Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006-11-14 Packet
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 14, 2006 - - - 6:00 P.M. Time: Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Place: City Counci]. Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agenda: 1. Roll Call - City Council, Community Improvement Commission 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: CITY COUNCIL 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, Executive Management Group, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non -Sworn COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Fleet Industrial Supply Center CIC and Prologis /Catellus Price and terms 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council, unity Improvement Commission Beverly J yor Chair, : - ni y Improvement Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - - NOVEMBER 14, 2006 - - - - 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M. AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring November as Lung Cancer Awareness month. 3 -B. Proclamation congratulating and commending the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families for ten years of service to Alameda residents. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 17, 2006; and the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Special City Council Meeting held on November 1, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to appropriate in the General Fund the 2006- 2007 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229) Grant Funding in the amount of $144,820 to enhance frontline police services. (Police) 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Setting Free All -Day Parking for the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts on All Saturdays in December Prior to Christmas Day. (Development Services) 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Superceding and Rescinding Resolution No. 13277 Designating the Person to Perform the Duties of the City Manager in the Event of His /Her Absence or Disability. (City Manager) 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 31, 2008. (Human Resources) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Executive Management Compensation Plan for the City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Human Resources Director and the Executive Management Team Commencing June 25, 2006 and Ending June 23, 2007; and • Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Salary and Establishing a Five -Day Workweek Alternative Option with Corresponding Salary for the Classification of Fire Chief. (Human Resources) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05 -002) rezoning (R05 -004), Master Plan (MP05 -001), Tentative Map (TM05 -002), and adoption of a mitigated Negative Declaration (IS05 -0003) for a development of forty (40) new, detached single- family residences, and related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking and an appeal of certain conditions of approval on Development Plan and Design Review permits (PD05- 02). The project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051 -2099 Grand Street; • Adoption of Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006 -04- 2145); • Adoption of Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment (GPA- 05 -02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified Mixed Use Designation; • Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX) ; • Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05 -01 for a Mixed Use Development Including Single- Family Residential, Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the Oakland Estuary; • Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Map, TM05 -0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and the Oakland Estuary; and • Adoption of Resolution Upholding the Planning Board Approval of Planned Development, PD05 -02 and Design Review DR05 -0126 for Grand Marina Village. (Planning and Building) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Services Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission; and Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. 8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council * ** • 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 oft Proclamation Whereas, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women in California, the United States, and the world, this year killing more Americans than the next six cancers combined; and Whereas, in 2006, it is estimated that approximately 174,470 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer, and 162,460 Americans will be lost to lung cancer, including 13,870 Californians; and Whereas, in the early stages of lung cancer, symptoms are usually not apparent. However, when symptoms occur, the cancer is often advanced. There is currently no standard screening for early detection of lung cancer; and Whereas, the majority of new cases of lung cancer each year are in former smokers or persons who have never smoked; and Whereas, Although there is a strong link between tobacco and lung cancer, there is a critical need for further research to understand the development of lung cancer in those who have never smoked and the failure of the majority of heavy smokers to develop the disease; and Whereas, Lung cancer research has been chronically under funded in proportion to its public health impact resulting in a five -year survival rate, which has remained relatively unchanged over the last 30 years, while the survival rate for most other cancers has improved significantly; and Whereas, in order to build awareness and save lives, the Lung Cancer Alliance, a national patient advocacy group for lung cancer dedicated to helping build awareness of this disease, has proclaimed November as Lung Cancer Awareness Month so that, through better education and an increased attention to funding priorities, more cases of lung cancer may be found in the early stage, leading to the chance of long -term survival rate, and more options will be made available for treatment of the disease at all stages. Now therefore, I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim the month of November, 2006 as in the City of Alameda. • Lung Cancer Awareness Month „�y Beverly J. Johnson Mayor Agenda Item #3 -A 11 -14 -06 PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING AND COMMENDING THE - ALAMEDA COLLABORATIVE FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR TEN YEARS OF SERVICE TO ALAMEDA RESIDENTS Whereas, in 1994, a group of Alameda parents, service providers and concerned citizens met to discuss ways in which the needs of Alameda youth and teens could be addressed; and, in that same year, several community members organized the first annual Stand For Children event; and Whereas, in 1996, the Alameda City Council, the Alameda County Supervisor and the Alameda Board of Education committed funding and staff resources to advance the formation and operations of the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families; and Whereas, the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families has, since 1996, met on a monthly basis to plan and implement numerous activities to benefit children, youth and their families; and Whereas, these activities include an assessment and mapping of community resources; a report card on the status of children, youth and families; a comprehensive website for parents, youth and member organizations; monthly presentations regarding youth- oriented programs and services; and numerous member initiatives such as Lights On! Afterschool recognition, the Afterschool Service Corps for youth involvement, Alameda Walks! and Season for Nonviolence programs in the schools; and Whereas, these activities also include numerous initiatives by, and for, Alameda youth, including "Out Loud" teen magazine, a Guide to Community Service for High School and Middle School Students, the Youth Yellow Pages and "In The Mix ", a forum for mixed race youth and their families; and Whereas, on November 15, 2006, the Collaborative will be hosting a 10th year anniversary reception to celebrate its achievements and partnerships with community organizations. Now therefore, I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim November 15, 2006 as Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth & Their Families Day in the City of Alameda and urge all citizens to support and participate in its observance. Beverly J. Johnson Mayor Agenda Item #3 -B 11 -14 -06 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 17, 2006- -6:40 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director: Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, Executive Management Group, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non - Sworn. (06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Collins v. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received an update and gave direction to its Labor Negotiators; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a litigation status update from Legal Counsel and no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 17, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06- ) Proclamation extending a warm welcome to Father Adonay and proclaiming greetings and expressions of friendship and goodwill to the people of Asuchio. Stewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board Member (SSHRB), stated the Sister City workgroup's goal is to increase and foster relationships with cities around the world, as with Japan, China and Sweden; the latest project is to increase a friendship city relation with El Salvador; the SSHRB is requesting Council to present a proclamation of recognition; introduced Father Adonay. Mayor Johnson welcomed Father Adonay to the United States and Alameda; stated Councilmember Matarrese has been to Father Adonay's home with other Alameda residents. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the proclamation. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation. Through an interpreter, Father Adonay stated he is here to represent the community and the Asuchio City Council and is happy to be in California to establish ties of friendship and communication; Asuchio needs helping hands to develop in the future; poverty and other problems exist in Asuchio; thanked the Council for inviting him and hopes that the visit will serve to increase the friendship relationship between the two communities; presented a key to the Mayor and Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 1 Mayor Johnson stated the Directiva is the Council in Asuchio; inquired how many members are on the Council. Father Adonay responded eight members; stated recently a Director has been elected. Mayor Johnson stated many Directiva members planned to visit Alameda but were not able to get through the process; she hopes the members are able to visit Alameda soon. The interpreter read an excerpt from a letter written from the Asuchio Directiva. Mayor Johnson presented the proclamation, City plate, and mugs to Father Adonay. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 06- were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (06- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 3, 2006. Councilmember Daysog stated that he provided corrected language for the October 3, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes to the City Clerk's office. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the minutes with noted correction. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,516,168.84. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for the 2005 -2006 Fiscal Year. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 2 ( *06- ) Recommendation to approve Contract in the amount of $41,256 to Sunnyvale Building Maintenance for Cleaning Service for the Police Administration Building. Accepted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 14029, "Authorizing the Purchase of Two New Type -3 Fire Ambulances Using the North County Fire Protection District's Competitive Bid Award and Approving a Purchase Agreement with Leader Industries in an Amount Not to Exceed $268,925.29." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06- ) Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment (GP05 -0001) to remove a 4.6 -acre portion from the 10 -acre planned Estuary Park in the MU -5 (Specified Mixed Use - Northern Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street), and rezoning (R05 -003) for properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4 /PD Neighborhood Residential /Planned Development Combining District in order to allow for residential development of up to 242 dwelling units. The properties are located north of Clement Street, west of Oak Street, and adjacent to the Oakland- Alameda Estuary. Applicant: Francis Collins dba: Boatworks; and (06- A) Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Portions of Property Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4, Neighborhood Residential and PD, Planned Development Combining District (R- 4/PD). Introduced. The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of General Plan Amendment): Robert McGillis, Philip Banta Associates Architecture (provided handout); Greg Harper, Attorney for Applicant. Opponents (Not in favor of General Plan Amendment): Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) (provided handout); Dorothy Freeman, EPAC; Sue Field; Alameda; Jay Ingram, Alameda; Deb Greene, EPAC; Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Jason Snyder, Alameda. ** * Councilmember Daysog left the dias at 8:26 p.m. and returned at 8:28 p.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 * ** 3 There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the.hearing. Following Jay Ingram's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the park space would remain at ten acres. The Supervising Planner responded the General Plan calls for ten acres of open space; stated only a portion of the ten acres is within the applicant's property. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ten acres would be kept as open space under all circumstances. The Supervising Planner responded residential rezoning would not be recommended for the ten acres. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the green area was ten acres and would stay proposed open space, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Following Robert McGillis' comments, Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. McGillis stated that he did not think a General Plan Amendment was necessary, to which Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on Project Site #9. Mr. McGillis stated Project Site #9 shows what the shoreline would look like, which would include a boardwalk, boat docks, a pier, walkway, and bikeway. Mayor Johnson inquired what are the structures, to which Mr. McGillis responded two family units. Mayor Johnson stated the structures look very high; inquired what would be the height of the structures. Mr. McGillis responded the structures would be 35 foot, three -story townhomes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 42 duplexes were proposed for the 7.2 acres in 2001. Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Collins only owned one of the two parcels at that time. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many acres are on the additional parcel, to which Mr. McGillis responded 2.4 acres. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 4 Councilmember deHaan inquired whether approximately 115 units would be on the original property, to which Mr. McGillis responded possibly. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 242 units would be on the ten acres. Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative; stated there is more land; the 25% inclusionary criteria triggered the State density bonus. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other things have been put into the equation to push the number up, to which Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative. Following Greg Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired what are the options in terms of rezoning the property; stated Project Site #9 structures are very tall and not like other Alameda waterfront property. The Supervising Planner responded staff recommended R -4 with a Planned Development (PD) overlay; stated housing element consistency could be maintained with R -3 /PD or R -2 /PD. Mayor Johnson inquired about the height limit, to which the Supervising Planner responded the height limit could be addressed with a PD overlay. Mayor Johnson stated the structures look like a big wall on the waterfront; now is not the time to start this type of development; inquired what would be the height limit for R -2 /PD, to which the Supervising Planner responded 30 feet. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the height limit is higher for R- 4/PD, to which the Supervising Planner responded the height limit would be 35 feet. Mayor Johnson inquired whether height adjustments could be made with a PD overlay, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the drawings do not show 300 feet between the houses and the shoreline; the General Plan requires 300 feet; inquired whether ten acres are approximated when the 300 feet is carried from east to west across the parcel's waterfront, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 5 Councilmember Matarrese stated MU -5 does not just accommodate the parcel referenced by the attorney and architect, but also encompasses the parcel south of Clement Avenue as well as west; the intention was never to put all 300 units on the little piece of property; inquired whether the property is meant to have a 300 -foot span from the water to whatever is developed is residential, mixed - use according to the General Plan was residential, mixed use, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property could be rezoned and still have the potential of the ten -acre park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what is the nearby residential zoning. The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Snyder's Elm Street property is zoned R -4; stated the Oak Street property,south of Clement Avenue and along Oak Street, is zoned R -5. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the areas shown on the zoning map are consistent with the General Plan. The Supervising Planner responded generally the areas are consistent with the exception of some of the M -2 zoning within the MU -5 General Plan designation. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the intention was never to cram 242 units onto the single parcel; the 13.89 acres could possibly have 333 housing units after setting aside land for the park, roads, etc; the General Plan does not state that all residential units have to be shoehorned on the one little piece of property; other parcels can accommodate residential in the area. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board went through a process of reviewing areas for consistency with the General Plan ten years ago; other uses make the area R -4 commercial manufacturing, not the residential structures; she does not recall seeing large residential structures in the area; the area would be more consistent with surrounding areas if zoned R -2. The Supervising Planner concurred with Mayor Johnson, as long as there is a PD overlay provision. Councilmember Daysog stated the Collins' proposal comes out to be approximately 26 units per acre; the math comes out to be approximately 17 units per gross acre when looking at the Supervising Planner's conversions of one unit per 2,000 square feet; the Collins' proposal is coming in too high and argues for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 6 something lower than R -4; growth is encouraged, but at a density that fits the City of Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated other residential structures in the area are not as dense as would be allowed in R -4 or R -5; other uses in the areas are the reason for the zoning. Councilmember deHaan stated the original proposal included 42 duplexes with 84 units on 7.2 acres; 2.4 acres were added; 4.2 acres were extracted for open space; now over 300 units are proposed; inquired how long the owner has been in control of the property, to which the Supervising Planner responded 20 years. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of getting the additional 5.8 acres from the other area. The Supervising Planner responded the City's ability to get the land comes down to the City's ability to purchase the land; stated the City's goal should be to purchase the land; the applicant is open to discussing the land purchase. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City looked at the 10 acres immediately off Clement Avenue for grant purposes at one point. The Supervising Planner responded the City submitted a grant application to the State for money to purchase Estuary Park. Councilmember deHaan inquired where the land is positioned, to which the Supervising Planner responded where the land is shown on the General Plan. Councilmember deHaan stated that he saw a setback off of Clement Avenue. The Supervising Planner stated he was not aware of one. Councilmember Daysog stated tremendous pressure exists to build and convert industrial sites into residential sites on both sides of the Estuary; warehouse land value is approximately $2.2 million per acre, manufacturing is approximately $2 million per acre, and flex space is approximately $1.9 million per acre; the gross residential value is approximately $8 million to $11 million per acre; lessons need to be learned from Oakland; the density is too high; the Collins' numbers are more consistent with the other side of the Estuary [Oakland]; Council needs to have serious discussions on the numbers desired, if rezoning is considered; he cannot vote on the matter until he is sure that he understands what the density would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 7 be. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the open space requirement within the 4.6 acres under R -4. Mayor Johnson stated she is not prepared to support the project under R -4; inquired what would be the open space requirement under R -2. The Supervising Planner responded open space requirements vary; stated each unit must provide 600 square feet of open space under R -2, 500 square feet under R -3, and 400 square feet under R -4. Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the typical unit per gross acre under R -2. The Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove development was zoned R -4 /PD; stated the lot sizes average approximately 3,500 to 4,000 square feet. Councilmember Daysog inquired how many dwelling units there would be per gross acre, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove development has approximately 12 units per gross acre. Councilmember Daysog stated he initially had concerns with the Marina Cove development, but the development is getting better. The Supervising Planner stated a variety of different densities have been approved using R -4 /PD; the open space per unit requirement varies from zone to zone. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council action could be, broken down into two components; stated one component would be to rezone a portion of the parcel to match the General Plan and the other would be to deny a General Plan Amendment. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the General Plan calls for a ten - acre or more Estuary Park running 300 feet from the shore from the Estuary south, specifies mixed -use, and also specifies that there should be capacity for 300 residential units in the remaining parcels north of Clement Avenue and the two parcels south of Clement Avenue. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the General Plan language states up to 300 units; stated the paperwork states 300, but the General Plan states up to 300 units. Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 Councilmember Matarrese clarified that he stated capacity for 300 residential units; stated the City accepts applications and regulates development; the proposed development is not a City project; he is inclined to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment because the General Plan Amendment preserves the chance to have an Estuary Park and indicates that there are approximately three sites that would allow up to 300 dwelling units. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the request for the General Plan Amendment. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese stated R -4 zoning is too high; the zoning should be R -2 to match what exists in the area; the level of development [R -2] also matches the intent of the General Plan to spread [units] across the three parcels. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a motion on the zoning. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many dwelling units there would be if the 4.8 acres were rezoned to R -2 and 600 square feet was considered for open space, to which the Supervising Planner responded 80 to 100 units. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is a comparable project, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove Project. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a comparable open space project. The Supervising Planner stated that the Marina Cove Project is not a good example because of the private open space yards within each unit and the Project has a 1.5 acre park. Councilmember Daysog stated numbers need to be nailed down; the 4.81 acres equals 3.84 acres when streets and sidewalks, etc. are extracted; 3.84 acres translates to 167,618 square feet; 167,618 square feet divided by 2,000 is 83 units; 83 units divided by the gross acres equals 17 units per acre. The Supervising Planner stated his previous number [80 to 100 units] is wrong; the high end would be closer to 83 units; the low end would be lower than 83 units. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she is more interested in the high end, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 9 and that is the number she wants nailed down. Councilmember Daysog stated that 17 units are better than the applicant's proposed 26 units; the question is whether 17 units are desirable. The Supervising Planner stated a commitment has been made in the Housing Element to get a certain number of affordable housing units in the MU -5 area. Councilmember Matarrese stated the commitment is not to put all of the units on the parcel. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the owner reviewed other development opportunities. Mr. Harper responded a proposal was submitted for work /live; stated the General Plan dictates what can be done. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the value to sell to the City. Mr. Harper responded the land becomes more valuable closer to the Estuary; the City wants half of the applicant's property and also wants the most valuable half; a tremendous commitment would be required and is one that the City should have undertaken long ago. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cleanup evaluations have been performed. Mr. Harper responded the cleanup is almost complete. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cleanup is almost complete even though the buildings have not been removed. Mr. Harper responded surveys have been done; stated cleanup has been underway for a long time; the land is not that contaminated; the applicant intends to clean up to full standards. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether determinations have been made on the park portion, to which Mr. Harper responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated cleanup considerations would need to be addressed if the City purchased the property. Mr. Harper stated the applicant would perform the cleanup if the City wants to buy the property. Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 60 [foot] setbacks are part of Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements. Mr. Harper responded the BCDC requirement is to provide maximum feasible public access. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the setback on the waterfront conceptual drawing. Mr. Harper stated the Corp of Engineers owns property between the waterfront and the water line; the setback is between 10 and 12 feet in addition to the Corp property. Mayor Johnson inquired how many housing units could be in the three MU -5 areas, if zoned R -1 or R -2. The Supervising Planner responded 300 units, if zoned R -2 or R -3, and less than half [of 300 units] if zoned R -1. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a high range of 80 to 83 units in the 4.8 acres under R -2 zoning with leaving the PD out, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired when rezoning would be done for the other parcels not included tonight. The Supervising Planner responded a time has not been scheduled; stated tonight's portion has been expedited because the applicant has been insistent. Mayor Johnson stated the rezoning should be brought back to Council for the other parcels. Councilmember deHaan stated there seems to be a higher percentage sought [for the park area] north of Clement Avenue; inquired why the same percentage would not be sought all the way through. The Supervising Planner responded the General Plan vision is a ten acre park with a minimum of 300 feet along the waterfront; Mr. Dutra's property has a long frontage and is not very deep; the City would acquire almost all of the Dutra property if the City proceeds with the acquisition of property for a park; the City would acquire only half of the Fox - Collins' property. Councilmember deHaan stated 300 feet [along the Estuary] results in ten acres; the Dutra property is no longer 300 feet, but is deeper. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 11 The Supervising Planner stated the parcel maps shows the 300 -foot ban picks up almost all of the Dutra property. Mayor Johnson stated the open space is defined by the General Plan. Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned that there should be more property than what is shown. The Supervising Planner stated the proposal is based on the General Plan language; the General Plan provides guidance in some of the explanatory text. Mayor Johnson stated Council is not adopting a diagram of how the open space would be configured. The Supervising Planner stated the diagram shows the general distribution of land use throughout the City. Councilmember Matarrese stated the previous motion upheld the 300 - foot description as written in the General Plan. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of rezoning to R -2 /PD the MU -5 area encompassed within the proposed project plot that does not include the required portion for the Estuary Park, as per the description in the General Plan, and bringing the other MU -5 parcels back to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Council at a future date. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed rezoning precludes the densities that the Collins' property originally reviewed, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan -1. Mayor Johnson stated Mr. Siden indicated that potential funding would be available in the next couple years through ballot measures; the City should review how the property could be acquired; a General Plan open space designation is one thing, but someone else owning the land is another thing to do; Council gave direction to bring back a proposal for a Beltline Task Force; suggested having a similar Task Force, or perhaps use the same Task Force, to determine how to purchase the property. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; clarified that the City has been serious about the matter before; Council put Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 12 a million on the table and the Parks and Recreation Department put together an application for funding twice but was unsuccessful; Council is serious about the matter and will be serious in pursuing the purchase; the next level is to make sure there are on -going searches along with what is being done with the Beltline. Mayor Johnson stated finding money for City parks is very difficult. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she likes the idea of utilizing the Beltline Task Force; citizens' expertise would be pulled together; efforts would not be duplicated and would be coordinated; hopefully the same staff person could be utilized on both issues. Councilmember Daysog stated one thing to consider is the option of not doing anything; there is something to be said about the virtues of industrial space in light of the fact that said space is receding on the other side of the Estuary and other parts of the East Bay; industrial space equates to jobs; potentially, a number of jobs will be out at Alameda Point; building does not have to occur everywhere; there are costs associated with open space; he likes that the City is moving forward with the Beltline property; the General Plan designates a plan for open space; however, sometimes hard choices need to be made; he would rather put focus on the Beltline property and contemplate whether to continue envisioning the area as open space rather than industrial space because of jobs. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda is short on open space; there are few opportunities for adding open space to the City's inventory; the City needs to take the opportunities when possible; the area is residential also; the neighborhood was built before there was planning; the area would not have been developed the same way if planning had been available; she is not convinced that the area should go back to industrial. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council voted unanimously to keep the General Plan the way it is. Councilmember deHaan stated funding is a concern; previously, $4 million was requested for the park area; the City would be obtaining 4.2 acres during the transaction and then would need to look at the obligation of trying to figure out how to obtain the other acres as the acres become available. Mayor Johnson stated the Task Force would look into acquiring the entire property, not part. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 13 Councilmember deHaan requested detailed information on what the maximum number of units would be for R -2 levels and an explanation of the passive space requirements when the matter comes back to Council; stated he is concerned about 83 units; other passive spaces are needed; requested staff to please provide what said amount of space would be so Council understands what is normally required; that he does not believe that it would be 83 units; the number would drop down maybe another quarter of an acre. Councilmember Daysog stated his understanding of the 83 units is predicated on the 17 units per gross acre which he interprets to be the maximum end, which could be lower. Mayor Johnson stated Council direction could incorporate the direction given two weeks ago for the Beltline Task Force; the Beltline Task Force could also be the Task Force for the entire ten acre Estuary Park. The City Manager stated that Council approved developing the Beltline Task Force; the scope would be expanded. (06- ) Resolution No. 14030, "Adoption of Resolution Declaring the Intent of the City Council to Rezone the 22 -Acre Beltline Railroad Property Consistent with Voter - Approved Measure E (Open Space /Park Use) as Soon as the Property is Acquired by the City of Alameda." Adopted. The Parks and Recreation Director provided a brief update. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, stated a lot of cities would be envious of Alameda realizing the opportunity for a park with land in the heart of the City. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated it is nice to know that the City has moved quickly despite some contrary community comment. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Daysog thanked the City Attorney and City Manager staff for turning the Resolution around so quickly. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 14 (06- ) Recommendation to approve Request for Proposals for purchase of five all- electric vehicles for the City fleet. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff is comfortable with purchasing a particular product. The Public Works Director responded that he has done a lot of research on electric vehicles; stated staff feels eight vendors would be able to provide proposals. Councilmember deHaan stated charging station locations are a concern; inquired whether the majority would be in the City Hall area. The Public Works Director responded the charging stations would be scattered throughout the City; stated there are some charging stations in the City already; there are two stations at the Lincoln Avenue parking lot which can charge four vehicles; Alameda Power and Telcom has a charging station that can charge one vehicle and has two in storage; one charging station would be needed at City Hall West; another charging station would be in the City Hall parking lot; the Police Department parking enforcement officers use electric vehicles; locations are still being reviewed. Councilmember deHaan stated the staff recommendation is the first effort in converting a lot of the City vehicles to electric; the Master Plan needs to address charging station locations. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Request for Proposals is a great step and is a long time coming; he appreciates all the work that has been done and is ready to move forward. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Recommendation to appropriate $100,000 in Measure B funds to update the City's Traffic Model, authorize preparation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Transportation Element, and direct staff to include the proposed transportation policies recommended by the Transportation Commission in the GPA. The City Engineer provided a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 15 Councilmember Daysog stated that he likes Transportation Policy No. 1 through 6; he is a little concerned with Transportation Policy No. 7; he interprets Transportation Policy No. 7 to state it is okay if the Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street traffic has a bad level of service; he is concerned with having an overarching policy that overrides the impacts, which should be evaluated on a case -by- case basis; citizens could say that the level of service might be degraded at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street but nothing can be done because of Policy No 7. The City Engineer stated the community would have the opportunity to review the impact levels through the environmental review process; currently the General Plan stops at level of service D; anything below Level D is not allowable; decisions could be made regarding acceptable minutes of delay and service levels through the review process; level of service F might not be acceptable and could be discussed through the environmental review process. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the staff analysis notes that Policy No. 4 is consistent with the current General Plan's Transportation Element policies; she does not recall an analysis on the overall City network when environmental impact reviews (EIR) are done; inquired whether Transportation Policy No. 4 is followed when EIR's are done currently. The Civil Engineer responded developers often times lay out the network, such as pedestrian and bicycle corridors and transit routes, during the EIR process. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks about streets and roads throughout the City, not just in the adjacent neighborhood, when she reads the term "overall City network "; the wording might need to be changed if her interpretation is wrong. John Knox White, Transportation Commission Chair, stated that Vice Mayor Gilmore's interpretation is correct; an example would be the Alameda Landing EIR, which will be coming to Council; specifically, the EIR addresses bike parking and pedestrian issues within the project, not throughout the City; the Transportation Commission has requested that the scope be broadened, which is the exact intent of Transportation Policy No. 4; streets next to the project are not being reviewed now. Mayor Johnson stated "TMP" means Transportation Master Plan on Policy No. 6; inquired what "TDM" means. The Transportation Commission Chair responded "TDM" means Transportation Demand Management; stated an example would be the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 16 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) discussion on the Preliminary Development Concept at Alameda Point; options(other than building roadways) are discussed to mitigate a project's traffic impact. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the process would be along the lines of a program that releases the findings, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether reducing traffic would be discussed, not just mitigating traffic. The Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative; stated discussions would address increasing the mode share away from driving so that surrounding neighborhood impacts and development impacts would be less. Councilmember deHaan requested background on how the City went through the public communication feedback to derive the policies. The Transportation Commission Chair inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant the Transportation Master Plan specifically, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative. The Transportation Commission Chair responded a number of public Sub Task Force meetings were held with various Boards and Commissions after Council approved the Transportation Master Plan in 2004; stated the City started a website that involved an e -mail mailing list; twelve or thirteen public meetings have been held on the Transportation Master Plan; he does not want to tie the Transportation Master Plan process into the seven policies; since June, the Transportation Commission worked under the EIR guidelines to create the seven recommended policies; the Transportation Commission looked at a number of EIRs; the seven recommended policies reflect the spirit of what the Transportation Master Plan has been moving forward with but has not adopted yet; the Transportation Commission wanted to recommend to Council that the policies be guidelines, whether adopted in the Transportation General Plan or not, when looking at the EIRs. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the seven policies are a direct outgrowth of the community input, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Policy No. 7 addressed a 55 second delay, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 17 Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the level of a 55- second delay], to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded Level E. Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the level of most intersections today, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded the majority are between Level B and C. Councilmember deHaan stated Level E is quite concerning; inquired whether the public had concerns or expressed a desire for Level E. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the recommendation is to acknowledge congestion, look at intersections, and have a public process in which a specific determination would be made; stated the 55- second delay was just an example. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Policy No. 7's intent is to look at the significance of automobile congestion versus a trade off for being able to accommodate and encourage mass transit. The Transportation Commission Chair responded that much of the discussion was around proposals for eight and nine lane intersections to mitigate congestion at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street; stated the Commission felt the proposals were not in holding with Alameda's character; the Commission felt rather than building wide intersections and super high speed wide roads that cut neighborhoods off, that it might be better to accept certain congestion levels at commuter peak hours. Councilmember Matarrese stated Policy No. 7 states that congestion is not considered to be a significant environmental impact; he would like to see Policy No. 7 address a trigger point that the Transportation Commission Chair explained; studies and a public process should be done to weigh the balance when faced with measures that would be more detrimental than the congestion which would result if it stays the way it is; an example would be expanding the Appezzato Parkway and Webster Street intersection to multiple lanes, which would be a disaster. Mayor Johnson stated Policies No. 1 through 6 look like good goals; Policy No. 7 should be reviewed because impacts should be understood; inquired whether Policy No. 7 would omit a Level D rating in the analysis of intersections. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the current Transportation Master Plan recommendations still have Level D; the proposed recommendation would identify intersections ahead of time; higher congestion might be acceptable at certain times of the day. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 18 Councilmember Daysog stated that he read Policy No. 7 as putting traffic planning on autopilot; certain congestions are bound to occur at certain places, but would not be considered a significant environmental impact based upon Policy No. 7; more lanes being contemplated for a certain road is a good example of where lanes are the solution but the medicine would kill the patient; the process works in that people are able to step up and acknowledge the problem and other options are reviewed; he feels that Policy No. 7 needs to be flushed out. Mayor Johnson stated that Policy No. 7's language needs work; Policies No. 1 through 6 look like good goals to have; the policies should be changed to be more like guidelines. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the recommendation is twofold; the first recommendation is that the policies are guidelines for the EIR policy; the second recommendation is to go forward with the TMP and adopt the TMP as policies into the General Plan as part of the Transportation Element; the Transportation Commission wanted to get the recommendations to Council before a number of very large EIR's came up so that the recommendations could be considered as guideline policies. Mayor Johnson stated the policies are good because the policies address the issue of traffic reduction, not just mitigation and the Travel Choice shows that traffic reduction is possible if the right efforts are made; she is okay with Policies No. 1 through 6; Policy No. 7 needs more work to make sure the intent is correct. The Transportation Commission Chair stated at the Transportation Commission meeting next week, the policies going forward with the TMP would be discussed. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the A through F level of service ratings would change, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog stated Policy No. 7's first sentence could be interpreted more broadly in that the Policy is not just about congestion but is about other impacts associated with congestion such as noise and air quality. Councilmember deHaan stated he has an additional concern with Policy No. 7; already many activities occurring across the Estuary have impacts on the City's intersections; Oak Street to Ninth Avenue is a good example; inquired whether situations might occur where widening or creating additional automotive traffic lane Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 19 options should be considered. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the 1990 General Plan specifically states that increasing through capacity on the Island is not to happen in order to keep the traffic volume down. Councilmember deHaan stated periodically widening and lane changes are done. The Transportation Commission Chair stated widening and lane changes are one of the reasons the Transportation Commission brought up the matter; continually, plans come forward to widen and change lanes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether widening or lane changes are healthy, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded the Commission felt that roads should not be widened. Mayor Johnson inquired whether existing roads were being addressed, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative. The City Engineer stated that the Public Works Department disagrees with the Transportation Commission Chair; currently the General Plan discourages cut - through traffic, not cross - Island traffic; widening lanes is okay. Councilmember deHaan stated the issue seems very restrictive and the City should not be limited. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation Commission felt the issue was restrictive and wanted to bring the matter to Council before time was spent talking about the TMP. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the policy could be written to be flexible, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded a flexible policy could be written but would be a continuation of what already exists. Councilmember deHaan stated he would want more interpretation on the impacts and how to narrow down the impacts; he would like to keep all roadways 25 miles per hour, which is the best policy; inquired whether a State policy addresses something different. Mayor Johnson inquired what the standards are called to set traffic speeds on Otis Drive, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded 85th percentile. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 20 Mayor Johnson stated she does not have a problem with the 25 miles per hour speed limit; Otis Drive is a State highway; very few roads have speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; the City does not need speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; practically every Alameda Street is a neighborhood. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to review some streets that have speed limits of 35 miles per hour. The Transportation Commission Chair stated a survey was mailed out to a random sample of 1,200 Alameda Power and Telecom customers; speed limit was one of the specific questions; there was overwhelming support for not raising the speed limit. The City Engineer stated classification systems are used for funding purposes; the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) looks at speeds; an impact would exist if the speed is lower than what is designated as the speed for an arterial; impacts need to be mitigated. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda's arterials are different than other cities and should not be compared with other cities; Alameda does not have true arterials. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the policies being fairly tight with the roadway alterations; restrictions provide a direction that moves toward less reliance on a single occupancy vehicle; the goals need to be met at some point; planning can be driven from the policies rather than having planning dictate a 35 mile per hour four -lane road; the policies need to be reviewed carefully; he likes all of the policies, except Policy No. 7; Policy No. 7 does not meet the explanation and intent that has been given; Policy No. 7 could use some polishing, but the intent is good. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he supports the draft policies and the work of the Transportation Commission; the entire point of the seven policies is to make the actual costs of driving automobiles more explicit; society has been slow in recognizing and accounting for the costs; waiting in traffic for five to ten minutes when a draw bridge is up is more than Level F but is not classified as a significant impact because it is part of the price of being in Alameda; he rejects any suggestion to make Webster Street and Appezzato Parkway an eight -lane intersection in order to accommodate the few hours per day that there might be high traffic; Policy No. 7's intent is to find other ways to solve the problem Regular Meeting 21 Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 instead of encouraging more cars on the road and adding to the problem; urged Council to support the staff findings and recommendations so that the seven policies and traffic study can move forward. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan inquired what language [in Policy No. 1] would be more satisfactory to staff. The City Engineer responded Policy No. l's language is not the issue; stated streets would need to be labeled in a way not to call the streets arterials and would need to be designed in a way to disperse the traffic. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City could live with Policy No. 1, or whether the policy would need to be modified. The City Engineer responded impacts could be reviewed through the environmental review and the wording could be changed at that time, or mitigations could be addressed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the process would be consistent with the Transportation Commission. The Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative; stated the intent is to give direction ahead of time so that the EIR's do not have mitigations that do not make sense; The Transportation Commission and Planning Board would have discussions and Council would be able to make decisions based upon the traffic data by next June or July. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Council wanted to give some direction on Policy No. 7. Mayor Johnson responded work needs to be done on Policy No. 7's language and would be done through the environmental impact analysis. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether further clarification and expansion would be requested for Policy No. 7. Mayor Johnson responded not only Policy No. 7, but all policies; reviewing the impacts of all seven policies is good; information on the policies' impacts is not available. Councilmember Matarrese stated if Council approves doing the study, Regular Meeting 22 Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 testing could be done by running the policies through the new model if Council approves doing the study, which only is possible if the $100,000 in Measure B funds is appropriated. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of expeditiously moving forward with the appropriation so that the polices can be tested and bringing back the policies as rapidly as possible, through the Transportation Commission and Planning Board, so that Council can receive the benefit of the recommendation from the two Boards. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the policies are being accepted as a draft or Council is adopting the policies. Mayor Johnson responded money would be allocated to move forward with the studies. Councilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the model; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the new model. The City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the policies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic analysis needs to be done if policies are adopted. The Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction to begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous policies; information would come back to Council through the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission with a recommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections that Council may want to accept a higher level of service because of the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle access or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin the analysis. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but are a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run through a model to see what happens at the end of the model. The Public Works Director stated the policies may eventually become the approved policies. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are not policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation Commission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that would be tested before the policies are being adopted; the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 23 Transportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept the policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs. Councilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion. The Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to be used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as guidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General Plan if Council likes the way the policies work. The Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the Transportation Element in the General Plan. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent would be not to amend the policies as part of the EIR process until the analysis is completed. The Public Works Director responded staff's opinion is that the General Plan amendment would need to be initiated in order to use the policies; the associated analysis, with the General Plan amendment, is not expected to be complete until September of next year. Councilmember Matarrese inquired which guideline is in conflict with the General Plan. The Public Works Director responded the existing General Plan states that the level of service for intersections should be Level D; mitigation needs to be provided when a traffic analysis is run in an EIR and a level of service F is noted at an intersection; stated mitigation is done by adding lanes. Councilmember Matarrese stated another mitigation could be found other than adding lanes; he was referring to a conflict with the General Plan; the General Plan states that mitigation is necessary when a certain level of service is hit; widening roadways is only one way to mitigate the service. The Public Works Director stated the General Plan is only tied to level of service at intersections, which is measured by delay; the General Plan is very motor vehicle focused and all the policies tend to be motor vehicle focused; TDM is encouraged but there is no detailed information on deductions for TDM. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policies do not conflict with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 24 the General Plan; the General Plan requires a level of service. The Pubic Works Director stated that the General Plan also includes Capital Improvement Projects that add lanes. Mayor Johnson stated the Capital Improvement Projects do not need to be done; inquired whether the General Plan states that the only way to mitigate traffic is by adding lanes. The Pubic Works Director responded the General Plan states that the policy is Level D for intersections. Mayor Johnson stated there are countless ways to mitigate the problem; inquired whether practice is limited to mitigating Level D service by expanding lanes. The Supervising Planner responded balancing and thinking about all modes of transportation are needed, particularly with proposed mitigations; stated the policies will go through a rigorous study; the community would be involved. Mayor Johnson stated she does not see an inconsistency with the General Plan; inquired whether other mitigations can be proposed. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated for an impact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street, mitigation could be done by taking out parking, adding travel lanes, and taking out trees; the analysis might say that the mitigation should not be done. Mayor Johnson stated General Plan inconsistencies need to be addressed when the policies come back. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policies could be applied as written with the condition that unless there is a specific reference in the General Plan that requires the widening of a roadway, the policies could be used as a guidance or the policies could be used if there is a specific intersection that will be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway specifically called out in the General Plan in text; he is betting that there are very few instances in the General Plan that state traffic lanes would be added. The Supervising Planner stated the project goal is to come back with a General Plan amendment to adopt a Transportation Element; inconsistencies may be found. Councilmember Matarrese stated a secondary goal is to apply the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 25 principles to EIR's that are coming before Council. Councilmember deHaan stated Council is looking at the policies as guidelines and not accepted policies per se. Mayor Johnson stated the guidelines would be tested and analyzed in long -range plans and would become policies that would become part of the General Plan; the idea is to use the policies as guidelines in considering EIR's in the short term. Councilmember Matarrese stated he interprets a guideline as an initiation point; making the project work or taking care of the situation within the guidelines is fine; otherwise justification and mitigation need to be looked at beyond guidelines; guidelines guide to a solution; initially, the policies would be run through the model on the way to a General Plan amendment and modified as needed; then, the policies would be used as interim guidance (with the exception of Policy No. 7, which needs some rework) with the qualification that the General Plan would prevail if there is a specific requirement in the General Plan that is contrary. Mayor Johnson stated it is important to make sure the requirement is really contrary. Councilmember Matarrese stated contrary means roadways would not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes; contrary to the General Plan would be to widen "X' Street with additional travel lanes as specified. Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of evaluation would not be necessary; only certain intersections need to be mitigated; the issue is being considered bigger than it is. Mayor Johnson disagreed with Councilmember deHaan; stated the interpretation being reviewed is that the policies cannot be used as guidelines because the policies are inconsistent with the General Plan; the policies could be used as guidelines in the interim because the policies do not appear to be inconsistent with the General Plan; she feels that Councilmember Matarrese's motion deals with the issue. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of appropriating funds to start the study with direction that: 1) the results come back through the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board for a General Plan Amendment to the Council, 2) Policy No. 1 through 6 are applied as guidelines in the interim, with Policy No. 7 to be rewritten; and 3) the guidance would be used unless there was an explicit conflict stated in the General Plan requirement. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 26 Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other policies were reviewed and should be used as part of the test. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the Transportation Master Plan is a five -page document; stated the Transportation Element would be an entire revamp. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether EMM2 is being used by everyone. The City Engineer responded EMM2 was used by everyone before; stated Voyager Cube is the new model and would be used by everyone. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether everyone means everyone in Alameda County subject to the CMA or just everyone generally. The City Engineer responded at least Alameda County because CMA requires that Voyager Cube be used for a General Plan update for CMA's link analysis; stated other traffic models can be used for the operational analysis. Councilmember Daysog inquired why the link analysis is important. The City Engineer responded the link analysis shows if there is sufficient capacity on roadway systems; a deficiency occurs if there is not sufficient capacity; CMA would require that the situation be mitigated, which costs money. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the EMM2 has a link analysis. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated the CMA did not like the software. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted that the autopilot is not an issue for Policy No. 7 and would go through the process of being evaluated. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan stated many EIRs are coming forward; he hopes that overall developments are reviewed when looking at the Transportation Master Plan, not just segments that are coming forward; the piece mealing affect does nothing but get one segment through. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 27 Councilmember Matarrese stated an hour has been spent discussing the issue; Council would be remise in not thanking the Transportation Commission and Public Works staff for all the analysis; the issue is difficult; countless hours have been spent on the issue; he does not want anyone to misconstrue that the issue is easy and Council is just trying to forward on with the matter; the issue is a moving target and changes with people's habits, let alone development; he is thankful for the volunteers and engineers who know what they are doing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment) (06- ) Rob Schmidt, Alameda, requested an explanation on how the cable system will grow to be financially viable soon. Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schmidt discuss the matter with staff. (06- ) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, inquired why the Maitland Avenue and Harbor Bay Parkway corner parcel was moved; further inquired why the parcel was sold below market value and did not remain open green space. Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Lipow submit the questions to staff. The City Manager stated a staff report would be provided to Ms. Lipow also. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06- ) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated money was allocated for a feasibility study and fire station acquisition during the last budget process; inquired whether the study been initiated. The City Manager stated said information would be provided to Council. (06- ) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the Economic Development Strategic Plan survey. (06- ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the financial strategic planning tool be scheduled for discussion. ADJOURNMENT (06- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the November 7, 2006 Regular Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006 28 City Council Meeting will be adjourned to Tuesday, November 14, 2006 due to the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election. There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting 11:05 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 October 17, 2006 29 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING WEDNESDAY- - NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:00 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Authority Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators; Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Management and Confidential Employees Association, Executive Management Group, and Police Association Non - Sworn. (ARRA) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, ASBCA No. 54684 - Under Contract No. N62474- 97- RP- 00P68. Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received an update on the status of negotiations with the various bargaining units; stated Council has reached a tentative agreement with IBEW; regarding Existing Litigation, the Authority reviewed potential terms of settlement and direction was given regarding potential settlement terms. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority November 1, 2006 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- - NOVEMBER 1, 2006- -6:50 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06- ) Proclamation declaring November 6 through 11, 2006 as Alameda Fire Department Recognition week. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to the Fire Chief and Firefighters. AGENDA ITEM (06- ) Ordinance No. 2954, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Approximately 4.8 -Acres Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -2 /PD, Neighborhood Residential /Planned Development Combining District." Finally passed. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council is voting on a maximum of 83 units on 4.8 acres. The Supervising Planner responded Council is voting on rezoning the property to R -2; assumptions were made to try to estimate how many units could be on the 4.8 acres; changing assumptions might increase or decrease the number of units; the Planning Board would approve the site plan and have discretion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the staff recommendation; staff should work in a band of reasonableness and not allow an increase to 160 units. The Supervising Planner further stated with normal, square shaped lots, 83 units should be close to the maximum; there should not be significantly more than 83 units; significant being 20 units. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the area being considered does not include Estuary Park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the area is not being considered for open space because the focus for open space is Estuary Park; inquired Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 November 1, 2006 whether R -2 requires more open space than prior proposals. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. * * * Councilmember Daysog stated that he trusts staff to work within a band of reasonableness; 83 units works out to 17 units per acre; noted Bayport has only 11 units per acre. Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not previously support the rezoning because he wanted to do further research; R -2 is the best zone to do and the proper choice; concurred with Councilmember Daysog's comments that 83 units is quite dense. Councilmember Daysog stated the project is not as dense as the old drive -in property. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Bayport is zoned R -1, to which the Supervising Planner responded the site is zoned MX. Councilmember deHaan stated the roads at the old drive -in site caused a lot of concern. The Supervising Planner noted any development would require other discretionary review and approval such as the subdivision, site plan, and design review. Adjournment There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2006 2 November 9, 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 153275 - 154047 E15767 - E15892 EFT 266 EFT 267 EFT 268 EFT 269 EFT 270 EFT271• EFT 272 EFT 273 EFT 274 EFT 275 EFT 276 Void Ch.ecks: 153386 149724 153513 153446 153556 141082 141223 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley Council Warrants 11/14/06 Amount $5,928,486.89 $78,583.16 $45,520.43 $23,600.00 $11,800.00 $12,943.50 $36,096.55 $247,614.66 $626,880.00 $185,437.39 $39,981.06 $35,000.00 $89,337.74 ($2,210.00) ($6,068.95) ($24,003.17) ($643.97) ($90.00) ($60.00) . ($55.00) $7,328,150.29 BILLS #4 -B 11/14/2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 14, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Appropriation of the 2006 -2007 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229) Grant Funding in the amount of $144,820 in the General Fund to Enhance Frontline Police Services BACKGROUND In 1996, several Federal and State laws were enacted allowing municipalities to receive grant funding exclusively allocated for frontline police services. Since the inception of the program, the Police Department has received Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS) grant funding. The use of COPS funds is restricted to supplementing frontline police services, such as, but not limited to, Patrol Operations, Communications, and Criminal Investigations, as well as training and supporting activities. Supplanting standard operating budget expenditures or existing services is prohibited. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Police Department intends to utilize the 2006 -2007 grant of $144,820 to procure or improve various unfunded technology based systems and training designed to supplement frontline police services. This grant requires the City Council to appropriate the funds for the exclusive use of supporting frontline municipal police services, in accordance with a written request by the Chief of Police, prior to utilization of the funds. MUNICIPAL CODE / POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. Agenda Item #4 -C CC 11 -14 -06 Honorable Mayor and November 14, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION / FINANCIAL IMPACT The COPS grant allotment, which is based on population, provides supplemental funding for frontline police services. The grant allotment for 2006 -2007 is $144,820. RECOMMENDATION Appropriate in the General Fund the 2006 -2007 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229) grant funding in the amount of $144,820 to enhance frontline police services. Respectfully submitted Walter B. Tibbet Cdcale_� Chief of Police DK/WBTTjsb CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 14, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Resolution Setting Free All -Day Parking for the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts on all Saturdays in December Prior to Christmas Day BACKGROUND In November 2002, City Council adopted a Resolution granting free parking the Saturday before Christmas in both the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts in perpetuity. Accordingly, free parking will occur December 23 of this year in each District. For the past two years, Council has authorized free parking on the additional Saturdays during the month of December prior to Christmas Day. DISCUSSION Both the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) are requesting that free parking be extended to all Saturdays in December prior to Christmas Day, in perpetuity, as an additional incentive to shop in Alameda during the holiday season. The free Saturday parking throughout the holiday month of December would apply to metered street and lot parking only and would not apply to future municipal- operated garage space in Alameda. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT The Saturday free parking results in reduced parking meter revenue. The City Finance Department estimates average daily revenue from parking meters as follows: • Park Street Business District - $1,332 • West Alameda Business District - $271 If parking meters were made free an additional three days in each Business District, an estimated $4,809 in parking meter revenue would not be collected. While parking meter revenue will be lost to the City, it is assumed to be offset by increased sales tax due to Agenda Item #4 -D CC 11 -14 -06 Honorable Mayor and November 14, 2006 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 greater retail patronage. As in previous years, PSBA and WABA will provide parking meter hoods as well as the staff to place and remove the hoods on all free parking days. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS - REFERENCE Parking meter fees, time limits and holidays are established within the Alameda Municipal Code, specifically Sections 12- 13.2(a) and 12 -16.4. Council can offer free parking in both the West Alameda Business District and the Park Street Business District by Resolution in accordance with the sections of the Code. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution setting free all -day parking for the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts on all Saturdays in December prior to Christmas Day. Re . p ' ully submitte Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division Sue G. Russell Economic Development Coordinator DK /LAL /DES /SGR:ry cc: Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. SETTING FREE ALL -DAY PARKING FOR THE PARK STREET AND THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS DISTRICTS ON ALL SATURDAYS IN DECEMBER PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS DAY WHEREAS, the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) have requested that parking meters in their respective districts be free during the annual Holiday season; and WHEREAS, each District may realize an increase in sales due to free parking meters and shoppers would be encouraged to shop in each District should parking meters be free; and WHEREAS, the City Toss of revenue from free parking meters may be off -set by increased sales in each District; and WHEREAS, parking meter fees, time limits, and holidays are established in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code section 12 -13.2 (a) and 12 -16.4 respectively; and WHEREAS, parking fees are established by Resolution of the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the City Council, by Resolution, hereby annually suspends meter fees in both the Webster Street and the Park Street Business Districts between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on all Saturdays in December before Christmas Day. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the West Alameda Business Association and the Park Street Business Association. Resolution # 4 -D CC 11 -14 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the th day of November 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 Date: November 14, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Adopt a Resolution Designating the Person to Perform the Duties of the City Manager in the Event of His /Her Absence or Disability BACKGROUND Section 3 -7(h) of Article III of Alameda's Charter requires that the City Council designate the person to perform the duties of the City Manager in the event of her absence or disability. The Council passed Resolution No. 13277 on October 3, 2000 to identify the positions and order in which succession would occur. A number of changes in position titles require revisions to those designations and the superceding and rescinding of that Resolution. DISCUSSION For the continuous operation of the City, advance planning is necessary to specify the replacement of its administrative leaders. Whether in the event of scheduled absence, disability or disaster, the subject Resolution provides the City Manager with the authority to designate the person to perform the Manager's duties. If the City Manager does not, or is unable, to make such a designation, the Resolution identifies the Assistant City Manager as the person who will act for the City Manager. Finally, if both the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager were unable to perform the duties of the City Manager, the order of succession would be the Police Chief, Fire Chief Public Works Director and Chief Financial Officer. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution designating the person to perform the duties of the City Manager in the event of her absence or disability. Respectfully submitt Debra Kurita, City Manager Agenda Item #4 -E CC 11 -14 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. SUPERCEDING AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 13277 DESIGNATING THE PERSON TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE EVENT OF HIS /HER ABSENCE OR DISABLITY WHEREAS, Section 3 -7(h) of Article III of the Charter of the City of Alameda requires that the City Council designate the person to perform the duties of the City Manager in the event of his /her absence or disability, and WHEREAS, staffing in the City Manager's Office has changed since Resolution 13277 was adopted in October of 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA that the City Manager is hereby authorized to designate the City officer or official to perform the duties of the City Manager in the event of the City Manager's absence or disability. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event the City Manager does not or is unable to designate a person to perform the duties of the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager shall be the person to perform the duties of the City Manager in the event of the City Manager's absence or disability. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event both the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager are unable to perform the duties of the City Manager, the following Department Heads shall perform the duties of the City Manager in the order set forth below: Police Chief Fire Chief Public Works Director Chief Financial Officer BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution 13277 relating to the same subject matter is hereby fully and completely rescinded. Resolution # 4 -E CC 11 -14 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of November , 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 November, 2006. LARA WEISIGER, CITY CLERK CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager DATE: November 14, 2006 RE: Resolution Approving revised Memorandum Of Understanding between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the period commencing January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2008. BACKGROUND The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the City of Alameda is for the period commencing January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2008. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda Labor Relations Representatives have met in closed session with the Council and the Public Utilities Board to discuss negotiations with the IBEW. The revised MOU submitted is a result of those negotiations and falls within the parameters authorized by the Alameda City Council and the Public Utilities Board. This MOU is for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2008. It provides for a 2% wage increase on June 25, 2006; a second general 2% wage increase effective January 7, 2007; an additional 1% wage increase effective January 7, 2007 deferred from calendar year 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, W), effective January 8, 2008 with a minimum of two (2) percent and a maximum of four (4) percent; benefit adjustments and language modifications through the term of the contract. The MOU is available in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the recommended wage and benefit increases. There is no financial impact to the General Fund. The implementation costs are as follows: Fiscal Year 2006 -07 — Total cost is approximately $334,933. There are sufficient funds budgeted to cover these increased costs. Agenda Item #4 -F CC 11-14-06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers November 14, 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 -08 future budgets. Fiscal Year 2008 -09 future budgets. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Memorandum of Understanding. — Total cost is approximately $210,217. AP &T will include these increases in — Total cost is approximately $102,652. AP &T will include these increases in Respectfull submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Director Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2005 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2008 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council a Memorandum of Understanding between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 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 , 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 Resolution # 4 -F CC 11 -14 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager DATE: November 14, 2006 RE: Resolution Approving revised Executive Management Compensation Plan commencing June 25, 2006 and ending June 23, 2007 and Resolution Approving Revised Salary and Establishing a Five -Day Workweek Alternative Option with Corresponding Salary for the Classification of Fire Chief. BACKGROUND The proposed Executive City Management Compensation Plan commences June 25, 2006 and ends June 23, 2007. The proposed Resolution approving revised salary and establishing a five -day workweek alternative option with corresponding salary for the Fire Chief is effective June 25, 2006. DISCUSSION In 1992, in lieu of a 4% salary increase, all management and confidential employees, including department heads and other executive managers, were adjusted from a five -day workweek to a four -day workweek. The proposed Executive Management Compensation Plan and proposed Resolution for the Fire Chief, revises base salaries to reestablish five -day workweek alternative options with commensurate salary adjustments for those classifications not previously revised, excluding the City Clerk. The proposed Plan and Resolution also incorporate Management Incentive Pay into base salaries and discontinue the Management Incentive Pay Program. They further apply increases which represent the July 2005 increase which was deferred until July 2006 along with a July 2006 increase. The proposed Plan removes the exclusivity of the Alameda Point Project Assignment for the Deputy City Manager and adjusts benefits for the Deputy City Manager to remove provision of Auto Allowance and to reduce the Long Term Disability Insurance benefit level. The Deputy City Manager classification was originally established to coordinate all economic and community development related operations, including land use planning and transition of former military property to civilian use. It was later adapted for exclusive assignment to the Alameda Point Project focusing on negotiations with the Navy and property conveyance. In order to achieve efficiencies and reduce expenditures by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the Deputy City Manager /Alameda Point Project Manager position has remained vacant since the resignation of the incumbent earlier this calendar year. In the interim, the Assistant City Manager and the Development Services staff have dedicated the resources and staff time necessary for this project. This ongoing staff time expense will be accommodated through cost recovery from the project developer. The Agenda Item #4 -G CC 11 -14 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers November 14, 2006 proposed action implements a restructuring of the City Manager's Office to accommodate this shift in responsibilities. It will modify the Deputy City Manager classification to reflect the need to provide generalist skills to address administrative and organizational issues and to support the increased dedication of the Assistant City Manager to the Alameda Point Project. The proposed action will result in a reduction in the current classification compensation and benefit structure for the Deputy City Manager with a 25% reduction in base salary that establishes over a 50% base salary differential to Assistant City Manager. This differential is representative of that established by other cities that utilize such an entry level executive city management position. The proposed changes for the Deputy City Manager classification will be implemented within the current position allocations; the subject action will not add positions to the departmental personnel allocations. Other major components of the proposed Executive Management Compensation Plan and the Resolution for the Fire Chief are that the Flexible Benefits Cash Back Maximums are capped and available as such only for employees hired on or before the date Council approves the Plan. An alternate plan is available for these employees and for future employees which caps the Cash Back Maximum at $230 per month. A plan is established to convert from annual vacation accrual to pay period accrual. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The Executive Management Compensation Plan is available in the City Clerk's office. The cost for the implementation of the Executive Management Compensation Plan and Resolution for the Fire Chief for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 will be approximately $123,000, of which $88,000 is from the General Fund. This represents a two -year cost of $61,500 each year due to the deferral of the Fiscal Year 2005 -06 wage increase to Fiscal Year 2006 -07. As a portion of the Assistant City Manager's compensation will be offset through cost recovery from the Alameda Point Project, the restructuring of the City Manager's Office will not result in additional personnel expenditures in the General Fund allocation to the departmental budget. The proposed change will create a classification with a compensation level that is less than the current Deputy City Manager and higher than the existing Assistant to the City Manager classification. The proposed adjustment in compensation and benefits will constitute a 25 percent reduction from the existing Deputy City Manager. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolutions approving the Executive Management Compensation Plan and approving revised salary and establishment of a five -day workweek alternative option with corresponding salary for the classification of Fire Chief. Respectfully submitte aren Willis Human Resources Director On file in the City Clerk's Office: Executive Management Compensation Plan Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY CLERK, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM COMMENCING JUNE 25, 2006 AND ENDING JUNE 23, 2007 WHEREAS, THE City Clerk is appointed by Council and serves at the pleasure of the Council and as such is not a classification included in any bargaining group or union; and WHEREAS, the Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Human Resources Director and Executive Management Team Members (who include General Manager — Alameda Power and Telecom, Development Services Director, Public Works Director, Chief Financial Officer, Library Director, Planning and Building Director, Recreation and Parks Director, Executive Director — Housing Authority, General Manager — Golf Complex, and Information Technology Director are at -will employees appointed by the City Manager and as such are not presently included in any bargaining group or union; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council an Executive Management Compensation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined said Compensation Plan, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and there by 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 Compensation Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the position classifications and salary and benefits set out it said Compensation Plan are hereby designated as those applicable to the respective classifications in the service of the City of Alameda, effective June 25, 2006. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith. Resolution # 4 -G(1) CC 11 -14 -06 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 , 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 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING REVISED SALARY AND ESTABLISHING A FIVE -DAY WORKWEEK ALTERNATIVE OPTION WITH CORRESPONDING SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE CHIEF WHEREAS, the Fire Chief is an unrepresented classification not included in any bargaining group or union, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda will establish a five - day workweek alternative option with corresponding salary for the classification of Fire Chief, apply the same two percent and two percent increases effective June 25, 2006 granted to other executive managers under the Executive Management Compensation Plan, and incorporate Management Incentive Pay and Holiday -in -Lieu Pay into the regular base salary of the Fire Chief. WHEREAS, changes to operational standards call for provisions to grant appropriate salary for the five -day workweek as an alternative option to the existing salary for the Fire Chief position. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. Effective June 25, 2006, the Council hereby grants appropriate compensation for the five -day workweek as an alternative option to the existing salary for the Fire Chief position, grants two percent (deferred from July 2005), and two percent increases both effective June 25, 2006, and establishes that Management Incentive Pay and Holiday -in -Lieu Pay be incorporated into the regular base salary of the Fire Chief. The incumbent may choose to be assigned to the five -day workweek option at any time with concurrence of the City Manager. Once the five -day workweek option is chosen, the employee will not have the ability to move back to the four -day workweek. 2. That the position classification, salary rates, salary range, and salary steps are hereby designated as those applicable to the respective classification in the service of the City of Alameda: Code Classification EXEMPT BI- WEEKLY Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 1100 Fire Chief $5971 $6270 $6584 $6913 $7259 1101* Fire Chief $6193 $6503 $6828 $7169 $7527 Forty -hour original workweek. * Five -day workweek Resolution # 4 -G(2) CC 11 -14 -06 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 , 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 Memorandum DATE: November 14, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Public Hearing to consider: 1. A proposal by Warmington Homes, California for General Plan Amendment (GP05 -002), Rezoning (R05 -004), Master Plan (MP5 -001), Tentative Map (TM05 -002), and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS05 -0003) for a development of forty new detached single family residences, and related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking. 2. An appeal of certain conditions of approval of the Final Development Plan and Design Review Approval (PD05 -02). BACKGROUND The proposal includes construction of forty residential units on 3.5 acres at the foot of Grand Street adjacent to the Grand Marina and the Oakland /Alameda Estuary. The project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051 -2099 Grand Street within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Redevelopment Project Area. Ten of the forty single family homes will be restricted for sale to very low, low, and moderate income households. The proposed Grand Marina Master Plan (on file in the City Clerk's office) covers 8.3 acres and includes the proposed residential units, the waterfront public open space, the Alaska Packers Building, and the landside portions of the Grand Marina. The Master Plan is designed to ensure that the residential development is compatible with the adjacent marina, maritime facilities, and public open space and that the project results in a successful mixed use waterfront development. The Master Plan includes expansion of, and improvements to, the existing waterfront open space areas. Four modular trailers used for yacht sales and marine electronic sales, seven small vacant warehouse buildings, and a portion of an existing surface parking lot currently occupy the portion of the site to be redeveloped. Adjacent land uses to the south of Fortmann Way include the Pennzoil /Shell distribution facility, the City of Alameda Maintenance Service Center and Garage, the City Animal Agenda Item #5 -A 11 -14 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Council Members November 14, 2006 Shelter, and the Marina Cove Waterfront Park. Adjacent land uses to the east across Grand Street include the Alameda Power and Telecom main offices and the public vehicle /trailer parking for the Grand Street public boat launch. On October 23, 2006, after conducting a public hearing and reviewing all of the project materials and staff report, the Planning Board unanimously approved resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Master Plan and Tentative Map. The Planning Board also adopted a resolution approving the Final Development Plan and Design Review for the proposed project. A detailed description and analysis of the project is provided in the Planning Board staff report. (See Attachment 1.) The Planning Board placed eight additional conditions on the Master Plan, Tentative Map and Final Development Plan resolutions. These new conditions have been added to the Master Plan, the Tentative Map and the Final Development Plan under a heading of "Planning Board Conditions ". The applicant is appealing four of the Planning Board conditions. City Council review and approval of the Master Plan and Tentative Map is required. Therefore, the Council may choose to remove, revise, or uphold conditions of approval on the Master Plan and Tentative Map. However, because the Planning Board's decision on the Final Development Plan does not require City Council review and approval, the applicant chose to appeal the Planning Board's decision on the Final Development Plan resolution to provide the City Council with the opportunity to modify the four conditions of concern on the Final Development Plan. DISCUSSION The four conditions under appeal by Warmington Homes are provided below. After each condition, there is a short discussion of the issues raised by the condition and the basis for the applicant's appeal. Attachment 2 includes a letter from Warmington Homes, which further details the reasons for their appeal of these specific conditions. Planning Board Condition 1. (Concrete Path): To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront. The Planning Board approved this condition unanimously. The Board imposed the condition to ensure that the waterfront path within the Grand Marina Master Plan area matches the recently completed waterfront path within the adjacent Marina Cove development. The Board stated that to the extent possible, the public waterfront path through the Northern Waterfront should be constructed of a consistent material and quality and that the Marina Cove concrete path was more attractive and appealing than Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Council Members November 14, 2006 the existing Grand Marina asphalt path. The applicant is appealing this condition primarily because of the expense of replacing approximately 800 feet of existing asphalt pedestrian pathway with a concrete pathway. Analysis The waterfront pathway along the Grand Marina waterfront is an important link in the City's plan for a continuous Northern Waterfront trail, a segment of the regional San Francisco Bay Trail, from Marina Village to the Fruitvale Bridge. Ultimately, this portion of the Bay Trail will contribute to a continuous pedestrian and bicycle trail along the Estuary from the Fruitvale Bridge to the western tip of Alameda Point. In some areas in Alameda, where direct waterfront access is not feasible or safe, the Bay Trail will be provided on existing City streets. By necessity, it is likely that the Northern Waterfront Bay Trail will include different materials depending on the conditions on each site. In some cases the trail will be concrete, in some cases it will be asphalt, and in some limited cases it may be another material. A variety of well- designed paving materials will enhance the overall look of the trail system. Although materials may change from site to site, the waterfront multi -use path must be adequately sized for pedestrians and bicyclists and transitions between the materials must be carefully considered and safely executed. Through existing conditions on the project, staff is already able to work with the applicant and BCDC to ensure that transitions between Marina Cove Park, the Alaska Packers Building, and the Grand Marina are carefully treated. City Council Alternatives Given these circumstances, the City Council has the following possible alternatives: 1. Uphold the condition of approval and require the applicant to replace the existing asphalt path with a concrete path to match the Marina Cove concrete path. 2. Amend the condition and direct staff to work with the applicant to design a multi -use pathway adequately sized for pedestrians and bicyclists to achieve an aesthetically pleasing and fully functional multi -use pathway, but not require that the existing asphalt path be replaced by concrete. 