plans Figure 3 — Comparison of Existing vs. 2006 Proposal The Buildings identified on current plans as Building 400 and 500 are outside of the area specifically approved in 2003. Figure 3 shows the existing building footprints versus the proposed footprints. The gray shaded area represents the proposed footprint. The red cross- hatched areas represent additions to the existing footprint. The blue cross - hatched area represents existing area that will be removed. As shown on Figure 3, the net result will be a slight reduction in building area and a more compact building configuration. CEQA Review The Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted in 2003, addressed the full 112,00 square feet expansion. Most of this 112,000 square feet would have been located in other areas of the shopping center. If Building 300, 400 and 500 are approved, total shopping center buildout will be approximately half of the increase evaluated in 2003. All required traffic mitigations have been implemented. Consequently, this nominal increase in GLA, resulting from shifting of a few thousand square feet between buildings located in the core of the shopping center, will not result in new significant traffic impacts. These replacement buildings are not located in close proximity to sensitive receptors and will not substantially increase noise, Tight or glare. The current proposal increases building heights from the 2003 proposal. Originally proposed as buildings with roof parapet heights of 25 to 30 feet, with 25 to 35 feet high decorative towers; these buildings now include parapet heights ranging from 23 to 37 feet, with decorative towers ranging from 29 to 48 if in height. This change is consistent with neighboring buildings and well below the maximum height allowed in the C2 zoning district of 100 feet. Due to the location and existing conditions, these changes will not block views of the San Francisco Bay or other scenic vistas. There will be no adverse effect on neighboring projects. Planned Development and CEQA Consistency Determination As shown in the previous sections, construction of Buildings 300, 400 and 500 will not result in a significant increase in shopping center GLA. The 6,083 square feet expansion of buildings, approved in 2003, is below the limits established in the AMC and Resolution No. PB -03 -40 that could potentially require a PDA. The current proposal does not include the construction of buildings that were specifically not allowed in PB- 03 -40. Currently proposed site plan improvements are consistent with the 2003 plan and address comments received in the last year concerning transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. The proposed changes will not adversely affect traffic, transit operations, or pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. Based on the above evidence, the Planning Director has determined that the construction of Buildings 300, 400 and 500 is consistent with PDA 03 -0003, Section 30 -4.13 of the AMC and will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Consequently, no PDA, additional traffic analysis or CEQA review is required for these three buildings. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 9 B. Design Review Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the City Design Review Manual (DRM). There are six primary design elements identified in the DRM: site planning, building design, landscaping, historic preservation, traffic and parking and signs. Building elevations are provided in Attachment No. 2. Site Plan The DRM notes that site layout should take into consideration the project's effect on adjacent properties. Important considerations, identified in the DRM, include locating buildings to avoid monotony and a monolithic appearance and thoughtful integration of site access and other outdoor activity areas into site design. The current proposal to replace three existing buildings is consistent with the ongoing redevelopment of the shopping center. Review of project plans shows that these new buildings are well integrated into the recently renovated portions of the center. Plans include enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access that connects to the center courtyard of the shopping center and includes enhanced landscaping. These buildings will be approximately the same distance from adjacent street frontages as the existing structures. The proposed design increases building articulation and relief and will result in a less monolithic appearance than existing buildings. Building Design The DRM notes that building design should have a harmonious relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. In evaluating building design, important design factors include an appropriate design theme, scale, compatible roofline, and harmonious colors, textures, and building materials. Windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions relationships to one another. Building facades include horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. The design theme and materials are consistent with that used on the recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Roof parapet heights range from 23 to 37 feet. Decorative towers range from 29 to 48 ft in height. This varied roof line improves building articulation and is consistent with that of the recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Landscaping The DRM notes that the landscape plan should be planned as an integral component of the project and should be harmonious with the building design. Landscaping includes wood trellises extensive plantings of vines and decorative plants and incorporates public benches and other amenities. Landscaping is well integrated into the project and is consistent with that found in the recently renovated courtyard and walkways in the center. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 10 Historic Preservation The DRM encourages the preservation of historic resources and notes that new buildings should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. The shopping center and neighboring properties were originally developed in the late 1950's, on fill material dredged from the bay. No buildings in the center were constructed prior to 1942. There are no historic resources on this property. The proposed new design incorporates design elements found in craftsman style buildings, throughout Alameda. Sionaoe The DRM notes that signs should be harmonious with surroundings, improve the appearance of areas that are in need of upgrading and should be an integral part of the building design. The shopping center has an approved sign program. All signage is subject to separate sign permit approval and is required to comply with the standards contained in the sign program. Traffic and Parking The DRM notes that circulation systems should be designed to avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Truck loading areas should be located to prevent delivery trucks from interfering with street traffic. Off - street parking should be attractively screened from the public right -of -way. Although not part of these Design Review applications, extensive parking lot and access improvements are planned (Attachment 2). These improvements are included in pending Building Permits and PDA05 -0004 which is currently being processed by the City. In response to comments conceming transit, pedestrian and bicycle access, plans have been modified to include the following: The two shopping center driveways on Park Street will be widened. The north entrance, Whitehall road will be widened to provide a wider timing radius for buses and to provide two four feet wide bicycle lanes. The south entrance, Franciscan Way, will be widened to accommodate two four -feet wide bicycle lanes. A new five- feet wide pedestrian walkway will transect the easternmost parking lot providing enhanced access to the center courtyard area. Additionally, the existing public sidewalk on Park Street, although not within the project boundary, will be widened to five feet. Parking Tots include extensive landscaping consistent with that required in PDA02 -0003. The Planning Board may require additional improvements or modifications as conditions of approval for PDA05 -0004. C. Conclusion The current proposal to reconstruct Buildings 300, 400 and 500 is consistent with the requirements of the AMC, the City Design Review Manual and earlier entitlements for this Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 11 property. These buildings are subject to Design Review approval. Construction of these buildings will not cause an exceedance of any limitations imposed by the Alameda Municipal Code or Resolution PB- 03 -40. Consequently, they will not require a PDA. Approval of these buildings will not adversely affect adjacent properties or create new significant impacts that have not been previously evaluated and mitigated. Furthermore, approval of these three buildings will not preclude site plan modifications that may be required by the Planning Board for approval of PDA05 -0004. V. FINDINGS Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(a) the Planning Board must make the following finding in order to approve the Major Design Review: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) staff may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM) to make this finding. As discussed in the text of this report, the project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby residential properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. VI. RECOMMENDATION Approve DR06 -0081, DR06 -0092 and DR06 -0096, based upon the findings contained in the three attached Draft Resolutions (Although discussed as a single integrated project, three separate Design Review applications were submitted. Consequently, a separate resolution has been provided for each application). G. IPLANNINGIPBIReports12006111- 13- 20061ATC DR06-0081 DR06-0092 DR06-0096.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 12 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0081 ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 300 LOCATED AT 2245 SOUTHSHORE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (C -2 PD). WHEREAS, an application was made on August 24, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on October 5th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board finds as follows regarding this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) this finding may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM). The project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0081, subject to the following conditions: 1 Attachment #1 Item #8 -A, 11/13/06 Planning Board Meeting Conditions: 1. Approval of this permit shall not preclude the Planning Board from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities as conditions of PDA05 -003 and DR05 -0095. 2. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 3. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with•approved Design Review plans. 4. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to November 13, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. Additionally, Resolution PB- 03 -40, as amended by the Planning Board on September 12, 2005 requires that construction be completed by the end of October 15, 2007. 5.. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 paying the required fee. G: \PLANNING \PB \Resolutions\2006 111- 13- 06\Southshore 2245 DR06 -0081 resod 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0092 ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 400 LOCATED AT 2296 SOUTHSHORE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (C -2 PD). WHEREAS, an application was made on September 26, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on October 15th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following finding with regard to this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) staff may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City DRM to make this finding. As discussed in the text of this report, the project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0092, subject to the following conditions: 1 Conditions: 1. Approval of this permit shall not preclude the Planning Board from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities as conditions of PDA05 -003 and DR05 -0095. 2. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 4. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to November 13, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. 5.. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 paying the required fee. 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0096 ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 500 LOCATED AT 2246 SOUTHSHORE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (C -2 PD). WHEREAS, an application was made on September 26, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on October 15th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on November 13, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following finding with regard to this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) staff may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City DRM to make this finding. As discussed in the text of this report, the project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0096, subject to the following conditions: 1 Conditions: 1. Approval of this permit shall not preclude the Planning Board from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities as conditions of PDA05 -003 and DR05 -0095. 2. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 3. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 4. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to November 13, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. 5.. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 paying the required fee. L 2 v,. da°..._._ Y..... ..�:._ae'exa.n:.�e:i. �_ in .:u„'?M1'SkF.NA:Frw_. .ogm_tir.... .:xwrn+.. a +rw.....t.. .�. ie..n...'t .....' - -u ¢®nxoa. ...w'+�.w....... :. :�x'+•a .. Ili ELG ( L f / / , 1 l }}55 jjj�1� ` LLit ;i. /! ..a! r. F F9 i TFTTh�/? - `N i C: \` :• BUILDING 300 SAFEWAY i 1 7777, . il �. i . i .__. " {� - .1....,,,t it �A1 ..I i � ►� -.;4+ z. .�lt • f . ":„4".' aw a sgtroe ill • 1 ol- i \ (I , r 4 1 Building 300 Proposed vs. Existing Safeway Alameda Towne Centre 11.13.06 -PR0:.l, Alameda, CA r;• ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE '1 1ST FLOOR P v ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE 4 -a I P 1I n v n ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE - ‘-----v"--------1---1-- 1--r--- i - I i 1 i 1 ! N ! I ! ! ! - ir--- Fi --- ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXISTING ELEVATION ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE ti DIEE diollge/ e E, • • El • ELEVATIONS ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE 0 RENDERING - EAST ELEVATION ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE RENDERING • NORTI I ELEVATION . ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE IIIN izvri v Existing Bldg 400 c 04 Q3 0 a Q ca c a) E 4 L:I' ; r. �T..- _ . FLOOR PLANS LU F— Z W 0 W Z 0 p M6 W gild irng 0 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVVATION ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE E g NORTH ELEVATION RENDERING w g g I g EAST ELEVATION RENDERING a co ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE G ELEVATION w z w 0 w z 0 1- a w tin w cc t— z w 0 w z 0 1— < 0 w 2 1 .1 Existing Bldg. 500 0 0 $ Q1 C 0 co E CI • t- < E � , ``55. `` nl --$::::::14, � ax ■ I171,1 IHIH 1icIY 1 I l (Jllll f �� ' ' ,Fr I: 11T :.S.I 1 M1 1111 mot ru tak.% .: II.\ AIAMEDATOWNE CENTRE' RE' RUILDINC;IN) ALAMEDA T()WNE CF.N rize BUII.I)ING 910 , 1 E , I snl!II L'IJ A.,,, 4 ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE BBUILDINfi3w ! t f. gfF I� S. , . . rs 1. J rya 1, u, i ,F �l . .. ;jitimlititit .aiiiii , Int - , l�mr II II �` n f I C , . 1.I-s1 L•U VAlKIN j ALAMEDA TOWNE CJNTRh BUILDING MO Bldg 500 Elevations ;' Alameda Towne Centre 11,13.06 n { ; <I- Alameda, CA k 1-E7 .1? 0/ FLOOR PLANS ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE 0_ u H z x a O z � 2 w C WEST ELEVATION 2 4 C4 U Z 0 Ll 2 ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE mss.::. 111 Existing Bldg. 500 a) c e fic a) E y i. ws a .a,.K° i j Mme" rr�` i i 11rnn1., u1 =, w W9/r 40.719 _ .. VII q '? f Y' I.A.VC I.ILY\181N st1Hf111•.U.L \IIbN !I: ALA MLl)A TC)WNE CEN1 RF. BU1l.OJNG SINE ALAAtEDA TOWNS CENTRF 1iUI1.1)ING 5011 i I 1 t - ,.8[iilNEf SIII: III N1.1.YAC1111 ALAMEDA TOWN[ CENT RE BU1LD1NCi 5011 i n IfI4I1 3 _ ! i -..oac .l {3EiPl EEi:kE �_ af''' _, a. ..:i • W? I I:U:Yr1C1U\ ALAMEDA'1'OWNF C'l:M'1RE BUILDING Um Bldg 500 Elevations Alameda Towne Centre -- 1113.06 .PAO Alameda, CA e■1 tr 0 3 0 8 t7 4 r7 F 0 7 ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE BUILDING 500 RENDERING M Co a� [Ii [T/1 1 UJ 1— •10-. • Beta cn = w 1- z w 0 • w z O w � • 8 5• .F.= 1,0,11n' 401111[1111111 k 1 I ,..m.”. 01481: 1 I 11 . ri..=2:4, --- 1 11 , 1 1 . ,rnITT-77117-9T-,) i li :111E04111P i141111 1 I . 11;11-141-1t-'ift. i ) ,!!!. . I :it:, i :cilii4 ;o1 iipmfii-lart HH-11-01-H-Pil irj lit I:to, ---/.:,-. 1 (L__Lk , r. i li 1 ,14,1.-1. 501"liAiltill141:4..14' i q %razz, ' 1 urVit . ' ! ‘ i 1 , /..:-.7-7.i:_-_-: ---SIt.! 1 - , p27.41E0,4_ , i .... i 1-T-11 Mi :ir ifii f--Ifii -..rit ■ 1 1,11, II; 11-11' N '6! i —gg , Pi Ille 1- lif-CAlf+14-14 4—"kit . , r-.L 1 au...i.o...!-a-i , 111,11%11 !, t 111 1 ' 61 111111 ' ! 9; in 117[11711111. RITIM7171711 476. 11-11R1144HO: il ill:!1110141-10; 101f144411-41-11: , (rtigi ,;NINIA*140: kr f.rrf-11111 ' • • Amp L r7"- • I t 2 5 1;1 ‘I \ 1 Wu ,t. 1,?.. • - • 17171 1' A- • 1\ 5 co AtAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE 3 z I 2 3 •Douglas Garrison - Notice of. Design Review Dated October 12,.2006 relating to .. DR06- 0081,_0R06 -0092, and DR06 -0096. Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: and DR06 -0096 Dear Doug, " Dorothy " -<dtattiit ®corrydast.nz i.__ .�..... "Douglas Garrison" <DGarrison ©ci.alameda.ca.us> 10/23/2006 5:33:48 AM Notice of Design Review Dated October 12, 2006 relating to "DR06 -0081, DR06 -0092, After reviewing this all again and talking with the homeowners at the Willows and St. Francis Condominiums, on behalf of both, I am writing to you to let you know that we believe that the permits for buildings 300, 400 and 500 should not be allowed at this time without approval from the Planning Board. As we discussed, the clause that has been interpreted as allowing for these buildings is unclear to say the least on what the 5% is, but it is very clear that there are two conditions, one is size and the other is that any renovation must be minor in nature. The design for these three buildings will include a new two -story building, a tower that is over 48 feet high, an increase in building parapet heights from 5 -19 feet and an additional 35,000 feet of floor area. None of this is minor The need for the heights and the towers is something that really needs to be reviewed by the Planning Board, particularly with respect to building 300. We believe options need to be explored with the architect to consider alternatives to the massive height and structure of this building. We need to understand if this type of design is planned for other corner areas of the center and whether that is a design that we find acceptable. We remain firm that given the serious concerns raised by both the public and the Planning Board with the Safeway/Walgreen's corner - nothing should be built until the final EIR is done and accepted and the Planning Board has had the opportunity to review and comment on the entire site plan. We believe construction of these buildings may significantly limit the type and amount of changes in design and layout that the Planning Board may request or which may be needed to mitigate negative impacts that could be identified in the final EIR. We understand that staff is doing what they believe is correct, but in this case, we think staff needs to reconsider its position. In the event staff approves the permits for these buildings, we fully intend to appeal that decision to the Planning Board. Sincerely, Attachment #3 Item #8 -A, 11/13/06 Planning Board Meeting Douglas baiiiion.- 0Ofi Ce.of DeSign.Reeilv Dated OctoloarT2, 2006, relating to DR06-0081,DR06-0092, andDPOB-00B Pag Dorothy Reid On Behalf of the Willows Homeowners Association and St. Francis Condominiums CC: "Andrew thomas" <athomas@oi.alameda.ca.us>, <Pet! Sabe@aol.com>, Judith " <judithk2@mindspring.com>, <koian@alamedanet.net>, "Ros " <ros345@sbcglobal.net>, "Tim° <tim disc CO comcast.net> CLAIRE YEATON - RISLEY Attorney at Law 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510 864 -1103 October 23, 2006 BY HAND DELIVERY Mr. Douglas Garrison, Planner IH City of Alameda Planning and Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, California 94501 RE: Design review /Alameda Towne Centre/Letter from Mr. Douglas Garrison dated October 12, 2006 Dear Mr. 'Garrison: I received a copy of the above referenced letter yesterday from one of its' recipients. I did not receive a copy from your department. Because of this, I hereby request that you extend the public comment period by an additional ten (10) days. I also renew my request that I receive a copy of all public notices concerning the Alameda Towne Centre. Your letter states that these projects were approved as part of Planned Development Amendment No. PDA02 -0003 and Design Review File DR02 -0095. However Planning Board Resolution No. PB- 03 -40, which approved the foregoing, explicitly excluded from its approval phases III, IV -b and later phases. This morning my associate, Holly Sellers, was told by Andrew Thomas that PB -03-40 is the document that you are relying on as approval of the improvements outlined in your letter. However PB -03 -40 specifically states that: Phase III, N -b and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mall areas are included in the approved phases However , the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design review. PB -03 -40 further states; Only areas shown in construction of Phases II -a, II -b and IV-a which shall include completion of the pedestrian mall areas currently shown in Phases IV-b and V, may be constructed. It appears that the improvements to the Petco building are part of Phase IV -b and were specifically disallowed by PB- 03-40. That being the case how can you possibly propose issuing permits after your design review without further approvals from the Planning Board? PB -03-40 contains the finding that: The project will have no significant adverse impacts on persons or property in the vicinity because the design of the stores is of a similar horizontal low - profile nature to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- 1970's period in which South Shore developed as a neighborhood. The designs outlined in your letter, include a new two -story 21,700 square foot building to be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's, roof parapet heights reaching thirty seven (37) feet and decorative towers reaching up to forty eight and a quarter (48.25) feet! This is hardly consistent with the Board's findings. Furthermore, the approvals given in PB -03-40 are expressly conditioned on the improvements being constructed in accordance with the plans submitted at that time. PB -03-40 states, in relevant part: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02.095, phases II -a, II -b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a) the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DR03 -003 8) and excluding phases III, IB -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; for the northerly sidewalk between Office Max and future Building 1500, sidewalk width is 4 feet and travel lanes fro vehicles are each 10 feet wide. The above referenced plans show a single story building at the old Walgreen's site. The new Plans indicate a two story building with a tower up to 48.25 feet. The latter is hardly in "substantial compliance" with the original Field and Paoli drawings. See, north elevation Building 300 Plans dated May 31,•2002 by Field Paoli Architects. This morning I went to the Planning Department to review PDA 02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 which are referenced in your letter dated October 12, 2006. They were not available for review at that time. They are still not available for my review. These documents are essential to my review of the proposed changes. This is another reason why the comment period must be extended. One cannot fully and accurately comment on proposed changes without a clear understanding of the details of what was originally approved. Those approvals are contained in documents that are not available to me, thus rendering the foregoing public comment period meaningless. Sincerely, 21e° Claire Yeaton- Risley Cc: Mr. Patrick Lynch, President, City of Alameda Planning Board, with attachment Mr. Andrew Thomas, by hand Douglas Garrison - No $ubJect • From: <Reylagraber @aol.com> To: <DGarrison @ci alameda.ca.us> Date: 10/23/2006 1:59:33 PM Subject: No Subject Dear D. Garrison, Planning Director