3. Remove the condition. Staff recommends that Council amend the condition as described in alternative 2. Planning Board Condition 2. (Third Stories): The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories. The Planning Board approved this condition unanimously to address their concerns about the design of the third story elements that are included on 30 of the homes. An existing condition of approval requires Planning and Building Director approval of a final architectural design submittal. Through this process the Planning and Building Director Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Council Members November 14, 2006 can work with the applicant to modify the third story design to minimize the "pop up" appearance through design modifications. The applicant is appealing this condition because they feel that the third story elements are well designed, that the City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines do not apply to this project, and that to modify the design to comply with the Design Guidelines would result in an inferior design. Analysis As currently proposed, 30 of the 40 units would include a small (approximately 430 square foot) third story. The third stories are set well back from the front of the home and are an integral part of the building design. All of the three -story homes would be Tess than 32 feet in height. The City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines provides guidance for the review of proposals to add second -story additions to existing single -story historic bungalows. These guidelines were not intended to address the design of new three -story homes within a proposed Planned Development. However, these guidelines may be used as a general reference for the consideration of alternative designs or enhancements for the third -story elements. City Council Alternatives Given these circumstances, the City Council has the following possible alternatives: 1. Uphold the condition and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the third story to reflect the guidelines for second -story additions to bungalows. 2. Amend the condition and direct staff to work with the applicant to modify the design of the third story to reduce the appearance of a "pop -up" roofline. 3. Remove the condition. Staff recommends alternative 2. Planning Board Condition #3 (Paseo Extension): The site plan shall be modified to extend the paseo (public pedestrian path) from Grand Street to the northern most triangle park. This condition was approved on a 4 -2 vote of the Planning Board. The majority of the Planning Board voted for the condition because they felt that the paseo extension would improve the pedestrian orientation and design of the project. Two members of the Planning Board voted against the condition because staff informed the Planning Board that to implement the condition properly would require the loss of two units from the project. It should be noted that at the Planning Board meeting staff inaccurately informed the Planning Board that the reduction in units would also result in a reduction in the number of affordable units in the project. In fact, the City of Alameda Affordable Housing Guidelines require that projects with between 38 and 41 units in this area Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Council Members November 14, 2006 provide ten affordable units. Therefore, reducing the project by two units requires the removal of two market rate units. The applicant is appealing this condition because the condition would require the removal of two market rate units from the project. The applicant has informed staff that they cannot move forward with the project if the condition is not removed. However, the applicant has not provided any financial information to confirm the severity of the financial impact for staff or City Council review. Analysis The project currently includes a 20 -foot wide paseo (pedestrian pathway) between Grand Street and the first alley parallel to Grand Street. Parcels 5 through 12 front onto the paseo. Attachment 3 illustrates how a 10 -foot wide paseo extension could be achieved without losing two units. As illustrated, the ten -foot paseo extension would be very narrow, bordered on both sides by side yard fences, which could pose a graffiti problem and potentially a safety concern by creating a narrow, secluded public space. Extending the paseo would also eliminate 670 square feet of public open space on the waterfront and require the relocation of 4 parking spaces closer to the water. In addition, the side yards on parcels 17 through 20 would be reduced in size to accommodate the 10 -foot wide path resulting in a reduction in private open space for those units. Further, the encroachment into the waterfront open space would have to be approved by BCDC. To effectively implement the condition, two units must be removed from the project. Removal of the units creates an opportunity to provide an adequately sized (16- to 20- foot) paseo extension through the project to match the 20 -foot wide paseo between the homes without the loss of private or common open space at the waterfront. The approximately 160 -foot long extension would provide a third east -west pedestrian path through the project approximately 160 feet from the waterfront path and the pathway along Fortmann. Given that adequate public access is provided through the project to the waterfront, the removal of two units would result in minimal design or pedestrian improvements. City Council Alternatives Given these circumstances, the City Council has the following possible alternatives: 1. Uphold the condition and accept the alternative site plan shown in Attachment 3 that maintains 40 units, provides a 10 -foot wide paseo extension, and removes approximately 670 square feet of public open space and some private open space. 2. Amend the condition and require the applicant to reduce the number of units as necessary to provide an east -west paseo extension to match the width of the existing paseo, without any loss of public or private open space 3. Remove the condition. Staff recommends alternative 3. Honorable Mayor and Page 6 Council Members November 14, 2006 Planning Board Condition 4. (Affordable Housing) The distribution of the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be three story units. This condition was approved on a vote of 5 -1. The Planning Board imposed this condition to better integrate the affordable units into the project. The applicant is appealing this condition as it would require that two of the 30 three -story homes be designed as affordable units and, thereby, would result in two of the three -story homes being sold as market rate units. The applicant argues that this change would have a negative financial impact on the project. Further, they argue that the architectural design meets the intent of the guideline of having the inclusionary units blend with the market -rate units as the third story is set back from the rest of the house so that it is not apparent from the street. Analysis The proposed project includes 40 single - family units with 30 three -story and 10 two - story homes currently includes ten affordable units out of the total 40 -unit development. The affordable units are all two -story single - family homes. The proposal provides ten affordable units, as required by the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. These units, which are all two -story single - family homes, are distributed throughout the development, but none are located directly facing the waterfront. All market -rate homes are single - family homes that include the small (430 square -foot) third story. Other than the difference in height and floor area, the affordable units are not distinguishable from the market -rate units. As shown in the plans (see elevations, pages A -6 and A -8) the exterior materials, colors, fenestration, and all other architectural details are similar. As the applicant is not required to provide any financial information on the project economics, staff is not in a position to evaluate the financial impacts of the proposed condition on the project's pro- forma. City Council Alternatives Given these circumstances, the City Council has the following possible alternatives: 1. Uphold and clarify the condition to require that 2 of the 30 three -story homes be made affordable and 2 of the 10 two -story homes be made available at market - rate. 2. Amend the condition to a) require 2 three -story units at below market rate, but not require that 2 two -story units be made market rate, and b) allow the Community Improvement Commission to modify the condition upon review of the Draft Affordable Housing Agreement and any project financial information made available by the applicant. (This would require a corresponding amendment to the Master Plan to clarify that the project may include up to 32 three -story homes and a minimum of 8 two -story homes). (An existing condition of approval requires that the applicant and the Community Improvement Commission enter into an agreement for the provision of the Honorable Mayor and Page 7 Council Members November 14, 2006 affordable homes on the site consistent with the Commission's affordable housing policies and guidelines. Alternative conditions 1 or 2, if upheld by the City Council, would be used in part to guide the preparation of that future agreement). 3. Remove the condition and approve the original distribution of the affordable units. Staff recommends Alternative 2. However, it should be noted that the applicant contends that neither alternative 1 or 2 is financially feasible. Again, as the applicant is not required to, nor have they provided any financial information on the project economics, staff is not in a position to evaluate the financial impacts of the proposed condition on the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) was prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was circulated for public review on April 21, 2006. The IS /MND discusses potential environmental impacts resulting from the project, and includes mitigation measures that would reduce all of these impacts to a less than significant level. The project includes a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that all required mitigations are implemented within the required time frame to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts from the project. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed project is a privately developed project with no financial assistance from the City or the Community Improvement Commission. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed project is consistent with the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment's recommendations for mixed use, waterfront development, and waterfront access improvements. The recommended General Plan and Zoning Amendments are described in detail in the attached Planning Board staff report. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the resolutions: a. Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Approving the General Plan Amendments, 2. Approve the ordinances: a. Approving the Rezoning b. Approving the Master Plan 3. Approve the resolutions: Honorable Mayor and Page 8 Council Members November 14, 2006 a. Approving the Tentative Map b. Upholding the Planning Board's Conditional Approval of the Final Development Plan and Design Review as modified by the City Council. By: Respectfully submitted, Cathy oodbury Pla g and Building Director ndrew Thomas Planning Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: ct 1. October pa, 2006 Planning Board Report (without attachments) 2. November 6, 2006 Letter from Warmington Homes 3. Alternative Site Plan with extended Paseo. 4. City of Alameda Affordable Housing Guidelines On File in the City Clerk's Office: Grand Marina Master Plan ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT 8 -C G P05- 0002 /R05- 0004 /M P5 -001 /PD05- 02 /IS05 -0003- Warmington Homes California (Developer) — 2051 -2099 Grand Street. Proposed development of forty (40) new detached single family residences on approximately 3.51 acres, and related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking. The 3.51 acre residential subdivision is part of a larger 8.36 acre area that would be covered by a new Master Plan encompassing the entirety of the Grand Marina facility. Development of the residential project involves the reconfiguration of the existing marina parking lot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Master Plan, Development Plan and Design Review, Tentative Map approvals, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration The site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortman Way. Commercial Recreation General Industrial (Manufacturing) District An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study Application No. 05 -0003) was prepared for the Project, which found that all potential significant impacts associated with the Project could be reduced to a level of less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained within the document. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager Recommend that the Planning Board: 1. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 2. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; 3. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Attachment 1 Agenda Item #5 -A 11 -14-06 Page 1 ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: adopt an Ordinance approving the Rezoning; 4. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt and Ordinance approving Master Plan MP05 -XX. 5. Adopt a Resolution to approve Planned Development PD05 -002. AMC - Alameda Municipal Code BCDC - San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMPs - Best Management Practices CC &R - Codes Covenants and Restrictions CSLC - California State Lands Commission EBMUD - East Bay Municipal Utility District GPA - General Plan Amendment HOA - Homeowners Association IS /MND - Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration M -2 - General Industrial (Manufacturing) District NWGPA - Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment PB - City of Alameda Planning Board RWQCB - California Regional Water Quality Control Board 1. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Proposed Grand Marina Master Plan; 3. Grand Marina Vesting Tentative Map 4. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 5. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; 6. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Rezoning; 7. Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Master Plan; 8. Draft Resolution approving Planned Development; 9. Agency Comment Letters on the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration; Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 2 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The proposal includes construction of forty (40) residential units on 3.5 acres at the foot of Grand Street adjacent to the Grand Marina and the Oakland /Alameda Estuary. The proposed development includes reconfiguration of the existing Grand Marina parking lot and expansion and improvements to the existing waterfront open space and public path. Ten (10) of the forty single family homes will be restricted for sale to very low, low, and moderate income households. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent marina, maritime facilities, and public open space, the proposal includes a proposed Master Plan. The 8.3 acre Master Plan area includes the 3.5 acres for the residential units, the waterfront public open space, the Alaska Packers Building, and the landside portions of the Grand Marina. The residential portion of the site is currently occupied by parking, four modular trailers used for yacht sales and marine electronic sales, and seven small vacant warehouse buildings. Adjacent land uses to the south of Fortman Way include the Pennzoil /Shell distribution facility; the City of Alameda Maintenance Service Center and Animal Shelter; and the Marina Cove Waterfront Park. Adjacent land uses to the east across Grand Street include the Alameda Power and Telecom main offices, and vehicle /trailer parking for the Grand Street public boat launch. Implementation of the proposal will require a series of approvals and permits, including: 1. General Plan Amendment: A general plan amendment is required to allow waterfront mixed -use development that includes residential uses. 2. Zoning Amendment: A zoning map amendment is required to allow residential use on the site. The project proposes a rezoning from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) to Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX). The MX zoning designation is designed for sites with multiple uses that need to be closely coordinated with shared facilities and open space. 3. Master Plan: A Master Plan is required for all mixed use projects within the MX zoning district. A Master Plan provides a mechanism to guide development of the mix of uses and govern issues related to shared easements, maintenance agreements, shared parking and other issues that need to be addressed in a mixed use development. 4. Development Plan and Design Review Approval: Development Plan and Design Review is required for projects within a Master Plan. 5. Subdivision: A tentative map is required to subdivide the property for residential land sales. 6. Certificate of Approval: Subsection 13 -21 -7 of the Alameda Municipal Code requires that any building constructed prior to 1942 shall not be demolished or removed without the approval of a certificate of approval issued by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB). Prior to the demolition activities, the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Approval from the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board for each building on the site constructed before 1942. 7. BWIP Amendment: The Project site falls within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Plan Area. Approval of the proposed General Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 3 Plan Amendment requires a subsequent amendment to the BWIP Plan by the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the BWIP Plan. 8. Affordable Housing Agreement: The CIC must also approve an affordable housing agreement between the applicant and the CIC to ensure provision and maintenance of the affordable housing on the site. 9. Bay Conservation and Development Commission: Encinal Marinas Limited, the owner of Grand Marina, has an existing BCDC permit (No. 5 -83) for the marina that will need to be amended to account for improvements located within 100 feet of the shoreline. Areas within 100 feet of the shoreline band fall within BCDC jurisdiction, and include the waterfront path, portions of the marina parking lot, the Alaska Packer's Building and boatyard, and five of the homes (Lots 13 through 17). The applicant has been working closely with BCDC throughout the predevelopment process. 10. Public Art Ordinance: AMC Subsection 30 -65, the Public Art Ordinance requires the applicant to devote an amount not less than one (1 %) percent of building development costs or a max of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000) dollars for acquisition and installation of Public Art on the development site. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the project will need to have a Public Art program approved by the City of Alameda Public Art Commission. 11. BACKGROUND The Grand Marina project is located within the Grand Marina facility, a 387 - berth recreational marina located at the northern terminus of Grand Street. The marina facility includes a 240 -space surface parking lot, a Harbor Master Building, seven older warehouse buildings, four modular office trailers housing yacht broker businesses and a marine electronics store, and the Marine Center, which consists of the 18,000 square foot Alaska Packer's Building and the adjacent 55,000 square foot outdoor boatyard. There is an existing waterfront public access path, which serves to connect the site to other areas along Alameda's northern waterfront. Portions of the marina parking lot, Marine Center, and waterfront path, are located on land subject to the State Lands Commission. The City of Alameda serves as the local trustee for the State Lands Commission for these areas and leases the land to the marina operator. As the local trustee, the City is charged by state law to protect these existing and former tidal and submerged lands for particular uses of statewide public benefit. These uses Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 4 include public uses for commerce, navigation, fisheries, water - oriented recreation, habitat, and environmental study. Pursuant to State law, residential development is not permitted on Tidelands Trust land. The 3.5 acre residential portion of the Master Plan area is located entirely outside of Tidelands Trust portion of the 8.36 acre site. Use Permit UP- 88 -15, approved in 1988, and BCDC Permit No. 5 -83 currently govern the Grand Marina site. The 1988 Use Permit approved a phased development on the current Master Plan site. The permit authorized construction of the Grand Marina facility and parking lot and the existing public open space. The Use Permit also authorized a second phase of development that included a 60,000 square foot office complex and a 20,000 square foot commercial development on the portion of the site proposed for the residential development. The marina and public improvements were constructed, but the office and commercial phases of the 1988 Use Permit was never implemented. Grand Street and Fortman Way provide access to the project site. Grand Street is a public street that has one travel lane in each direction, runs north -south between the Oakland - Alameda Estuary and Shoreline Drive. Fortman Way is a dead end street that extends west from Grand Street to Alaska Packer Place and provides access to the Marine Center, Animal Shelter and City Corporation Yard. The southern side of Fortman Way is currently improved with curbs and sidewalks; the north side is unimproved. Previous Planning Board Study Session On January 23, 2006, the Planning Board held a study session to review the preliminary plan for the site. A copy of the January site plan is shown below. Following the Study Session the applicant's architect, the Dahlin Group, completely redesigned the project to better reflect City of Alameda and BCDC planning objectives. The proposed redesign is shown below and in the • roposed Master Plan. January 2006 Study Session Site Plan Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Proposed Site Plan Page 5 The Dahlin Group was able to successfully address several of the Planning Board's major concerns about the January proposal, including: Alameda Street Grid, Views, and Re- connecting Alameda to the Waterfront In January, the Board raised concerns that the proposed plan and circulation system did not provide good connections between the rest of Alameda and the waterfront. The January site plan blocked the rest of the city from the waterfront, which is contrary to City goals to reconnect Alameda to the water. Similarly, the Board also felt that the January site plan provided inadequate view corridors to the water. As shown in the current plan, the Dahlin Group has successfully redesigned the site to allow for the extending of Hibbard Street from the Marina Cove development to the water. The alignment of Hibbard Street within the project provides a central organizing element for the entire plan, provides a clear public connection to the waterfront through the heart of the project, and helps to organize and direct the future development of the adjacent Pennzoil site. The redesign also provides a large, central view corridor to the water down the extension of Hibbard Street from Fortman Way, which will be further extended with the future extension of Hibbard to Clement Street and the Marina Cove development. Waterfront Public Access At the Study Session, several PB members voiced concerns that the park and open space areas provided within the planned development were too small and isolated and that they would not be beneficial to the general public. In response, the applicant has increased the amount of open space, and aggregated it into two larger adjacent parks (totaling 0.43 acres) at the western edge of the residential development, with unencumbered views to the water. In addition, the applicant's plans now include improvements to the existing open spaces including: replacing ground cover and landscaping (to match that proposed for the new parks); adding new benches and a barbeque /picnic area along the public path; adding benches and lighting along the walkway behind the Alaska Packer's Building; and adding additional signage that better identifies the location of the public access path and public restrooms on the site. Parking vs. Housing on the Waterfront In January, the Board questioned the logic of locating a large parking lot between the waterfront and the other uses on the site. The new plan reconfigures and consolidates the marina parking adjacent to the marina facilities. Adjacent to Grand Street, the former parking area provides space for an enhanced and expanded waterfront open space and allows some of the homes to face directly onto a portion of the public open space. III. ANALYSIS. A. Proposed General Plan Amendment The site is currently designated Commercial Recreation in the General Plan. According to Section 2.2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, this designation covers marinas Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 6 on the Estuary, San Leandro Channel, and San Francisco Bay. To allow for residential development adjacent to the existing marina and Marine Center uses, the applicant has requested a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan designation of the site from Commercial Recreation to Specified Mixed Use Area (MU6- Northern Waterfront). The purpose of the Specified Mixed Use designation is to facilitate mixed use development on unique sites. In 2003, the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee recommended a comprehensive General Plan Amendment for this site and a number of adjacent properties known collectively as the "Northern Waterfront Study Area ". The Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment (NWGPA) recommended by the Advisory Committee is designed to manage and direct redevelopment in the Northern Waterfront planning area. The NWGPA recommends a new General Plan Designation of Specified Mixed Use for the entire Northern Waterfront area, including the Grand Marina site, which is described as follows: MU -6 Northern Waterfront, Grand Street to Sherman Street: This area of the Northern Waterfront provides an opportunity to create a lively waterfront, mixed -use district with residential, commercial, office, maritime, park, and open space uses that reflect traditional Alameda neighborhoods and reconnect Alameda to its waterfront. Because the NWGPA has not yet been adopted, this project is proposing that the MU -6 designation be applied to the project site as part of this proposal. Upon approval of the NWGPA, the Specified Mixed Use designation will be expanded to the rest of the Northern Waterfront area between Grand Street and Sherman Street, including the Encinal Terminals, Del Monte site, and the Pennzoil and City sites just south of the project site. The Grand Marina proposal was designed to comply with the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendments. Specifically, the Draft NWGPA recommends that the development of the Grand Marina site: "Continue the Alameda street grid from the adjacent Marina Cove development to the Estuary and the extension of Clement Street. "Provide adequate public open space, view corridors, and a clear public access to, and along, the Oakland /Alameda Estuary." "Require that buildings adjacent to the shoreline be designed with attractive facades adjacent to the Oakland /Alameda Estuary as well as from inland areas." "Redevelopment of the area should preserve and reuse the Alaska Packers building consistent with its Tidelands Trust designation." General Plan Amendment Conclusions: A Specified Mixed Use General Plan designation for the site will allow for continuation of the existing marina and maritime uses as well as Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 7 provide for the opportunity to introduce a mix of additional uses, including residential use on the site. The proposed Grand Marina General Plan Amendments is consistent with the NW GPA as recommended by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee. B. Rezoning Proposal The Project site is currently zoned M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing), which does not permit residential uses. To develop housing on this waterfront mixed use site requires that the zoning for the site be amended. The project proposes a rezoning from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) to Mixed Use Planned Development District (MX). The attached resolution and exhibits identify the specific properties to be rezoned. The purpose of the MX District is to encourage the development of a compatible mix of land uses, which may include residential, retail, recreational, water oriented or other related uses. The MX district requires preparation of a Master Plan to ensure that mixed use developments are carefully planned to provide a more pedestrian- oriented non - automotive environment; recreation areas that are accessible to both the MX district's inhabitants and other City residents; and environments that are conducive to living, working, shopping, entertainment and recreation. Zoning Amendment Conclusions: The MX zoning district is consistent with the recommended Specified Mixed Use General Plan designation and will ensure that future development of the site is carefully planned through the Master Plan process in a manner that supports the existing maritime uses, enhances and improves the existing public open spaces, and supports shared use of common facilities, such as parking. C. Proposed Master Plan In accordance with the MX Zoning Designation, a Master Plan is required for the site. As required by the MX zoning regulations, the Master Plan is designed to guide the development of the site in a manner that: • Is consistent with a pedestrian- oriented, non - automotive, mixed -use environment that includes but is not limited to shared parking and public open space; • Provides recreation areas and open space improvements that are accessible to both the MX district's inhabitants and other City residents; and • Reconnects Alameda to the waterfront through good site planning and design. Mixed Use Development Program: The Grand Marina Master Plan development program includes the following: • Forty 40 detached single family residential units; • An affordable housing program with ten units affordable to low, very low, and moderate income households; Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 8 • Addition of 0.43 acres of new public park space to be maintained by the homeowners association, in addition to the existing public open space areas; • Improvements to the public access waterfront path and open space; • The existing 387 -berth marina facility; • The existing Marine Center, which includes the Alaska Packer's Building and 34,848 square foot boatyard area; • A reconfigured 190 -space surface parking lot to be utilized by the Marine Center, marina, and BCDC public access patrons; and • 12 guest parking spaces within the residential area. Site Plan: The Master Plan includes site planning and design standards to ensure that future development of the site is consistent with General Plan goals and objectives. These guidelines and standards will guide the future approval of subdivision maps and design plans. The Grand Marina Site Plan, which is included in the Master Plan, illustrates how the site should be organized to meet city objectives including: • Extending the Alameda Street grid, • Respecting the Tidelands Trust lands (the Tidelands boundary is the diagonal line running through the parking area and