Were requesting that all proposed building changes at Towne Centre, including increases in height, go before the Planning Board for approval. We understand that , you as the Planning Director feels it is,within your authority to give approval without seeking Planning Board, and therefore some public input. Given the level of concern of all residents and the City government about building out Towne Center, we ask that you submit to going thru the normal, recognized formal process of seeking.Planning Board approval. Sincerely, Joe Cloren Reyla Graber Douglas Garrison • Expansion of three buildings of .Towne.Centre Page 1 From: Pat M Gannon <pmgannon@juno.com> To: <DGarrison @ ci.alameda.ca. us> Date: 10/23/2006 11:14:48 AM Subject: Expansion of three buildings at Towne Centre October 23, 2005 Mr. Patrick Lynch, Chair, Planning Board Members, Planning Board City Hall Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mr. Lynch and Planning Board Members: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Planning Department's staff contention that they are authorized to approved the ' expension of the old Walgreen's Building, the old Ross building and the Petco Building without review and approval by the Planning Board with public participation. Towne Center already is overcrowded. I know several people who refuse to patronize Safeway because it is too crowded and they are unable to find the products they are looking for. Additionally, the parking lot is too congested and is dangerous for pedestrians and drivers trying to back out of parking spaces. Increasing the old Walgreen's building by 4300 square feet, the Ross building by 3000 square feet and the Petco building by 6840 square feet represents a very significant increase which requires public scrutiny and the approval of the Planning Board. To do otherwise is unconscionable. Thank you for insisting that changes of this magnitude require the approval of your Board. Sincerely, M. Gannon Tobago Lane CA 94502 Patricia 1019 Alameda, Douglas Garrison - Permits 0. Page .1 From: "D.Folliard" <dmfolliard@alamedanet.net> To: • <DGarrison @ ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 10/22/2006 8:59:18 PM Subject: Permits Dear Mr. Garrison, It has come to my attention that the Planning staff intends to grant permits for more construction at Alameda Towne Centre without the approval or consideration by the Planhing Board. I hope this is not true. I feel that Harsch Development is already pushing for too many exemptions from the original limits set. The Board itself should determine what, if any, further construction should be allowed. Donna Folliard Douglas Garrison - Formal Reguest to Halt .Construction and or_!m_provment's ,v.. From: "Mark and Emily Linde" smrkemlylinde@alamedanet.net> To: <DGarrison @ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 10/21/2006 5:09:35 PM Subject: Formal Reguest to Halt Construction and or Improvment's Page 1 To' All Planning Board Members or Interested Parry's Pease put a halt to all development/construction at or on the property owned by Harcsh development or named as Alameda Towne Centre completed.This report should include all entrances and exit's with in 3 miles of the area and also entrances in and out of Alameda.This city can not support such damage to our infrastructure and the overflow traffic onto city side street's will be inevitable. Mark and Emily Linde I. Douglas Garrison - Circumvention. of ,the Planning Board_. _ ........... .. Page From: Ros McIntosh <ros345@sbcgiobal.net> To: <DGarrison@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 10/21/2006 12:07:04 PM Subject: Circumvention of the Planning Board Is it true that Harsch projects no longer need the approval of the Planning Board? Why have a planning board at all if they are no longer needed, and the director can approve what the planning board turned down in 2003? Are we trying to compete with Oakland that we must build a shopping center that may be larger and more modern than any In Oakland? Have you considered the obviously resulting need for a new bridge or tunnel to ease the congestion that already exist during commute time? If we add 35,000 sqf. in additional shopping space to the existing space, aren't we driving existing businesses out? We may be setting the•stage for bankruptcies and empty buildings which often attract crime. Would it not make more sense to let the city grow at a more reasonable pace? We do live on an island, with many advantages over the city, and that should be preserved. People who live here should be heard, not only the investors who live outside of Alameda exploiting the area for their personal gain. Thank you Ros McIntosh CC: "Doro. Reid" <dtareid @comcast.net> South Shore Center Safeway/Walgreens Approved First Phase. I I" %•". 4111.•If.'411•14111211- _ - !rA111.•■■•■ Figure 11-1 No Project Alternative: 2003 Approval Area Source: City of Alameda I Attachment #4 Item #8-A, 11/13/06 Planning Board Meeting CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD . RESOLUTION NO. PB -03 -40 • A RESOLUTION- OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING • PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, PDA02- 003, AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW; • • DR02 -095 FOR RECONSTRUCTING AND EXPANDING AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT.2160 OTIS 'DRIVE, SOUTH SHORE SHOPPING CENTER.. • • WHEREAS, *an application was made on.July 30; 2002 by Harsch Investment Corp and its • affiliate Harsch Investment Realty LLC Series C requesting a Planned Development Amendment, PDA02- 003and Major Design Review DR02 -095, to permit the reconstruction of 5.45,000 square foot shopping center,' and addition of a net 112,000 square- feet of retail and office floor area, and amendment to parking regulations for the Center; and . • WHEREAS, the application was determined•to be incomplete for processing by letter dated August29, 2002; and was subsequently accepted as complete on February 11, 2003; and • WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial.on.the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2-PD, Central Business District, Planned Development Combining zoning District; and . WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on May 12, 2003, concluded • July 28, 2003, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documentsdated May 31, 2002 through July 21, 2003 (site.plan),and March.11, 2003 (phasing plaii);.and . WHEREAS, the. Board made the following findings relative to the Planned Development: • 1. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan which specifies commercial uses for the site, which is designated as Community Commercial. The Community Commercial designation is intended for a wide range of commercial stores and services,. ranging from small stores to larger, auto - oriented businesses. The proposed expansion of retail commercial, restaurant and office uses would be•consistent with this designation: 2. The Planned Development is a inore effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the C -2 zoning district because a Planned Development allows for . consolidation of parking and driving aisles for parcels and • a comprehensive site design including building location, parking lot. design, landscaping and internal circulation to use a site which historically has been linked in this manner. . 1 Attachment #5 Item #8 -A, 11/13/06 Planning Board Meeting • 3. The Planned Development, because .it., .incorporates all the .mitigations of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent - land -uses. • • WHEREAS,"the Board made the following findings relative to the Major Design Review: • • 1. The project will have no significant .adverse impacts on persons. or property in the - . vicinity because the design of the stores is of a similar horizontal low - profile nature to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- ..1.970's period in which Sotith Shore developed as a neighborhood. . 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible and harmonize w ith the design and use of the surrounding area because the buildings -would extend the materials, proportions and sizes of stores in the Shopping Center in a manner consistent with.past practice. 3. As conditioned; the project. is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines becaus.e the materials, surfaces, shapes and landscaping relate to nearby- structures and provide an attractive streetscape as viewed from adjacent streets and residential areas. . WHEREAS,.. an Initial -Study was prepared on the project pursuant to the California. Environmental Quality Act, State Clearinghouse Ntunber 2003- 042 -073, and was circulated for public review between. April 12; 2003 .and May 12, 2003; and no comments were received which identified new-Significant environmental impacts which were not already discussed or mitigated in the Initial Study; and • WHEREAS, on May .12; 2003 the Board found the Initial Study complete and correct, and . after considering public testimony including documents, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS02 -0006 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, to address the environmental impacts related to this • project; finding no significant environmental impacts from the project as mitigated; . THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of.Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment .PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02 -095, phases 11-a, TI b_ and 1V -a only, subject to the following -conditions: • . • ' ' • 1. APPROVED-PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: .. a) • • theplans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site plan) and March-11, 2003 by Field Paoli. Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 .(DRO3 -003 8) and excluding pluses 111, W -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; • fdr the northerly sidewalk between Office Max and future Building 1500, sidewalk width is .4 feet and.travel.lanes for vehicles' are each 10 feet wide;. 2- b), , a sign program adopted by Planned Development Amendment PDA- 97-05 on December 8, 1997, as amended by tenant signage.revision.dated March 31, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects titled "Tenant Sign.Design Criteria," in 18 pages; and • c) communication, dated April .11, 2003 by •Harsch .Investment Corp, .. incorporating all mitigation measures of the Initial Study into the project. d) Where feasible, the project includes signs directed.toward pedestrians and other feasible measures within . applicant• control to minimize any. conflicting. movements between. pedestrians at the Washington Miitual ATM machines. in the rear of the Washington Mutual building and the adjacent east -west drive.aisleorithe Center's parking area, to the- . satisfaction* of the Public Works Director. A pedestrian walkway at least 4 feet wide shall be constructed prior to occupancy of. :Phase ll -b; froni. Office- Max to the current Chevron site. . • e) Phase III, IW -b and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mall •areas are .included in the approved phases. Building 1800 along Shoreline Drive, originally shown in Phase II-a, is specifically not approved. However, the denial: is • without prejudice to a later resubinittal ofa new environmental review with traffic' study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a' new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design review. . f) The following guidelines are requested to be incorporated into resubmittal of the phases not approved at this time: . .. . • 1) Provision of a site for future gasoline sales. 2) Shoreline orientation of the approximately 2 acres at Park. Street and Shoreline Drive, including the .current .Picarite Restaurant site. and planned Building .1800. . '.. . . 3)• InclusiOn in future phases of bus stops, pedestrian and bicycle paths, _ bicycle racks, landscaping improvements equal. to or better than the. - :. improvements shown in the approved phases. , • . • Such plans and letter constitute Exhibit "A'; on file in the office of the City of Alameda . Planning. Department,. and are approved except. as modified by the. conditions in this ..Resolution: . . " 2. VESTING. The Planned Development Amendment shall terminate on July 28 ; 2004, unless . actual Construction :under valid pennits has begun, or the developer applies for and is granted an extension prior to expiration; the Planning and Building Director is directed by the Planning Board to rule upon an extension on their behalf., The.Planned Development Amendment-approval shall not be in.force and effect; and no.buildingpennits will be issued, unless and until the developer has completed a Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Map to eliminate any encroachment of building walls:over property:lines, to the satisfaction 3 of the Planning and Building Director.. The Design_Reuiew .approval shall - terminate on January 28 , 2004, unless actual construction under valid permits has begun, or the developer applies for and is. granted an extension. prior to expiration. For initial project vesting, construction 'within the timelines herein Under DR03 -038 for Buildings 100 and 600 With adjacent interior malls shall vest both•PDA and Design Review for Phase II -a. Once vested, thePDA and Design Review are approved for a maximum of a limited one and one- hatfyear (1 1/2) year construction period from the date of this Resolution and shall EXPIRE on January 28, 2005 for any portion of this project approval that has not been vested and any additional substantial alteration thereafter_shall require a new PDA and Design Review. PHASINGTHE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Phasing is• tentatively outlined in Exhibit •"A '' phasing sheet dated March 2003 from ' Field Paoli Architects- with colors designating .. phases, subject to Director approval. Only areas shown in contruction of Phases I1 -a, II-b and IV-a, which shall include completion of the pedestrian mall areas currently shown in Phases IV -b and V, may be constructed. Phasing Amendments shall be as approved by the Planning and Building Director, with balanced improvements to parking; landscaping, public facilities including drainage, utilities and transportation. . .AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, minor architectural .changes such as storefronts, .door and window openings with less than 5% (five percent) •change • in floor area may be approved administratively by the Planning and Building Director in Design Review. • 3. LEASING . The applicant shall provide copies of these conditions with each lease over 10,000 square feet or to smaller leases upon request. . 4. TRANSPORTATION. Prior.toissuance of a Building Permit for the site, the applicant shall execute an agreement • with the Public Works Director to implement the following measures: • OTIS/PARI(INTERSECTION. Currently during Baseline conditions*Otis/Parkintersection operates at LOS D with an additional 150 *feet -of southbound right turn lane.. Within 6 months the :City Public Works Department (PW) will remove 150 feet ofparkingon the west side to provide for a dedicated southbound right tun lane. During Baseline Plus Project • - conditions this intersection will operate at-LOS E (65.6 seconds) during the weekend mid- day peak hour. For Baseline Plus Project it is required, that the 'signal be changed from pre- timed operation to fully.- actuated.. This will .involve the installation of a new signal controller, vehicle loop detectors, signal mast arms, traffic striping modifications and all . equipment necessary to fully actuate the intersection: • ' With these improvements " the intersection.LOS. will improve to C (24.4 seconds) during theweekend mid -day peak hour. For Cumulative Plus Project additional lanes will be required. At the time the total shopping center area increases beyond 590,000 • square feet •W will require the applicant to submit *design drawings with the building permit application.: At the • 4 time the building permit .is issued,. PW -will require. the intersection improvements be awarded for construction. The City continues to workwith the applicant regarding his request . for financial assistance with. construction of the signal. Certificate of occupancy. will not be issued until construction of the. required intersection improvements -are completed. The applicant will have 100% responsibility for construction of these improvements, review, permitting, inspection and processing. The applicant may elect to request the City construct the improvements and provide the City with the necessary funding. If this option is selected, negotiations would be needed so that a design would be ready t� meet the schedule.identified above. The cost for additional lanes will be shared between•the City and the applicant. based upon a prorated traffic contribution. • • • OTIS/PROJECT ACCESS- TRADER JOE'S .DRIVEWAY. Currently the unsignalized intersectionof Otis/Project Access - Trader Joe's driveway operates at LOS-C and therefore no mitigation is needed:. The signal warrant associated with the northbound approach from the shopping center meets the peak hour warrant fbr signalization during the weekday PM peak hour and weekend mid -day peak hour. At Cumulative Plus Project the northbound left .turn movement will gradually degrade.. Therefore, if applicants would like to install a signal . to improve the traffic operations -at this location they will have 100% financial responsibility. • OTIS/PROJECT ACCESS - EASTERNMOST DRIVEWAY. Based on observed and project vehicle queuingon Otis Drive during-peak commute periods, it is required thatthis driveway be -limited to right -turn-only inbound/outboundi with 'a .physical .barrier (concrete ehannelization island to accommodate -right turn in and right turn out movement): An annual- . monitoring will be conducted.to review. the conflict of right out movement with Otis•Drive • eastbound through traffic: The applicant will have 100% responsibility forconstruction of • :theses improvements, review, permitting, inspection and processing. PARK/PROJECT ACCESS NORTH DRIVEWAY:. With projected vehicle queues for the • southbound right -turn movement from Park Street into the project driveway, it is required that the intersection be monitored for potential vehicle queuing conflicts. An annual monitoring report is .to be submitted to PWin •apre- approved format. If the Public Works. • Director receives any•objections to the traffic into this. driveway, the Director will have the prerogative to request additional monitoring reports • from the applicant. Should vehicle queuing at this intersection for ,southbound right -turps cause conflicts PW will require the installation of a separate right -turn deceleration .lane. The •applicant will have 100% responsibility for construction of these. improvements, review, penilitting, inspection and • processing: . BICYCLE/TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN. Based on meetings between AC Transit staffand the • developer, ;transit routing will be located along Whitehall - Drive, within. the Center. Traveling in the 'eastbound direction, a transit stop.will-be located along Whitehall at the far (east) side of the intersection. at South Shore Center Drive. A.striped transit only lane; 10 feet wide, will. be provided fora bus to pull -out of the tluoitgh: traffic. lane .when loading/unloading passengers. Also along Whitehall, in the eastbound' direction, 'a transit stop will be. located .prior-to the - intersection -with Park Street.. In the westbound direction . along 'Whitehall, transit stops, including striped transit only lanes (10 feet wide) will•be located west'of the intersection with Park•Street (adjacent.to Building 1500) and at the near side of the intersection with South Shore Center Drive. Back -out parking will not be permitted along a transit route. Bus turnouts may not double as temporary Cr permanent truck loading areas. Bus turnouts and platforms must be consistent with AC Transit • Standards Manual. There will be a minimum of four .(4) transit stop locations within-the Center, two (2) in each direction. In addition, the actual bus stops/pads at the multi -modal transit center should be constructed of concrete rather than asphalt to prevent wear. Where• possible as confirmed by thePublic Works Director, bus stops•shall be east of South Shore Center Drive.. The easterly Whitehall transit terminal shall be separated, from the truck loading area of Building 1500 by landscaped trellises, walls and other baniers to create-a secure space for transit patrons. . • • Signs shall be placed throughout the shopping center directing transit patrons to the new transit stops.. Each transitstop will be outfitted with bus shelters and•bus benches consistent with ADA_guidelines and the AC Transit Standards Manual: Crosswalks and ramps must be provided consistent with ADA guidelines. Bicycle parkjng'throughout. the Center will be held to a standard of one .(1) bicycle parking space per 'thirty (30) auto parking spaces. Locations and number of-bicycle parking racks throughout the Center will be agreed upon bythe Public .Works Director or designee and the Developer on a phase by phase basis. • The total'number of spaces will attempt to remainas close as possible to the I to 30 ratio within reason. Proper signage will be located throughout -the Center directing bicyclists to bicycle parking locations. • A 4 foot wide raised concrete pedestrian path will be installed from existing Chevron to existing Office Max on the east -west driveway to Public Works standards. . • Where backout parkingis adjacent to the main small buildings, every 10th parking space in such areas will be striped for pedestrian access to the mall;. except that the pedestrian space in _ 'ADA parking spaces Will qualify as the'pedestrian access at that point. BUS SHELTER. Prior to..issuance of building permits, the applicant.shall submit and obtain • Planning and Building Director and Building Official approval for design of at least four (4) all- weather bus shelters when the current bus shelter requires closure or relocation, and shall • install the bits' shelter prior to approval of occupancy:- Bus likes:and shelters shall be designed to the satisfaction of Alameda Contra Costa Transit • and the Public Works Director. Should AC Transit decide to suspend bus service for any reason, the Public Works Director shall determine that bus service near the Center will be a satisfactory substitute, prior to issuance of building permits for 'the subsequent phase. 6 .5. • Bus shelter, bus bench and cross walks shall comply withAinericans with'prsabilities At • Guidelines and be approved by the Public Works Director. Bus turnout and platforms are . shown on Exhibit "A" and shall be consistent with AC' Transit Standards Manual and bus • stops shall be located per the manual apart from one another in an east -west direction unless modified by the Public Works Director. • ' OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. All regulations. of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to. the Planned Development of South Shore Shopping Center, as • amended,. except. where 'express provisions. hdve otherwise been made in this Planned Developinenit Amendment-approval. • 6. PARKING. The shopping' center shall at all•tiines operate with at least 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail,• restaurant or office area then being occupied or constructed, whichever is greater conforming to City parking design •standards. Should the shopping • center fall below the 4.0 parking spades to 1,000 square feet ratio, the owner shall prevent construction of additional sufficient retail and office space so that the project returns to the 4.0/1,000 parking ratio•overall. All parking areas on all parcels shall be made:accessible to all other portions of the. center. through recorded. documents including joint access and reciprocal parking easements to the satisfaction. of the Planning and Building Director; 7. SIGNAGE PROGRAM. All signage installed. at the:site.shall be in compliance with the approved signage program for South Shore Shopping .Center, as outlined in•PDA .97 105, . Exhibit "C "; consisting of nine pages, prepared by the applicant, stamped received "October 24, 1996 ", and on file in. the Planning Department offices; ; except as Modified b}i.Exhibit • "A" of this Planned Development Amendment. Back - lit.(ground mounted - lighted), palm trees are not-signs. No sign shall be installed without prior issuance of a -sign permit.• • 8. ALAMEDA POWER • AND TELECOM; The .developer shall install new substructures including conduits, puilboxes, and transformer pads necessary to serve the proposed • improvements. The developer: shall grant all easements to Alameda Power and Telecom • necessary for the provision and maintenance of electrical service to the site. Easements shall include. metes. and bound descriptions and plats. and shall be prepared by a licensed land survey or civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying. Existing easements that are no longer applicable after the proposed improvements are operational shall be vacated at,the .direction of AP&T and City Engineer.. Prior to issuance .of permits for placement of • structures, the approval of the Planning. and Building Director regarding. location and screening shall be obtained. . - . 9. STORM AND SANITARY SEWER ANAYLSIS Applicant shall.provide in conjunction' • with building 'and site'improvement plan submittals, storm drain and sanitary sewer flow calculations of the'existing and proposed development. Pipes shall be upgraded as necessary • .to meet increase flows.if applicable. Existing sanitary sewer pipes not requiring replacement shall be inspected and any inflow and infiltration from 'open joints, broken pipe, etc. shall be . 7. rehabilitated -by -means aec-eptable- to- -the City Engineer (Le. --slip lining, pipe bursting, replacement, inversion lining, etc.) by phase: • •.10. PLANS. Site civil irnprovement,traffic signing, striping and detouring,.landscape, irrigation, .• utility, and urban runoff (see below) plans shall be submitted either separately or in- conjunction with building plans to Building and Planning Services for review by the City Engineer. • 11. • FIRE DEPARTMENT. Prior to issuance of building perinits, the applicant shall provide •plans for approval of the* Alameda Tire Departiiient. The .building shall be fitted with automatic fire.sprinlcler systems to NFPA 13 standards-to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. Prior to raising building walls, the developer shall have already adjacent or • install at his expense on-site one or more 3,000 gallon per minute fire hydrant(s) be located and installed to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. • • 12: URBAN RUNOFF. Redevelopment projects-shall minimize stormwater pollutant discharges through implementation of construction sediment control and post - construction design and • treatment measures, incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures to the inaximuni extent practicable per requirements of•the'Alameda Countywide Non - Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit. Approval of this resolution does not loek -in the current NPDES permitting requirements for the life of the project. Subsequent: changes to the NPDES permitting requirements may occur during project phasing and shall be incorporated into the•design Unless otherwise conditioned under the NPDES permit regulations.: • . a. Design review submittals shall include a•table showing the amount of pervious and impervious areas prior to redevelopment.and the amount of pervious and impervious area after redevelopment. ••Areas.shall be_given in square feet. Conceptual'proposals shall be included • diiririg design review process showing:`methods by which impervious surfaces will be•minimi?ed and theentry ofpollutants to the storm drain system. will be reduced. Such methods may include methods such as pervious parking stalls using interlocking pavers, and sand filter inserts' and units within storm . drain structures. b. • 'Post - construction.• stormwater treatment control 'measures shall be included into project construction plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. A • . treatrinent measure operation and maintenance (O&M) plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. O&M plans shall include treatment type, .location, maintenance requirements,' maintenance schedule and assurances of party responsible for O &M. • • c. • Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation..to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, acid 'minimize .the use. of fertilizers and pesticides that can • 8 • contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible landscaping should'be'tlesigned • and operated to treat stoimwater runoff • d: Construction activities 'shall comply with Notice of Intent (N01) and Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) NPDES liermitting requirements. Design • plans shall include a plan for erosion and sediment control measures that implements - current Beat Management Practices (BMPs) during construction activities. The 'erosion and sediment control plan . is subject to•reView and approval .by City Engineer. • e. • • • Trash enclosures and/or recycling areas must be completely covered with no surface - . flows from other areas draining' into this area. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent 'potential stormwater pollution. • Self contained trash compactors are considered covered. 'These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular • program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean -up. Mobile washing and discharges must be conducted according to the Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff developed by the Cleaning Equipment Trade • Association: f.. Loading dock areas should be designed to minimize the amount of storm water run - on onto the loading dock area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of stormwater must be drained. to the sanitary sewer, or diveited and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer, or intercepted and pretreated prior to discharge to the storm drain.•system. • Food retailers (including restaurants and grocery stores). most be designed to prevent the discharge•of washviiaters from the cleaning of mats, equipnient and containers to the stone drain . system. Contained wash areas shall be covered or designed .to prevent run -on or runoff from the area and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent- potential .stormwater pollution. These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean -up. Mobile washing. and discharges must -be conducted according to the Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff - developedby the Cleaning Equipriient Trade Association. • h. The•property owner shall. ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution and to minimize the amount of flows to the sanitary sewer ' drains at locations indicated•under e,f & g above. - The Operation and Maintenance plans per Item #b above shall address these requirements. . 13. 'LANDSCAPING. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall specify the size,, • type and number of trees, shrubs and ground cover. All landscaping and irrigation shall' be installed prior to approval of occupancy. g. a. • -•- ST-he-de pershtrll -be-requ ired -to instafftrees as-shown on the approved-landscaping plan for'apprcved phases in Exhibit "A:" • Exact number of street trees to be planted, species, .location and size of trees shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. Trees that are 15 gallon size or larger shall be specified unless otherwise directed by the Planning and Building Director. Each tree well shall have.at least a .15 gallon tree approved by the Planning and Building Director. There shall be at least one tree per 4 to 8 parking spaces in any reconstructed portion of the parking-lot, averaging 1 per 4 in the 46 acre project or as approved. by the Director, with trees .being installed with . that phase prior to occupancy of adjacent reconstructed bui {dings. Eucalyptus trees are not approved Palm trees may apply toward achieving the required tree ratio with Planning and Building Director approval on a phase by phase basis,. and Planning Board approval of the first phase (Building 200), where the palm species provide suitable shade and ;eenery,- • The ,applicant shall obtain reports by certified professional arborist(s) regarding the most effective- species of palms to be used, and. the most effective priming manner for canopy trees to promote spreading growth ..rather than maintaining initial tree size .and spread. Each double parking.row shall have at least two (2) trees except for Phase 1. . • . •b. Shrubs of a minimum 5 gallon container size. shall be planted in landscape islands, the central mall and other areas, and other shrubs. approved by the Planning and . Building Director...At the entrance: driveways, accent plants such as annual or • perennial• flowering plant's and shrubs shall be' installed to the satisfaction cif the Planning Diirector_ • .c. The applicant.shall instal rows of palm trees along each.major north/south entrance driveway bathe Center (3 from Otis Drive), as shown on Exhbtit "A." Installed trees • shall be secured and supported during the first year of planting by triangulated boards or other method approved by the City Building Official, following the practice used. in 2002 for installation: ofpalm trees leading to the Trader Joe's entrance, in order to avoid the 2002 toppling of trees in high winds. . d. Landscaping including shrubs and trees or a decorative fence or wall shall screen all above - ground utility boxes and structures, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. e. Trees shall not be located Within easements.. • f. Trees shall be maintained and watered in a healthy state to achieve .a canopy of greenery. within the:parking areas. Diseased trees shall be removed and replaced • immediately with healthy trees -of the same or situ: ar. species. .10• 14. - LIGHTING. Prior to issuance of iiui1ding perinits; the spplicaiit shall - submit a lighting plan- . and.•details of lighting fixtures for Planning and Building Director review and approval. The • lighting. fixtures shall be substantially compatible with existing lighting fixtures in the . Shopping Center parking lot, Lighting shall be installed in substantial compliance with.City • standards as determined by the ChiefBuilding Official, Police - Department and AP &T. All on -site lighting shall be downward- directed lighting and 'shielded to avoid lighting impacts on adjacent residential areas, except that palm trees may be back -lit by ground- mounted . :lights in the mariner established for the palms leading to Trader Joe's in 2002. 15. AFFORDABLE DOUSING COMPLIANCE. The project is subject to the Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Ordinance (Alameda Municipal Code Section 27 -1). The applicant must provide housing units, pay an in -lieu fee or prepare an Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Plan and secure_ the approval •of the Housing Development Manager, prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant must provide the housing units or pay the Affordable Housing fee, as calculated in the approved Plan, prior to issuance of the certificate of'occupancy. . 16. CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS a. ' Prior to start of work of demolition; remodeling or. construction, the applicant shall • provide a draft waste management plan to the Public Works Environmental Services • Division. This can be in anyfoimat, but must include the following: i. Contractor's name, address; and telephone number. • ii. • Project location and/or street address . . iii. . Anticipated start and coMpletion dates ofthe project • iv. :A list .of materials expected to be generated (e.g., glass, wood, metal, drywall, concrete,, bricks); the tonnage or volume of each material, how they are to be . reused; disposed or recycled, and the destination /processor for that reuse, disposal • • or recycling. • The Environmental Services Division will review this draft plan, and any.changes or .recommendations shall be- incorporated into the site plans for the project. At the end ofthe demolition, remodeling.orconstruction project, the contractor shall . submit a report to the Environmental Services Division on actualtonnages disposed or recycled for each material, and the actual destination/processor. b: • Construction activities •shall. be limited. to the .hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Noise- generating construction activities shall be limitedto . the hours of .8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. except that within the main mall, construction • may cotrinience at 7:00 aim withCity Engineer approval. Work on Saturdays shall require special approval of the city engineer. No construction activity shall be . permitted on Sundays or State and Federal holidays. Work requiring inspection after :11 . •.-.z3A.-p.i t weekdays will -requir-e- city- construction- inspection fee at time and a half (1- -- • •.1/2). . Said fee will be in accordance with the latest public works fee overtime schedule. , Work done on Saturdays requiring inspection is prohibited unless' approved by the .city engineer and an inspector is available. Inspection fees for Saturday work will be at time and'a half (1 -1/2) with a four:hour minimum. c. All construction vehicles shall 'adhere to City-of Alameda truck routes. d. • Storage of construction material and equipment on citystreets will not be pennitted. e. The contractor shall provide all lights; signs, barricades, f]agnien,. or other traffic safety devices necessary to provide public safety in accordance. • The contractor shall provide a traffic control plan to the approval of the city engineer. The, contractor shall allow a minimum of 5 working days for review. • • . f. Temporary no parking on City streets for construction will require posting of "No -Parking Signs" 48 hours in advance. Signs are available, at the Building Services . Office, •Room. 190, City Hall. A fee will be charged for the signs. Only City of. Alameda issued no 'parking .signs- will be allowed. The contractor. shall allow 'a minimum five working days' for review. . g. Construction equiprent shall be properly muffled.. Unnecessary idling Of grading construction equipment is prohibited. • h: Stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as compressors shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housingunits. • • i. Contractor shall be responsible for responding ..to ' any local complaints about construction noise. j.. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street, gutter, -storm drain or stream.. Shovel or vacuum. saw-cut slurry and'renove from site. . • • k. • A contained •and covered area on -site shall be used for storage of cement bags, paints; • flammables, oils, fertilizers;' pesticides, or any other materials that have potential for being discharged to the storm drain system by wind or in the event of a material spill. 1.: • . All construction debris shall be gathered on a regular basis and placed in a dumpster . which is emptied or removed .weekly. When feasible, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect' fallen •debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater .pollution.. Any temporary on -site construction piles shall be securely covered with.a tarp or other device to contain debris. . . • • 12 - --- Concrete /gunite- truek s -and conciete /plasterf iishingoperations shall not•discharge • wash water into the street gutters or drains. • n. • .Trash and debris shall•be cleaned, up' daily on all public streets in the project vicinity and along Haul routes. Sweep as needed and as .directed by the Public Works Inspector. 17. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Prior to demolition and construction related activities for the Chevron Station and the existing Safeway site, or any other sites on local materials... • .governmental lists, hazardous material assessnient•studies must be performed by qualified • . soils professionals, in order to determine the extent of any site contamination. Once these • studies.have been.completed and have received CityBuilding Official approval, the applicant and:the contractor shall comply with the Phase II recommendations of .a soils engineering report. ` . 18. :PERMITTED USES. The permitted uses within the PD shall be those permitted uses of the • C -2 and C -C zoning districts; the conditional uses within the PD shall be the conditional uses • • of the C -2 and C -C zoning districts, except as herein further limited. • 19. HOURS OF OPERATION. The Center shall not. be open to. the' public nor -shall truck •loading be conducted, before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p:m. except that Use Permits or Planned Development Amendments may request additional hours for-speCifned uses. The truck loading areas for the two supermarkets shall be on the north sides of the markets only. 20. • ARCHITECTURE. Prior to issuance of building pernnits, the applicant shall submit for Final Design Review and Planning and Building Director review and appro.val, architectural details and final colors and materials for the buildings, including but .not limited to all trim and . cornice .elements, canopies, trellises, . vine planting grills and the 'trash. and recycling • enclosures. Minor alterations to plans of Exhibit "A" may be.approved by the Planning and •Building Director. Significant alterations may require review by the Planning Board,* as determined by the Planning and Building Director. • . • • - • • . The applicant shall conform to the Public Art Ordinance and shall include public art • approved by the Recreation and Parks process. in each phase. That process; may; in its discretion; find decorative .mall paving, fountains and other upgrades to existing mall surfaces created by artists to qualify asa portion of public art. • - 21-. • PHASING. The .proj.ect may continue construction until January.28, 2005, for approximately one and one half years from approval. The applicant Lna• develop phases as approved bythe Planning -and Building Director; except that no single -year phase shall- exceed 15 acres, nor. . 200,000 square feet of rebuilt building area, nor 800 parking spaces. The required pro -rata share of parlcirng, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle trails shall be installed.with the phase being rebuilt. 13 • 22: MAXIMUM STORE SIZE The project may include one store of up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and-two stores each of up to 60,000 square feet. Any larger store shall require a • Planned Development Amendment. The applicant expressly states that there .is no present intent-to install a supersized department store larger than 90,000. square feet in area at this • location. All stores. selected shall relate primarily to the needs of the Alameda market, ... including food, clothing, books and music, household items, entertainment items, sporting . goods, home 'furnishings and. remodeling, jewelry, 'services such as optometry and tax • preparation; and shall exclude •stores which primarily sell automobiles, large auto parts, recreational vehicles, bulk raw.materials. such as lumber, and similar bulky and occasionally purchased items. Additions or modifications ofless than 5% (five percent) in overall Center . area may be approved .by administrative Design Review. • . • 23. PLANNING AND BUILDNG DEPARTMENT INSPECTION. At least 4 days prior to approval of occupancy, the applicant shall notify the Planning and Building Departmentto inspect the building and site to assure.compliance with these conditions. . 24. . SOU HEAST -CORNER OF SITE This phase is denied without prejudice for the current application. Prior to issuance of building permits for the phase including the present carwash 'site, and Building 1800 together, or for:Building 1000'and subsequent phases, whichever is earlier, the applicant' shall submit to the Planning Board for Planned Development Amendment and MajorDesign Review a•plan for site improvements and elevations, playas; drives, landscaping which provides a water orientation for this 2 acre. portion of the. site, with. pedestrian scale and access, minimizing vehicular-traffic which may conflict with pedestrian use and unified design'theme. • 25. MITIGATION .MONITORING. • Prior' -to issuance' of building permits and during construction, the applicant shall assure implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, incorporated herein by reference.. ' • . • :26. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in.writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with .fullawareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this Planned Development Amendment to be exercised. • 27. HOLD HARMLESS. Pursuant to California•Government.Code Section 66474.9(b),.theCity of Alameda requires as a condition of this Planned Development Amendment and Design Review approval that the applicant, or ifs successors in interest, defend,'indemnify, and hold harmless. the City of Alameda or its agents, offspers,.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 the subject'property, which action is. brought within. the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499:37. The City of 'Alameda shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, actioh or proceeding and the,City .14 • • Shall-cooper-de fully un the defense. Ifthe City firs to promptly notify the developer ofany • claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the • developer shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indenuiify, or hold harmless the City.,- . The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed' to the City Council, in *writing and any such appeal must be made within ten (10) days of the decision or decision on any appeal 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 nzay be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil•Procedure Section 1094.6. . NOTICE. • The conditions ofproject approval set forth'herein include certain fees and other. . exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1),• these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations . and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified tliat the 90 day appeal period .in. Which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. lithe applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all the. requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later .challenging such fees or exactions. - . • PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 2093 by the•Planning Board of the City . of Alameda by the following vote: • • • AYES:. • (6) Piziali, Cook, Cunningham, Bard, Gilmore, Rossi NOES: . (0) • ABSENT: (1) Lynch 15 ATTEST: y Fuz, Secret Planning Board Acknowledgment of ,Conditions: I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PE-03-40 for, the Planning Board's approval of PDA02 -0003/DR02 -0095, approved on July 28, 2003, and in accordance with Conditions herein, I hereby verify that•I'understaaid and agree to comply with.the Conditions of Approval of • 'd , Planning Board Resolution No PH -03-40 and the applicable provisions of chapter 30. of the ' eda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). • • . • Executed at: • By: City On: Date Applicant 6 vikfgA L NImo 6ER — Title APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. • G:\ PLANNINGWB IRF_SG12003\5soujuly.doc • 16• City of Alameda Memorandum 8 -B DATE: December 11, 2006 TO: President Lynch and Members of the Planning Board FROM: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner RE: Supplemental Staff Report for Major Design Review DR06 -0081 for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 for Building 500 at 2246 South Shore Center. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2006, the Planning Board held a hearing to consider three Major Design Review applications for three replacement buildings, within the Alameda Towne Centre. At that meeting, the Planning Board approved DR06 -0092, Building 400 (old Velvet Grill) and continued Major Design Review No. DR06 -0081, Building 300 (old Walgreen's) and Major Design Review No. DR06 -0096, Building 500 (old Ross / PETCO) to December 11, 2006. The applicant has modified the design of these two buildings in response to comments received at the November 13, 2006 Planning Board hearing. The November 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting also included an Alameda Towne Centre design workshop as a separate Agenda item. That workshop focused on design issues including pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation throughout the center, a proposed Target department store and other site improvements. The applicant is preparing new plans in response to comments received during the workshop. These will be presented in another design workshop to be held in January. At that time, it is anticipated that outstanding questions about the locations and feasibility of constructing certain improvements including but not limited to the location of sidewalks, bus stops and bicycle paths will be resolved. ANALYSIS: General A number of comments were received questioning whether applications for individual buildings are being submitted and approved in a piecemeal fashion and that these buildings should not be approved without a new Planned Development Amendment (PDA) Attachment 4 Agenda Item #5 -B 01 -02 -07 President Lynch and Members of the Page 2 Planning Board December 11, 2006 and new environmental impact evaluation. This question is addressed in greater detail in the November 13, 2006 Planning Board report (Attachment 3). As noted in the November 13 report, Building 300 (old Walgreen's site) was approved in 2003 by the Planning Board. The current proposal includes slightly more floor area and is taller due to the inclusion of a second floor in a portion of the building. These changes are within the scope of environmental impacts that were evaluated in 2003 and the building is consistent with the scale and architectural theme of the Planned Development. Building 500 is outside of the PDA area specifically approved by the Planning Board in 2003. However, this project entails reconstruction of an existing building. Total floor area and the proposed height is consistent with the existing building. Construction of these buildings will not preclude additional site design modifications that may be required by the Planning Board when considering PDA05 -0004 which includes the proposed Target store. These modifications may include enhanced bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities, landscaping or shoreline access. These buildings are integral components of the existing and currently proposed Planned Development Master Plan, they will not cause new impacts that have not been previously evaluated and mitigated. These buildings are allowed under the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) and existing entitlements, subject to Design Review approval. Therefore, no PDA or additional environmental review is required. Building 300 Building 300 (old Walgreen's) was approved in 2003 by the Planning Board. As noted in the November 13, 2006 staff report, a new Design Review approval is required because the currently proposed building is taller than the approved building. These changes result from the inclusion of a second floor within a portion of the building. The 2003 design included a main parapet height of approximately 26 feet with decorative parapets and towers extending up to a height of approximately 30 feet. In response to Planning Board and public comments at the November 13, 2006 hearing, the proposed building height has been reduced by 2 feet. The currently proposed main roof parapet height is approximately 35 feet. A decorative parapet steps up an additional 3 feet (approx. 