along the northern edge of the residential area), • Maximizing public open space for project residents and Alameda residents, • Improving the open space and pedestrian access between the existing Marina Cove park and the Grand Marina waterfront, • Reconfiguring the public parking areas to better serve the marina and marine center and minimize safety issues at the boat ramp, and • Ensuring that the development provides a site - planning framework for future development in the area. The Master Plan proposes a circulation system that includes extension of Hibbard Street, improvement of Fortman Street, and elimination of the existing vehicle access to the site at the foot of Grand Street adjacent to the boat ramp. The circulation plan also includes a series of alleys to provide access to garages and provide a secondary network of small streets that can also provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the waterfront. The 20 foot distance between units across the alleys is similar to that at the Rivermark planned residential development in Santa Clara, which City staff and several Planning Board members visited on March 24, 2006. Two east/west alleys will connect to Grand Street, but will be limited to emergency vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access via the use of rolled curbs and removable bollards. The Master Plan includes a grass paver Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) easement running north from Fortman Way through the 0.19 acre triangular park so as to facilitate Fire Department access to the alley between lots 33 -36 and 37 -40. This project will include sprinkler systems in all homes, including attics and garages. Residential Tots will range from 2,000 to 3,212 square feet, with an average residential lot Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 9 size of 2,460 feet. The development is consistent with Measure A, which requires a minimum one unit for every 2,000 square feet of land area. Each unit has a two -car garage. Affordable Housing: The Master Plan includes a requirement for 10 units of below market rate housing, which would be dispersed throughout the residential development and be available to households with very low, low, and moderate incomes, per City and County standards. By providing 25% of the units as affordable below market rate units, the project would be the first project to meet the 25% requirement without City assistance. The Master Plan is consistent with the affordable housing guidelines adopted by the City of Alameda in 2004. The affordable units are dispersed throughout the development, and the style and quality of architecture and construction would be consistent with the project's market rate units, making them indistinguishable from each other. Interior features and finishes would be contemporary and of a quality consistent with new market rate housing. Residential Architectural Design: As shown in the Master Plan, the residential units are two and three - stories with a maximum height of 31'6 ". The third stories are recessed to minimize the mass of the three story units. The Master Plan requires a mix of three floor plans and three elevation styles. The three elevation styles - Craftsman, Shingle and Coastal - utilize a variety of textures & materials such as stucco, shingle, board and batten siding, wood eave corbels and wood box bays, and are reminiscent of homes built in the 1930's and 40's. The project architect has incorporated design features that are reflective of the character of historic Alameda neighborhoods, including porch elements and landscape strips. Each home includes a private side yard. Reciprocal easements are utilized to double the usable side yard on one side of each home. Privacy between neighbors is achieved by limiting the amount of glazing on the side of each home overlooking the neighbor's usable side yard. Where windows do overlook the neighbor's usable side yard, beveled glass would be utilized, allowing light in while obscuring the view out. Open Space Plan: The Master Plan includes an open space plan that includes public art, expanded and improved waterfront public access area, and numerous landscaping improvements, as detailed on the Landscape Site Plan (Sheets L.1 and L.2). Landscaping of the park and open space areas within the residential subdivision will be designed to match those improvements being made to the waterfront public access path. At the western edge of the proposed residential subdivision, the applicant has provided approximately 0.43 acres of new park space in the form of two adjacent triangular- shaped parks. The parks will include substantial landscaping, including new Mexican Fan Palm Trees to match the existing palms along the waterfront path. The parks will also include benches, picnic tables, and bollard lights, as well as walkways that connect the two parks to each other and to the waterfront path via enhanced paving pathways across the parking Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 10 lot. These two new triangle park areas would be dedicated by the applicant as permanent public access to the City. In addition to expansion of the existing public open space, the Master Plan for the site provides improvements to the existing open space, including: • Replacing existing ground cover and landscaping to match that proposed for the new parks, although all existing fan palms will be maintained; • Improving pedestrian paths and connections from the Marina Cove park, around the waterside of the Alaska Packers Building and across the parking areas to the triangle parks; • Adding new benches and garbage cans along the path; • Adding a barbeque /picnic area in the area north of the proposed extension of Hibbard Street; • Adding benches and lighting along the walkway behind the Alaska Packer's Building; • Adding public art in two locations: one just west of Grand Street, and another at the northern terminus of Hibbard Street, with both serving to attract pedestrian and bicycle traffic towards the waterfront; and • Additional signage that better identifies the location of the public access path and public restrooms on the site and improves connections between the Alaska Packer's Building and existing Marina Cove Waterfront Park. Parking Plan: The Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration and reduction of the marina parking area. The current parking area includes 240 spaces that are located along the length of the waterfront open space. As shown in the Master Plan, the parking area will be reduced to 190 spaces and will be reconfigured to improve pedestrian access to the waterfront and allow for an improved site plan. Based upon a year long parking survey conducted between November 2004 and December 2005, the 190 spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the parking needs at the Marina. The parking survey found that the average weekday parking count was 94 spaces, while the average weekend parking count was 123 spaces. The peak weekend day was 197 spaces on October 8, 2005 (Fleet Week), while the peak weekday was 161 spaces (July 4" holiday). The Master Plan proposes a 190 -space parking lot for the marina, Marine Center, and BCDC public access users. Users of the Marina and open space will share all of the parking spaces, but to comply with BCDC requirements, ten of the spaces will be signed specifically for short-term use by visitors to the waterfront promenade. Visitors and marina users will also be able to use the additional 43 nearby on- street public parking spaces located along Grand Street and Fortman Way. Each residential unit within the Master Plan will provide two (2) off - street parking spaces, and 12 guest parking spaces are provided within the residential area. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 11 D. Planned Development and Design Review The MX zoning and Master Plan requires Development Plan and Design Review approval for all projects within the Master Plan. The Planned Development permits more flexibility in the development standards for a project, but requires that all development on the site must be comprehensively planned, and that the entire project be approved by the Planning Board. In particular, the Planned Development combining district permits variation in lot size, lot width, building coverage, height, setbacks and parking requirements. Furthermore, specific standards need to be provided for each project within a Planned Development to guide the development of the property. The Planning Board is required to make the following findings prior to approval of the Planned Development: 1) that the Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan and the Master Plan, 2) that the proposal is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations of the underlying MX zoning district and 3) that it complies with the density requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code. Unlike the Catellus Master Plan and the recently approved 39 unit affordable housing project, the Grand Marina Development Plan and Design Review plans are being submitted with the Master Plan for Planning Board approval. Therefore the applicant is requesting that the Planning Board adopt two resolutions: one approving the Master Plan and one approving the development plan. The Draft Resolution for the Planned Development sets out the development standards for this project. These standards would guide not only the initial construction of the project, but would also regulate later modifications, which current or future property owners may wish to undertake. Any addition or modification that would not comply with these standards would be subject to a Planned Development Amendment. See Attachment #1 (Draft Resolution) and Attachment #2 (project plans) for the recommended specific development standards. The Draft Resolution sets development standards for yard setbacks, building coverage, permitted encroachments, accessory structures, maximum height and number of stories based on the specific building designs established in Attachment #2 (project plans). It is recommended that any major modifications to the Resolution be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board through the Planned Development Amendment process, which would require a public hearing and notification of neighboring property owners. E. Tentative Map The residential project would consists of forty new residential units on individually subdivide lots, as well as several additional parcels containing park and open space and portions of Grand Street and Fortman Way. Tentative Map 005 -02 has been reviewed by City staff and determined to meet the requirements contained in the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance and the California Subdivision Map Act. A more detailed discussion of the Tentative Map and the conditions of approval will be Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 12 provided under separate cover with the proposed Map. A copy of the proposed map is provided within the Master Plan. (See sheet TM -01) IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) was prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was circulated for public review on April 21, 2006. The IS /MND discusses potential environmental impacts resulting from the project, and includes mitigation measures that would reduce all of these impacts to a less than significant level. During the 30 day public and state review period, four letters on the Draft IS /MND were received from public agencies. These four letters were from the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the California Regional Water Quality Board (RWQB), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). California State Lands Commission The CSLC requested that appropriate signage and patrolling is included within the portion of the marina parking lot subject to CSLC jurisdiction to ensure that residents or guests of the new subdivision do not park in the parking lot. Parking within the CSLC jurisdiction areas must be limited to users of trust amenities, which includes the marina, Marine Center, and public access path. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that adequate signage be provided in the parking lot that indicates that the marina parking lot is for Marina uses. East Bay Municipal Utility District Beyond outlining the fees and processes required by EMBMUD to provide service to the new development, EBMUD's letter focuses on the fact that it will not install piping or services in contaminated soil or groundwater. EBMUD also requested that the applicant confirm that there is available capacity within the subbasin flow allocation to meet the project's wastewater demands, and that a condition of approval be included that requires the project to comply with Landscape Water Conservation Guidelines adopted by the Alameda Board of Supervisors and Assembly Bill 325. Staff has accommodated this request within the project's Conditions of Approval. California Regional Water Quality Board Overall, the RWQB concluded that the discussion of the runoff should be expanded to discuss the post- construction requirements of Alameda County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and incorporate specific stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). The RWQB strongly encourages the use of landscape - based stormwater treatment measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff, while they discourage the use of inlet filter devices, which they have found to be ineffective and require high levels of maintenance. They suggest that project landscaping be designed to accommodate these features. Staff has accommodated this request within Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 13 the project's Conditions of Approval to address the RWQB's input and concerns. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In its comment letter, BCDC outlined its jurisdiction over the project (which extends 100 feet inland from and parallel to the Bay), and detailed the Commission permits required for construction activities within its jurisdiction that the applicant will be required to obtain. In addition, BCDC acknowledges that it has been working closely with the applicant and City to amend the existing BCDC permit. Overall, its main concern is that the homes would be located too close to the existing public access areas required by the existing BCDC permit, and that it could make the public access areas feel private. It also requested clarification on how the City of Alameda will ensure that the parks and view corridors will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. Staff has included a condition of approval that states while the parks will be maintained by the HOA, they will be dedicated to the City of Alameda as public access. The applicant has been working with BCDC since the receipt of this letter to outline specific improvement to the public access area, and address some of their concerns about the interaction between the public and private areas. BCDC has received updated landscaping and site plans for the project, and continues to provide input on the site design. V. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing, and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council: • Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS05 -0003 and Mitigation Monitoring Program; ■ Approve General Plan Amendment GP05 -002; • Adopt an Ordinance approving Rezoning R5 -0004; • Approve Tentative Map TM05 -0002; ■ Adopt an Ordinance approving the Grand Marina Master Plan MP05 -01, and • Approve Planned Development and Design Review PD05 -02 based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the draft resolutions. G:\ PLANNING \PB \Reports\2006 \10 -09 -06 \Grand Marina Staff Report September 28.doc Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 14 WARMINGTON HOMES CALIFORNIA November 6, 2006 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Council Members Tony Daysog, Doug deHaan, Marie Gilmore, and Frank Matarrese 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 On October 23, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Grand Marina Village project. Following is a description of supplemental conditions voted on separately by the Planning Board and our requested disposition of each of the conditions. The Planning Board conditions are repeated below, underlined, for clarity. Planning Board Condition #1 (Concrete Path): To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront. We want to appeal this condition. We believe it is more consistent to keep the remaining asphalt path where it abuts the Alaska Packers building. The asphalt path is currently in good condition so replacement is unnecessary. Planning Board Condition #2 (Third Stories): The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories. The City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines doesn't apply to PD developments. These regulations pertain to infill lots. (See Section IV — New Construction, Paragraph 1, on page 49.) The direction the Planning Board gave was to tuck the third floors under the roofs coming up from the second floor plates. Their suggested design had been considered and reviewed early in our design process, prior to receiving the actual comment from the Board. However, we determined then, as we do now, that the current design is better architecturally. We feel strongly that the current design of the "pop -up" third floors is better architecturally in this project for the following reasons: Attachment 2 Agenda Item #5 -A 11-14-06 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 450 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • Tel (925) 866 -6700 • Fax (925) 866 -6744 November 6, 2006 Page 2 A. The third floors would have to be located in the middle of the plan, from side to side, instead of over a rear corner. This would cause a gable from across the entire width of both plans (regardless of elevation style) instead of the combinations of the hips and gables we currently have designed, reducing the variety of roof types viewed from all four sides. The result would be to actually increase, not decrease, the "tunnel effect' between homes the Planning Board was concerned about. B. The pitch of the second floor roofs would have to increase so the third floors could "tuck under" the roofs coming up from the second floor plate, resulting in a higher, wider ridge than currently designed. C. Currently, if a neighbor's home is a plan 2 or 3, the homeowner's useable side yard looks up to 50% two -story wall and 50% three -story wall located on the back half of the neighbor's unit. If we implement the change the Planning Board suggests, the homeowner will be looking up at a large intrusive gable end that starts at two stories at the front and rear of each plan and sloped up to a ridge in the middle making a huge, uninterrupted gable end, taller in the middle than the wall faced under the current design. Planning Board Condition #3 (Paseo Extension): The site plan shall be modified to extend the paseo (public pedestrian path) from Grand Street to the northern most triangle park. We want to appeal this condition, and staff does not support this plan change. The requested change (1) does not add value to the plan as it reduces the park area we are adding to the BCDC Public Access areas; (2) does not create a view corridor but rather reduces views at the center of the BCDC park area and reduces the northwest viewscape looking down Hibbard Street; (3) creates a tunnel effect that would most likely create a policing issue for the homeowners; and (4) BCDC would not approve of the reduction in park space adjacent to the BCDC Public Access Trail and would not approve of the reduction in the viewscape down Hibbard. This would, therefore, require the project to lose units. A drawing of the site with the requested change is included in the staff report. There are two main arguments against this paseo extension that are demonstrated by this drawing: A. The extra paseo extension is unnecessary and creates no design benefit. The current plan already has fantastic pedestrian access. The resulting adverse impacts to the homeowners and general public are not worth the minor benefit of adding the narrow, 10- foot -wide paseo connection across Hibbard Street. B. Losing units is extremely problematic. It will jeopardize the financial feasibility of the project. A 38 -unit project must provide 10 affordable units. Therefore, the two units that are lost are Market Rate Units. The project will not be economically feasible with this change as 28 market units cannot carry 10 affordable units. November 6, 2006 Page 3 Planning Board Condition #4 (Affordable Housing): The distribution of the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be three -story units. We want to appeal this condition. Our current design meets the requirements for the reasonable distribution of BMR units within the project area. This request is beyond the requirements of the City Ordinance. Further to this, any pedestrian at street level would have a difficult time even noticing the third story on the market rate units since the third story is set back from the lower floors. Sincerely, Warmington Homes California David Day Project Manager Attachment 3: Alternative Site Plan with Extended Paseo 1:rcrg PASr.o ExitNsIo '7/7,71Z DECREASE IN PUA IC OPEN SPACE (670±SF) Attachment 3 Agenda Item #5 -A 11 -14-06 6.` .4 of AL 444,0 C200 Affordable Housing Requirement PLANNING &BUILDING For Residential Development In the City of Alameda What is the Affordable Housing Requirement in the City of Alameda? The City of Alameda requires that at least 15 percent of all new residential units outside of redevelopment areas be made affordable to low and moderate income households. In redevelopment areas, at least 25 percent of all new residential units must be made affordable to low and moderate income households. These units are called "Inclusionary Units." Inclusionary Units must remain affordable for at least 59 years. The City has further requirements about how many Inclusionary Units must be made affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. These requirements vary by area of the City. See the attached map or ask Planning staff to help you determine which requirement applies to your project. The attached chart outlines the very low, low and moderate income requirements by area. Is my project subject to this requirement? Within redevelopment areas, projects that create three or more new units are subject to this requirement. Outside of redevelopment areas, projects that create five or more new units are subject to this requirement. Exemptions apply for the reconstruction of units that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, provided that the reconstruction takes place within three years of the date the units were destroyed. What is the process to meet this requirement? As part of your project's initial Planning Application, you must submit an Affordable Housing Plan. Pending staff comments and revisions, the Plan will be sent to the Planning Board and /or Community Improvement Commission for consideration as part of the overall project approval. Please use the following worksheet as the first page of the Plan, and attach the narrative and site map as explained on the worksheet. Are there any alternatives to meet this requirement? Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site, if the Planning Board can make a finding that affordable housing purposes are better served through off -site construction. Inclusionary Units must be constructed and occupied concurrently with market rate units. Details about a proposed off -site project should be provided as part of the Affordable Housing Plan. For developments of nine or fewer units, you have the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing the Inclusionary Units as part of the residential development. The current fee is available from the Planning and Building Department and is adjusted annually. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Attachment 4 Agenda Item #5 -A 11 -14-06 What are the guidelines to follow in developing my Affordable Housing Plan? The following guidelines were adopted by the City of Alameda on June 1, 2004: • Inclusionary Units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the residential development unless concentration of units furthers some affordable housing purpose. • Inclusionary Units shall be comparable in overall number of bedrooms, proportion of units in each bedroom category, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same residential development. • Inclusionary Units and associated lot improvements shall blend with the market rate units, so it is not readily apparent from the exterior which are the Inclusionary Units and which are market rate. • The City encourages developers to offer market rate products that are equivalent to any inclusionary product. • Interior features and finishes in Inclusionary Units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. • The City encourages developers to make Inclusionary Units accessible to or adaptable for persons with physical limitations of all types. • The City encourages developers to use a lottery to select buyers for the Inclusionary Units. If a different selection process is proposed, this process shall be described in the Affordable Housing Plan. It is the responsibility of the City of Alameda to ensure compliance with these Inclusionary Housing requirements. Please use the attached Affordable Housing Plan worksheet to develop your Plaii, which you should submit to the Planning and Building Department with your Planning Application. If you have questions or need additional information, please call the Planning and Building Department at (510) 747 -6850. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \PLANNING \CC \REPORTS \2006 \GRAND MARINA ATTACHMENT 3.DOC G: HOUSING \INCLUSIO \Requirement Handout05.pdf F: Housing \Citywide Inclusionary Housing F: Redevelopment Housing \25% Inclusionary CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY 1017 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE ALAMEDA, CA 94501 November 6, 2006 Mayor and Councilmembers City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA. 94501 Subject: Grand Marina Village Project—Building Designs Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The designs of the proposed buildings are generally very attractive with the exception of the third floor "pop -ups" on the three story models, which the Planning Board has asked be revised so that the third floor is better integrated into the overall building mass. I understand that a revised version of the three story designs responding to the Planning Board comments will be submitted to the City Council. To maintain the high design quality, I recommend that the following provisions be incorporated into the plans. (Note: The following comments are based on the design package considered by the Planning Board at its October 23, 2006 meeting and do not reflect any changes that might have been incorporated into the materials submitted to the City Council.) 1. Windows (a) Do not use horizontal sliding windows. Sheet A -8 has an illustration in the upper right corner that appears to show a horizontal sliding window. Horizontal sliding windows should not be used. This type of window is awkwardly asymmetrical (one side recessed further back than the other) and not consistent with traditional architecture being proposed nor with the project's intended architectural quality. (b) Use muntins or grids that project at least 3/8" from the exterior surface of the glass. This is a provision in the City's Guide to Residential Design that applies to "historic" buildings, such as those which the project is trying to emulate. The plan sheets, however, propose "Milgard Style Line Vinyl Windows ", which have grids sandwiched between the double glazing. Sandwiched grids lack adequate relief and are not consistent with the traditional architecture being proposed, nor with the design quality of the buildings. Vinyl and vinyl clad windows are available from various manufacturers that have exterior rather than sandwiched grids. Exterior grids were used 1 Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 11 -14 -06 on the Bayport project, some of which was built by Warmington Homes, the Grand Marina Village developer. The quality of design used at Bayport should set the standard for future "production" type housing in Alameda. 2. Incomplete architectural drawings. The plans that were submitted to the Planning Board were not complete. They were missing side elevations for House Plans 1A, 2A and 3B. These elevations should be included in the final Design Review submittal. 3. Architectural details. The final Design Review submittal should include the following architectural details to verify that the building designs will maintain the high quality implied by the conceptual submittals now being reviewed: (a) Vertical and, where appropriate, horizontal section details (minimum scale: 1" = 1') through eaves, windows, doors, railings, columns, and moldings. (b) Elevation details (minimum scale: 1" = 1') for railings, brackets and similar elements. (c) Door and window schedules. (d) Types of wall and roof surface materials to be used, including manufacturer and product name or number, where applicable. 4. Elevation treatments along Grand Street. Since Grand Street is _a major Alameda thoroughfare, the Grand Street elevations of the proposed buildings should have fully developed architectural treatments. As proposed, side rather than front elevations will be facing Grand Street. It would be preferable for at least some front elevations to face Grand Street. At a minimum, the side elevations should be more fully developed than shown on the submitted plans. If the City Council agrees with the above comments, please direct staff to incorporate the comments into the conditions of approval. I also request staff to notify me and other interested members of the public of the final Design Review submittal and to provide an opportunity to review and comment on that submittal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at (510) 523 -0411 or cbuckley @alamedanet.net if you would like to discuss these comments. Christophe uckley 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GRAND MARINA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GRAND STREET AND FORTMANN WAY (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2006 -04 -2145) WHEREAS, an application was made on November 22, 2005 by Warmington Homes California requesting a Tentative Map (TM05 -02), Initial Study (IS05 -03), General Plan Amendment (GP05 -02), Rezoning (R05 -04), Major Design Review (DR05- 0126), and Master Plan (MP05 -01) for a proposed development consisting of 40 detached residential units plus two mini -park sites, associated streets and alleys, visitor parking, and open space at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way; and WHEREAS, the project requires a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, a Master Plan, a Tentative Map, and Development Plan approval for improvement of the Project site; and WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review in April 2006; and WHEREAS, upon independent review and analysis, the Planning Board unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the City Council make the necessary findings for approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the required City approvals, the City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and considered the information contained therein and the written and oral comments received at the Public Hearings. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby adopts the following Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Grand Marina Project and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (Exhibit A), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of California history because a) the site is an established industrial facility that is covered with a combination of pavement, concrete and structures; b) non biological, archaeological, or historic resources have been Resolution #5 -A(1) 11 -14 -06 identified on the site: c) the project does not result in any significant unavoidable adverse impacts; and d) implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on undetected archaeological resources or the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts. 2. The project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects, because the project will a) promote long -term goals of the General Plan for environmental enhancement and public shoreline access; b) not result in any significant unavoidable adverse impacts; and will c) incorporate mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse impacts on the environment in the context of continued growth and development along Alameda's northern waterfront. In particular, project would have a less -than- significant cumulative traffic impact on anticipated traffic congestion in western Alameda and at intersections in Oakland associated with the interconnection between the Webster -Posey Tubes and Interstate 880. 