38 ft.). The height of the decorative tower, located on the northeast corner of the building, has also been reduced by 2 feet to 46 feet in height. Although still higher than the design approved in 2003, it is well below the one - hundred feet height limit in the C -2 Zoning district, is consistent with other buildings in the center and is generally consistent with the 30 to 40 feet building heights allowed in surrounding residential zoning districts. In fact, there are existing residential buildings on properties adjacent to the shopping center that are taller than the proposed building. Building 300 is not located in close proximity to sensitive receptors and will not substantially increase noise, light or glare. Due to project location and existing conditions, these changes will not block views of the San Francisco Bay or other scenic vistas. There will be no adverse effect President Lynch and Members of the Page 3 Planning Board December 11, 2006 on neighboring nearby properties. In conclusion, the proposed building is consistent with the design theme and scale of other buildings in the shopping center. The applicant has reduced the height of the proposed building in response to design comments received from the Planning Board and the public. The proposed building is consistent with the City's design review standards. All necessary findings for approval can be made. Building 500 The Buildings identified on plans as Building 400 (Velvet Grill) and 500 (Ross / PETCO) are outside of the area specifically approved in 2003. Building 400 is a detached structure. This structure will be demolished and then a new Building 400 will be attached to Building 500. Figure 3, of the November 13, 2006 Planning Board report shows the existing building footprints versus the proposed footprints. As shown on Figure 3, the floor area of Building 500 will increase and the floor area of Building 400 will decrease. The net result will be a slight reduction in building area and a more compact building configuration. Building 400 was approved by the Planning Board on November 13, 2006. The Planning Board did not take action on Building 500. Instead, this item was continued to allow the applicant time to review potential design modifications. Concerns raised by the Board included building facade details, pedestrian access and orientation to the shoreline area. Building 500 consists of three primary building elevations. The west elevation faces the easternmost north —south walkway through the shopping center. This connects to the primary east —west walkway through the middle of the shopping center. The east elevation extends along approximately half of the length of the building. At that point it connects to what is now labeled Building 400 (old PETCO building). There are two loading docks located along the east elevation. The south elevation fronts onto a east —west sidewalk and the parking lot. Wood trellises and landscaping consistent with that of nearby renovated buildings will be installed along the south elevation and extended around the loading docks to the east. There will be two entrances to Building 500, located near the southwest and northwest comers of the building. Both entrances face into the interiorwalkways. These entrances are proposed in these locations to maximize the dynamic interaction between this building and nearby stores. It also directs pedestrian flow away from loading dock areas and will provide the most convenient access to parking. As the shoreline area is redeveloped with restaurants in the future, these new uses will be better accessed by parking areas south and southeast of Building 500. This design will reduce future parking conflicts between these two areas of the shopping center and facilitate pedestrian access from other areas of the shopping center. New sidewalks and bicycle lanes will connect Building 500 to the shoreline area. Staff recommends that this permit be conditioned to require that both entrances remain open, to facilitate pedestrian access. Proposed exterior wall materials include horizontal wood siding, decorative ceramic tile and inset stucco panels. The applicant has added additional trellises, landscaping and other improvements to screen the loading dock area and to better integrate this portion of the project into the shopping center. Staff is recommending the addition of display windows, public art or other features along the south facade to further breakup the facade and provide a more inviting entryway to the center. The applicant will present their proposal for enhancing this facade at the Planning Board meeting. President Lynch and Members of the Page 4 Planning Board December 11, 2006 In conclusion, the proposed building with the recommended modifications is consistent with the design theme and scale of other buildings in the shopping center and does not substantially alter the massing of the building. The applicant has added architectural and landscaping features in response to design comments received from the Planning Board and the public. The proposed building is consistent with the City's design review standards. All necessary findings for approval can be made. RECOMMENDATION Approve DR06 -0081 and DR06 -0096, based upon the findings contained in the two attached Draft Resolutions (Although discussed as a single integrated project, two separate Design Review applications were submitted. Consequently, a separate resolution has been provided for each application). Attachments: 1. Resolutions 2. Revised Plans (partial plans addressing design changes only) 3. November 13, 2006 Staff Report (without attachments) G:\ PLANNING \PB\Reports\2006\12- 11 -06\South Shore Center 2245 2246 DR06 -0081 DR06- 0096.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0081 ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 300 LOCATED AT 2245 SOUTHSHORE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (C -2 PD). WHEREAS, an application was made on August 24, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on October 5th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board finds as follows regarding this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) this finding may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM). The project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0081, subject to the following conditions: Attachment #1 Item #8 -B, 12/11/06 Planning Board Meeting 1 Conditions: 1. Approval of this permit shall not preclude the Planning Board from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities as conditions of PDA05 -003 and DR05 -0095. 2. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 3. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 4. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to December 11, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. Additionally, Resolution PB- 03 -40, as amended by the Planning Board on September 12, 2005 requires that construction be completed by the end of October 15, 2007. 5.. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 paying the required fee. G:\ PLANNING \PB \Resolutions \2006\12- 11 -06\Southshore 2245 DR06 -0081 reso.doc 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0096 ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 500 LOCATED AT 2246 SOUTHSHORE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (C -2 PD). WHEREAS, an application was made on September 26, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on October 15th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following finding with regard to this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) staff may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City DRM to make this finding. As discussed in the text of this report, the project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0096, subject to the following conditions: 1 Conditions: 1. Approval of this permit shall not preclude the Planning Board from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities as conditions of PDA05 -003 and DR05 -0095. 2. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 3. Both public entrances to building 500 will remain open to the public to facilitate pedestrian access from different areas of the shopping center. Any future relocation of said doors shall be subject to Design Review approval. 4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 5. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to December 11, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. 6. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 paying the required fee. f. V1si4NNINU Y?€�]Eteseilsitioiisti�E3b9 7'1:1 >t �36t iui ro a' 22A >E#tlk� tif798iesa:tiac 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: 8-A APPLICATION: Major Design Review DR06 -0081 for Building 300 at 2245 South Shore Center; Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0092 at 2296 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096, 2246 South Shore Center. The Property is zoned C -2- PD. STAFF PLANNER: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner RECOMMENDATION: Approve DR06- 00081, DR06 -0092 and DR06 -0096 ACRONYMS: CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act DR — Major Design Review DRM— Design Review Manual EIR — Environmental Impact Report GLA — Gross Leasable Floor Area PDA — Planned Development Amendment FIGURES: 1. 2003 Phasing Map 2. Comparison of 2003 and 2006 Plans 3. Comparison of Existing vs. 2006 Proposal ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolutions 2. Site and Building Plans 3. Comment Letters 4. PDA02 -0003 Approved Area Map 5. Planning Board Resolution No. 03-40 I. Project Summary The Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center) is an existing shopping center that was originally developed in the late 1950's. The center is undergoing a phased redevelopment. Three new buildings are proposed to replace three existing buildings. These three new buildings are identified as Building 300, 400 and 500 on current site plans (See Figures 1 and 2 of this report and Attachment 2). Building 300 will replace the old Building 300 (Walgreen's). Buildings 400 and 500 will replace the old Ross / PETCO and the Velvet Grill buildings. These buildings will occupy the same general location as the existing buildings and will result in a net reduction in floor area. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Attachment #3 Item #8 -B, 12/11/06 Planning Board Meeting Page 1 II. PURPOSE OF THIS PLANNING BOARD HEARING The applicant has submitted Design Review applications for three new buildings that will replace three existing buildings in the shopping center. Under the Alameda Municipal Code and earlier entitlements, these proposed buildings are permitted, subject to Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director and do not require a Planned Development Amendment (PDA). In response to public noticing for these Design Review applications, the City received comments from the public concerning the appropriateness of processing these applications independently of the currently pending Planned Development Amendment application PDA05 -0004 which includes a new Target Store. These comment letters are attached (Attachment 3). Consequently, these Design Reviews have been scheduled for hearing before the Planning Board. In addition to these three Design Review applications, the applicant has submitted two Building Permit applications for parking lot improvements. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time. IV. Permit and Construction History The following entitlement summary provides information that is relevant to the evaluation of these Design Review applications. 1958 -1986 • The shopping center was originally developed in the late 1950's. Various buildings were added or reconfigured over the following years. • In 1986, the City rezoned this property adding the Planned Development (PD) overlay. No project specific standards were established through this rezoning. 1986 -2002 • Various new buildings were constructed including Trader Joe's and Office Max. 2002 -2003 • The applicant submitted a new master plan (PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095) that included renovation of the shopping center and approximately 112,000 sq. ft. of additional gross leasable floor area (GLA). • A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for that proposed expansion and reconstruction of the shopping center. In May 2003, the Planning Board adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration which evaluated the impacts of expanding the center Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 2 by 112,000 square feet, from 545,000 to 657,000 square feet, and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a Tess than significant level. • In July 2003, the Planning Board granted conditional approval to proceed with portions of PDA02 -0003 and Dr03 -0095. The Planning Board made approval of the remainder of PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 contingent upon the submittal and approval of revised plans that were to include a location for a new gas station and a more waterfront oriented design of the portion of the center that is closest to the San Francisco Bay. 2003 -2005 • PDA02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 were vested by the construction of Building 600 and additions to Building 100. • In December 2004, the Planning Board approved an extension of the requirement to complete construction of buildings specifically approved by PDA02 -0003 and DR02- 0095. • Building permits for Building 200 were issued and construction was initiated. Reconstruction of Building 600 West and 700 and construction of Building 1500 were approved by Design Review and construction was initiated. Reconstruction of central courtyards, walkways and some parking Tots were approved by Building Permit and construction was initiated. • Restriping of travel lanes at the Otis Drive and Park Street intersection was completed as required in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. • The applicant submitted a revised master plan, to address modifications requested by the Planning Board in 2003 (PDA05 -0004 and DR05- 0073). This revised plan also included an additional expansion of GLA by approximately 49,100 square feet to accommodate a proposed Target Store. 2006 • A traffic signal was installed at the Otis Drive and Park Street intersection as required in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. • In September 2005 the Planning Board approved another extension of the requirement to complete construction of buildings, specifically approved by PDA02- 0003 and DR02 -0095, to October 2007. • Design Review and Building Permits were submitted and approved for Building 800. • Building Permit and Design Review applications, the subject of this item, were submitted for Building 300 (old Walgreeens), Building 500 (old Ross) and Building 400 (Velvet Grill /Petco). V. STAFF ANALYSIS The City received comments expressing concern that these three buildings should not be approved. Comments fall into two general categories: 1) The buildings cannot be approved without a PDA and new environmental review; and 2) The Design Review applications should not be approved due to the size of these buildings. The following analysis will address the PDA question first, the Design Review question second, and CEQA will be addressed last. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 3 A. Planned Development Requirements The purpose of the PD combining district is to provide more flexibility in site design than would normally be allowed in the underlying zoning district (AMC 30- 4.13.a). Under PD zoning, an applicant may request reduced parking or landscaping requirements, increased building height, reduced building setbacks or other exceptions to AMC development standards. PD zoning allows flexibility in site design, it does not limit the types of uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning district. Buildings and other improvements within an existing Planned Development (PD) may be altered without a PDA. Determining whether a PDA will be required is a two step process. If the project does not substantially increase floor area and it is determined that the project will not adversely affect adjacent properties, no PDA is required. AMC Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) and (e) require a PDA when project expansion meets the following criteria: Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) Additions to commercial or public uses which involve more than a twenty -five percent increase in floor area of existing structures associated with the use. Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) A building or use expansion which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, may have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property. In 2002 the applicant submitted a new master plan for the shopping center. The plan proposed a 112,000 square feet expansion, new buildings and a request to reduce parking requirements. Consequently, a PDA and Design Review were required (PDA02 -0003 and DR02- 0095). The Planning Board adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the effects of the full 112,000 square feet expansion and then conditionally approved portions of that master plan Attachment 4, shows the area specifically approved within hand drawn polygon. B. PDA02 -0003 Requirements Upon review of the staff reports, resolutions and meeting minutes from 2003, it is clear that the Planning Board allowed some flexibility in the redevelopment of the shopping center by allowing changes in floor area to be approved administratively by Design Review. It is also clear that the Planning Board intended for there to be some limitations on development. Relevant conditions from Resolution No. 03-40 are summarized below. Resolution PB -03- 40 is included as Attachment No. 5. Condition No. 1 notes that the approval excludes Phase III, IV -b and later phases but that these phases may be approved at a later date. This future approval would require the applicant to submit revised plans that included provisions for a gas station and redesign of the two acre portion of the shopping center referred to as the shoreline area. This condition Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 4 also notes that these changes may be subject to additional traffic analysis and CEQA review. Figure 1, delineates the phasing map proposed in 2003. Condition No. 2 noted that pursuant to the AMC, minor architectural changes such as storefronts, door and window openings with less than five percent change in floor area may be approved through Design Review by the Planning and Building Director. Condition No. 20 required the applicant to submit final architectural details, colors and materials and other improvements for final design review and Planning and Building Director approval, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. This condition allows minor alterations to be approved by the Planning and Building Director. The Planning and Building Director may also determine that significant alterations should be reviewed by the Planning Board. Condition No. 22 limited the maximum number of large stores within the shopping center. This condition allows one store of up to 90,000 square feet and two stores of up to 60,000 square feet. This condition does not specify the location of these stores. This condition notes that stores larger than this shall require a Planned Development Amendment. It also allows additions or modifications that are less than five percent in overall shopping center area to be approved by administrative Design Review. Building 300 Building 100, 200, 300, 600 and 1500 were specifically approved by the Planning Board in 2003. The Buildings, as proposed in 2003, total 196,917 square feet of gross leasable floor area (GLA). The total square footage of these buildings as built and including the currently proposed Building 300 totals approximately 203,000. If Building 300 is approved, as proposed, this would result in an cumulative increase of approximately 6,083 square feet; or, an increase of approximately three percent from the 2003 proposal. Figure 2 shows the building footprints, as proposed in 2003 and as currently proposed. The red cross - hatched areas represent the building areas proposed in 2003 and the black cross - hatched areas represent the current proposal. As shown in Figure 2, the footprint of Building 300 has not changed substantially from the 2003 proposal. The increased GLA is due primarily to the addition of a second floor in a portion of the building. Building 400 and 500 Throughout 2005 and 2006 the applicant has submitted applications to renovate or reconstruct existing buildings that are located outside of the area specifically approved by Resolution No. PB- 03 -40. These include Buildings 600 West, 700 and 800. These buildings have been approved by administrative Design Review. The result of these approvals has been a net reduction of approximately 1,000 square feet in shopping center GLA. All Design Reviews were publicly noticed. Only a handful of comments were received and they were generally favorable. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 5 • •-• t , ■• • t Figure 1 — 2003 Phasing Map r.A 1771111 X_ jL_Oj • s 1 1.i ii iii i7. 1 Figure 2 - Comparison of 2003 and 2006 Plans figure 3 — Comparison of Existing vs. 2006 Pro • •sa The Buildings identified on current plans as Building 400 and 500 are outside of the area specifically approved in 2003. Figure 3 shows the existing building footprints versus the proposed footprints. The gray shaded area represents the proposed footprint. The red cross - hatched areas represent additions to the existing footprint. The blue cross - hatched area represents existing area that will be removed. As shown on Figure 3, the net result will be a slight reduction in building area and a more compact building configuration. CEQA Review The Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted in 2003, addressed the full 112,00 square feet expansion. Most of this 112,000 square feet would have been located in other areas of the shopping center. If Building 300, 400 and 500 are approved, total shopping center buildout will be approximately half of the increase evaluated in 2003. All required traffic mitigations have been implemented. Consequently, this nominal increase in GLA, resulting from shifting of a few thousand square feet between buildings located in the core of the shopping center, will not result in new significant traffic impacts. These replacement buildings are not located in close proximity to sensitive receptors and will not substantially increase noise, light or glare. The current proposal increases building heights from the 2003 proposal. Originally proposed as buildings with roof parapet heights of 25 to 30 feet, with 25 to 35 feet high decorative towers; these buildings now include parapet heights ranging from 23 to 37 feet, with decorative towers ranging from 29 to 48 ft in height. This change is consistent with neighboring buildings and well below the maximum height allowed in the C2 zoning district of 100 feet. Due to the location and existing conditions, these changes will not block views of the San Francisco Bay or other scenic vistas. There will be no adverse effect on neighboring projects. Planned Development and CEQA Consistency Determination As shown in the previous sections, construction of Buildings 300, 400 and 500 will not result in a significant increase in shopping center GLA. The 6,083 square feet expansion of buildings, approved in 2003, is below the limits established in the AMC and Resolution No. PB -03 -40 that could potentially require a PDA. The current proposal does not include the construction of buildings that were specifically not allowed in PB- 03 -40. Currently proposed site plan improvements are consistent with the 2003 plan and address comments received in the last year concerning transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. The proposed changes will not adversely affect traffic, transit operations, or pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. Based on the above evidence, the Planning Director has determined that the construction of Buildings 300, 400 and 500 is consistent with PDA 03 -0003, Section 30 -4.13 of the AMC and will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Consequently, no PDA, additional traffic analysis or CEQA review is required for these three buildings. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 9 B. Design Review Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the City Design Review Manual (DRM). There are six primary design elements identified in the DRM: site planning, building design, landscaping, historic preservation, traffic and parking and signs. Building elevations are provided in Attachment No. 2. Site Plan The DRM notes that site layout should take into consideration the project's effect on adjacent properties. Important considerations, identified in the DRM, include locating buildings to avoid monotony and a monolithic appearance and thoughtful integration of site access and other outdoor activity areas into site design. The current proposal to replace three existing buildings is consistent with the ongoing redevelopment of the shopping center. Review of project plans shows that these new buildings are well integrated into the recently renovated portions of the center. Plans include enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access that connects to the center courtyard of the shopping center and includes enhanced landscaping. These buildings will be approximately the same distance from adjacent street frontages as the existing structures. The proposed design increases building articulation and relief and will result in a less monolithic appearance than existing buildings. Building Design The DRM notes that building design should have a harmonious relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. In evaluating building design, important design factors include an appropriate design theme, scale, compatible roofline, and harmonious colors, textures, and building materials. Windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions relationships to one another. Building facades include horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. The design theme and materials are consistent with that used on the recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Roof parapet heights range from 23 to 37 feet. Decorative towers range from 29 to 48 ft in height. This varied roof line improves building articulation and is consistent with that of the recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Landscaping The DRM notes that the landscape plan should be planned as an integral component of the project and should be harmonious with the building design. Landscaping includes wood trellises extensive plantings of vines and decorative plants and incorporates public benches and other amenities. Landscaping is well integrated into the project and is consistent with that found in the recently renovated courtyard and walkways in the center. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 10 Historic Preservation The DRM encourages the preservation of historic resources and notes that new buildings should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. The shopping center and neighboring properties were originally developed in the late 1950's, on fill material dredged from the bay. No buildings in the center were constructed prior to 1942. There are no historic resources on this property. The proposed new design incorporates design elements found in craftsman style buildings, throughout Alameda. Signage The DRM notes that signs should be harmonious with surroundings, improve the appearance of areas that are in need of upgrading and should be an integral part of the building design. The shopping center has an approved sign program. All signage is subject to separate sign permit approval and is required to comply with the standards contained in the sign program. Traffic and Parking The DRM notes that circulation systems should be designed to avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Truck loading areas should be located to prevent delivery trucks from interfering with street traffic. Off - street parking should be attractively screened from the public right -of -way. Although not part of these Design Review applications, extensive parking lot and access improvements are planned (Attachment 2). These improvements are included in pending Building Permits and PDA05 -0004 which is currently being processed by the City. In response to comments concerning transit, pedestrian and bicycle access, plans have been modified to include the following: The two shopping center driveways on Park Street will be widened. The north entrance, Whitehall road will be widened to provide a wider turning radius for buses and to provide two four feet wide bicycle lanes. The south entrance, Franciscan Way, will be widened to accommodate two four -feet wide bicycle lanes. A new five- feet wide pedestrian walkway will transect the easternmost parking lot providing enhanced access to the center courtyard area. Additionally, the existing public sidewalk on Park Street, although not within the project boundary, will be widened to five feet. Parking lots include extensive landscaping consistent with that required in PDA02 -0003. The Planning Board may require additional improvements or modifications as conditions of approval for PDA05 -0004. C. Conclusion The current proposal to reconstruct Buildings 300, 400 and 500 is consistent with the requirements of the AMC, the City Design Review Manual and earlier entitlements for this Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 11 property. These buildings are subject to Design Review approval. Construction of these buildings will not cause an exceedance of any limitations imposed by the Alameda Municipal Code or Resolution PB- 03 -40. Consequently, they will not require a PDA. Approval of these buildings will not adversely affect adjacent properties or create new significant impacts that have not been previously evaluated and mitigated. Furthermore, approval of these three buildings will not preclude site plan modifications that may be required by the Planning Board for approval of PDA05 -0004. V. FINDINGS Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(a) the Planning Board must make the following finding in order to approve the Major Design Review: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) staff may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM) to make this finding. As discussed in the text of this report, the project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby residential properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. VI. RECOMMENDATION Approve DR06 -0081, DR06 -0092 and DR06 -0096, based upon the findings contained in the three attached Draft Resolutions (Although discussed as a single integrated project, three separate Design Review applications were submitted. Consequently, a separate resolution has been provided for each application). G: IPLANNINGIPBIReports12006111- 13- 20061ATC DR06 -0081 DR06-0092 DR06-0096.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of November 13, 2005 Page 12 w:4L. -144ii--111,**4 -TO 1 -..:41-..."-:4.---; 417:_:::. - di-ifrio, ....,...lex ,isr.L., .. , 12- .k..4 *" --., - _...._...:: 'or' _,,. ,.• ::..,. f'-: Li I. .. -,--- --_, ........0 i*.4t'..,, 'IT A - 41.3, 4,--til, L- 1 . I IN-AW-0-*-0 0 si II ,r• i 3****8 ' - • go-4,4*4 " • • INTERIM PLAN 5 2 L u < <C‘ TOWNE CENTRE %,804-14 0-1 ._. _ .'., ' fk. - tig,i, 01 7 "":];',F - '' ' •"- ,- • ' W •::6-, - •.•Tt-i•i; -•?4* - •414 Z = ' '-'.• - % • V'', '.910 ' 1-•'..--710-.• .. '7-4' 411,11fli , - 4.:, •• -41-- 5•:„ -. f. •fil, -^ • ' -' flg.• -...,..., p; _-_-;# --.-.*.**: • . -,-.2::,..-..,„:„,,,,,i, F75..1.i 2: C $ .•1' - * ' . : ,. 14, ..... ..,,, . ' ' - -43 iiiiiiiiiriekiiii;' -',., --.''''.'-'7i; :?.::•:;;;:. -,":"`‘ it g •_,-....4,_ El c.., t...„ ._..,,....,4,....,...k..„....... ,.. ..., ,...::„.„.,,.,...; ,o,,.,,,,.,..,....„. .... ....,.. • • ''.'"‘.1,7,'' '•••-,--'7..',..•-c,• .:,:::' • ....:,- '.'ttv-..---.-. - • -...- . r.. ••,;.:E. -1 ... _ ..... ...._ _ • • .. • .7,E;;Z: ':1.7.' .'' ..... --.:71.-' -,....‘..". "` ••'.'-'r. ,r,.',..- • / , .. _ pj ..„ 9#: * _ il T.:4• et.44141 7 • ;-. 4di kai,4f4tt 11E; 11! — ... aim:mu I1..1 0tii '2-. .7) i.O -1 ,, z. INTERIM PLAN' DEC 11, 2OO6 . ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN TOWNE CENTRE ALAMEDA EAST .ELEVATION NORTH .10.:EVATION T. ,QVV. Ng Q. E.::.NT R-.E. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY HARSCH INVESTMENT REALTY FOR MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0081, BUILDING 300, LOCATED AT 2245 SOUTH SHORE CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made on August 24, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0081; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on October 5th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the motion to approve this permit failed for lack of a majority vote of the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed this Planning Board decision on December 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, approval of this design review permit shall not preclude the Planning Board or City Council from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities required under existing and /or pending Planned Development Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows regarding this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) this finding may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM). The project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Resolutions #5 -B 1 -2 -07 Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0081, subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 3. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to January 2, 2008 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. Additionally, Resolution PB- 03 -40, as amended by the Planning Board on September 12, 2005 requires that construction be completed by October 15, 2007. 4. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY HARSCH INVESTMENT REALTY FOR MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0096, BUILDING 500, LOCATED AT 2246 SOUTH SHORE CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made on October4, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0096; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on October 15th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on December 11, 2006, and examined pertinent drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the motion to approve this permit failed for lack of a .majority vote of the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed this Planning Board decision on December 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, approval of this design review permit shall not preclude the Planning Board or City Council from requiring future modifications or site improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping and bicycle facilities required under existing and /or pending Planned Development Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows regarding this Major Design Review approval: The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring properties and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) this finding may rely on project consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual (DRM). The project has been evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and standards of the DRM. The project is located in an existing . shopping center that is undergoing a phased renovation. The project design is consistent with recently renovated buildings in the shopping center. Architectural features including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets have good proportions, relate well to one another and form a well integrated design theme. The project has been designed to minimize effects on nearby properties and provides harmonious transitions in scale and character between land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines that in 2003, the City adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS02 -0006 that evaluated the impacts of expanding and reconstructing the shopping center. The current proposal has been evaluated for new impacts and changed circumstances. Based on evidence contained in this report and project files, the Lead Agency has determined that the project will not cause new significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no additional CEQA review is required at this time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda approves Major Design Review DR06 -0081, subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The building and associated improvements shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Design Review plans. 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other improvements have been constructed in compliance with approved Design Review plans. 3. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to January 2, 2008 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted. Additionally, Resolution PB- 03 -40, as amended by the Planning Board on September 12, 2005 requires that construction be completed by October 15, 2007. 4. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Cathy Woodbury Planning and Building Director Date: January 2, 2007 Re: Supplemental Report concerning comments on appeal by Harsch Investment Realty, for Major Design Review DR06 -0081, for Building 300, at 2245 South Shore Center; and Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096, for Building 500, at 2246 South Shore Center. BACKGROUND On December 28, 2006 comments were received from Holly Sellers and Claire Risely requesting that additional information be provided to the City Council. This included their letter to the Planning Board, dated November 4, 2006, and the letter, dated November 13, 2006, from the applicant's representative, Patricia Curtin. These documents are attached. Re: Agenda Item #5B 1 -02 -07 Holly C. Sellers 1624 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510/521 -2299 December 28, 2006 Ms Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510/864 -1103 15, LP!, M'; A_; City Council Meeting January 2, 2007 Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 (Old Ross/Petco Building 500) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Dear Ms Woodbury: You need to know that Planning Department staff reports presented to the Planning Board are missing documents. Whether intentional or the result of carelessness, the failure to include these documents could affect the City Council's and Planning Board's decisions on the above referenced items and other matters. Specifically, our written comments dated November 4, 2006 (received by City staff on November 6, 2006) as well as other documents that were specifically referenced at both the November 13 and December 11, 2006 Planning Board meetings, were not included in the staff report nor planning department files. Omission of these documents has deprived us and others of our right to review and evaluate all arguments presented by the public, the developer, and planning staff We ask that you work with us to remedy the situation and to ensure that all staff reports and planning department files are complete and available to the public. Here is a summary of events that lead up to this request. On November 6, 2006, we delivered a three page letter dated November 4th, addressed to Mr. Doug Garrison, to the front desk of the planning/building department. A stamped, conformed copy of that letter, excluding attachments, is appended. That letter contained our written comments to Planning Board hearing notice dated October 24, 2006 regarding the above referenced design reviews. At the same time, we delivered copies addressed to each Planning Board member out of concern that the letter delivered to Mr. Garrison might not be included in the staff report. It turns out that our concern was justified. Our letter was not included in the staff report prepared for the November 13, 2006 Planning Board hearing. It also was not included in the staff report prepared for the December 11th continuation of the hearing of these matters. November 4, 2006 Mr. Patrick Lynch President Alameda Planning Board 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 7�.VE1VED Nov - 6 2006 PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 Re: Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 (Old Ross/Petco Building 500) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Dear Mr. Lynch: Here are our written comments to Planning Board Hearing notice dated October 24, 2006, regarding the above referenced design reviews. We would like to raise the following three points. The Ross/Petco Building (Building 500 — Phase IV -b) cannot receive approval without a Planned Development Amendment (PDA) and environmental review. The Planning Department takes the position that this building was approved within Planning Board resolution PB -03-40 dated July 28, 2003, appended hereto. However, the Ross/Petco building #500 is part of Alameda Towne Centre (ATC) Phase IV-b and was clearly denied approval in that resolution. PB -03 -40 states at the bottom of page 2: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02 -095, phases II -a, II -b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a. the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site Plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DR03 -0038) and excluding phases III, IV-b and later phases except pedestrian malls; . . (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the resolution states on page 3, paragraph e): 1 We ask that the Planning Board table all ATC requests until the Final EIR has been accepted, which should include these buildings as discussed earlier in this letter. In closing we note that the public comments due date was set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing as April 3, 2006 which is over 6 months prior to the October 24, 2006 notice date. (See copy attached.) In addition, we hereby incorporate by reference all of the comments of other individuals and agencies who comment on the matters considered at the November 13, 2006 hearing. Sincerely, ,Le-6-1- Holly C. Sellers 1624 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510/521 -2299 Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510- 864 -1103 Attachments: Resolution PB03 -40 Field Paoli Drawings Building 300 North Elevation Field Paoli Drawings Building 500 South Elevation Field Paoli Drawing showing Bus Pull Out and Bus Stop Planning Board Notice of Public Hearing dated October 24, 2006 cc: Douglas Garrison, Alameda Planner ✓ Board Member Cook Board Member Cunningham Board Member Ashcroft Board Member Parsons Board Member Mariani Board Member McNamara 3 November 4, 2006 Mr. Patrick Lynch President Alameda Planning Board 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 (Old Ross/Petco Building 500) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Dear Mr, Lynch: Here are our written comments to Planning Board Hearing notice dated October 24, 2006, regarding the above referenced design. reviews. We would like to raise the following three points. The Ross/Petco Building (Building 500 — Phase IV -b) cannot receive approval without a Planned Development Amendment (PDA) and environmental review. The Planning Department takes the position that this building was approved within Planning Board resolution PB -03 -40 dated July 28, 2003, appended hereto. However, the Ross/Petco building #500 is part of Alameda Towne Centre (ATC) Phase 1V -b and was clearly denied approval in that resolution. PB -03 -40 states at the bottom of page 2: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02 -095, phases II -a, II-b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a. the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site Plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DR03 -0038) and excluding phases 111, W -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; ..." (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the resolution states on page 3, paragraph e): 1 e) Phase III, W -b and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mall areas are included in the approved phases. Building 1800 along Shoreline Drive, originally shown in Phase II -a, is specifically not approved. However, the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines• and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review. No additional Planned Development Amendments (PDA) have been processed for these buildings. Furthermore, this resolution states that a new environmental review must take place for these buildings, however they were not included in the DEIR currently being finalized. The proposed designs are not in substantial compliance with the Field Paoli plans which are part of PB -03-40 dated July 28, 2003. The approvals that were granted in PB -03-40 were conditioned upon the buildings being constructed in "substantial compliance" with the 30 Field Paoli plans which are part of the resolution. Attached are the relevant plans for Buildings 300 (Old Walgreens) and 500 (Ross/Peteo) which clearly show low profile views. These views are in keeping with PB -03-40 finding that (page 2, second paragraph): The project will have no significant adverse impacts on persons or property in the vicinity because the design of the stores is of a similar horizontal low- profile nature to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- 1970's period in which South Shore developed as a neighborhood. (Emphasis added.) The designs before you today include a new two -story 21,700 square foot building to be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's with roof parapet heights reaching thirty seven (37) feet and decorative towers reaching up to forty eight and a quarter (48.25) feet! This is hardly consistent with the Board's fmdings regarding low profile and the already approved Field Paoli Plans. Giving Design Review approval for the construction of the new Building 300 (Old Walgreen's) could eliminate mitigation measures proposed for inclusion in the ATC Final EIR. The Park Street north drive needs to be reconfigured which may result in a larger set back for building 300. At a minimum a bus pull out must be built and the bus stop moved in accordance with Field Paoli drawings. (See copy attached.) Giving approval now eliminates the possibility of an enlarged drive and/or an expansion of Safeway's loading dock that were proposed as mitigation measures under. the EIR currently being processed. We ask that the Planning Board table all ATC requests until the Final EIR has been accepted, which should include these buildings as discussed earlier in this letter. In closing we note that the public comments due date was set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing as April 3, 2006 which is over 6 months prior to the October 24, 2006 notice date. (See copy attached.) In addition, we hereby incorporate by reference all of the comments of other individuals and agencies who comment on the matters considered at the November 13, 2006 hearing. Sincerely, Holly C. Sellers 1624 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510/521 -2299 Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510- 864 -1103 Attachments: Resolution PB03 -40 Field Paoli Drawings Building 300 North Elevation Field Paoli Drawings Building 500 South Elevation Field Paoli Drawing showing Bus Pull Out and Bus Stop Planning Board Notice of Public Hearing dated October 24, 2006 cc: Douglas Garrison, Alameda Planner Board Member Cook Board Member Cunningham Board Member Ashcroft Board Member Parsons Board Member Mariani Board Member McNamara 3 O Nri CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -03 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, PDA02 -003, AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR02 -095 FOR RECONSTRUCTING AND EXPANDING AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT 2160 OTIS DRIVE, SOUTH SHORE SHOPPING CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made on July 30, 2002 by Harsch Investment Corp and its affiliate Harsch Investment Realty LLC Series C requesting a Planned Development Amendment, PDA02- 003and Major Design Review DR02 -095, to permit the reconstruction of 545,000 square foot shopping center, and addition of a net 112,000 square feet of retail and office floor area, and amendment to parking regulations for the Center; and WHEREAS, the application was determined to be incomplete for processing by letter dated August 29, 2002; and was subsequently accepted as complete on February 11, 2003; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2 -PD, Central Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on May 12, 2003, concluded July 28, 2003, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents dated May 31, 2002 through July 21, 2003 (site plan) and March 11, 2003 (phasing plan); and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Planned Development: 1. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan which specifies commercial uses for the site, which is designated as Community Commercial. The Community Commercial designation is intended for a wide range of commercial stores and services, ranging from small stores to larger, auto- oriented businesses. The proposed expansion of retail commercial, restaurant and office uses would be' consistent with this designation. 2. The Planned Development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the C -2 zoning district because a Planned Development allows for consolidation of parking and driving aisles for parcels and a comprehensive site design including building location, parking lot design, landscaping and internal circulation to use a site which historically has been linked in this manner. 3. The Planned Development, because it incorporates all the mitigations of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Major Design Review: 1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on persons or property in -the vicinity because the design of the 'stores is of a similar horizontal low- profile nature -to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- 1970's period in which South Shore developed as a.iieighborhood. 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible and harmonize with the design and use of the surrounding area because the buildings would extend the materials, proportions and sizes of stores in the Shopping Center in a manner consistent with past practice. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines because the materials, surfaces, shapes and landscaping relate to nearby structures and provide an attractive streetscape as viewed from adjacent streets and residential areas. WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared on the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, State Clearinghouse Number 2003 -042 -073, and was circulated for public review between April 12, 2003 and May 12, 2003; and no comments were received which identified new significant enviromnental impacts which were not already discussed or mitigated in the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2003 the Board found the Initial Study complete and correct, and after considering public testimony including documents, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS02 -0006 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, to address the environmental impacts related.to this project, finding no significant environmental impacts fi-om the project as mitigated; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02- 09�5�, phases II -a, H -b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: phcu.s e.t.a =3en' ,A p !zt- Ph aseltb =Safe Wa 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a) the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DR03 -0038) and excluding phases DI, IV -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; • for the northerly sidewalk between Office Max and future Building 1500, sidewalk . width. is 4 feet and travel lanes for vehicles are each 10 feet wide; . 2 b) a sign program adopted by Planned Development Amendment PDA -97 -05 on December 8, 1997, as amended by tenant signage revision dated March 31, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects titled "Tenant Sign Design Criteria," in 18 pages; and c) communication dated April 11. 2003 by Harsch Investment Corp, incorporating all mitigation measures of the Initial Study into the project. d) Where feasible, the project includes signs directed toward pedestrians and other feasible measures within applicant control to minimize any conflicting movements between pedestrians at the Washington Mutual ATM machines in the rear of the Washington Mutual building and the adjacent east -west drive aisle on the Center's parking area, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. A pedestrian walkway at least 4 feet wide shall be.constructed prior to occupancy of Phase II -b, from Office Max to the current Chevron site. e) Phase HI, N -b .and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mall areas are included in the approved phases. Building 1800 along Shoreline Drive, originally shown in Phase II -a, is specifically not approved. However, the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design review. f) The following guidelines are requested to be incorporated into resubmittal of the phases not approved at this time: 1) Provision of a site for future gasoline sales. 2) Shoreline orientation of the approximately 2 acres at Park Street and Shoreline Drive, including the current Picante Restaurant site and planned Building 1800. 3) Inclusion in future phases of bus stops, pedestrian and bicycle paths, bicycle racks, landscaping improvements equal to or better than the improvements shown in the approved phases. Such plans and letter r- constitute Exhibit "N', on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department, and are approved except as modified by the conditions in this Resolution. 2. VESTING. The Planned Development Amendment shall terminate on July28 , 2004, unless actual construction under valid permits has begun, or the developer applies for and is granted an extension prior to expiration; the Planning and Building Director is directed by the Planning Board to rule upon an extension on their behalf. The Planned Development Amendment•approval, shall not be in force and effect, and no building permits will be issued, unless and until the developer has completed a Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Map to eliminate any encroachment of building walls over property lines, to the satisfaction 3 of the Planning and Building Director. The Design Review approval shall terminate on January 28 , 2004, unless actual construction under valid permits has begun, or the developer applies for and is granted an extension prior to expiration. For initial project vesting, construction within the timelines herein under DR03- 038 'for Buildings 100 and 600 with adjacent interior malls shall vest both PDA and Design Review for Phase II -a. Once vested, the PDA and Design Review are approved for a maximum of a limited one and one -half year (1 1/2) year construction period from the date of this Resolution and shall EXPIRE on January 28, 2005.for any portion of this project approval that has not been vested and any additional substantial alteration thereafter shall require a new PDA and Design Review. PHASING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Phasing is tentatively outlined in Exhibit "A" phasing sheet dated. March 2003 from Field Paoli Architects with colors designating phases, subject to Director approval. Only areas shown in contruction of Phases II -a, II-b and • IV -a, which shall include completion of the pedestrian. mall areas currently shown. in Phases . • IV -b and V, may be constructed. Phasing Amendments shall be as approved by the Planning and Building Director, with balanced improvements to parking, landscaping; public facilities including drainage, utilities and transportation. • AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code, minor architectural changes'such as storefronts, door and window openings with less than 5% (five percent) change in floor area may be approved administratively by the Planning and Building Director in Design Review. 3. LEASING . The applicant shall provide copies of these conditions with each lease over 10,000 square feet or to smaller leases upon request. 4. TRANSPORTATION. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the site, the applicant shall execute an agreement with the Public Works Director to implement the following measures: OTIS/PARK INTERSECTION. Currently during Baseline conditions Otis/Park intersection operates at LOS D with an additional 150 feet of .southbound right turn lane. Within 6 months the City Public Works Department (PW) will remove 150 feet ofparking on the west side to provide for a dedicated southbound right turn lane. During Baseline Plus Project conditions this intersection will operate at LOS E (65.6 seconds) during the weekend mid - day peak hour. For Baseline Plus Project it is required that the signal be changed from pre- timed operation to fully- actuated. This will involve the installation of a new signal controller, vehicle loop detectors, signal mast arms, traffic striping modifications and all equipment necessary to fully actuate the intersection. With these improvements the intersection LOS will improve to C (24.4 seconds) during the weekend mid-day peak hour. For Cumulative Plus Project additional lanes will be required. At the time the total shopping center area increases beyond 590,000 square feet PW will require the applicant to submit design drawings with the building permit application. At the 4 time the building permit is issued,. PW will require the intersection improvements be • awarded for construction. The City continues to work with the applicant regarding his request for financial assistance with construction of the signal. Certificate of occupancy will not be issued until construction of the required intersection improvements are completed. The applicant will have 100% responsibility for construction of these improvements, review, permitting, inspection and processing. The applicant may elect to request the City construct the improvements and provide the City with the necessary funding. If this option is selected, negotiations would be needed so that a design would be ready to meet the schedule identified above. The cost for additional lanes will be shared between the City and the applicant based upon a prorated traffic contribution. OTIS/PROJECT ACCESS - TRADER JOE'S DRIVEWAY. Currently the unsignalized intersection of Otis/Project Access - Trader Joe's driveway operates at LOS C and therefore no mitigation is needed. The signal warrant associated with the northbound approach from the shopping center meets the peak hour warrant for signalization during the weekday PM peak hour and weekend mid -day peak hour. At Cumulative Plus Project the northbound left turn movement will gradually degrade. Therefore, if applicants would like to install a signal to improve the traffic operations at this location they will have 100% financial responsibility. OTIS/PROJECT ACCESS - EASTERNMOST DRIVEWAY. Based on observed and project vehicle queuing on Otis Drive during peak commute periods, it is required that this driveway be limited. to right- turn -only .inbound /outbound with a physical barrier (concrete channelization island to accommodate right turn in and right turn out movement). An annual monitoring will be conducted to review the conflict of right out movement with Otis Drive eastboundthrough traffic. The applicant will have 100% responsibility for construction of theses improvements, review, permitting, inspection and•processing. PARK/PROJECT ACCESS NORTH DRIVEWAY. With projected vehicle queues for the southbound right -turn movement from Park Street into the project driveway, it is required that the intersection be monitored for potential vehicle queuing conflicts. An annual monitoring.report is to be submitted-to PW in a pre - approved format. If the Public Works Director receives any objections to the traffic into this driveway, the Director will have the prerogative to request. additional monitoring reports from the applicant. Should vehicle queuing at this intersection for southbound right -turns cause conflicts PW will require the installation of a separate right -turn deceleration lane. The applicant will have 100% responsibility for construction of these improvements, review, permitting, inspection and processing. BICYCLE /TRANSIT /PEDESTRIAN. Based on meetings between AC Transit staff and the developer, transit routing will be located along Whitehall Drive, within the Center.. Traveling in the eastbound direction, a transit stop will be located along Whitehall at the far (east) side of the intersection at South Shore Center Drive. A striped transit only lane, 10 feet wide, will be provided for a bus to pull out of the through traffic lane when loading/unloading passengers. Also along Whitehall, in the eastbound direction, a transit 5 stop will be located prior to the intersection with Park Street. In the westbound direction along Whitehall, transit stops, including striped transit only lanes (10 feet wide) will be located west of the intersection with Park Street (adjacent to Building 1500) and at the near side of the intersection with South Shore Center Drive. Back -out parking will not be permitted along a transit route. Bus turnouts may not double as temporary or permanent truck loading areas. Bus turnouts and platforms must be consistent with AC Transit Standards Manual. There will be a minimum of four (4) transit stop locations within the Center, two (2) in each direction. In addition, the actual bus stops /pads at the multi -nodal transit center should be constructed of concrete rather than asphalt to prevent wear. Where possible as confirmed by the Public. Works Director, bus stops shall be east of South Shore Center Drive. The easterly Whitehall transit terminal shall be separated from the truck loading area of Building 1500 by landscaped trellises, walls and other harriers to create a secure space for transit patrons. Signs shall be placed throughout the shopping center directing transit patrons to the new transit stops. Each transit stop will be outfitted with bus shelters and bus benches consistent with ADA guidelines and the AC Transit Standards Manual. Crosswalks and ramps must be provided consistent with ADA guidelines. Bicycle parking throughout the Center will be held to a standard of one (1) bicycle parking space per thirty (30) auto parking spaces. Locations and number of bicycle parking racks throughout the Center will be agreed upon by the Public Works Director or designee and the Developer on a phase by phase basis. The total number of spaces will attempt to remain as close as possible to the 1 to 30 ratio within reason. Proper signage will be located throughout the Center directing bicyclists to bicycle parking locations. . A 4 foot wide raised concrete pedestrian path will be installed from existing Chevron to existing .Office Max on the east -west driveway to Public Works standards. Where backout parking is adjacent to the main mall buildings, every 10`h parking space in such areas will be striped for pedestrian access to the mall; except that the pedestrian space in ADA parking spaces will qualify as the pedestrian access at that point. BUS SHELTER. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain Planning and Building Director and Building Official approval for design of at least four (4) all- weather bus shelters when the current bus shelter requires closure or relocation, and shall install the bus shelter prior to approval of occupancy. Bus lines and shelters shall be designed to the satisfaction of Alameda Contra Costa Transit and the Public Works Director. Should AC Transit decide to suspend bus service for any reason, the Public Works Director shall determine that bus service near the Center will be a satisfactory substitute, prior to issuance of building permits for the subsequent phase. • Bus shelter, bus bench and cross walks shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines and be approved by the Public Works Director. Bus turnout and platforms are shown on Exhibit "A" and 'shall be consistent with AC Transit Standards Manual and bus stops shall be located per the manual apart from one another in an east -west direction unless modified by the Public Works Director. 5. OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to the Planned Development of South Shore Shopping Center, as amended, except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Planned Development Amendment approval. 6. PARKING. The shopping center shall at all times operate with at least 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, restaurant or office area then being occupied or constructed, whichever is greater conforming to City parking design standards. Should the shopping center fall below the 4.0 parking spaces to 1,000 square feet ratio, the owner shall prevent construction of additional sufficient retail and office space so that the project returns to the 4.0/1,000 parking ratio overall. All parking areas on all parcels shall be made accessible to all other portions of the center through recorded documents including joint access and reciprocal parking easements to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 7. SIGNAGE PROGRAM: All signage installed at the site shall be in compliance with the approved signage program for South Shore Shopping Center, as outlined in PDA 97 -05, Exhibit "C ", consisting of nine pages, prepared by the applicant, stamped received "October 24, 1996 ", and on file in the Planning Department offices, except as modified by Exhibit "A" of this Planned Development Amendment. Back -lit (ground mounted- lighted) palm trees are not signs. No sign shall be installed without prior issuance of a sign permit. 8. ALAMEDA POWER AND TELECOM. The developer shall install new substructures including conduits, pullboxes, and transforriier pads necessary to serve the proposed improvements. The developer shall grant all easements to Alameda Power and Telecom necessary for the provision and maintenance of electrical service to the site. Easements shall include metes and bound descriptions and plats and shall be prepared by a licensed land survey or civil engineer-qualified to practice land surveying. Existing.easements that are no longer applicable after the proposed improvements are operational shall be vacated at the direction of AP &T and City, Engineer. Prior to issuance of permits for placement of structures, the approval of the Planning and Building Director regarding location and screening shall be obtained. 9. STORM AND SANITARY SEWER ANAYLSIS Applicant shall provide in conjunction with building and site improvement plan submittals, storm drain and sanitary sewer flow calculations of the existing and proposed development. Pipes shall be upgraded as necessary to meet increase flows if applicable. Existing sanitary sewer pipes not requiring replacement shall be inspected and any inflow and infiltration from open joints, broken pipe, etc. shall be 7 rehabilitated by means acceptable to the 'City Engineer (i.e, slip lining, .pipe bursting, . replacement, inversion lining, etc.) by phase. 10. PLANS. Site civil improvement, traffic signing, striping and detouring, landscape, irrigation, utility, and urban runoff (see below) plans shall be submitted either separately or in conjunction with•building plans to Building and Planning Services for review by the City Engineer. 11. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide plans for approval of the Alameda Fire Department. The building shall be fitted with automatic fire sprinkler systems to NFPA 13 standards to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. Prior to raising building walls, the developer shall have already adjacent or install at his expense on -site one or more 3,000 gallon per minute .fire hydrant(s) be located and installed to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. 12. URBAN RUNOFF. Redevelopment projects shall minimize stormwater pollutant discharges: through implementation of construction sediment control and post- construction design and treatment measures, incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures to the maximum extent practicable per requirements of the Alameda Countywide Non - Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit. Approval of this resolution does not lock -in the current NPDES permitting requirements for the life of the project. Subsequent changes to the NPDES permitting requirements may occur during project phasing and shall be incorporated into the design unless otherwise conditioned under the NPDES permit regulations. Design review submittals shall include a table showing the amount of pervious and impervious areas prior to redevelopment and the amount of pervious and impervious area after redevelopment. Areas shall be given in square feet. Conceptual proposals shall be included during design review process showing methods by which .impervious surfaces will be minimized and the entry ofpollutants to the storni drain system will be reduced. Such methods may include methods such as pervious parking stalls using interlocking pavers, and sand filter inserts and units within storm drain structures. b. Post- construction stormwater. treatment control measures shall be included into project construction plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. A treatment measure operation and maintenance (O &M) plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. O &M plans shall include treatment type, location, maintenance requirements, maintenance schedule and assurances of party responsible for O &M. c.. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can 8 contribute to stonnwater pollution. Where feasible landscaping should be designed and operated to treat stonnwater runoff. d. Construction activities shall comply with Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) NPDES permitting requirements. Design plans shall include a plan for erosion and sediment control measures that implements current Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction activities. The erosion and sediment control plan is subject to review and approval by City Engineer. e. Trash enclosures and /or recycling areas must be completely covered with no surface flows from other areas draining into this area. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent • potential stormwater pollution. Self contained trash compactors are considered covered. These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and • spill clean -up. Mobile washing and discharges must be conducted according to the Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff developed by the Cleaning. Equipment Trade Association. f. Loading dock areas should be designed to minimize the amount of storm water run -, on onto the loading dock area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the • pollution of stormwater must be drained to the sanitary sewer; or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer, or intercepted and pretreated. prior to discharge to the storm drain system. g. Food retailers (including restaurants and grocery stores) must be designed to prevent the discharge of wastewaters from the cleaning of mats, equipment and containers to the storm drain system. Contained wash areas shall be covered or designed to prevent run -on or ntnoff from the area and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent potential, stormwater pollution. These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean -up. Mobile washing .and discharges must be conducted accordingto the Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff developed by the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association. h. The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution and to minimize the amount of flows to the sanitary sewer drains at locations indicated under e,f & g above. The Operation and Maintenance plans per Item #b above shall address these requirements. 13. LANDSCAPING. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall specify the size, type and number of trees, shrubs and ground cover. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to approval of occupancy. 