3. The project does not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly because the project does not affect existing residential settlement and the proposed land use is consistent with and compatible with the surroundings because the project a) represents all intended changes to the site and is not part of a larger actions; and b) will incorporate both project- specific mitigation measures and participation of area -wide mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts within the context of continued growth and development in Alameda. 4. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the mitigation measures into the project as identified in the Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A). The mitigations would either avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as shown in Exhibit B to this resolution. GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM f v. 0 .0 0 v cn v N a .N '8 .0 . N N v o N RI .d a at u N o -5 v 'tl b a o - a -o ca N ct r • b.0.4., fd a ci.y V7 ..8 .d . N b b. al) N u u 0 � ill -o cd ..0 0 v b0 '0 .d .• 75 . , v. � ,411' iy ti •..0 N ti w NU 0 ,1] 0 v ii o N w cd ro H G a0 bb o ii.i 20 0 C v 5 o 0. .0 li as ..0 O 2 a E 0 ro 0 Public Works Issuance of Prior to Issuance of Demolition VI 4 a v o 4. v o „ � V;� ; . Cr GL ° w to + al cv o o a o ° �V „ a in co" ai v .N. N cad P. 0, 0 v v 0 07- 0 -0 a -0 cn O M v.a ° c-d cd a v v N 0 N Cl.) 0 .b .0 . N .� a 11 'U 0 ^. aH� �° -- 0 u 0 a co 0 M • w q° O a M V 7 0 }j v •U +-� 'IJ a 0 p 84 01).1 cd 0 Pm RI a 0 • ho N h . T. 2 EA, bAn O N 10 C ° N 4 0 0 U w cd Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. soil, sand or other 0) 'b a) w 'J 0 p 0 0 .0 0 0 N y U O O ct • d 0 Cd 0 .a u CU 411 o ° 0) N Y N cd 4 cd N (y o 1 • o • • • GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM U 41 4E1 U ca Q u Prior to Issuance of Demolition N a) U p U n b 7 0) u 'N A. • fl- (00) 0., 0 y aj 3 " B a cd N u H 00 cd cd 6.0 iIH .7 rya v u N CV Cd +u. b u b.0 ) 4 C y b tj 4, w w a, Cd C./.) o (/) o) • q u -d -d - 6.0 a) O 0 ..0 p '5 o ,p .� 4 ,0 i 0 bA 0 0 0 o0 U w° a b . . _ 0 u u au y o '++ cV , � �) ,p CD ° ° ,qr 00 A u u ' c2 A. w a w w .--) 0 00 N u 0. y u �4. Ou i-N ' y a, ba �• � "Po . N , a a) u u 5 � •-d f, '.. p O 04 u to 0 u a Q'q (y , N O N 1 bA u 0 p N M y ' u 49 4 "d fiFO La. , o a.) O u n. U bA 1N-1 G. o c 03 G a o • bA ct m -0 .8 bA Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. • 0 0 0 Issuance of Certificate 0 a. 0 U a. a Prior to Issuance 0 0 aJ Q w 0 o 4' u a). 0 N w U • o P-, al O 1:10 0 O 0 0) V 0 U �7 7 •0 E , N N U b C cd y 0 d O w 'u W p O u co 0 O 'b �n u tl M 'b u u - a o ( o 'a ru P. .1- elk « o .0 ts. o GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Hi biL 0 di 0 0:, 04 a 0 bi) vi v v 'CC 4J U (0 d w v + • U I U To G N • i N v 0 O , O O 4 v • G W C (d • U C 0 U U o u • 4.4 (6) Y • N 4 -C : o ('d C y t d � L . . vin ay. vwBu o O -0 G . a • O q • � N C ( -d QJ CI) U 0 4 y U v v -8 O b -b GG • -o v O u bv • 0 '°. C fi N (d TOW v „El -C /v Q H • N M ao v ✓ ▪ o • 0 N • 4 8 • o U •� o g b.0 • ii Av 0 O o .o O Ti, • t ▪ 4-. bA 'b r2 0 O " • y co O O . v O -8 • as u -d y A . 4 ( :e. i O .V U v ✓ 0 aa)i 44 0) -d v • ') a • N co b0 0 0 0 ▪ w • v a▪ r7 w d 0 cr U v CU v v 0) z If the coroner dete • • c GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SR o o , Prior to the Issuance of -G a v ao 0 u 0 u a) U M a • b, I 'b b a) CU o p p 6° N o � v o o. oY 0 o , 0 ,..0 '6' y '10 y U v5�� am' -u o 0 r C C n .6.0 a.) 0 'd v `) y co a) a) • ry �+� 'd O o O. U d en u 0 a) •� •.0 U 0 Q S a oo d n � N ', N vi. ,s C M "C b O °to .--., � 0 It . N N U U \ w 0 y N v U U N .1 b o y o y w a) y on °n u j w .4y o ,A ro d • V) 1 a 2 Hayward fault is located wi California Building Code. w 0 .0 ter+ .a 0 0 0 ca a) •.o 0 0.) bp .d 0 pa ca U 0 ai N cd b 04 a) U go pa b b a a • -d u ,:V: U GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LND MARINA PROJECT ITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM \ / \ « m ) :\ 2 \ CI 2< o \2' ° y \ � \ � \ IVlamtonng • Responsibility ; : § o 7 0 Q � o 1) » ~ 2 g . J '42 G i r 7 /\ q m b City Building Division Monitoring Action \ % § g © § £ § &G §Q 0 « \ m a % ] .-¢ / \ « Approval of Grading Permit Implementation Responsibility \ \ 2 k w / The Applicant Timing/ Schedule ) \ \ 2 S \ \ 0 o�0 a 2 « a d » 0 / / /0 Mitigation measure (4) A Building Permit will be obtained from the City of Alameda and final building design shall include a review of the project by a Registered Civil Engineer as designated by the Building Department. Mitigation Measure 3.6.1b: Earthquake Hazards Information Document. Prior to marketing units for sale or lease, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information document. This document shall be made available to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housinv units_ The rinerment cha11 decrrihe the nntential fr,r Mitigation Measure 3.6.2a: Ground Improvement to minimize the potential for Liquefaction. Preliminary recommendations by Lowney Associates propose the use of mitigation measures such as Stone Columns or Soil Mixing to provide ground improvement to minimize the potential . for soil liquefaction. The applicant shall provide a design level Geoterhnical Investigation to provide the required information to develop a Ground Improvement Plan. The plan shall identify the location, horizontal and vertical extent of soil improvement, the specific type of ground improvement to be utilised, and performance criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the ground improvement. The Ground Improvement Plan shall be implemented under the direction of a State of California licensed Geotechnical Engineer. Mitigation Measure 3.6.2b: Site Plan and Grading Plan Review. The Final Site Plan and Grading Plan shall be developed for the site and shall be reviewed by the Planning and Building Department. The Final Site Plan GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM GRAND MARINA PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM \ � ¢ . 2 . . \\\ Date Completed Monitoring Responsibility \ ) E 2 \ c \ ) G 2 / § \ ) A ) 0 / ,„4 A Monitoring Action « f \ ƒ / \ o § \ J ® / ƒ 2 4 § ,, ,, o./ 0 Approval of Grading Permit « d / w 0 § 7 3 ° \ a Implementation Responsibility ) Q. The Applicant '6 L a \ Timing/ Schedule ) 4 \6 .G 0 ƒ \ § \ G \ ƒ«)5 - G \ Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Mitigation Measure and Grading Plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer, including provisions of the Ground Improvement Plan, shall be included in the Site Plan and Grading Plan as necessary to insure completion of the required ground improvement. gravel entrance roads and other measures to control erosion and the movement of sediment. A temporary stormwater collection system shall be utilized Mitigation Measure 3.6.3b: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. Mitigation Measure 3.6.4a: Surcharging of site soils to reduce long- term consolidation settlement. A Surcharge Plan shall be prepared by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and would be implemented at the site in order to reduce the magnitude of long -term consolidation settlement to acceptable levels. The Surcharge Plan would include identification of the thickness of the surcharge fill to be placed on the site, the locations and number of wick drains to be installed, a plan for disposal of the groundwater removed during the surcharge including permitting GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM GRAND MARINA PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM «a \ v. . Date Completed Monitoring Responsibility Approval of Grading City Building Permit Division \ ) u 2 f / / ir ') k ) / ] k / % •) k Monitoring Action Implementation Responsibility The Applicant \ / \ \ Timing / Schedule Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits S / d \ 2 m % / % ) G 2 ;. / 2 \ A 4-1 / o Mitigation Measure requirements with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other agencies, and performance standards for evaluating the effectiveness of the surcharging on soil settlement. Mitigation Measure 3.6.4b: Grading Plan and Permit Approval. A Grading Plan shall be prepared for the site Surcharge Plan and submitted to the City for review. A Grading Permit shall be obtained from the City of Alameda Central Permit Office. Mitigation Measure 3.6.4c: Design Level Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Design by Structural Engineer. A design level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed and would provide final foundation recommendations. Recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer shall be incorporated into foundation structural design and a licensed Structural Engineer shall complete the structural design. - - - - i -- - - r- I .- recommended by Lowney Associates in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Bay Mud exposed or encountered during the grading work shall be segregated for disposal and is not suitable for use as engineered fill. Preliminary foundation recommendations by Lowney Associates indicate that Mat Foundations consisting of conventionally reinforced or post - tensioned mat concrete slabs bearing on compacted fill soil will be used. GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM oa ( 0:. 0:: 0 0 Q' cd N O CU 0 O 0 d LP o o U cd cu 04 0 'd 0 O ao q ct p Cu H w 0 N V +4(2) w U w N � u ° .5 0 0 5 0) N • u C7 U g• Ch' 0 0 a) L4 U GL Prior to Issuance wbb.0 0 o U 0 u 34 rg 0 W H Separate disposal from residential facilities. N ▪ 0) ,n ▪ al as ate+ bO aka O 0 a N • 0) 0 b ca cd N a) O W 0 0) 0 Access restrictions or exclusion M 0) b N U fd N a, U u (0 • W rT a 0 L4-4 b O y 0 0 � •0 u 0 Es O UO Q .a W GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0 is • 0 a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: u 'O O O v y 0 IN U G 0 .5 o 4, V H -.N a a, w ao ca o 4-1 o }, Cd a✓ 0 0 Up f24 0 a.) m q p v o 0 •.,, o 4 u o - b 0 u O O 0 g 44 Q.5 u H 0 U shall include (/D v7 Industrial Hygienist. '.8 .� aC vai a'i"J .8 00 cd �c O 'D k" v, 0 0 a) Y .a N N V d 0 '� aa) 0 N ) 0 C v cn .q 8 ° " a vi U O G " i O u py O a u v b v b71 '73 cr .5 o v 0 .5 0 a) 1, u .g u q sui cc o1 P� w N N ^O U c t q cd o cv !i7 O w V ti 1, A aui ) u +u v� O o V 6.0 •0 a° 0 fl t � b 0 c � Q 0 0 O.. 0 0 h u b p �B � 0 as 0 Q 0 o l 1w u o 0 Py �° ca v o ° u P4 a ,-"7,-i CF-. Y b 0 excavated soils 0 0 w W .472 0 WA a U cUd 1 reuse or GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Issuance of ca ca 0 a a) Prior to Issuance of Demolition a) a Prior to Issuance of Demolition licensed landfill facility. v o 0 a. 0 5 v b o 0 G ° 0 cn '0• • 'd 0 • y A. 0 •� G a) U w O ,.o b V 'd 0 e 0 o t' 8 b G b ru o U o 0 ypp 0" N w a w A. vr a) N ca a N a) o d to o U y ca o, c �a� ° U x a co 0 '� o ° v d .a 0 N (d a e N M Q1 4 Z-; o. � rt �T. 0 V 0 N .V -4 a. ° q 'O a) aai O +[�Nj1 y a 5. p, 0 02 cd ' 'I7 0 "-J x ° u. a, -d o ..d .0 W $ "CI ao .) 0) • a) 0 a � o o CO .n 0 A ri a cl ° v a, v ,b a 0 0° Q • OD `4 uQ " � p • a a N v ./ 0 o w y ° 0 0 x CO 0b'a:0 Ttl aO a) •-• N v G •d � 0 v cd A d o a) 0, N a . '� .0 °' v ,1D y., c - .0 E a ' W e° 6+0 y h . 4 a o ••. a w 0,v. El o 0 N cd 'd a Specific mitigation measures would be addressed in the plan, which at a GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0 W pp" .-, b :'O N N �, 6.0 • 5 'd Lam' ca n G, ° y Ni C �N 'J N 'n ti U U - 1 a 'C O � N � °'� y a 7cii '5 b w O U b d 'y N p T O N a u ' cti +-• c) '" v V) m k qi :o 1 '.0 Ct co Y N cv a i a.) 04 8-' U' O ( N ,A u N a+ 0 5 �' b o `y ° ° 0.1 ca 0 d A. a; a4 . 0 .ti ''••' " Pa W b 0 °' ai °' +' a 0 N N ' F � ++ 'O CI X m.W 'd b . o v 'o b a a �1 a 40 � u p a a) v o o cl aCa, cz ,• En b 0 a) o B 0 P. p 0 b.0 a b 0 ln N N a O r-. b A o N 0 +' w C u o ° Q o p u P a a p I U q.) , o r a d D w O y p o . v i P c0 0 424 v as u a a . u U ° o a 1 u o as o g ` °° ° ° : 4 ' -� w w a° Z G 1 • GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0 • 0 0'' po U °' 0 ets pA Prior to Issuance 0 0 a) 64 0 Prior to Issuance a CIO d 0 w � 0 o o' 0 o g 0 ro v O . y �" C w a ct PI 'F) W N .n 0 � o41 x w CI X 0 D U QS ,.2. . w O � u O 0 0a.o , ° ol � ' '� '° a •+ w ca O u 'b .-'u4 P u El w 0 u x I.1 Cd M i ct , N � pa 'O 0 "Cl ' cc N ri 4 9 u :� o co 01'1 N °) b 0 aC) -0 0 '0 o �`0� ° a O g 'b 0 0 .- . 0 O t' 'V r OA .k 4 u 0, 0 . ') a P. a v C o a) M •� •V P-1 0 C7 0 0 0 U o0; o 0 0 0 0 0 'p ,, ad rg U C o 0 a) ca N co • .y, u a) 4 rO '0 N -0 Z a) k a) b b � a 0 o O 1:1 ca ^El cd O ... Lo u0 u O 'CV 15 0 ° W 0 C u • Tj a) C 00 4) o u o a"j 'c2 0 •0 0 '0 0-. ems-. U o -El M bA O o V a Y 'o cn ° ,d u = C A. ° ccd u 0 u • % 0 0 .4. � aC1 AF s GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CI no • have the authority to remedy complaints. N N � u .�] N • •' 0 a U e .n ., t 7 a C N h C N ,, d ° N W N o 0 0 -d �O u ° ai 4a ° O ca c..., 4-- O 0 N ,s a a -d a r CO y u p � C ° ai P. u N o a, a w „ u U v N i. u"0 -d.' u � 0 '3,h) u � •� c' 4-, A d u CC ' J v O .n CU EZ N N m N o o . V d a1 V xi O o cl cu -2 cn b O + N W y ° N C p c , v b 4-4 ,, .d w u „ ,n oO N U N .O v O ,. ' ~y O-, O � O a� ro al 7 a OJ • o 01 . . u, . u p ,, a o .a a 0 o 0 0.. a• u N uZ a. n O u u W a .fi v in v., 5 U LL CU u �-dxw u c C -0 a) & ca � u 5, O ca r cg P. , ° °' o P. u ca 0 "0 ro aa 2 ca - . XI v o 0) a 5 +, a4 v y N J-, li L, a 0u w ca 4 U ml •� U 0) 4-( 0 U DI a.0 - P u ° A. a ca O U P. ° c0 w Kl ✓, o. -. t ” u ° p ..o PP., v .5 u g 78 '5 NN y cl t4 CN ° ++ 4-1 L0 FF'01 o d, a., -d A a - !-i o q A ai ri + 4., CO '-1-1 o CU M U �y y U O N + U .p O ca , O a a co 4 '-' a) +, r: a) O a . -d N U w 1 P. w o U g-' w° .E o 4 GRAND MARINA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM �. 0 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 , 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 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA- 05 -02) FOR GRAND MARINA VILLAGE TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.3 ACRES TO SPECIFIED MIXED USE AND AMEND SECTIONS 2.2, 2.3. AND 2.6 AND ASSOCIATED TABLES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REFLECT THE SPECIFIED MIXED USE DESIGNATION WHEREAS, The Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment ( NWGPA) was prepared by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee to outline a vision for the Northern Waterfront planning area; and WHEREAS, the Draft NWGPA represents the "roadmap" for conversion of the Northern Waterfront planning area to a new and vibrant district with a variety of uses that are compatible with the waterfront location and adjacent neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment for Grand Marina Village (GPA- 05 -02) is designed to implement the community's vision for the reuse of the Grand Marina site as articulated in the Draft NWGPA; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has been under review by the public, neighboring jurisdictions, and regional agencies since April 2006; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment is required to enable residential development at the Grand Marina site, as called for in the Draft NWGPA, while maintaining the existing recreational marina, maritime commercial, and open space uses on the site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.; "CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.), the City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment for Grand Marina; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on October 23, 2006 to consider the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed General Plan Amendment for Grand Marina; and Resolution #5 -A(2) 11 -14 -06 WHEREAS, on October 23, 2006 after careful consideration, the Planning Board unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP): and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following finding: 1. The City Council has been advised that subject to meeting City standards and requirements, the proposed General Plan Amendment would substantially conform to the adopted Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP), as proposed to be amended, and the General Plan policies incorporated by reference within the CIP; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to the General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are part of a comprehensive planning process that began in 2000 when the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee began work on the Draft NWGPA. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies and provisions of the remaining elements of the General Plan. 3. The land use classifications, guiding policies, and implementing policies included in the proposed General Plan amendment are appropriate for the City of Alameda and will contribute to an attainment of community goals for redevelopment of the Grand Marina site. 4. The adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will facilitate housing for a variety of income groups and development of public open space and recreational facilities for all members of the community. 5. The proposed General Plan text, and diagram amendments will have acceptable effects on the general welfare of the community because they will facilitate development of an underutilized site with a mixed use development that includes residential and related uses. 6. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are necessary to enable the appropriate development and maintenance of property in the City because they will facilitate development of a currently underutilized site. 7. The proposed General Plan text, and diagram amendments are in the public interest, as they would redevelopment of the site with a more appropriate mix of uses consistent with the nearby development. 8. The Project will provide substantial public amenities, including public open space and affordable housing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves General Plan Amendment (GPA- 05 -02) as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this resolution. EXHIBIT A Exhibit B: Section 2.2 of Land Use Element. Revised specified Mixed Use section to change the number of Specified Mixed Use areas from "Eight" to "Nine" and add "MU -6: Northern Waterfront Grand Marina" to list of Specified Mixed Use Districts. Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -1 to include: "MU -6 Grand Marina Specified Mixed Use Area: Residential, Office, Commercial: 40 residential units, 50,000 Maritime Commercial and Industrial, and 400 berths." Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -3 "Summary of Assumed Development Increment Table: Residential Properties 1990- 2010" to maintain consistency with Table 2 -1. Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -5 "Summary of Assumed Development Increment Table" to maintain consistency with Table 2 -1. Section 2.6 Specified Mixed Use Areas of the Land Use Element. Add description of MU-6: MU -6 Northern Waterfront Grand Marina This area of the Northern Waterfront provides an opportunity to create a lively waterfront, mixed -use district with residential, commercial, office, maritime, park, and open space uses that reflect traditional Alameda neighborhoods and reconnect Alameda to its waterfront. G: \PLANNING \PB \Resolutions \2006 \09 -25 -06 \Grand Marina GPA Resolution.DOC 5 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 , 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 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No. New Series RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE OAKLAND ESTUARY AND GRAND STREET FROM M -2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT TO MX, MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MX). BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereby amended by reclassifying approximately 8.36 acres from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed Use Planned Development, being all the real property situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south and east of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, west of Grand Street and north of Fortmann Way and Marina Cove Park, as shown on Exhibit "A ". Section 2. The above amendment shall be known as and reference to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No.201 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. 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. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Introduction of Ordinance #5 -A(1) 11 -14 -06 Exhibit A: 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 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No. New Series APPROVING MASTER PLAN MP05 -01 FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL MARINA, MARITIME COMMERCIAL, AND OPEN SPACE USES, LOCATED WITHIN A PROJECT AREA ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRES OF LAND AND WATER AT THE INTERSECTION OF GRAND STREET AND THE OAKLAND ESTUARY 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 MP05 -01, as amended by the conditions in Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted for all the real property within the 8.36 acre site situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south of the Oakland - Alameda Estuary, west of Grand Street and north of Fortmann Way and Marina Cove Park. Section 2. The above Master Plan MP -05 -01 shall be known as and referenced to as Grand Marina Project Master Plan dated July 17, 2006, 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 signature of the development Agreement. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council * * * Introduction of Ordinance #5 -A(2) 11 -14 -06 EXHIBIT "A" GRAND MARINA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS EFFECTIVE DATE 1. The Master Plan approval shall not be in force and effect unless and until the City Council approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the General Plan Amendment (GP 05 -02), and the Zoning Map amendments (R05 -04), and they are in effect. APPROVED PLANS 2. The Project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the document titled Grand Marina Project Master Plan, prepared by Warmington Homes California, dated September 15, 2006 on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, except as modified by the Master Plan conditions approved herein. VESTING 3. These conditions run with the land and shall apply to the life of the Project, except as satisfied pursuant to their express terms. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to MP 05 -01, except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Master Plan approval. 5. The applicant shall submit applications and plans for a subdivision map for consideration and approval by the City in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of any building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit applications and plans for a Development Plan for each building phase of the Project for consideration and approval by the City. Such Development Plans require Planning Board action and shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure that subsequent phases are designed to substantially conform with the Master Plan approval and the conditions of this Master Plan and otherwise meet the requirements of Sections 30 -4.20, 30 -35 and 30 -36 of the Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in the applicable Development Agreement. The Development Plan process shall provide for review of detailed site plans, building and landscape treatments as well as compliance with the Master Plan conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), as applicable. The Development Plan shall approve the overall concept for site layout, building design and landscaping. Each building site or combination of sites shall be subject to Design Review. The Design Review process provides for review of architectural design and building facades, building materials, colors, etc. 7. Specific infrastructure improvements and construction conditions shall be established through either a Development Plan or a Tentative Map for each development phase in accordance with City standards or other agencies responsible for the provision of 1 infrastructure. All water, gas, electrical and telephone lines shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Alameda Power and Telecom and other utility companies and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in accordance with the applicable Development Agreement. All utilities during the construction of each development phase shall be underground, to the extent feasible, unless trunk lines are allowed to remain above ground by the City Engineer. Poles and lights, and utility boxes shall not block pedestrian access. Whenever possible utility boxes shall be screened from view with landscaping. When the Development Plans are finalized, the applicant shall contact the East Bay Municipal Utility District New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions of providing water service to the Project and shall follow the East Bay Municipal Utility Requirements. 8. Building design shall be subject to Design Review, requiring approval of Major Design Review DR05 -0126 as part of the project. The Design Review process shall provide for review of architectural design and building facades, building materials, colors, etc. FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 9. The applicant and all contractors shall adhere to the standard conditions required by Alameda Fire Department, as part of individual Development Plans. 10. The applicant shall provide a "grass paver" emergency vehicle access (EVA) easement running north from Fortmann Way through the 0.19 acre triangular park so as to facilitate Fire Department access to the alley between lots 33 -36 and 37 -40. The EVA shall include a 28' inside turning radius. 11. The applicant shall post "No Parking" signs in all alleys within the residential subdivision. 12. The applicant shall provide sprinklers in all living spaces, attics, and garages of the residential units. SCHOOLS 13. The applicant shall pay a per - square -foot impact fee for residential development to the Alameda Unified School District prior to issuance of individual building permits. PUBLIC ART 14. The applicant shall comply with AMC Subsection 30 -65, the Public Art Ordinance. PROJECT AREA REQUIREMENTS. 15. The applicant shall provide at least twenty -five (25) percent of the total number of housing . units for affordable housing, consistent with the inclusionary requirements of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area, and shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC). 2 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and the Community Improvement Commission shall enter into an agreement providing for: a. Provision of Affordable Housing within the project consistent with CIC Resolution No. 04 -127 establishing inclusionary housing policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects. b. Amendment to the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Plan to allow mixed use development. c. Payment of a fair share contribution to traffic signals required for Northern Waterfront build out, as required by the MMRP. d. Establishment of a Northern Waterfront Transportation Demand Management program funding strategy for the provision of water -based or land based shuttle services to Oakland from the Northern Waterfront area. The TDM funding plan shall be designed to over all properties within the Northern Waterfront area, including the Grand Marina site, the Del Monte site, the Encinal Terminal site, the Pennzoil site, and the City's corporation yard and animal shelter sites. REGIONAL PERMITS 17. The applicant (or City, as appropriate) shall obtain all required regional permits including but not limited to permits from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Site Management Plan as approved by the Alameda County Health Department, and the Bay Area Air Quality Control District, prior to conducting any construction activities over which such regional agency has permitting authority. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building or construction phase within the residential area, including for site grading or foundation, the applicant (or City, as appropriate) shall submit a copy of the required Notice of Intent for that building or construction phase which was sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. HOLD HARMLESS 19. The applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this project, which action is brought within the time period provide for in the Government Code. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 3 AMENDMENTS 20. Any amendments to this Master Plan shall be subject to the provisions established in the Master Plan. Major amendments to this Master Plan shall remain within the authority of the City Council. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the permittee shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval of the Master. Plan and must accept this Master Plan subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for the Master Plan, as approved herein to be exercised. MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE MAP AND MMRP COMPLIANCE 22. The Master Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Tentative Map City infrastructure design standards, as revised by the City Engineer; as well as the mitigations contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as amended, prepared for the Grand Marina Project. PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS 23. The applicant will study the feasibility or exposing the underlying wood planks and provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If upon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building Director that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe, or contrary to water quality standards, the Planning Director may approve an asphalt resurfacing plan. 24. To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront. 25. The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina parking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina -bound traffic. 26. The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to 7 feet to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterfront. 27. The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers should be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating. . 28. The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the, City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories. 29. The site plan shall be modified to extend the paseo (public pedestrian path) from Grand Street to the northern most triangle park. 4. 30. The distribution of the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be three story units. 5 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 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP, TM05 -0002, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN GRAND STREET, FORTMANN WAY, AND THE OAKLAND ESTUARY WHEREAS, an application was made on November 22, 2005 by Warmington Homes California requesting a Tentative Map, TM05 -002, for a proposed development consisting of 40 detached residential units plus two mini -park sites, associated streets and alleys, visitor parking, and open space on 4.72 acres at the northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental effects of the proposed subdivision have been evaluated and mitigations adopted to mitigate all potentially significant impacts of the subdivision on the environment; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the MX, Mixed Use Planned Development District and would implement the Master Plan project site; and WHEREAS, the medium density residential development and accompanying open space and improvements included within the proposal are consistent with the Specified Mix Use General Plan designation and the requirements of the MX, Mixed Use Planned Development District; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommended that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM05- 0002 with conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following finding: 1. The City Council has been advised that subject to meeting City standards and requirements, the proposed General Plan Amendment would substantially conform to the adopted Community Improvement Plans (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP), as proposed to be amended, and the General Plan policies incorporated by reference within the CIPs; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on November 14, 2006, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and Resolution #5 -A(3) 11 -14 -06 WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings: 1. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project of the Community Improvement Plan which specify medium density residential and public open space use for this site as part of a Specified Mixed Use designation. 2. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the land uses, street sections, development regulations, parking standards, and park and open space guidelines established in the Master Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed residential and open space project. All existing structures relating to the former use will be removed. The site will be graded to accommodate the proposal, and is located adjacent to existing infrastructure that has the capacity to accommodate the proposal. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The residential density is consistent with the density range established by the General Plan and the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project of the Community Improvement Plan and less than the maximum density of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of parcel area. 5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which evaluated the environmental impacts of the Project and the Master Plan, and which found that all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing the mitigation measures established in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6. The design of the subdivision or improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project would include public right -of -way that would enhance public access through the subject property, and all existing easements would be preserved or relocated. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The proposal is for residential and open space uses at the site. 8. The proposed and existing land uses are suitable in relationship to each other. 9. By complying with the Master Plan, the design of improvements on the land subject to the Tentative Map will be of high quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Map, TM- 05 -02, subject to the following conditions. GENERAL 1. The Tentative Map shall not be in force and effect unless and until the following have been approved by the City Council and are in effect: a) Grand Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) General Plan Amendment GPA 05 -02; c) Rezoning R05 -04; and d) Master Plan MP05 -01. 2. AU maps filed pursuant to this approval shall be in substantial compliance with the map titled, "Tentative Map Tract 7723, Grand Marina Village" prepared by CBG dated September 27, 2006, consisting of 3 pages, marked Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the Alameda City Planning and Building Department. 3. The Tentative Map shall comply with the Public Works Department general development standards contained in the Alameda Municipal Code, as well as those general standards described in this Resolution. Where the conditions do not specify, the applicable Alameda Municipal Code standards shall apply. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and periodically filing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to demonstrate compliance with all project mitigations. 5. The Applicant shall comply with the approved Project Master Plan, MP 05- 01, as approved by City Council Resolution. 6. The Applicant shall pay for and construct all improvements to private land and implement any condition /mitigation applicable to private land. 7. The Applicant shall pay for street lighting installation along the west side of Grand Street frontage as necessary to conform with AP &T street illumination levels and any lighting on the east side of Grand Street if the lighting is staggered. TENTATIVE & FINAL MAPS 8. The Final Map shall be in substantial compliance with the Tentative Map and shall incorporate Alameda Datum. 9. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, all applicable conditions of approval of the approved Tentative Map, as revised or amended, and Development Plan pertaining to subdivision improvements, shall be satisfied. HOLD HARMLESS 10. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Tentative Map, the procedures leading to its adoption, or the issuance of Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals) for the Project, Applicant and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action, to select its own counsel (and pay for such counsel at its own expense), and to control its participation and conduct in the litigation in all respects permitted by law. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Applicant shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Applicant and city shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. City retains the option to select and employ independent defense counsel at its own expense. It, in the exercise of its sole discretion, Applicant agrees to pay for defense counsel for City, Applicant shall jointly participate in the selection of such counsel. Notwithstanding the provisions of California Government Code Section 66474.9, City shall not require, as a condition for a Tentative Map application or approval, or any other applications for Project approvals, that Applicant defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul a City approval concerning a subdivision. MAINTENANCE 11. Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, the Applicant shall establish a funding mechanism acceptable to the Public Works Director, such as a Homeowners Association, to provide on -going funding for the maintenance of all private streets and utilities, alleys and Alaska Packer Place, including but not limited to sewers, storm drainage, NPDES requirements, sidewalk, lighting, curb and gutter and landscaping; curb and gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and landscaping along the north side of Fortmann Way and the west side of Grand Street; all improvements in the common areas including but not limited to landscaping, lighting and walkways; all parking Tots improvements; all BCDC required amenities along the shoreline; and the two new triangular parks. Site improvements and demolition may commence prior to the approval of the funding mechanism. SOILS REPORT 12. Prior to submission of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical soil and foundation studies, reports, and recommendations from a licensed geotechnical engineer addressing the underlying soils, future subsidence, consolidation, liquefaction, seismic safety, water table, marsh crust, salt water backflow, bank stabilization and erosion protection throughout the tract and perimeter lands, and foundations of structures. The improvement plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer and the engineer will be required to review and approve the plans to verify that all appropriate recommendations have been included in the plans. The reports shall be filed with the City Engineer, in conjunction with the Improvement Plans. The Applicant shall submit supplemental soils reports, as necessary, to clarify localized soil conditions and requirements for each phase of construction. The soils engineer will review and certify that all field work including, but not limited to, excavation, shoring and trenching meet the approved plans. Prior to submission of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit site assessment reports for hazardous materials, site soils and, if required by a third party regulatory agency, site ground water. The reports shall be prepared by a licensed professional in the applicable field of the analysis. The improvements plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the licensed professional and the professional will be required to review and approve the plans to verify that all appropriate recommendations have been included in the plans. In addition, the licensed professional shall review and certify that all field work meet the approved plans. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 13. Prior to the approval of the Final Map by City Council the Applicant shall submit engineered Improvement Plans including, but not limited to, the proposed streets, curbs, gutters, lighting, parking, BCDC amenities, signing and striping, erosion control measures, traffic control devices and improvements, driveway approach at the entrance to Alaska Packer Place, soil improvements, surface drainage, utilities, retaining walls and other structures, sanitary sewers and storm drains, common area landscaping and irrigation and other subdivision improvements consistent with the requirements and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Planning and Building Director. GRADING /DRAINAGE 14. Prior to the approval of the Final Map by City Council a detailed grading plan with appropriate erosion control measures shall be required for the subdivision. The grading plan shall show all adjacent properties sufficient to assure that the proposed grading does not impact adjacent lands and shall incorporate drainage features necessary to assure continued drainage from adjacent properties. The grading plan shall meet all Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. The grading plan shall minimize the need for off haul from the Project site. The grading plan shall incorporate all elements of the soils report. The grading plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, meet RWQCB requirements and shall address all drainage issues raised by the Storm Drain Analysis, including but not limited to issues identified for Drainage Area D and Drainage Area A as identified in the C.3 Storm Water Analysis Report. STORM DRAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS 15. The storm drain system shall be designed to meet the City of Alameda design standards. Since the project is tying into existing storm drainage facilities, calculations must be provided to conclude that the existing facilities have adequate capacity and sufficient slope to handle the increase flows resulting from the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. Project shall maintain all on -site sewers including those in private streets. 17. The sanitary sewer system shall be designed to meet the City of Alameda design standards. Since the project is tying into existing sewer facilities, calculations must be provided to conclude that the existing facilities have adequate capacity and sufficient slope to handle the increase flows resulting from the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Final lot plot grading plans shall be submitted and approved for each individual lot prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot. 18. Final lot drainage shall be designed to provide a minimum of one percent (1 %) slope after settlement if future settlement/consolidation is predicted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19. No drainage across any lot line other than onto streets or common areas shall be permitted unless allowed by easement or CC &R's and approved by the City Engineer. 20. Minimum gutter grades shall be 0.4 percent and 0.6 percent around curb returns at intersections. URBAN RUNOFF 21. The improvement plans shall include and meet all requirements of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22. The improvement plans shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to reduce to the Maximum Extent Practical (MEP) runoff pollutants from entering the storm drain system from all streets, alleys, open spaces and parking areas as required by the RWQCB. Where required by RWQCB, catch basins shall include cartridge type filter inserts or mechanism to minimize run -off pollution to the satisfaction of the RWQCB. Specific lot designs approved by development plans and design review shall also incorporate these provisions. (See item 98 below for O &M requirements) 23. Costs for obtaining C3 certification shall be borne by the Applicant. 24. In conjunction with submittal of grading plans, the Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent for storm water discharge with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of the filing shall be submitted to the City Engineer as part of the required improvement plan for the site. 25. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, approval of the improvement plans or the recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall be responsible for the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and approval by the City of Alameda, ACFCWCD and RWQCB. The drainage plan for the project must also meet the City's Urban Runoff Guidelines. The SWPPP shall provide controls on the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials, detention basins, and similar measures to be employed during construction. 26. Prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy, an operation and maintenance (O &M) agreement for the plan and financial security shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. The O &M plan shall include: treatment type, location(s), of treatment measures, maintenance requirements, maintenance schedule, assurances of party responsible for O &M, and assurances of access to inspect and verify treatment system O &M for the life of the project. The maintenance agreement shall be recorded by the Property Owner among the deed records of the Alameda County Recorder's Office. Additionally, and as terms of the above - mentioned agreement, an O &M Plan and an annual inspection report for storm water treatment measures shall be provided for review and approval by the City of Alameda Public Works Department Environmental Services Division in compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R2- 2003 -0021 NPDES Permit No. CAS00298313, Section C3e. A bond, cashiers check, letter of credit or other approved instrument shall be deposited with the City in the amount of twice the estimated annual operations and maintenance cost. TRAFFIC /STREET DESIGN /JOINT UTILITIES 27. The improvement plans shall include a signing and striping plan for all improvements proposed by the development to be approved by the City Engineer. All curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along Forman Way and Grand Street shall be installed in accordance with City of Alameda standards, except as provided in the approved Project Master Plan MP05 -01. Alley curb cuts on Fortmann and Grand Street shall be shown on Improvement Plans and designed to maximize space for on- street parking, street trees and landscaping. 28. All sidewalks on Grand Street, Fortmann Way, Hibbard, and within the BCDC public waterfront open space areas shall have a minimum of 5' width. 29. All street structural sections shall be designed per recommendations in the soils report and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 30. At a minimum, stop signs and markings shall be installed at each privately maintained roadway entrance onto a publicly maintained street and at the beginning of Alaska Packer Place and at the end of Hibbard Street. 31. The improvement plan shall show residential driveways with a minimum thickness of four (4) inches of concrete. 32. The improvement plan shall show joint trenches under sidewalks to include telephone, electrical, communication, television, and gas lines. The trench width and depth shall meet the standards of the utility companies and the City Engineer. 33. Water lines shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 34. All existing overhead utilities along the frontage of the property and all new utilities shall be placed and installed underground, except as required by appropriate utility providers. Clearances between utility mains, sewers, structures or other objects shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 35. Wheelchair ramps and truncated domes shall be required on sidewalks where curb corners meet streets. 36. Wheel chair accessible parking stalls shall have a minimum width of 9'. 37. The number of handicap parking stalls shall comply with the parking ratio requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). 38. Traffic control, regulatory, warning, guide signs and markings (including fire hydrant pavement markers) shall be installed in conformance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as approved by the City Engineer. 39. Prior to the approval of the Final Map by City Council, street names shall be submitted and approved by the Planning and Building Director. Street names shall generally be chosen from the Official Naming List for City facilities and streets, in accordance with the City's adopted naming policy. 40. The Applicant shall be responsible for installation of all street signs within the development and at major street intersections. Signs shall be in accordance with the approved "Signing Plan" and the City Standards and locations shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 41. On -site street and mini -park light spacing and illumination requirements, design and installation, shall be provided by the Applicant and shall be to the satisfaction of AP &T and the City Engineer and Planning and Building Director. 42. Applicant shall provide at Applicant's expense, additional lighting at the tract entrances. Ongoing costs for operations and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). Design and installation shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer and Planning and Building Director. LANDSCAPING 43. Design of street and walkway tree plantings shall be in compliance with the Project Master Plan MP 05 -01. The Applicant shall be responsible for the design of all landscaped areas including common areas located along Grand Street and Fortmann Way. A detailed tree planting and landscaping plan shall be required for all privately maintained and public street areas, common areas and planting strips along streets adjacent to the Project site. These plans shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Planning and Building Director, and shall be submitted in conjunction with the improvement plan. Clearances of trees from street improvements and furnishings shall be as follows unless otherwise approved by City Engineer: a) Fire hydrants — 6 feet. b) Driveways (top of wing) — 3 feet. c) Stop signs or curb returns — 15 feet. d) Electroliers — 25 feet on near side as a vehicle approaches, and 25 feet desirable on far side, but the far side distance may be reduced to 20 feet, if needed. e) Sewer mains or laterals, gas lines (main and service), water, telephone, communication and electrical mains — 5 feet. f) Storm drains — 2 feet. g) Street trees shall have curbed protection from street pavement. 44. Deep root barriers shall be required for all trees planted adjacent to curbs, sidewalks and other pavements, to City standards and the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 45. The curb planter strip along Grand Street shall not include trees, as the strip lies above an existing 48" storm drain line. 46. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -58 (Water Conservation /Landscaping). 47. All fencing barriers, street tree curb protection, and header boards shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 48. The Applicant shall post a subdivision improvement bond for landscape improvements within the Project and a two year maintenance bond to commerce when the landscaping has been installed and accepted by the City as substantially in compliance with approved landscape and improvement plans. PRIVATELY MAINTAINED OPEN SPACE, MINI -PARKS & STREETS 49. Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, the applicant shall provide an agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, between the Homeowners Association (HOA) and the City, whereby the HOA.assumes all responsibility for maintenance and liability of all private open space, private mini -parks and private street improvements, alleys and Alaska Packer Place, including but not limited to on site utilities, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, sidewalk, lighting, curb and gutter and landscaping; curb and gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and landscaping along the north side of Forman Way and the west side of Grand Street; all improvements in the common areas including but not limited to landscaping, lighting and walkways; all parking lot improvements; and all BCDC required amenities along the shoreline. The agreement shall include a management plan and a weed abatement and maintenance plan for approval by the City Engineer and implementation by the HOA. 50. The Applicant shall submit a separate agreement and financing such as CC &Rs, bonds, landscape & lighting district or equivalent which will provide for the perpetual operation and maintenance of all private improvements including but not limited to private open space, private mini - parks, BCDC requirements, and private street improvements, common area facilities including entryways and private infrastructure not accepted for maintenance by a public agency. The agreement shall be approved by the City Engineer. 51. In conjunction with recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall simultaneously record public access, parking, and utility easements for all streets, alleys, sidewalks, including Fortmann Way, Alaska Packer Place and Hibbard Street and parking along the shoreline and the two triangular mini parks as public access to the City of Alameda. 52. The improvement plan shall include appropriate landscaping and irrigation for the two triangular mini -parks to the satisfaction of the Recreation and Parks Department. The two parks shall be developed for recreation use and include appropriate paths and seating areas, as generally depicted on the Landscape Site Plan of the Master Plan approval (MP 05 -01). 53. The Applicant shall substantially complete the construction of the mini -parks to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the first house adjacent to the mini -park within the residential development. SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS 54. Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, the Applicant shall complete the design and acquire other agency permits, if required, for all on -site sanitary sewer and storm drain systems required for construction to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 55. Curved sewer alignments shall not be permitted. Sewer mains shall be on a straight run not to exceed 350 feet between manholes for 8" and 10" pipes, and 450 feet for 12" pipes and larger. 56. Main sanitary sewer lines shall be a minimum 8" in diameter. 57. Public storm drain lines shall be a minimum of 12" in diameter. 58. The distance between storm drain manholes shall not exceed 350 feet. 59. Manholes shall be required. at tract boundaries to differentiate public /private facilities. 60. Two -way property clean -outs shall be installed at all house laterals. 61. Storm drains shall be designed to handle 10 -year storm flows at Mean High Water and 100 -year flows at Mean Sea Level. 62. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of all City reviews and inspections required for infrastructure. 63. Prior to recordation of any Final Map, the Applicant shall provide, at no cost to the City, easements on all private properties necessary for the operation and maintenance of the sanitary and storm drain systems. The Final Map and /or the CC &Rs shall show all public and private easements and their purpose. 64. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, the Applicant shall obtain EBMUD approval for connections to EBMUD facilities. ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOMMUNICATION (AP &T) 65. Concurrent with submittal of Improvement Plans, the Applicant shall coordinate with the AP &T regarding power requirements. 66. The Applicant shall provide all necessary on -site underground substructures, including conduits, pull boxes, transformer pads, etc. per the AP &T specifications. AP &T will require easements for all transformers, primary and secondary boxes, and conduits. AP &T will furnish and install all required transformers, high voltage distribution cables, and secondary cables. The Applicant shall be reimbursed for improvements pursuant to the standard AP &T agreement. 67. The Applicant shall furnish and install code -sized service cables in code - sized conduit from each house to the nearest secondary pullbox. AP &T will connect the service to the secondary distribution system. 68. The Final Map shall show all necessary easements and access to all electrical utility facilities that are in the private properties, at no charge to AP &T. 69. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall furnish and install service equipment for each house. The service equipment shall meet .Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirement Committee standards. 70. Concurrent with acceptance of work by City Council, the shall dedicate and AP &T shall take over ownership and will be responsible for maintaining all new substructures for undergrounding primary and secondary circuits, and distribution transformers once the improvements have been inspected and found to have been properly installed. The Applicant or successor property owners shall be responsible for the service cables and service equipment. 71. The Applicant shall be responsible for all expenses involved in the on -site duct/joint trench system including engineering design, plan check, and electrical construction inspection. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of AP &T's assigned inspector during construction 72. The Applicant shall submit, with the on -site improvement plans, detailed drawings showing the required on -site electric utility facilities. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITES DISTRICT (EBMUD) 73. Prior to approval of improvement plans, the Applicant shall obtain EBMUD approval of the proposed design and location of on -site water service lines and meters. 74. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay for all on- site service connection fees and provide proof of payment to City. 75. In the event that EBMUD has provided Recycled Water to the project area prior to submittal of the Development Plan, the Applicant —shall provide service connections and meters for recycled water usage and shall provide for future on -site extensions at locations to be determined by EBMUD and the City Engineer. 76. All on -site facilities, backflow devices, and connections shall be designed and constructed by the Applicant in accordance with standards specified by EBMUD and the City Engineer. ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT 77. Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, the Applicant shall submit improvement plans for the project site Fire Water System. The system shall be designed to the satisfaction of EBMUD. The Applicant shall be responsible for the placement of on -site hydrants. The location and number of hydrants shall be established in improvements plans. The fire flow for the development shall be 3000 G.P.M. from any two hydrants with a minimum flow of 1250 G.P.M. from any one hydrant flowing simultaneously for a duration of 30 minutes. Placement shall be shown on the improvement plans and shall be to the satisfaction EBMUD, the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer. 78. The improvement plans and building permit plans shall include fire sprinkler systems within each residential unit including the garage and attic spaces. 79. The Applicant shall provide adequate turn around space or through access for any street greater than 150 feet in length to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. so. All roads shall have an adequate turning radius for fire apparatus (inside turning radius of 28 feet). 81. The Applicant shall provide a grass paver or other vehicular surface acceptable to the fire department and an emergency vehicle access (EVA) easement from Fortmann Way through the western mini -park to allow fire access to the alley between Lots 33 -36 and 37 -40. 82. All streets and courts within the development shall be marked as fire access roads to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. All roads shall be designed to handle fire apparatus weight of up to 35,000 pounds per axle. Parking shall be prohibited within the streets and alleys dedicated as fire lanes. CC &R's shall include an enforcement mechanism. EASEMENTS 83. The Final Maps shall show all existing and proposed easements for street and public use area and all utility corridors. 84. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall be required to grant all utility easements required for orderly development. The easements shall be in accordance with the request by each of the various utility companies and by the City Engineer. 85. Open space parcels within the subdivision shall be restricted by non - development, open space easements. The Applicant shall show these easements on the Final Map. 86. The Applicant shall grant easements for all utilities on private lots, prior to approval of the Final Map. An easement shall be shown on the Final Map where the service passes through one lot to serve the adjacent lot. 87. No encroachments into any public or private easement shall be permitted, unless specifically approved by the City Engineer or the applicable utility. This includes eaves, foundations, chimneys, etc. No masonry, wall or permanent structures shall be permitted within any easement. CC &R's shall include a restriction that the Homeowner is responsible for the cost of removing and reinstalling or repairing any improvements including landscaping and paving installed in the easement areas. RESURFACING OF STREETS IN AREA 68. Applicant shall resurface the Western half of Grand Street from the northern terminus of Grand Street to the centerline of Fortmann Street. The existing surface shall be ground down a minimum of 2" and resurfaced with a minimum of 2" of asphaltic concrete. The Applicant shall repave the northern half of Fortmann Way along the entire length of the street and western side of Alaska Packer Place between the edge of the existing pavement and the concrete gutter. The existing pavement of Fortmann Way and Alaska packer Way shall be sawcut before repaving. All repaved sections shall be redesigned with the design procedure for Flexible Pavement as set forth in Section 608.4 of the State of California Highway Design Manual. Pavement structural section calculations shall be provided based on R- values and recommendations contained within the geotechnical report. LOT NUMBERING AND ADDRESSING 89. The lot numbers on the Final Map shall be consecutive. The Applicant shall submit a table or equivalent that compares the lot numbering on the approved Tentative Map with the Final Map. MASTER PLAN 90. Prior to approval of the Final Map by City Council, all applicable conditions of approval of Master Plan MP05 -01 pertaining to subdivision improvements shall be satisfied. The subdivision shall be constructed to comply with M P05 -01. EFFECTIVE DATES 91. The Applicant shall record the Final Map within twenty -four months of approval, or conditional approval, of the Tentative Map by the City Council. An extension of time, not to exceed an additional twelve (12) months, for the filing of the Final Map may be granted by the City Council providing written application is made by the subdivider prior to the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved Tentative Map. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 92. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall comply with all the conditions specified in the "Grand Marina Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program" approved by the City of Alameda. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program specifies the responsible parties for the funding, implementation and monitoring requirements. 93. The grading and improvement plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation as outlined in the Soils Report. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT /FINANCIAL GUARANTEE 94. In accordance with Section 30 -85.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code, prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall execute an agreement between the Applicant and the City for approval by the City Council specifying the period within which the Applicant shall complete all on -site improvement work. The on -site improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved Tentative Map, the improvement plans and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Agreement shall provide that if the work is not completed within the specified period, the City may complete the work and recover all costs and expenses from the Applicant or successor in interest. The Applicant shall post sufficient financial guarantee to guarantee construction of the on -site improvements as determined by the City Engineer. 95. The agreement shall provide for construction inspection costs to be charged as a flat fee. COPY OF FINAL MAP & AS- BUILTS 96. Prior to the City Council approval or the recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Mylar copy and a CAD file of the improvement plans recorded Final Map. 97. Applicant shall provide as -built and reproducible Mylar copies of the infrastructure improvement and landscaping plans to the City Engineer within 30 days of completion of construction. CONDITIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC &R's) 98. In conjunction with the on -site improvement plans, the Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC &R's), which shall establish a Homeowners' Association, of which all property owners must be a member. The submittal shall include an estimate of costs and proposed level of maintenance for each of the activities identified. The CC &R's shall provide for funding and provision of maintenance of all common facilities, including but not limited to streets and utilities, not accepted for maintenance by a public agency. The CC &R's shall stipulate that the Homeowners' Association is responsible for maintenance of landscaping along the streets, courts, open space, and triangular mini - parks. Additionally, the CC &Rs shall be reviewed and found satisfactory by the Planning and Building Director in consultation with the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to the recordation of the first Final Map. 99. CC &R's shall be recorded as deed restrictions with the Final Map. 100. Prior to the application for any building permit for the site, two copies of the approved and recorded CC &Rs shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Planning and Building Director. CONSTRUCTION 101. During construction, the Applicant shall ensure that a program of dust control is implemented consistent with MMRP and BAAQMD requirements. All construction crews shall undertake a program of dust control including, but not limited to, watering soil surfaces as needed to prevent dust blowing, covering trucks carrying materials to and from the site, and frequent clean- up of soil carried by construction vehicle tires from the site onto roadways. 102. During Construction the Applicant shall ensure that all construction crews are properly trained and made aware of any site contamination issues consistent with the Site Management Plan and MMRP. 103. Subdivision construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code which restricts construction to the hours of 7:OOam to 7:OOpm Monday through Friday and 8:OOam to 5:OOpm on Saturdays. Construction traffic shall adhere to designated truck routes. 104. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant shall provide a Recycling and Solid Waste Plan to minimize solid waste disposal and maximize use of recycled materials associated with demolition and construction activities for each and every construction contract. The Plan must be incorporated into any construction documents for every contract. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant (or City or City's Agent) shall submit a report certifying the amount of materials off hauled, amount of materials recycled, and amount of recycled materials used in that contract. 105. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide an Urban Runoff Clean Water Plan for construction activities which identifies specific measures (BMP's) required during construction to minimize pollutant discharge to the storm water system. The Applicant shall incorporate these measures into each and every contract for construction. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall provide a report certifying that these measures were properly followed. 106. Prior to issuance of grading permit, Applicant shall submit a Truck Route Plan for hauling to be approved by the City Engineer. The Plan must be incorporated into any construction documents for every contract. 107. Prior to issuance of any permit, Applicant shall submit a Surcharge Plan showing extent of surcharge, height of piles and any storm water run off control measures to be approved by the City Engineer. The Plan shall include approval by any other agency, if so required. NOISE REQUIREMENTS 108. Concurrent with submittal of Development Plans, the Applicant shall identify specific acoustical treatments to minimize the noise levels for future homes that back up to major streets in compliance and which is required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK 109. At the completion of construction of the improvements for each phase of the Project, the Applicant is obligated to provide all required information to the City including, but not limited to, all certifications, warranties, guarantees, proof of payment to outside agencies and as -built drawings. Upon recommendation by the City Engineer, the improvements will be accepted by the City Council. PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS 1) The applicant will study the feasibility or exposing the underlying wood planks and provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If upon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building Director that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe, or contrary to water quality standards, the Planning Director may approve an asphalt resurfacing plan. 2) To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront. 3) The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina parking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina -bound traffic. 4) The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterfront. 5) The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers should be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating. 6) The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories. 7) The site plan shall be modified to extend the paseo (public pedestrian path) from Grand Street to the northern most triangle park. 8) The distribution of the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be three story units. NOTICE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant Government Code Section 66020 (d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and other exactions. You are hereby further noticed that the 90 -day appeal period in which you may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code. Section 66020 (a) has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. A■ a ■oy! a i �" 9 l� E Rpi iq ■ Iyj 1 ■ ippti LI R y rr•saee�p 91� �6° 2 it €�° 1 3 1 ! 7° 16Y e. pp! ■x �Ytl a�a i It Oil tii :I; i iT.a.1ah 6h Milli I N@ NDiis € /aie!Mibili a g y 1 §° gi --11171 P23 1wWlia WO 1,M111 10111•0 Mt •! " I ter. ... miammaimuazui iriiiililin! Oil: lid P Ili i° ' 10- _��Y d j i :�� l:5lpatiPa1 ill 1!! y liTi !_ 1 1. 3 Qty iG e . . 4 gig j 8 0 0 k eP ij ga �_` !Irl 11'1 Iig v■u urns nsm 1.a • bA 5g r fi 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 , 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 RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD05 -02 AND DESIGN REVIEW, DR05 -0126 FOR GRAND MARINA VILLAGE WHEREAS, an application was made on November 22, 2005 by Warmington Homes for a Planned Development to construct 40 single family homes, off - street parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 3.5 acre site; and WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed to be designated Specified Mixed Use (MU -6: Northern Waterfront) on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed to be located in a MX (Mixed Use - Planned Development) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration (SCH #2006042145) has been prepared by the City of Alameda ( "City ") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has held a public hearing on this application on October 9, 2006, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings relative to Planned Development, PD05 -02: 1. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan, which specifies residential uses for this site. 2. The Planned Development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the Planned Development District will be combined because a Planned Development allows for a comprehensive development of the site. 3. The Planned Development, if it complies with all the mitigations of the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. Resolution #5 -A(4) 11 -14 -06 4. The layout of the proposed Planned Development project complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the Alameda Subdivision Regulations. The division of the site will be subject to a separate subdivision application to ensure full compliance. The proposal complies with maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 2,000 square feet of parcel area. WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to Design Review, DR05 -0126: 1. The project will have no significant adverse effects on the persons or property in the vicinity because the proposal is consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan designation. 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding area because the design is similar to the small lot, single family detached residences in the adjacent subdivisions. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City of Alameda's Design Review Guidelines because the proposed traditional design theme is consistent with the area; the proposed two and three -story buildings have a similar scale as other dwellings in the area; and the proposed building components, such as windows and doors, are well . proportioned and compatible with each other. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board: Conditionally approved Planned Development, PD05 -02 and Design Review, DR05 -0126. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council upholds the Planning Board approval, subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS 1. The plans submitted for the Building Permit and Final Design Review shall be in substantial compliance with the Grand Marina Village Master Plan prepared by Warmington Homes and the Dahlin Group dated September 15, 2006, which is on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department, subject to the conditions specified in this resolution approving the project. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and periodically filing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to demonstrate compliance with all project mitigations. DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 3. Where there are substantially similar requirements, or inconsistencies contained in the conditions of this approval and the Tentative Map approval for Tract 7723, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, the conditions shall be considered together and the more extensive and /or more detailed provisions shall govern, unless specifically approved by the Planning and Building Director. 4. Each phase of development shall provide the necessary street, utility, and other infrastructure to support that phase, the previous phases, and existing maritime operations on the site. REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD05 -0002 5. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to PD05 -0002 except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Planned Development approval. 6. Minimum building setbacks, height, number of stories, coverage and site plan dimension shall be as shown in Grand Marina Village Master Plan. 7. Model homes and temporary tract sales offices, construction offices or other incidental operations occurring during construction and /or sales are not approved as part of this Planned Development approval and require a separate Use Permit. The specific number of facilities, location, design, screening, dust control, noise, utilities and parking shall be subject to an administrative Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director. 8. No accessory structures or building additions shall be permitted without a Planned Development Amendment. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions established for this project shall incorporate this restriction. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Final Design Review application for review and approval by the Planning and Building Director that includes the following: a. Final building elevations with color and material boards. b. Final location, design, height and material of backyard /patio fences. c. Final window details including material and manufacturer's cutsheets. 10. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a Final Landscaping Plan in substantial compliance with the Grand Marina Master Plan, except as modified by the conditions of this resolution. Final Landscaping Plans shall contain the following: a. Complete plant list with the common and scientific name, quantities and spacing of all plant species. b. Tree sizes shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. c. 50% of shrubs shall be 5 gallon size. d. An irrigation plan with automatic controller for all front yards, and common area landscaping. e. A statistical analysis of the percentage turf used, if any, within the common areas, and all front yards. f. Mulching and staking details. g. Private fence design. h. Mail box and other street furniture design. All street intersection landscaping, walls and fencing shall meet City sight distance requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. j. Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Agreement between the applicant and the City. The Agreement shall include provisions for maintaining landscaping in good condition over the life of the project and shall include provisions for lighting and other public safety measures. The public safety measures shall be reviewed and approved in consultation with Police Department and • shall include, but not limited to, the following: building address numbers, exterior lighting, exterior door light sources, monument sign light sources, plants and shrubs height to maintain sight lines, trees canopy minimum height to maintain sight lines, and parking lot signage. 11. Lighting of the common area shall be shown on the Final Landscape Plan and shall be as low in intensity as possible consistent with safety requirements. Fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building Director and Police Chief as part of the final landscaping plan approval. The location, height, type and lighting level of all light standards shall be shown on improvement plans and approved by the City Engineer. 12. Each of the two triangular mini -parks within the Grand Marina Village residential development shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director prior to occupancy of the residential development. 13. Each of the two mini -parks within the residential development shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association, but shall be dedicated as public access to the City of Alameda. 14.Any landscaping within the street right -of -way shall be in substantial conformance to that shown in the Master Plan, as modified, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer based on the substantial conformity standard. 15. The curb planter strip along Grand Street shall not include trees, as the strip lies above an existing 48" storm drain line. 16. Landscaping materials shall be designed and selected so as to not obstruct signs or building numbers or building entrances on the site and required sight clearances for vehicles at intersections and crosswalks. Tree planting shall be designed and selected to highlight pedestrian pathways and entrance driveways through the business park parking lots. 17. The applicant shall use recycled water in accordance with EBMUD requirements for recycled water, subject to availability. The applicant shall meet and confer with EBMUD regarding the availability and use of recycled water at the Development Plan stage of review. PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGES 18. Parking shall not be permitted on any driveway within the Grand Marina Village_residential development. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) shall reflect this limitation unless specifically approved as part of a Development Plan. 19. The twelve (12) guest parking places within the Grand Marina Village residential development shall be available for and identified as short- term visitor parking. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions established for this Project shall prohibit the use of the guest parking spaces by project residents. NOISE 20.AII equipment used on the Project shall be adequately muffled and maintained to the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and all equipment shall be turned off when not in use, consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance. AMENDMENTS 21.Additions and /or alterations to residences within the project shall be subject to design review if said modifications are in compliance with standards of this Planned Development. Additions and /or alterations shall be subject to a Planned Development Amendment where they do not comply with one or more of the requirements. Minor project design details, engineering standards and specifications may be established, modified and approved by the Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and Building or their designee. CONSTRUCTION 22. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a construction plan for the Development Plan which will outline the sequence of actions including: staging of construction activities, schedule, final grading, construction within BCDC jurisdiction, and all other construction activities. 23. Prior to commencement of any construction activity, the applicant shall coordinate a meeting with City Staff and the Contractors team to discuss the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures on the Project. The intent is that the Contractor fully understands the actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures and to comply with the conditions of approval of the City of Alameda. 24. Construction shall be limited in compliance with AMC Article II Noise Regulations, Section 4 -10. The limitations restrict construction activities outside the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays, and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays. 25. Prior to issuance of any site development or demolition permit, the applicant shall develop a construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. The construction management plan shall include a handout for neighboring property owners and shall accomplish, at a minimum, the following: a. Provide the name and contact number of the construction manager; b. Describe the hours of operation; c. Identify the projected construction schedule. PROJECT AREA REQUIREMENTS 26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and the Community Improvement Commission shall enter into an agreement providing for: a. Affordable Housing within the project consistent with CIC Resolution No. 04 -127 establishing an inclusionary housing policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects. b. Amendment to the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Plan to allow mixed use development. c. Payment of a fair share contribution to traffic signals required for Northern Waterfront build out, as required by the MMRP. d. Establishment of a Northern Waterfront Transportation Demand Management program funding strategy for the provision of water -based or land -based shuttle services to Oakland from the Northern Waterfront area. The TDM funding plan shall be designed to cover all properties within the Northern Waterfront area, including the Grand Marina site, the Del Monte site, the Encinal Terminal site, the Pennzoil site, and the City's corporation yard and animal shelter sites. The TDM program and funding plan shall be coordinated with the proposed Catellus Project, Alameda Landing, TDM program to facilitate creation of a larger West End TDM program. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND FACILITIES 27. The siting, size, location and design of above ground facilities such as utility cabinets, and mail collection boxes shall be shown on improvement plans and approved by the City Engineer and Planning and Building Director. 28. The applicant shall incorporate water conservation measures for both internal and external use in the design and construction of the Project. This shall include the use of equipment, devices and methodology that further water conservation and provide for the efficient use of water to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 29. If the stormwater treatment measure includes bioswales, the tree and ground cover selection shall be adaptable to in urban runoff swale areas. 30. Tree clearances from utilities shall be as follow: a) Fire hydrant — 6 feet; b) top of driveway wing — 5'; c) stop signs — 15'; d) street/pathway lights and utility poles — 25'; e) storm drain, sanitary mains, gas, water, telephone, electrical lines — 5'; f) front of electrical pad- mounted equipment — 10'. Verify minimum clearance distances of street trees /shrubs from electrical transformers with City of Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T ). 31. Final landscape plans shall ensure that all landscaping and bioswales are designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. As appropriate, integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be incorporated into the landscaping design. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. 32. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of a building permit application, the applicant shall submit to the satisfaction and approval of the Public Works Director the following items: a. Plans that indicate the applicant shall construct stormwater treatment measure(s) that meet the hydraulic sizing design criteria indicated in Provision C.3.d of the City of Alameda's municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Storm water runoff onto adjacent properties will not be allowed. b. An Impervious Surface Form, indicating the proposed total change in impervious surface area for the project site. c. A sanitary sewage flow analysis to determine sanitary sewage quantities of the proposed development. d. A storm drainage analysis to insure adequate drainage capacity for the proposed project. Design Review and Final Development Plan plans need to accommodate for the proper sizing design of the necessary stormwater treatment measure(s). e. Plans that indicate roof leaders shall be connected to the private area drain system and shall discharge into landscaped areas away from the foundation. Additional design techniques may include, but not be limited to, the use of pervious pavement in parking areas. f. Site traffic signing. 33. The proposed project plans shall incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, permanent stormwater design techniques to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from the planned project site to prevent and minimize impacts to water quality. 34. Stormwater treatment measures that function primarily as infiltration devices shall, where 'practical, protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark shall be at least ten feet (10') unless a collection system or another diversion method collects a reasonable amount of the infiltration. 35.Trash enclosures and /or recycling areas shall be roofed and /or enclosed. These areas shall be designed to prevent water run -on to the area and runoff from the area. The floor drains for the trash enclosures and the recycling area should connect to the sanitary sewer system. 36. Given that the total disturbed area for the project will be greater than one acre, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) form to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), indicating the intent to comply with all requirements of the SWRCB Construction Activity Storm Water NPDES General Permit (Permit). 37. In compliance with the NOI submittal to the SWRCB, the applicant shall prepare and implement a thorough Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) document to ensure appropriate protection of storm water quality during the project's construction activities. 38. The applicant shall submit to the City's Public Works Department (PWD) a copy of the completed project NOI and SWPPP documents, ,as required for preparation by the SWRCB, with sufficient time for both document review by the PWD and any necessary corrections /modifications to the SWPPP by the applicant prior to commencement of any soil- disturbing activity. 39. Prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy, an Operation and Maintenance (O &M) agreement and O &M plan for all post- construction, permanent stormwater treatment controls shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. The O &M plan shall include: treatment type, location(s) of treatment measures, maintenance requirements, maintenance schedule, assurances of party responsible for O &M, and assurances of access to inspect and verify treatment system O &M for the life of the project. 40. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and sub- contractors shall, during all construction activities, comply with the SWPPP elements, the City of Alameda's Urban Runoff Standard Conditions of Approval and the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities indicated in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program brochures during all construction activities. 41. Storm drain inlets shall have filter inserts and shall be clearly marked with the words "No Dumping! Drains to Bay," or equivalent, using methods approved by the City of Alameda's PWD. 42. Plan sheets prepared for the construction phase shall indicate the specifications for the installation and upkeep of the erosion control mechanisms as described in the project SWPPP. Specifications shall be provided for the perimeter protection(s), any silt fencing and fiber rolls used, the storm drain inlet protections, the stabilized construction entrance(s) and exits and vehicle tire wash area(s), the vehicle and equipment servicing area(s) and the materials handling and storage area(s). These specifications shall meet the same level of erosion and sediment control effectiveness identified for erosion and sediment control practices established in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual and the California Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook — Construction. 43. For projects creating or replacing greater than or equal to 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, applicant must submit a stamped, signed certification from a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California and working for a firm included on the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) list of Qualified Post - Construction Consultants for stormwater treatment facility design that indicates that the treatment measure design plan meets the established sizing design criteria for stormwater treatment measures. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING 44. Prior to occupancy of the first home within the residential area, the applicant shall submit a plan to the City Solid Waste Coordinator for review and approval outlining how the applicant with comply with the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance for the storage and disposal of Solid Waste. The applicant shall use the recycling services of a licensed recycling program, providing adequate space and support to ensure the program's success. The applicant shall use best management practices to reduce the generation of solid waste and to divert as much material as possible from being deposited in a landfill, in accordance with the City Public Works Department Standard Conditions of Approval for Waste Management 45. The applicant shall submit plans to comply with the requirements of the City of Alameda Public Works Department, Urban Runoff Manager and the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program at the Development Plan stage of review, including Provision C.3 of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. These plans shall address Best Management Practices (BMP's) and methods to clean debris, which may contaminate storm drains and shall be approved by the Planning and Building Director and Public Works Director at the Development Plan stage of review. 46.A Master Sign Program for the residential development shall be considered prior to or in conjunction with the Development Plan for the first building phase of the residential portion of the Project. The Master Sign Program shall provide for an adequate number, size, type and location of signs to ensure that the site can be easily located by potential buyers. No sign shall be installed without prior issuance of a sign permit. FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 47. The applicant and all contractors shall adhere to the standard conditions required by Alameda Fire Department, as part of individual Development Plans. 48.The applicant shall provide a "grass paver" emergency vehicle access (EVA) easement running north from Fortmann Way through the 0.19 acre triangular park so as to facilitate Fire Department access to the alley between lots 33 -36 and 37 -40. The EVA shall include a 28' inside turning radius. 49. The applicant shall post "No Parking" signs in all alleys within the residential subdivision. 50. The applicant shall provide sprinklers in all living spaces, attics, and garages of the residential units. ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM (AP &T) 51. The applicant shall provide utility information as required by AP &T staff together with building permit plans for review and approval by AP &T. HOLD HARMLESS 52. The applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this project, which action is brought within the time period provide for in the Government Code. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS 53. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site, 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 provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for the Planned Development to be exercised. VESTING 54. The Planned Development shall terminate one (1) year from October 23, 2006, and shall expire on October 23, 2007, unless actual grading, construction or alteration under valid permits has begun, or the applicant applies for and is granted a one -time one (1) year extension prior to the expiration of the Use Permit. 55. The Design Review approval shall terminate one (1) year from October 23, 2006, and shall expire on October 23, 2007, unless actual grading, construction under valid permit has commenced, or the applicant applies for and is granted a one time twelve (12) months extension. prior to the expiration of the Design Review. MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE MAP AND MMRP COMPLIANCE 56.The Planned Development shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Grand Marina Master Plan (September 15, 2006), and other entitlements, as amended, City infrastructure design standards, as revised by the City Engineer, as well as the mitigations contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program prepared for the Grand Marina Village Project. PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS 57.The applicant will study the feasibility or exposing the underlying wood planks and provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If upon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building Director that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe, or contrary to water quality standards, the Planning Director may approve an asphalt resurfacing plan. 58. To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials throughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path to match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront. 59.The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina parking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina -bound traffic. 60.The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterfront. 61. The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers should be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating. 62.The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City of Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories. • 63.The site plan shall be modified to extend the paseo (public pedestrian path) from Grand Street to the northern most triangle park. 64. The distribution of the ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be three story units. 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 , 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 Margaret A. Hakanson CURRENT APPLICATIONS COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES TWO VACANCIES Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06 CURRENT APPLICATIONS HOUSING COMMISSION TWO VACANCIES Joy Pratt Billie Trujillo Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06 Bill L. Boscacci James R. Currier David W. Fritz Deborah R. Greene Joni D. Mahler Louie Martirez Joseph S. Restagno Gail A. Wetzork CURRENT APPLICATIONS RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION TWO VACANCIES Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06 CURRENT APPLICATIONS SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD TWO VACANCIES Dr. Jerry B. Healy Justin E. Harrison Reginald L. James Richard A. Lagesse Linda J. Marcello Jonathan D. Soglin Carole L. Souza Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06 Tina B. Konvalinka Paul F. Mahler Jonathan D. Soglin Srikant Subramaniam Elizabeth Tuckwell CURRENT APPLICATIONS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ONE VACANCY Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06 Jerome P. Harrison Julie E. Loper Ernest J. Notar Gail Patton Patrick E. Powell CURRENT APPLICATIONS RENT REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE ONE VACANCY (Homeownership Seat) Re: Agenda Item 7 -A 11 -14 -06