9 a. The developer shall be required to install trees as shown on the approved landscaping plan for approved phases_ in Exhibit "A." Exact number of street trees to be planted, species, location and size of trees shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. Trees that are 15 gallon site .or larger shall be specified unless .otherwise directed by the Planning and Building Director. Each tree well shall have at least it 15 gallon tree approved by the Planning and Building Director. There shall be at least one tree per 4 to 8 parking spaces in any reconstructed. portion of the parking lot, averaging 1 per 4 in the 46. acre project or as approved by the Director, with trees being installed with that phase prior to occupancy of adjacent reconstructed buildings. Eucalyptus trees are not approved, Palm trees may apply toward achieving the required tree ratio with Planning and Building Director approval on a phase by phase basis, and Planning Board approval of the first phase (Building 200), where the palm species provide suitable shade and greenery. The applicant shall obtain reports by certified professional arborist(s) regarding the most effective• species of palms to be used, and the most effective pruning manner for canopy trees to promote spreading growth rather than maintaining initial tree size and spread. Each double parking row shall have at least two (2) trees except for Phase 1. b. Shrubs of a minimum 5 gallon container size shall be planted in landscape islands, the central mall and other areas, and other shrubs approved by .the Planning and Building Director. At the entrance driveways, accent plants such as annual or perennial flowering plants and shrubs shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. • c. The applicant shall install rows of palm trees along•each major north/south entrance driveway to the Center (3 from Otis Drive), as shown on Exhibit "A." Installed trees shall be secured and supported during the first year of planting by triangulated boards or other method approved by the City Building Official, following the practice used in 2002 for installation of palm trees leading to the Trader Joe's entrance, in order to avoid the 2002. toppling of trees in high winds. d. Landscaping including shrubs and trees or a decorative fence or wall shall screen all above - ground utility boxes and structures, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. e. Trees shall not be located within easements. f. Trees shall be maintained and watered in a healthy state to achieve a canopy of greenery within the parking areas. Diseased trees shall be removed and replaced immediately with healthy trees of the same or similar species. 10 14. 'LIGHTING. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan and details of lighting fixtures for Planning and Building Director review and approval. The lighting fixtures shall be substantially compatible with existing lighting fixtures in the Shopping Center parking lot. Lighting shall be installed in substantial compliance with City • standards as determined by the Chief Building Official, Police Department and AP &T. All on -site lighting shall be downward - directed lighting and shielded to avoid lighting impacts on adjacent residential areas, except that palm trees may be back -lit by ground - mounted • lights in the manner established for the palms leading to Trader Joe's in 2002. • 15. - AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE. The project is subject to the Affordable Housing Un•t /Fee Ordinance (Alameda Municipal Code Section 27 -1). The applicant must provide housing units, pay an in -lieu fee or prepare an Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Plan and secure the approval of the Housing Development Manager, prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant must provide the housing units or pay the Affordable Housing fee, as calculated in the approved Plan, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 16. CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS a. Prior to start of work of demolition, remodeling or construction, the applicant shall • provide a draft waste management plan to the Public Works Environmental.Services Division. This can be in any format, but must include the following: . i. Contractor's name, address, and telephone number ii. Project location and /or streetaddress iii. Anticipated start and completion dates of the project iv. A list of materials expected to be generated (e.g., glass, wood, metal, drywall, concrete, bricks), the tonnage or volume of each material, how they are to be reused, disposed or recycled, and the destination /processor for that reuse, disposal or recycling. The Environmental Services Division will review this draft plan, and any changes or ' recommendations shall be incorporated into the site plans for the project. At the end of the demolition, remodeling or construction project, the contractor shall submit a report to the Environmental Services Division on actual tonnages disposed or recycled for each material, and the actual destination/processor. b. 'Construction activities 'shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.ni. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. except that within the main mall, construction may commence at 7:00 am with City Engineer approval. Work on Saturdays shall require special approval of the city engineer. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sundays or State and Federal holidays. Work requiring inspection after 11 3:30 p.m.. weekdays will require city construction inspection fee at time and a half (1- 1/2). Said fee will be in accordance with the latest public works fee overtime schedule. Work done on Saturdays requiring inspection is prohibited unless approved by the city engineer and an inspector is available. Inspection fees for Saturday work will be at time and a half (1-1/2) with a four -hour .minimum. c. All construction vehicles shall adhere to City of Alameda truck routes; d. Storage of construction material and equipment on city streets will not be permitted. e. The contractor shall provide all lights, signs, barricades, flagmen, or other traffic safety devices necessary to provide public safety in accordance. The contractor shall provide a traffic control plan to the approval of the city engineer. The contractor shall allow a minimum of 5 working days for review. f Temporary no parking on City streets for construction will require posting of "No Parking Signs" 48 hours in advance. Signs are available at the Building Services Office, Room 190, City Hall. A fee will be charged for the signs. Only City of Alameda issued no parking signs will be allowed. The contractor shall allow a minimum five working days for review. g• Construction equipment shall be properly muffled. Unnecessary idling of grading construction equipment is prohibited. h. Stationary noise - generating construction equipment such as compressors shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housing units. i. Contractor shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction. noise. J. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street, gutter, storm drain or stream. Shovel or vacuum saw -cut slurry and remove from site. k. A contained and covered area on -site shall be used for.storage of cement bags, paints, flanunables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, or any other materials that have potential for being discharged to the storm drain system by wind or in the event of a material spill. 1• All construction debris shall be gathered' on a regular basis and placed in a dtimpster which is emptied or removed weekly. When feasible, tarps .shall be used on the ground to collect fallen .debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater pollution. Any temporary on -site construction piles shall be securely covered with a tarp or other device to contain debris. • 12 m. Concrete /gunite trucks and concrete /plaSter finishing operations shall not discharge wash water into the street gutters or drains. 11. Trash and debris shall be cleaned Up daily on all public streets in the project vicinity and along haul routes. Sweep as needed and as directed by the Public Works Inspector. . 17. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Prior to demolition and construction related activities for the Chevron Station and the. existing Safeway site, or any other sites on local materials governmental lists, hazardous 'material assessment studies must be performed by qualified soils professionals, in order to determine the extent of any site contamination. Once these studies have been completed and have received City Building Official approval, the applicant and the contractor shall comply with the Phase 11 recommendations of a soils engineering report. • 18. PERMITTED USES. The permitted uses within the PD shall be those permitted uses of the C -2 and C -C zoning districts; the conditional uses within the PD shall be the conditional uses .of the C -2 and C -C zoning districts, except as herein further limited. 19. HOURS OF OPERATION. The Center shall not be open. to the public nor shall truck loading be conducted, before 7:00 a.m. or. after 10:00 p.m. except that Use Permits or Planned Development Amendments may request additional hours for specified uses. The truck loading areas for the two supermarkets shall be on the north sides of the markets only.. 20. ARCHITECTURE. Prior to issuance ofbuilding permits, the applicant shall submit for Final Design Review and Planning and Building Director review and approval,•architectural details and final colors and materials for the buildings, including but not limited to all trim and cornice. elements, canopies, trellises, vine planting grills and the trash and recycling enclosures. Minor alterations to plans of Exhibit "A" may be approved by the Planning and Building Director. Significant alterations may require review by the Planning Board, as determined by the Planning and Building Director. The applicant shall conform to the Public Art Ordinance and shall include public art approved by the ,Recreation and Parks process in each phase. That process may, in its discretion, find decorative mall paving, fountains and other, upgrades to existing mall surfaces created by artists to qualify as a portion of public art. 21. PHASING. The project may continue construction until January 28.2005, for approximately. one and one half years from approval. The applicant may develop phases as approved by the Planning and Building Director, except that no single -Year phase shall exceed 15 acres, nor 200,000 square feet of rebuilt building area; nor 800 parking spaces. 'The required pro -rata share of parking, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle trails shall be installed with the phase being rebuilt. . 13 22. MAXIMUM STORE SIZE. The project may include one store of up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and two stores each of up to 60,000 square feet. Any larger store shall require a - Planned Development Amendment. The applicant expressly states that there is no present intent to install a supersized. department store larger than 90,000 square feet in area at this location. All stores selected shall relate primarily to the needs of the Alameda market, including food, clothing, books and music, household items, entertainment items, sporting goods, home furnishings • and remodeling, jewelry, services such as optometry and tax preparation; and shall exclude stores which primarily sell automobiles, large auto parts, recreational vehicles, bulk raw materials such as lumber, and similar bulky and occasionally purchased items. Additions or modifications of less than 5% (five percent) in overall Center area may be approved by administrative Design Review. • 23. PLANNING AND BUILDNG DEPARTMENT INSPECTION. At least 4 days prior to . approval of occupancy, the applicant shall notify the Planning and Building Department to inspect the building and site to assure compliance with these conditions. 24. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SITE This phase is denied without prejudice for the current application. Prior to issuance of building. permits for the phase including the present carwash site, and Building 1800 together, or for Building 1000 and subsequent phases, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Board for Planned Develo ment • Amendment and Major Design Review a plan for site improvements an elevations, plazas, drives, landscaping which provides a water orientation for this 2 acre portion of the site, with pedestrian scale and access, minimizing vehicular traffic which may conflict with ,pedestrian use and unified design theme. 25. MITIGATION MONITORING. Prior to issuance of building permits and during construction, the applicant shall assure implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, incorporated herein by reference. 26. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this Planned Development Amendment to be exercised. 27. HOLD HARMLESS. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Planned Development Amendment and Design Review approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest; defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to. attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period. provided for in Government Code Section 66499737. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and the City 14 shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City tails to promptly notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the developer 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 any such appeal must be made within ten (10) days of the decision or decision on any appeal 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 plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil. Procedure Section 1094.6. NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. PASSED. AND ADOPTED this 28th day of .luly, 2003 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (6) Piziali, Cook, Cunningham, Bard, Gilmore, Rossi NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Lynch ATTEST: 15 Fuz, Secreta Planning Board Acknowledgment of Conditions: I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -03-40 for, the Planning Board's approval of PDA02- 0003/DR02 -0095, approved on July 28, 2003, and in accordance with Conditions herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to comply with the Conditions of Approval of said Planning Board Resolution No. PB -03 -40 and the applicable provisions of frhapter 30 of the . iieda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Executed at: By: City On: Date Applicant GvNiprA L /v,AN40-R - Title APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. G :IPLANNINGIPBIRES 01200315soujuly.doc 16 t. • Img sie mil 8. f � _ I;II 1: ' ! I ,q‘r.J.:1-4-6-01141 Fr , ii !II ;t: 1 O r o 1 1 L G. g i -, y 3 El � 433-� 14 11110111111111111111111111311 It NI ` I IiiiINi�NillkI unmonsamonan 45 INS: w cc 1- z w g0 a w re wz N 0 O N 0a Z 0i w IX 2 a.a O U a HEARING DATE: of Alameda • California PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING October 24, 2006 The PIanning Board of the City of Alameda will hold a public hearing to consider the project described below at 7:00 p.m. on Monday. November 13, 2006 at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, City Council Chambers, Third Floor. All interested parties are invited to attend and participate in the hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DRO6 -00,81 Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Portions of this building will be demolished. The building will be renovated and includes additions of approximately 4,000 square feet to the east side and 300 square feet to the south side. A new two -story 21,700 square feet building will be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's building, bringing the store frontage in line with the adjacent buildings to the west. This building will share a truck dock area with Building 200 to the west (new Safeway). Materials include: horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. Exterior colors, materials, design and landscaping are consistent with that of other recently renovated buildings in the center. The building incorporates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical roof parapet heights range from 23 to 37 feet. Decorative towers located at the corners of the building range from 29 feet to 48.25 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. 2246 S. Shore Center (Old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 The project includes exterior remodeling and an approximately 3,000 sq. ft. expansion of an existing building, located in the southeastern portion of the main cluster of shopping center buildings. The expansion and remodeling are allowed under the original South Shore Planned Development approvals. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Exterior colors, materials, design and landscaping are consistent with that of other recently renovated buildings in the center. The building incorporates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical parapet heights range from 26 to 31 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. Exterior colors, materials and design are consistent with that previously approved by the Planning Board for the South Shore Planned Development Amendment in 2003. Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.6850 • Fax 510.747.6853 • TDD 510.522.7538 ' 0•'� Pressed or Rsyrled Paler 2296 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 The project includes exterior remodeling and an approximately tely 6,840 ter of expansion center building, located on the southeast corner buildings. The expansion and remodeling are allowed under the original South Shore Planned Development. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Exterior colors, materials and design are consistent with that previously approved by the Planning Board for the South Shore Planned Development Amendment in 2003. Materials include: Horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. The building incorporates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical parapet heights are 23 feet. Decorative towers located at the comers of the building and in the center of the north facing facade extend up to a height of 31 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. PERMITS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD: • Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096, pursuant to Section 30 -36.1 • Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081, pursuant to Section 30 -36.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed modifications were evaluated pursuant to the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2003. At that time, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: Planning & Building Department staff are available to assist you in reviewing . this project prior to the public hearing. The Planning & Building Department staff member for this project is Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner, who may be contacted at (510) 747 -6850, Monday through Thursday, or by fax at (510) 747 -6853. The file materials are available for your review at the City Planning & Building Department Office, Room 190, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda CA 94501, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4 :30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, and 8:00 a.m to 3:30 p.m. on Thursday. The staff report and recommendation for this project will be available the Thursday prior to the Planning Board meeting. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice can be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments can be made to the Board by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: PLANNING DIVISION, CITY OF ALAMEDA, CITY HALL 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm. 190, Alameda, CA 94501 Phone (510) 747- 6850/FAX # (510) 747 -6853 Email: dgarrison@ci.alameda.ca.us To assure delivery to Board members prior to the Public Hearing, please submit any written comments .. -� before April 3, 2006. Letters received after this date will be delivered to the Board members at the Public Hearing. TWELVE COPIES of letters should be provided for submission at the time of the meeting. Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Board at, or prior, to the public hearing:- (Government £nde:Section 65009(b)(2)). PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: 1) The public hearing before the Planning Board is the first step in the hearing process. 2) If the Planning Board approves the project the applicant has been granted permission to establish the use and/or apply for a building permit for any project construction. 3) Planning Board decisions can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days by filing a form in the Planning and Building Department at City Hall and paying the appropriate fee and deposit. Once an appeal is filed, a use cannot be established and a building permit cannot be issued until the City Council has conducted a public hearing and taken action on the appeal. Appeals shall be scheduled for public hearing by the City Council no later than the third regularly scheduled and held meeting following submittal of the appeal. 4) The City Council may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the action of the Planning Board as deemed appropriate by the City Council. COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS: To request a meeting agenda in large print, Braille or on audiocassette or to request a sign language interpreter for the meeting, call (510) 747 -6850 (voice) or (510) 522 -7538 (TDD): at least FIVE working days notice will ensure availability. Copies are available for review at all City libraries and posted on our website at: www.ci.alameda.ca.us, customarily by the Thursday prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired persons may reach City Hall staff at the Telecommunications for Deaf and Disabled persons number (510) 522 -7538. G:\PLANNING\Streetnames L-11S Shore Alameda Towne Centre \October 23 2006 Design Review Public Hearing Notice.doc ,r. Itr- 1r- i' k• V 1, °f. .1. 1I.. .ile......allo... .a.. AC.. Alb i. '"'""AviinniAra. lemoirimorm ir --far ....mme.tmwnsa- # 11 11 -1....xia - 1mi • VIII AIIIL II la 111 a....11111 'lila to pima 1 le -0, All 4 MAL — —_ 2 _ 1 rte. mil f ISHWW IMF lit' TA; • 16 Ana IN1:1'4r*S7 ASV* 1r 1 11 H La mi. m rm 7-7 • .._ 1 IF nm I Li' I I 111 I I VIII Allfill11111111111() 11'` Ito 0 -, ■III ■:' -�— 1 - II 1;L:41-1 01111111111 {fli 01II1111111I1111111111 1 � lrIHFr�� 1 lr 071'I11111111111111 1 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, �•u -i' _J-_,I 1 � '1'1.1'111111111111 U r ' 10, 0111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111101 I I ga ; 01111111IIIIIIO f • r•r1fF� 1 f F�� zb "'•°- !lI1l. F : ^:. ig 10III111111ii1111110 0111111111111111110, 'w J 7/1_ x•11111111111111111111 1 _J 111.1.L1.11.1.1LI , fi;1i Iitii� i • 10111111111111111110 .� „u,✓/cu, & " "u Lira- 111111111 k TOWNE CENTRE L I CO T ■ TOWNE CENTRE , TOWNE CENTRE .-.I L 0 z N TOWNE CENTRE &I t-S 1 F H I 1 ■ TOWNE CENTRE %Id X -; • 101'J ZI *014Zila; n • plutoIllllllll BIBIBI9111111■ 0 �ol 0 U1 MIL to o - ni!u!u u; III °1III!III!I!!!!! !IIII!!!1111= o 1 :e■ : o■ 0 0 00 111111111111111111111 -111111111111 • • • • © L O i M1•11-- Fael 0 0 0 0 0 111 II III 1IIII w-m-nLN -l.• I..i 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu! 1111 •I 1 11 1111 lltol 1 111111 OOI. 1111111 00 11 11111 o l:: 111111 �08I o 1-1 111111�IIIppllllul en Ft iii 0 z w tx GHQ 1114:11 1 L a F L ( L i C Morgan Miller 6Iar A LAW CORPORATION 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 925.937.3000 925.943.1106 FAX www.mmblaw,com PATRICIA E. PURTIN (925) 979=3353 pcuttin @mmblaw.com President Patrick Lynch and Planning Board Members City of Alameda Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa, Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 November 13, 2006 Re: Planning Board Meeting - November 13, 2006 Item 8 -A — Alameda Towne Centre - Major Design Review Our File No. 10303 -001 Dear President Lynch and Planning Board Members: This office represents Harsch Investment Properties, LLC, owner of the Alameda Towne Centre (formally South Shore Center) with respect to the Centre's revitalization. At your meeting this evening, you will consider Design Review applications to allow remodeling of three buildings in the Centre. These applications are appropriate for Design Review and are consistent with previous entitlements for the Centre and the City's Code. We reviewed the Staff Report prepared on this item and are in full agreement with it. Consistent with Staff's recommendations; we too urge the Planning Board to approve the applications this evening. I. Project Description Harsch has been revitalizing the Centre for the last several years. Tonight, Harsch is requesting the Board to approve, through Design Review, the remodeling of Buildings 300, 400 and 500. Building 300 is the former .Walgreen's building, and Buildings 400 and 500 are the former Ross/PETCO and Velvet Grill buildings. The new buildings that will result through the remodel will be located in the same general area as the existing buildings and will result in a net reduction of floor area. II. Scope of Review by the Planning Board The City's Code and the entitlements that govern the Centre allow the Planning and Building Director to approve the Design Review applications. As a result, the applications do President Lynch and Planning Board Members November 13, 2006 Page 2 not require an amendment to the previously approved Planned Development or a new Planned Development. In response to the public comments received on the noticing that is required for these applications, Staff scheduled the applications for consideration by the Board. The majority of the public comments relate to a separate planning process (the application for a Planned Development Amendment for the Target Store) and not to the remodel of the three buildings. The Planning Board is being asked to approve the Design Review applications for Buildings 300, 400 and 500 and thereby confirm the Planning Director's determination these applications were properly subject to administrative review and approval as permitted by the previous entitlements and City Code. III. Design Review is Appropriate: Not an Amendment to the Planned Development or a New Planned Development. In 2003, the Planning Board approved a Planned Development Amendment, PB- 03 -04, ( "2003 Approval ") to allow revitalization of the Centre with up to 112,000 square feet of additional space. The Planning Board did not approve all the renovations requested by the applicant. The 2003 Approval included Building 300 (in addition to other areas) but did not include. Buildings 400 and 500. A. Building 300 The 2003 Approval allows "additions or modifications of less than 5% (five percent) in overall Center" to be approved by "administrative Design Review" (Condition 22). Also, the 2003 Approval does not require all "significant alterations" to be approved by the Planning Board but allows the Planning Director to make such decisions in his or her own discretion (Condition 20). The modifications to Building 300 will result in less than a 3% increase to the area approved in the 2003 Approval and thus, may be approved by the Planning Director. Also, even if the renovations are considered "significant alterations ", the Planning Director has the authority to issue the approval. The Staff Report contains graphics that depict the changes proposed to Building 300 (See, Figure 3). These graphics demonstrate that the renovations may be approved by the Planning Director. We urge the Planning Board to support this determination by approving the Design Review application for Building 300. B. Buildings 400 and 500 Buildings 400 and 500 were not part of the 2003 Approval. Thus, the City's Code governs these applications. The Centre is zoned C -2 -PD. Under this zoning designation, additions to commercial uses which 1) result in less than 25% increase in floor area of existing structures associated with the use or, 2) will not, in the opinion of the Planning Director, have a substantial adverse impact on the adjacent property, may be approved by the Planning Director MIvB:103 03 -001:7 09485.1 President Lynch and Planning Board Members November 13, 2006 Page 3 (Section 30- 4.13(m)(2)(d) and (e)). The Staff Report contains graphics to demonstrate the extent of the renovations proposed for Buildings 400 and 500. These graphics confirm that the renovations will not result in more than a 25% increase in floor area and will not have a significant adverse impact on adjacent properties. These graphics also confirm that the renovations requested are consistent with and compliment the design criteria and standards in the 2003 Approval. It is important to note that the City has been consistent in its interpretation of its rules and regulations regarding land uses at the Centre. In 2005 and 2006, the Planning Director approved renovations to buildings not governed by the 2003 Approval by using the criteria above. The Planning Board must continue to allow interpretation of its Code in a uniform and consistent manner. We urge you to support the Planning Director's determination that the applications for Buildings 300, 400 and 500 were proper for administrative approval by approving the applications. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, RGAN MILLER BLAIR PATRICIA E. CURTIN PEC:klm cc: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner Clients /v11%413:10303.-001:709485.1 CLAIRE YEATON- RISLEY Attorney at Law 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510 864 -1103 October 23, 2006 BY HAND DELIVERY Mr.- Douglas - Garrison, Planner -III City of Alameda Planning and Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, California 94501 RE: Design review /Alameda Towne Centre/Letter from Mr. Douglas Garrison dated October 12, 2006 Dear Mr. Garrison: I received a copy of the above referenced letter yesterday from one of its' recipients. I did not receive a copy from your department. Because of this, I hereby request that you extend the public comment period by an additional ten (10) days. I also renew my request that I receive a copy of all public notices concerning the Alameda Towne Centre. Your letter states that these projects were approved as part of Planned Development Amendment No. PDA02 -0003 and Design Review File DR02 -0095. However Planning Board Resolution No. PB- 03 -40, which approved the foregoing, explicitly excluded from its approval phases III, IV -b and later phases. This morning my associate, Holly Sellers, was told by Andrew Thomas that PB -03 -40 is the document that you, are relying on as approval of the improvements outlined in your letter. However PB -03 -40 specifically states that: Phase III, IV-b and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mall areas are included in the approved phases However , the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design review. t PB -03-40 further states; Only areas shown in construction of Phases H -a, II -b and IV -a which shall include completion of the pedestrian mall areas currently shown in Phases IV -b and V, may be constructed. It appears that the improvements to the Petco building are part of Phase W-b and were specifically disallowed by PB- 03 -40. That being the case how can you possibly propose issuing permits after your design review without further approvals from the Planning Board? PB -03-40 contains the finding that: The project will have no significant adverse impacts on persons or property in the vicinity because the design of the stores is of a similar horizontal low- profile nature to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- 1970's period in which South Shore developed as a neighborhood. The designs outlined in your letter, include a new two -story 21,700 square foot building to be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's, roof parapet heights reaching thirty seven (37) feet and decorative towers reaching up to forty eight and a quarter (48.25) feet! This is hardly consistent with the Board's findings. Furthermore, the approvals given in PB -03 -40 are expressly conditioned on the improvements being constructed in accordance with the plans submitted at that time. PB -03-40 states, in relevant part: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02- 095,.phases H -a, II -b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a) the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et. al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DR03 -0038) and excluding phases III, IB -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; for the northerly sidewalk between Office Max and future Building 1500, sidewalk width is 4 feet and travel lanes fro vehicles are each 10 feet wide. The above referenced plans show a single story building at the old Walgreen's site. The new Plans indicate a two story building with a tower up to 48.25 feet, The latter is hardly in "substantial compliance" with the original Field and Paoli drawings. See, north elevation Building 300 Plans dated May 31, 2002 by Field Paoli Architects. This morning I went to the Planning Department to review PDA 02 -0003 and DR02 -0095 which are referenced in your letter dated October 12, 2006. They were not available for review at that time. They are still not available for my review. These documents• are essential to my review of the proposed changes. This is another reason why the comment period must be extended. One cannot fully and accurately comment on proposed changes without a clear understanding of the details of what was originally approved. Those approvals are contained in documents that are not available to me, thus rendering the foregoing public comment period meaningless. Sincerely, Claire Yeaton - Risley Cc: Mr: Patrick Lynch, president, City of Alameda Planning Board, with attachment Mr. Andrew Thomas, by hand City of Alameda • California October 12., 2006 Dear Property Owner/Resident: This will infortn you that proposed exterior modifications are proposed for the Alameda Towne Centre, specifically 2245, 2246 and 2296 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's, Ross and Petco buildings). These projects are currently being reviewed for architectural design by the Planning and Building Department prior to building permit approval. This work is part of the ongoing renovation of the shopping center and includes the demolition .and renovation of existing buildings located on the eastern end of the shopping center. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings: This worn ig-ritit'part 'of the cttrt`e:ntirprOpos'eri -expansibrr--6fIlkittsriptrig center that is also under consideration by the City at this time. The description of the proposed work is provided below. Public comments may be submitted to the Planning and Building Department within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this notice. • Description: • 2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081 This project was approved, in 2003, as part of Planned Development Amendment No. PDA02- 0003 and • Design Review File DR02 -0095. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Portions of this building will he demolished. The building will be renovated and includes additions of approximately 4,000 square feet to the east side and 300 square feet to the south side. A new two -story 21,700 square feet building will be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's building, bringing the store frontage in line with the adjacent buildings to the west. This building will share a truck dock area with Building 200 to the west (new Safeway). Materials include: horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. Exterior colors, materials, design and landscaping are consistent with that of other recently renovated buildings in the center. The building incorporates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical roof parapet heights range from 23 to 37 feet. Decorative towers located at the corners of the building range from 29 feet to 48.25 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. 2246 S. Shore Center (Old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DRO6 -9096 The: project includes exterior remodeling and an approximately 3.000 sq. ft. expansion of an existing building, located in the southeastern portion of the main cluster of shopping center buildings. The expansion and remodeling are allowed under the original South Shore Planned Development approvals. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Exterior colors, materials, design and landscaping are consistent with that of other recently renovated buildings in the center. The l�t41, 4 i}tiotpotates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical parapet heights range from Avnwc. Room 100 1'lanniws; cur .1 n a�t).a tlYtetYt Ahr }1C'la, ►n,_..d'Io.: o • t':.IF 7 jli._ 1_.!, }ISS • I.111 pr,f F'✓lofed Jr11 6rwled Papo 26 to 31 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. Exterior colors, materials . and design are consistent with that previously approved by the Planning Board for the South Shore Planned Development Amendment in 2003. 2296 South Shore Center (Petro building) Major Design Review File No. DRO6.0092 The project includes exterior remodeling and an approximately 6,840 sq. ft. expansion of an existing building, located on the southeast corner of the main cluster of shopping center buildings. The expansion and remodeling are allowed under the original South Shore Planned Development. Current review is limited to the architectural design and does not include the use or operational aspects of these buildings. Exterior colors, materials and design are consistent with that previously approved by the Planning Board for the South Shore Planned Development Amendment in 2003. Materials include: Horizontal wood plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels and wooden trellises. The building incorporates varied facade details and roof heights. Typical parapet heights are 23 feet. Decorative towers located at the corners of the building and in the center of the north facing facade extend up to a height of 31 feet. Building height is consistent with other recently renovated buildings in the center. The plans are available for review at the Planning and Building Department, Room 190, City Hall, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Thursdays. If you wish. to meet with a planner, please call (510) 747 -6875 and schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Douglas Garrison Supervising Planner G:\ PLANNING \CURRCDRR\23\2006\.South Shore Cen ter_229b_ 224 5_2246_DR06 -0081 _DR06-OO92_DR06- 0096_pubnotice.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: January 2, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Recommendation to Appropriate Funds in the amount of $1,094,293 and Request Proposals to program the Carnegie Library Building for use as the City of Alameda One -Stop Permit Center. BACKGROUND On August 24, 2000, the City Manager's Office launched a process to improve the City's Development Review System and to develop a One -Stop Permit Center. At the initial project meeting, the following four key objectives were outlined: • Create an office space to house all development permit processing groups (Planning and Building, Fire Prevention, and Public Works Engineering) to maximize customer convenience and staff service efficiency and effectiveness. • Provide approximately 6,000 square feet of space in City Hall needed by other departments to enhance customer service in the downtown civic core. • Provide the opportunity for functional streamlining resulting from co- located development permit processing groups. • Enhance Alameda's reputation among development customers as a business- and customer - friendly organization. The initial step was to have customers and staff assess the development review process. This extensive analysis led to a collection of recommendations and actions to improve the system. These recommendations and an action plan were memorialized in June 2001 in a document entitled System Assessment and Improvement Plan. Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Prevention staff have implemented a number of system improvements to date. In order to complete the improvements outlined above it is necessary to physically co- locate the Planning and Building staff with Engineering staff from the Public Works Department, and permit review staff from the Fire Department in the same building. During the operational design development phase of the system assessment, staff visited a number of one -stop permit centers in other jurisdictions. While some were more impressive than others, San Leandro, Berkeley and Fremont stood out as having features that are desirable in Alameda's Permit Center. Paramount in these other Agenda Item #5 -C 01 -02 -07 Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 2 centers were the following concepts that have been incorporated into Alameda's proposed program for a one -stop permit center: • A designated entry point staffed with a receptionist to direct customers. • A comfortable waiting area adjacent to a self -help station with informational pamphlets and applications. • Customer work stations where the customer stays in one place and all required staff come to the customer. • A separate counter for simple questions, over - the - counter and do- it- yourself permits. • Small conference rooms for early assistance and pre - application review meetings. • Staff work areas out of view to allow permit processing and plan checking work to take place away from the public counter area without interruption. A number of City buildings were considered for the one -stop permit center and each was analyzed with regard to the improvements outlined in the operational design. It was determined that the Carnegie Library best fulfilled the requirements of the permit center due to its size, configuration and location directly across from City Hall within the downtown civic core. In addition to improving service delivery as Alameda's one -stop permit center, renovation of the Carnegie Library brings the added benefit of returning the building to public use and opening the building to the public every week -day. This project also provides the opportunity to work with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to identify appropriate restoration of windows, doors and other elements that have been altered in the past and for coordination with The Alameda Museum to develop educational exhibits about the history of the Carnegie Library and its contribution as a cultural resource in Alameda. DISCUSSION The next step in returning the Carnegie Library building to daily use as a key City building in the civic core is to solicit proposals for design services. The firm selected will work with community groups, including the Customer Service Improvement Committee, and City staff to program the building in accordance with the System Assessment and Improvement Plan while respecting the historical importance of the Carnegie Library. It is anticipated that full development of a One -Stop Permit Center and occupancy of the Carnegie Library building will occur in approximately 24 -28 months. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers January 2, 2007 Page 3 Task Timeline Description 1 4 Months Consultant selection and City Council approval of contract 2 6 Months Work with community groups as appropriate to prepare schematic plans for space allocation and determine nature and extent of renovation (HVAC, electrical and mechanical systems, restrooms, window replacements, access, etc.) Identify furniture and equipment needs. Prepare preliminary cost analysis. Identify funding mechanism. 3 1 Month Conduct public workshops with City Council and Historical Advisory Board 4 2 Months Finalize design 5 1 Month Historical Advisory Board and City Council approval of Final Design 6 4 Months Prepare construction plans, specifications, bid documents and final cost analysis 7 3 Months City Council approval of funding mechanism and authorization to bid; bidding and permitting process 8 1 Month City Council award of contract 9 6 Months Construct improvements; install furniture and equipment. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Programming and design of improvements for the use of the Carnegie Library for City offices and a one -stop permit center is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Future action to approve construction activities will be subject to a CEQA determination at that time. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is listed as Capital Improvement Program No. 04 -60 and 04 -75 with a total unfunded budget of $2,453,000. Since FY 04 -05 the Planning and Building Department has set aside $1,094,293 in permit fee revenue into account No. 92017 for development of a one -stop permit center. It is estimated that the Planning and Building Department will collect approximately $300,000 annually to fund the establishment and continued operation of a One -Stop Permit Center. In order to fully fund the project at this time, staff is reviewing a variety of funding mechanisms including those offered by the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP) to determine an appropriate loan, which could be repaid through that portion of permit fee revenue designated for a one -stop permit center. Honorable Mayor and January 2, 2007 Councilmembers Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Appropriate funds in the amount of $1,094,293 and request proposals to program the Carnegie Library building for use as the City of Alameda One -Stop Permit Center. By: Respectfully submitted, IF" Cath /► oodbury Planning and Building Director Gregory Building 0 nn Attachment: 1. System Assessment and Improvement Plan, June 2001 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA -06 -001 SUBSTITUTING OFFICE, RETAIL, HEALTH CLUB, RESIDENTIAL AND /OR MIXED USES FOR APPROXIMATELY 77 ACRES OF PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED OFFICE /RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USES BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Master Plan Amendment MPA- 06 -01, as shown on Exhibit "A" and amended by the conditions in Exhibit "B" is hereby adopted for all the real property within the MX -zoned site situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, west of the Mariner Square commercial area, north of the College of Alameda and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, and east of Main Street, exclusive of the Alameda Gateway Center, U.S. Coast Guard Housing, and Miller Elementary School. Section 2. The Master Plan, as amended by the above Master Plan Amendment MPA- 06 -01, shall be known as and referenced to as the Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan (hereinafter Master Plan) approved June 6, 2000, as amended. 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, subject to the amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, dated June 6, 2000, as amended, and the adoption of a new Development Agreements between the City of Alameda and Palm Tree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation). NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D (1) 1 -2 -07 Exhibit A to City Council Ordinance: Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA -06 -001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and /or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office/Research and Development Uses. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, 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 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DA -06 -0002 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED JUNE 6, 2000, AS AMENDED BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002, as shown on Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted for the real property generally located north of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, south of Tinker Avenue, west of Fifth Street and east of Main Street within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement Amendment DA -06- 0002 shall be known as and referenced to as the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, dated June 6, 2000, as amended. 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, subject to the execution of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D (2) 1 -2 -07 Third Amendment to Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify and regularly adopted and passed by regular meeting assembled on the by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: that the foregoing Ordinance was duly Council of the City of Alameda in a _ day of , 2006, IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -06 -0003 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE; A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB; AND 300,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE OR 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND 370,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPACE BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement DA -06 -0003, as shown on Exhibit "A ",, is hereby adopted for real property generally located north of Tinker Avenue, south of the Oakland Estuary, west of Mariner Square Loop and Webster Street and east of the United States Coast Guard housing development within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 shall be known as and referenced to as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation), dated December 5, 2006. 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, subject to the execution of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D (3) 1 -2 -07 Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement DA -06- 003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up To 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office 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 , 2006, 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 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -06 -004 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 300 HOUSING UNITS BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement DA -06 -0004, as shown on Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted for real property generally located north of Tinker Avenue, south of the Oakland Estuary, west of Fifth Street and east of the United States Coast Guard housing development within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 shall be known as and referenced to as the Alameda Landing Residential Mixed Use Development Project Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated December 5, 2006. 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 subject to the signature of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D (4) 1 -2 -07 Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 By and Between Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office 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 , 2006, 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 , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda