The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-12-05 PacketTime: Place: Agenda: 1. Roll Call - City Council 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: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 5, 2006 - - - 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 6:00 p.m. City Council Changers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agency negotiators: Employee organizations: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Alameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non -Sworn 3 -B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Manager 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council 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 TUESDAY - - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL - - DECEMBER 5, 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 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:31 P.M. REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 21, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire Services. (Finance) 4 -D. Recommendation to accept the Affordable Annual Review. (Development Services) 4 -E. Recommendation to accept the Public Art Review. (Planning and Building) Housing Ordinance Ordinance Annual 4 -F. Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Catellus Traffic Fee. (Public Works) 4 -G. Recommendation to award Professional Services Contract in the amount of $337,000, including contingencies, to Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project. (Public Works) 4 -H. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500, including contingencies, to Cabral Chrysler Jeep, Suzuki to purchase six All - Electric Vehicles. (Public Works) 4 -I. Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to apply for Assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program for an amount up to $419,145 to develop and administer a Technical Rescue Program. (Fire) 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on November 7, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10001 to Update Signing Authority for Local Agency Investment Fund. (Finance) 4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Reappointment T. David Edwards as Trustee to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board. (Public Works) 4 -M. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase of Software Licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System from ECS Imaging, Inc for City -wide Usage. (Information Technology) [Requires four affirmative votes] 4 -N. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance Nos. 2559, 2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 and Approving and Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. (Development Services) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Approval of Major Design Review DR06 -0002 for 3292 Washington Street; and adoption of related resolution. (Planning and Building) 5 -B. Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 of FY 2006 -07 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements and related documents. (Development Services) 5 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Lease Agreement Between the East Bay Regional Park District, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an Urgency Ordinance for a 66 -Year Lease for the Development of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point. (Development Services) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 8. ADJOURNMENT - 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 CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 5, 2006 - - - 7:31 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board /Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Council /Board /Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council /Board /Commission. Please file a speaker!s slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 21, 2006. (City Clerk) [City Council and CIC] 1 -B. Recommendation to accept the Annual Report and authorize transmittal to the State Controller's Office and the City Council. (Development Services) [CIC] AGENDA ITEMS 2 -A. Recommendation to accept transmittal of the: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2006; 2) Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 21005 -06 Appropriations Limit Increment; 4) Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report 'for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2006; 5) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year ended June 30, 2006;, 6) Community Improvement Commission Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006; and 7) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2006. (Finance) 2 -B. Joint Public Hearing to consider: • Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Catellus Mixed Use Development (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). [City Council]; • Adoption of Resolution Making Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). [City Council]; Adoption of Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment, GPA- 06 -01: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 74 Acres of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project Site from Business Park to Specified Mixed Use Area, and (B) Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the New Specified Mixed Use Area. [City Council]; • Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA -06 -001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and /or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office /Research and Development Uses. [City Council]; • Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. [City Council]; • Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up To 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. [City Council]; Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. [City Council]; • Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of (1) an Amendment of the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station; and (2) a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. [City Council]; and • Adoption of Resolution Approving a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project and: 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 2) Adopting Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 4) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to the Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station, and 6) Authorizing the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. [CIC] [Continued from November 21, 2006] (Development Services) ADJOURNMENT Beverly Jo ns , N yor Chair, Alame a Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:52 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Authority Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. [Note: Councilmember Daysog was absent during the discussion on Ballena Isle Marina (paragraph no. 06- ).] The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), and Police Association Non -Sworn (PANS) (06- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property: Ballena Isle Marina; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina LLP Negotiating parties; Under negotiation: Price and terms (ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and Area 51 Productions; Under negotiation: Price and Terms Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from the City's Labor Negotiator regarding negotiations with ACEA, MCEA, and PANS and staff was given direction; regarding Ballena Isle Marina, Council received a briefing by the City Property Negotiator and direction was given to staff; regarding Alameda Naval Air Station, Authority Members gave direction to staff regarding terms for a new lease. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority November 21, 2006 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 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- ) Presentation to the Library Building Team recognizing their efforts for the successful completion of the New Main Library. Mayor Johnson read the names of the Library Building Team members and presented certificates. Honora Murphy, Library Building Team Member, stated the Library Building Team worked many hours for over four and a half years; thanked the Council for recognizing .efforts made. Karen Butter, Library Board President, stated the Library Building Team is a small representation of individuals who worked for over thirty years to lay the ground work for a new library; thanked the City, citizens, and everyone involved for all the hard work. Marilyn Ashcraft, Library Building Team Member, stated the City of Oakland lost a Library Bond measure recently; thanked the community for all the help and support. (06- ) Presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Lieutenant Colonel Craig Kiley, Project Manager Al Paniccia, and District Counsel Merry Goodenough provided a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated waterway residents are concerned about the six -year moratorium; residents are unable to do routine maintenance, repair damage, or maintain seawalls; questioned why the moratorium prevents residents from performing basic, routine maintenance; stated license agreements are an issue; inquired Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 November 21, 2006 whether the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for the condemnation proceedings in 1882; to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the Army Corps of Engineers created the Estuary; the train bridge [Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge] was built as an accommodation to Alameda to provide a rail connection; the City needs the transportation connection between Alameda and Oakland; questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers' mission has changed since 1882; stated transferring the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge to the County without transferring funding is the same as tearing down the bridge; the City supports the transfer because residents would have control over the property; a previous proposal addressed the possibility of dividing the Estuary in the middle and transferring part to Oakland and part to Alameda; another proposal addressed the Army Corps of Engineers retaining ownership of the Channel's navigational portion and transferring portions to each City; the Channel needs to be maintained because residents have boats; the City does not have the funding for dredging. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers realized that the property is not being managed in a way that the local governments and individual property owners want; illegal encroachments dumped into the canal and there has been unnecessary discharge of pollutants; structures have not been maintained in accordance with the permits; neighbors complained that docks built were too large; the moratorium was an effort to get a handle on said problems; the moratorium does not grant regulatory permits for repair, new construction on existing structures, new construction, or new real estate licenses; individuals are allowed to repair an existing structure in kind upon written request; an Army Corps of Engineers permit is not allowed unless the structure has been kept in a serviceable condition. Mayor Johnson stated the homeowners are not allowed to do routine maintenance but are required by law to keep docks in good repair; suggested that the City could work with the Army Corps of Engineers to modify the moratorium to allow routine maintenance. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineers has considered modifying the moratorium as to real estate licenses and would entertain other ideas for modification; piece meal development and abuses would occur without the moratorium; a proposal is on the table to request the City to apply for a Programmatic General Permit (PGP), which would allow the City to manage the waterfront; the property owners would come to the City for permits; the Army Corps of Engineers would assist the City with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 November 21, 2006 enforcement; representatives need to be encouraged to propose legislation to fix the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have funds for the repair nor the authority to do seismic retrofitting; 1990 and 1996 legislation changed the Corp's emphasis; along with the last administration; the Army Corps of Engineers is being encouraged to get rid of any property that is not used; stated the scouring occurs naturally; dredging is not necessary because the depth stays the same. The Project Manager stated that the Army Corps of Engineers still has the responsibility for the Tidal Canal because the Canal is part of the Oakland Harbor project; the Port of Oakland is the sponsor for the Oakland Harbor project and would need to request the Army Corps of Engineer to perform the maintenance. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dredging has been done in the last twenty years. The Project Manager responded that he does not think so; stated spot dredging was performed over twenty years ago. Councilmember deHaan stated that he recalled some dredging in support of some operations above High Street. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated a homeowner near the High Street Bridge had some dredging done because of storm water discharge into the Estuary. Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the dredging, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded the homeowner. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers experienced a similar situation where a bridge was at risk of being demolished because of lack of legislation; further inquired how long it takes to implement the legislation. The District Counsel responded the Sacramento District had a big push to transfer a bridge that was connected to West Sacramento; stated special legislation was needed for the non - federal sponsor to take over the bridge; the legislation took over a year; she would ask the Coast Guard if statutory authority was invoked to order bridge owners to remove bridges. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for abandoned boats and debris. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible if there is an obstruction or potential obstruction to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 November 21, 2006 navigation; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has authority to remove abandoned vessels; the BCDC has less funding than the federal government. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would still have the responsibility [for abandoned boats and debris] if the conveyance occurred, to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson called the public speakers. Seth Hamalian, Waterfront Homeowners Association, stated a parallel track is needed for the land transfer and a shoreline management plan described by the Army Corps of Engineers; he does not understand how a moratorium meshes with the Army Corps of Engineers' missions; inquired why the moratorium is being selectively enforced. Richard Pipkin, Alameda, stated an Officer in Charge stated the Army Corps of Engineers is a poor landlord at a meeting six months ago; the Army Corps of Engineers usually have a lot of deferred maintenance; poor landlords cause property values to decrease; dredging is necessary in the Estuary; questioned where the landlord has been; stated that he has not heard about concerns for families who have invested in the property; a sign of good faith should be given if the Army Corps of Engineers wants to negotiate. Council deHaan inquired how other Estuary projects differ. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers had a program under the Economy Act for private dredging near the High Street Bridge through a governmental agency; stated a governmental body requested work be done; the Army Corps of Engineers can offer technical knowledge; the Army Corps of Engineers does not have authority to dredge unless there is a federal interest and cost benefit, unless directed by Congressional legislation in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the dredging was done at the homeowner's expense but was performed by the Army Corps of Engineers; stated the Army Corps of Engineers performed the dredging at the gravel area just before High Street; dredging would need to be done eventually. The Project Manager stated the Port of Oakland would need to request the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the project portion; a positive cost ratio would be required to justify spending federal dollars and would need to be related to commercial navigation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 November 21, 2006 Councilmember Matarrese stated a moratorium has been in place for six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary from making any improvements; three signature property improvements went very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for property owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary; continued dredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action was taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a couple of years ago; three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted to take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three tug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will be no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is needed more than ever because of transportation issues; staff should be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional delegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of Engineers is operating; consideration should be given to compensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred maintenance over the years. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time; deferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it appears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as long as it is commercially navigable; the homeowners would be left high and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel years from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out; the homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of the land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the City would want to take the land. The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority to dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend federal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue than dredging. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible for the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would be looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why the City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging; stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for dredging even if funds are not available. The District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available for the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks. Mayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be brought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers dredge. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 November 21, 2006 The District Counsel responded staff would be provided with legislation addressing how a cost benefit analysis is done. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs special legislation; inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would support the City's request for special legislation. The District Counsel responded the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited from promoting legislation which would pour money into the Army Corps of Engineers' coffers; stated technical assistance is available if representatives make a request to the Army Corps of Engineers. Councilmember Daysog stated the Army Corps of Engineer's report mentioned an October 2007 date to have everything in place; inquired whether it would be possible to iron out issues and strike compromises within the timeline. The District Counsel responded negotiating a moratorium would take far less time than getting Congressional representatives to pass legislation; the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to entertain moratorium modifications; negotiations could start as soon as a written proposal is received outlining what the City would want to change; the Army Corps of Engineers wants to ensure that the waterfront is developed in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Councilmember Daysog stated the City needs the Corps to provide the City with possible actions by February. The Project Manager stated the October 2007 date applies to the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and is flexible. Councilmember Matarrese requested that a message be sent up the chain of command regarding the City's issues with the imposed deadline; time is needed for City staff to prepare some type of Council action; the public needs an additional chance to comment; requested that the Army Corps of Engineers advise the chain of command that the deadline is not realistic. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the authority to transfer the property to the City supercedes the authority to transfer the property to the individual homeowners; stated that she understood the Army Corps of Engineers' preference was to transfer the property to the City. The Project Manager responded there are two separate authorizing Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 November 21, 2006 pieces of legislation; stated the first legislation addresses a specific transfer to the City; the subsequent legislation includes transfer to individual, adjacent property owners; the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned that individual transactions would result in a checker board. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to negotiate with individual property owners if the City does not want to accept the property, to which the project Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation of the PGP; inquired whether the City would become permit central for the Army Corps of Engineers. The District Counsel responded the land transfer is not connected to PGP necessarily; stated a PGP is issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act; Water Boards, localities, cities, and counties often want control over regulatory activities; the City would need to get some type of real estate interest, such as an easement, lease, or license which would expire after a certain period of time; the permit could be extended for five years; the Public Works Department would be permit central for docks and other structures along the waterfront; the Army Corps of Engineers would work with the City to help structure the PGP; only certain activities fit within the PGP; the Army Corps of Engineers would help the City define what would be allowed and ensure activities are not environmentally damaging; the statute states that the Army Corps of Engineers has enforcement authority when things are not going well. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the moratorium goes away with the PGP, to which the District Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson thanked the Army Corps of Engineers for the information presented; stated residents have a high level of interest in the issue; the main issue is the ability to perform on- going maintenance and repair. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have a strategy for the Congressional delegation to start working on enabling legislation for the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area, including but no limited to, the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; inquired when an analysis would be available outlining different options such as obtaining a strip of land or the whole land, ensuring that the waterway is maintained and dredged, and running the permit process well. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 21, 2006 The City Manager stated staff has been working with the homeowners and Congressional legislation staff. Councilmember deHaan stated another issue is time extension. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff has been working on a WRDA amendment that includes a no -cost conveyance, studies to review the cost to retrofit the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, transferring the property to the City, property owners or an entity created either by the City or the Homeowners Association. Councilmember Matarrese requested that a summary report be brought back to Council; stated a lot of options have been discussed; he wants to hear what the residents have to say and evaluate the options; the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining the waterway and the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge has not been maintained if it is not working; the City needs to be compensated for deferred maintenance; retrofitting costs will be large; said costs should not be born by the City for receiving the transfer and should be put in front of Congressional delegates. Mayor Johnson stated that she received a list of sunken vessels; requested an update on outstanding obstructions in the Estuary. Councilmember deHaan requested that the Army Corps of Engineers spell out the width and depth criteria that would be maintained in the Estuary; stated obligations need to be spelled out. The City Manager stated that all concerns would be addressed. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the next briefing would take place, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of the year. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval 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 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 November 21, 2006 held on November 14, 2006. Approved. ( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,446,282.87. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2006. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to execute a Five Year Contract in the amount of $200,609.04 to John Deere, Inc. for the lease of two greens mowers, two reel mowers, one tractor and five electric utility vehicles. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No. P.W. 10- 06 -21. Accepted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 14036, "Approving Parcel Map No. 8891 (2201 Harbor Bay Parkway)." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06- ) Resolution No. 14037, "Appointing Margaret A. Hakanson as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; (06- A) Resolution No. 14038, "Appointing Joy Pratt as a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted; (06- B) Resolution No. 14039, "Appointing Joseph S. Restagno as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission." Adopted; (06- C) Resolution No. 14040, "Appointing Jonathan D. Soglin as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted; (06- D) Resolution No. 14041, "Appointing Srikant Subramaniam as a Member of the Transportation Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath to Markaret A. Hakanson, Joy Pratt, Jonathan D. Soglin and Arikant Subramaniam and presented certificates of appointment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 21, 2006 9 (06- ) Recommendation to appropriate $107,200 in Measure B Paratransit Funds to renew the Holiday Shuttle and purchase additional East Bay Paratransit and Friendly Taxi Service coupons. Approved. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a performance metric was being maintained in order to compare the number of riders per year, to which the Public Works Director responded that he would check. Councilmember Matarrese requested an updated performance comparison for the duration of the service. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Resolution No. 14042, "Authorizing Applications for the Measure B Bicycle /Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Funds and the Bicycle Transportation Account to Conduct an Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, Appropriate Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute All Necessary Grant Documents." Adopted. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what type of modifications could be made to the Posey Tube. The Public Works Director responded changing the railing and doing some cantilevering of the bike path; stated an opportunity may exist with a third ventilation tube that runs through the center of the two existing vehicular tubes. Councilmember Matarrese stated periodically he rides his bike through the Posey Tube to commute to Berkeley; the Posey Tube is the preferred crossing because there is no wait for a bus; the walkways should be reviewed; he is willing to consider all three options. Councilmember Daysog suggested performing an analysis on a plan to clean and maintain the Tube's walls. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, (submitted handout) thanked the Public Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 21, 2006 10 Works Department for pursuing the feasibility study; stated many options are available; ninety -five bicyclists and pedestrians rode across the Tube on a Tuesday from 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m; five times as many bicyclists and pedestrians rode across the Park Street Bridge. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (06- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06- ) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review the possibility of establishing emails for various Boards and Commissions, especially the Recreation and Park Commission, Economic Development Commission and Planning Board, so that there is a means of communication with the community. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:10 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 November 21, 2006 11 November 30, 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. ChBck Numbers 154296 - 154416 EFT 278 EFT 279 EFT 280 Void Checks: 154213 154285 153139 153325 154153 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Council Warrants 12/05/06 Amount $485,150.51 $12,943.50 $31,147.08 $59,077.01 ($128.40) ($3,007.22) ($4,968.00) ($900.00) ($1,392.76) $577,921.72 BILLS #4 -B 12/5/2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire Services BACKGROUND On March 21, 1990, the City Council adopted the Police and Fire Fee Ordinance. This ordinance serves to mitigate the impacts caused by new construction on Police and Fire services. The ordinance established the City's Police and Fire Services Fee requirements as Section 27 -2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and states that this fee is required for all new construction. The original fee was 12 cents per square foot. In 1991, the fee was increased to 14 cents per square foot and in February 1995 it was increased to 15.5 cents per square foot. The Municipal Code requires that the City Council review the fee requirements on an annual basis to determine whether they are reasonably related to the impacts of new construction and whether the fee is still needed. This report is intended to satisfy the annual review requirement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS At the time of final inspection or date of certificate of occupancy, whichever is first, the developer must pay the Police and Fire Services Fee. The ordinance provides developers with an appeal process whereby the developer may apply for an adjustment or waiver of the Police and Fire Services Fee. Award of appeals is based on the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the police and fire service impacts of the new construction and the payment of the Police And Fire Fee. The appeal process includes a public hearing and a decision by the City Council. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The Police and Fire Services Fee Ordinance has no impact on the General Fund. By ordinance, funds from this fee are segregated in a special account that can only be used for eligible purposes specified in the ordinance. Agenda Item #4 -C CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, a total of $102,025.32 in fees was credited to this fund. In addition, $219.92 in interest was earned and credited to the fund. Expenditures from the account supported the debt service payments for the Police Building Remodel /Construction. Attachment A describes the beginning and ending fund balances and fund activity for fiscal year 2005 -2006. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This Annual Review is consistent with the requirements of Section 27 -2 (Police and Fire Fee Requirements) of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66006. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Impact Fee Report for Police and Fire Services to satisfy the annual review requirement. Respectfully submitted, elle-Ann oyer Chief Financial Officer JB:dl Attachment Police & Fire Construction Impact Fee (Fund 161) Exhibit A Fund Balance Analysis FY05 -06 FY05 -06 as of 6/30/2006 Fund balance forward from prior fiscal year 53,378.72 Revenue: Police /Fire Construction Impact Fee 102,025.32 Interest Allocation 219.92 Total Revenue 102,245.24 Expenditures: Transfer to Police Building Debt Service 155,330.00 Total Expense 155,330.00 Fund Balance end of 6/30/2006 293.96 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommending Acceptance of Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review BACKGROUND On December 19, 1989, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance, which was created to mitigate the housing impacts caused by new or expanded non - residential construction. The fees apply to office /R &D, retail, warehouse /industrial, manufacturing, and hotel /motel construction. The ordinance established the City's Affordable Housing Unit/Fee (AHUF) requirements as Section 27 -1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and states that these requirements can be satisfied either by the provision of housing units affordable to low and moderate income households or by the payment of an in -lieu fee. The fees remained the same from 1989 to Spring 2001. In June 2001, the City Council increased the in -lieu fee by 15 percent as an adjustment for prior inflation. The City Council also provided for an annual fee adjustment to reflect changes in construction costs. The Municipal Code mandates that the City Council review the unit/fee requirements on an annual basis to determine whether they are reasonably related to the impacts of development and whether the affordable housing units, programs and activities are still needed. This report is intended to satisfy the annual review requirement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. DISCUSSION At the time of building permit application, a developer must satisfy the affordable housing requirement either by providing affordable units or by paying an in -lieu fee. To date, two developers have provided one unit each. For the first project, in 1995, a unit on Alameda Avenue was designated as affordable to fulfill the obligation of conversion of a building on Santa Clara from residential to office space. For the second project, in 2004, a unit on Pensacola Road was designated as affordable to fulfill the obligation of installing new Head Start modular classrooms at West Midway Avenue. The City monitors both units to ensure that long -term affordability is maintained. All other developers have paid an in -lieu fee instead of providing housing units. The ordinance provides developers with a process to Agenda Item #4 -D CC 12 -05 -06 The Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 apply for an adjustment or waiver of the affordable housing requirement if there is no reasonable relationship between a particular project and the need for affordable housing. The appeal process includes a review by the Development Services Director and the City Council, which makes the final decision. The original study utilized to establish the affordable housing requirements found that construction or expansion of non - residential development was a major factor in attracting new employees to the City, which in turn created a need and demand for additional housing in the City, and specifically for additional affordable housing. This study was reviewed in November 2006, with the conclusion that the demand for affordable housing and associated subsidies is comparable to or greater than those calculated at the time of the original study, in 1989, and the City's fees are well within the limits of the maximum fees that could be supported on a nexus basis. In addition, the City's affordable housing units, programs and activities are still needed. The City has not yet satisfied the goals established in the Housing Element for affordable housing, and the average market price of housing is well beyond the reach of households at very low, low and moderate income levels. High land costs and scarcity of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing units solely through private action. Affordable housing rents and purchase prices remain below the level necessary to stimulate new construction, and federal and state housing finance and subsidy programs remain insufficient by themselves to satisfy affordable housing needs. The Affordable Housing Ordinance establishes a method for increasing the fee annually. The fee increase is based on the increase in local cost of construction, as reported by the Engineering News Report Construction Price Index for San Francisco. From June 2005 to June 2006, the cost of construction rose by 1.9 percent; therefore, the revised AHUF fees included in the Master Fee schedule effective July 1, 2006 were increased by 1.9 %. The following table lists the adjusted fees by development type: FY 2005 -06 Fee (per sq ft) Adjustment of 1.9% FY 2006 -07 Fee (per sq ft) Office /R &D $3.85 +$0.07 $3.92 Retail $1.95 +$0.04 $1.99 Warehouse /Industrial $0.67 +$0.01 $0.68 Manufacturing $0.67 +$0.01 $0.68 Hotel /Motel $988 /room +$19.00 $1,007 /room The Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT By ordinance, funds from affordable housing fees are sequestered in a special fund that can only be used for eligible housing purposes specified in the ordinance. From July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, a total of $173,871 in fees was collected. Expenditures from the fund supported the City's first time homebuyer programs. Attachment A describes the beginning and ending fund balances and fund activity for fiscal year 2005 -2006. The Affordable Housing Ordinance has no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS - REFERENCE This Annual Review is consistent with the requirements of Section 27 -1 (Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Requirements) of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66006. RECOMMENDATION Accept this report in order to satisfy the Annual Review requirement of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Resp -ctf , y submitted, le A. ittle Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DK /LAL /DES /RS:ry Attachment G: \HOUSING\AHUF\Annual Reports\ANNRPT2006.doc F: AHUF /Annual Review ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ALAMEDA FUND 266 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT /FEE FUND BEGINNING AND ENDING FUND BALANCES FUND ACTIVITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06 Beginning Fund Balance $218,365.15 New Revenues Affordable Housing Fees Interest Allocation Interest Payments from loans Principal Payments from loans Other Misc Revenues (loan fees) Transfer In from Gen Fund (Mortgage Credit Certificate Program) Total New Revenues Expenditures and Encumbrances Operating Administration Encumbrances Downpayment Assistance Loans First Time Homebuyer workshops and loan delivery Projects $173,870.52 $ 4,943.68 $ 2,666.55 $ 40,438.92 $ 45.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 37,272.44 $190,473.00 $ 8,925.00 Downpayment Assistance Loans $ - First Time Homebuyer workshops $ 4,261.94 Housing Website $ 706.00 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program - payment to County $ 1,000.00 Total Expenditures and Encumbrances $ 222,964.67 $242,638.38 Ending Fund Balance $198,691.44 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommending Acceptance of Public Art Ordinance Annual Review BACKGROUND On March 12, 2003 the City Council adopted Ordinance 2892 which created the Alameda Public Art Program. The intent of the program is to promote a diverse and stimulating cultural environment to enrich the lives of the City's residents and visitors and to contribute to the vitality of the City's economic development. The Ordinance provides that private and municipal building projects with an assessed value of $250,000 and over contribute one percent of the building development costs, up to a maximum of $150, 000, toward on -site public artwork, cultural programs, or cultural facilities. The California Government Code mandates that a local agency establish a separate fund for fees, such as public art fees, paid in connection with the approval of a development project. The Code also requires a local agency to prepare an annual report that provides information regarding the amount of fees collected and expended and the fund balance at both the beginning and end of the fiscal year. This report is intended to satisfy the annual review requirement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In Fiscal Year 2005 -2006, the City of Alameda Public Art Program administered fees for three development projects: Alameda Towne Centre, Bay Ship & Yacht, and Blanding Avenue Work Live Project. Fees generated by these projects totaled $17,408. In June 2006, the Public Art Commission approved the public art application for the Alameda Towne Centre. As of June 30, 2006, the City has not received public art applications for Bay Ship & Yacht and the Blanding Avenue Work Live Project. In order to be issued a certificate of occupancy, the developer must satisfy the public art requirement either by providing public art or by paying an in -lieu fee. To date, no developer has paid an in -lieu fee instead of providing on -site public art. Agenda Item #4 -E CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Council Members December 5, 2006 FISCAL IMPACT The Public Art Ordinance has no impact on the General Fund. By ordinance, funds from public art fees are held in a special fund that can only be used for eligible public art purposes specified in the ordinance. From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, a total of $17,918 was credited to the Public Art Fund. Expenditures from the fund cover staffing of the Public Art Program and miscellaneous expenses such as postage for "call for artists" mailings. Attachment A describes the beginning and ending fund balances and fund activity for Fiscal Year 2005- 2006. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This Annual Review is consistent with the requirements of the California Government Code Section 66006. RECOMMENDATION Accept this report in order to satisfy the Annual Review requirement of the Public Art Ordinance. By: Attachment: Respectfully submitted, Cathy/ oodbury Plan g & Building Director Dougl Plann A. Fund Activity for Fiscal Year 2005 — 2006 ATTACHMENT A Beginning and Ending Fund Balances and Fund Activity for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 FUND 285 - Public Art Fund Fiscal Year 2005 -06 Starting Fund Balance 15 064.56 Revenue Administration Fees Interest Allocation 17,408.01 510.01 Total Revenue 17,918.02 Expenditures Operating Miscellaneous (Postage) 64.72 Total Expenditures 64.72 Ending Fund Balance 32,917.86 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee BACKGROUND State law requires local agencies that charge development impact fees to conduct an annual review of the fees within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. The annual review shall include the following information: • A brief description of the fee; • The amount of the fee; • The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; • The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; • An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; • An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement; • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan; and • The amount of unexpended revenues refunded. DISCUSSION The Public Works Department oversees the administration of two development impact fees: the Citywide Development Fee (CDF) and the FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee (TF). Citywide Development Fee (CDF): Description - The CDF, which became effective in February 2001, is charged to all new construction or intensification of use. The CDF is increased annually by the San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index. Agenda Item #4 -F CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 December 5, 2006 Amount of the Fee — The CDF is charged based on the types of development and its location as follows: LAND USE CATEGORY CITY DISTRICT West End Northern Waterfront Central/ East End Bay Farm Infill CIF Fees per Residential Unit SF Low $3,766 $3,510 $3,506 $2,386 SF Med $3,293 $3,088 $3,083 $2,189 Duplex $3,179 $2,949 $2,944 $1,937 MF $2,928 $2,679 $2,693 $1,686 CDF Fees per unit of Non - Residential Building Space Work/Live $2,790 $2,597 $2,594 $1,754 CDF Fees per square foot of Non - Residential Building_Space General Industrial $3.23 $2.74 $2.74 $0.68 Retail $4.88 $4.16 $4.15 $1.02 Commercial /Office $4.69 $4.01 $4.00 $1.09 Warehouse $1.87 $1.59 $1.59 $0.40 Other Uses (Not Listed Above) 1. Non - transportation Fee $0.75 per sf $0.75 per sf $0.75 per sf $0.75 per sf 2. Transportation Fee (Cost per vehicle trip generated) $1,339 $1,096 $1,090 $33 Financial Information — For Fiscal Year 2005/2006, the beginning balance of the CDF account, including prior year adjustment was $1,047,869. During the fiscal year, $265,940 was collected and $19,280 was earned in interest. The ending balance in the CDF account is $1,333,089. An administrative fee is also collected to pay for on -going City administrative costs and to provide a reserve account for future fee updates and nexus studies. The beginning balance for the administration fee, including prior year adjustment was $14,939. During the fiscal year, $8,695 was collected. Administrative expenditures for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 included: $1,384 for fee collection, receivable tracking and informational services at the Planning and Building Department's Central Permits Office; $1,384 for annual interest allocation and end of year account balances from the Finance Department; and $18,320 for consultant expenses to initiate an update of the CDF report, review project costs and scope modifications. An ending balance of $2,546 remains in the reserve account to allow the City to complete the CDF update and nexus study. Expenditure of Fees — The CDF Program includes 54 separate capital improvement projects distributed among five categories for a total cost of $99 million, in year 2000 dollars. The categories of capital improvements covered by the CDF are public safety, transportation and traffic safety, parks Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers December 5, 2006 and recreation, public facilities, and administration. The projects are identified in the Alameda Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001. Based upon the approved cost allocations, new development is responsible for 28% of the total costs. Existing development is responsible for the remaining 72 %. When a project is initiated, the City is required to fund existing development's share of the cost of the improvements. Until sufficient funds are available to cover the cost of these large capital projects, fund balances will continue to increase. These projects are included in the deferred CIP budget until such time as sufficient funds become available to cover the costs. Currently there are insufficient funds available to initiate a project. Construction Commencement Date — In accordance with state law, the local agency must first determine that sufficient funds have been received to complete the public improvement before a construction commencement date is provided. Currently there are insufficient funds available to begin work on a project. The capital improvement projects included in the program remain the same as articulated in the Alameda Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001. Interfund Transfer or Loan — There were no interfund transfers or loans made during Fiscal Year 2005/2006. Refunded Unexpended Revenues — No unexpended revenues were refunded during Fiscal Year 2005/2006. FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee (TF): Description — Since the FISC /Catellus Development was approved prior to the adoption of the CDF, the development is are not required to pay the CDF. However, in accordance with the Catellus Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Catellus project, the developer is required to pay a special Traffic Fee (TF) to mitigate the transportation impacts identified in the EIR. The Amount of the Fee — A fee of $2,674 is charged per residential unit. The amount is based upon the percentage share of Phase 1 residential 2020 trips as determined in the EIR. Financial Information — For Fiscal Year 2005/2006, the beginning balance of the TF account, including prior year adjustment was $390,404. During the fiscal year, $695,240 was collected and $11,377 was earned in interest for a total of $706,617. The ending balance in the TF account is $1,097,021. Expenditure of Fees — The FISC /Catellus EIR identified 18 separate capital improvement projects for a total of $18 million of which $1,296,804 are due to impacts from the residential development. Until sufficient funds are available from the forthcoming FISC /Catellus Development and from other and future west end development there will be insufficient funds to cover the cost of these large capital projects, this mitigation fund balances will continue to increase. These projects are included in the deferred CIP budget until such time as sufficient funds become available. Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers December 5, 2006 Construction Commencement Date — In accordance with state law, the local agency must first determine that sufficient funds have been received to complete the public improvement before a construction commencement date is provided. Currently there are insufficient funds available to begin work on a project. The capital improvement projects included in the program remain the same as articulated in the EIR. Interfund Transfer or Loan — There were no interfund transfers or loans made during Fiscal Year 2005/2006. Refunded Unexpended Revenues — No unexpended revenues were refunded during Fiscal Year 2005/2006. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT The CDF and TF provide funds to the City for the construction of specific capital improvements within the City, based on new development's proportionate share of its impacts to the required improvement. The City is required to provide funding to cover existing development's share of the improvements. These funds may be obtained from the Redevelopment Funds, grants or other City funding sources. The CDF and TF monies received from developers are deposited into special accounts that can only be used for eligible purposes as specified when the fee was created. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This annual review is consistent with the requirements of Section 27 -3 (Citywide Development Fee) of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66006. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee. Respectful itted, Prepared by, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN:BH:gc G: \pubworks \pwadm in\ COUNCIL\ 2006 \120506'cdfo506annualreport.doc Barbara Hawkins City Engineer CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Award Professional Services Contract in the Amount of $337,000, Including Contingencies, to Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project BACKGROUND The Main Street ferry terminal barge was built in 1944 and has been in City service since 1990. The City performed detailed maintenance on the barge in 1995. In March 2005, staff contracted with A.J. Miller & Associates, a maritime structural engineering company, to conduct an in- place assessment of the barge's remaining useful life. The assessment included visual, physical and ultrasound testing. Miller concluded that the barge was in good condition, and that barge structure was adequate to remain in service. The Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project provides for the routine maintenance of the terminal docking barge. Routine maintenance consists of electrical protection system replacement, sand blasting, application of coatings, painting, partial deck resurfacing, replacement of some hull plating, and barge drydocking. To ensure continued ferry service operations, the project includes installation of a temporary replacement barge. Project work, which is scheduled for completion in winter 2007, will be staged to minimize ferry service disruption. A two -day disruption of winter weekend service may be required to accommodate the exchange of the barges. DISCUSSION In accordance with established City procedures, staff issued an informal call for bids for professional services to Vortex Marine Construction, Oscar Niemeth, Marine Express, and Manson Construction in October 2006. Initially, the City anticipated contracting with a shipyard for barge repair services and companies were invited to only bid on towing services, barge modifications, provision of a temporary replacement barge and all associated marine and engineering services. However, in consultation with the Risk Manager, the City added contracting with a shipyard for repairs to the scope of work to ensure sufficient Commercial Marine Liability Insurance and Hull and Machinery Insurance coverage would be provided. The shipyard repair work is estimated to cost approximately $220,000. The City received bids from Vortex Marine Construction and Marine Express (see Table 1). Both bidders excluded insurance coverage for the replacement barge and ballast removal from the existing barge as these expenses could not be determined by the bid due date. Agenda Item #4 -G CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers December 5, 2006 Adjusting the bids to include estimated shipyard repair costs of $220,000, the Marine Express bid totaled $288,180 and included $68,180 for replacement barge charter, engineering, and administrative costs for contracting with a shipyard. The adjusted Vortex bid totaled $331,602 and included $111,602 for the required marine services. The Vortex bid did not include engineering or the administrative cost of shipyard contracting. Vortex was open to working with the shipyard but wanted to discuss cost for this service after the basic work scope was awarded. Bid differences are due mainly to the cost of replacement barge modifications, barge switch -outs, and replacement barge charter rates. Vortex proposed a 112' x 52' x 11' barge at $15,000 per month while Marine Express proposed a 110' x 34' x 11' barge at $6,000 per month. Staff has discussed these barge formats with Blue & Gold Fleet, Walther Engineering, and Harbor Bay Maritime, all of whom agree that either barge would. work. Based on the lower cost of their bid, staff began preliminary negotiations with Marine Express. The City and Marine Express have successfully negotiated a contract with a not to exceed amount of $337,000 that includes $74,680 for Marine Express, $220,000 for shipyard repair to be paid to Marine Express on a pass - through basis, and a contingency of $42,320. A copy of the consultant agreement is attached. Future Disposition of Main Street Barge While Miller and Associate's 2005 barge assessment was positive, the actual condition of the barge cannot be determined until the barge is drydocked and the hull sandblasted. For this reason, the project budget includes a $42,320 contingency. However, upon drydock inspection, staff may determine that the old barge cannot be cost effectively repaired and returned to service. In that case, the City will extend the replacement barge charter through September 2007 while it considers permanent replacement options. Two such options are: a) purchase and refurbish a used barge; or b) replace the old barge with the 110' x 33' barge currently leased to Trident by the City. This barge would have to be modified. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The Barge Maintenance Project is budgeted under CIP# 621.20 for $340,000 which includes the Marine Express contract at $337,000 and a marine construction consultant at $3,000. Funding consists of $207,617 from Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Measure 1 -2% Bridge Toll program and $132,383 from Measure B. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with Alameda Oakland Ferry Service operations. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.f. Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION December 5, 2006 Award Professional Services Contract in the amount of $337,000, including contingencies, to Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by: c1 Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager MTN:ES:gc attachment cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee G : \pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006 \120506 \barge - matt2.doc TABLE 1 (A) Neither bid includes insurance. (B) Marine Express will provide engineering for project but is waiting for bid. Vortex wants City to provide engineering. (C) City would contract with independent surveyor to inspect shipyard compliance with barge 1 specifications. Vortex Vortex Marine Express Monthly Rate Marine Express Lump Sum Task Description Monthly Rate Lump Sum 1 Provide Replacement Barge (barge 2) (assumes 2 months for lump sum) 1.a Barge charter (A) $15,000 $30,000 $6,000 $12,000 1.b Engineering: drawings and calculations for gangway support structure. LB) not included $4,800 1.c Barge modifications: installation and removal of fendering system, gangway support, ballast, etc $15,272 $29,000 1.d On -, and off -hire surveys $1,080 $1,000 2 Barge Change -Outs 2.a Replace barge 1 with barge 2 $31,205 $8,190 2.b Replace barge 2 with barge 1 $31,205 $8,190 3 Prepare Barge 1 for Drydock 3.a Perform all required tasks including remove and storage of internal ballast materials. T &M T & M 4 Tow Barge 1 to Bay Area Drydock $1,420 $1,000 5 Barge 1 Post - Drydock 5.a Tow from Bay Area shipyard. $1,420 $1,000 5.b Install ballast materials. Ballast to 4' freeboard T &M $3,000 6 Provide barge 1 drydock specifications not included Included 7 Provide barge 1 shipyard management including contracting with shipyard for drydock repairs and negotiating change orders. (C) not included Included Subtotal Total (assuming 2 month barge charter) $111,602 $68,180 Shipyard repair (City estimate) $220,000 $220,000 Adjusted Total $331,602 $288,180 (A) Neither bid includes insurance. (B) Marine Express will provide engineering for project but is waiting for bid. Vortex wants City to provide engineering. (C) City would contract with independent surveyor to inspect shipyard compliance with barge 1 specifications. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of December, 2006, by and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and MARINE EXPRESS, INC. a California corporation, whose address is 2900 MAIN STREET, ALAMEDA, CA 94501, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for the Barge Maintenance Project upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 6th day of December, 2006, and shall terminate on the 31st day of May, 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: The Consultant shall assist the City with the Barge Maintenance Project. The project provides for the drydocking and repair of the current Main Street Terminal barge, and the temporary installation of a replacement barge to permit continued Alameda/Oakland Ferry operations. Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from CIP 621.2, CIP 0675 and CIP 90567. Payment will be made by the City in the following manner: On the first day of each month, Consultant shall submit a detailed written invoice of the total amount of work done the previous Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 1 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSmFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC month. Payment will be for time and direct costs and are not to exceed budget. Pricing and accounting of charges are to be according to the fee schedule in Exhibit `B" unless mutually agreed upon in writing. Extra work must be approved in writing by City prior to performance and shall be paid on a Time and Material basis using the Exhibit `B ", Table 2 schedule. Total compensation for identified work scope shall not exceed $337,000 which includes a $42,320 contingency. Use of contingency shall require prior written authorization by the City. 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete work no later than March 25, 2007 and shall make every effort to complete work by February 25, 2007. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 8. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 2 G:\PUBWORKS\TRANSmFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\ MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC 9. HOLD HARMLESS: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will provide such defense costs. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: In the full statutory limits as required by (I) the State of California, and (ii) the laws of the United States (including, full statutory limits, the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Act ( "USL &H ") coverage for non -crew marine Consultant employees), and employers' liability insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence (in connection with Workers' Compensation and USL &H). (2) Liability: Comprehensive general liability covering all legal liability for personal injury, bodily injury, death or property damage which may arise out of Consultant's performance under this Agreement in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate - all other Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 3 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSmFERRY\MAIN STREEI\BARGE DRYDOCKVv1ARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $2,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (3) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage extending to owned, non - owned, and hired vehicles, and including contractual liability covering all liability assumed under this Agreement in the following minimum limits: the amount of $1 million. Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $2,000,000 each occurrence (4) Hull and Protection and Indemnity with Pollution liability coverage in B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, and employees shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 4 G:\PUB WORKS \iRANSITFERRYUTAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARME EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 15. REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 5 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSmFERRY\MAIN STREEI\BARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others; (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or (4) Other City projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. 16. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 17. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 6 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSITFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC City of Alameda 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Ernest Sanchez All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Randall Esch Marine Express, Inc. 2900 Main Street Alameda, Ca 94501 18. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 19. PURCHASES OF MINED MATERIALS REQUIREMENT: Contractor shall ensure that all purchases of mined materials such as construction aggregate, sand and gravel, crushed stone, road base, fill materials, and any other mineral materials must originate from a surface mining operation identified on the AB3098 List per the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). Within five days of award of contract, Contractor shall submit a report to City which lists the intended suppliers for the above materials and demonstrates that the suppliers are in compliance with the SMARA requirements. The AB3098 List is maintained by the Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) and can be viewed at: www.conservation.ca.gov /OMR/ab 3098 list/index.htm. Note that the list changes periodically and should be reviewed accordingly. 20. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 21. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 7 G \PUB WORKS TRANSITTERRYWARJ STREEI\BARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 22. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 23. WAIVER: A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 24. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 25. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 26. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. Marine Express, Inc.. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 8 G:\PUB W ORKS \TRANSmFERRY\MAIN STREE OBARGE DRYDOCK\MARFNE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. MARINE EXPRESS, INC. CITY OF ALAMEDA A Calif9mia Corporation A Municipal Corporation Randall Esch 2/- o6 President Debra Kurita City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: atthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mohammed Hill Assistant City Attorney Marine Express, Inc. Page: 9 Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock c:, ruewonKSrnwanvsaarMnnvsrneena *r <cr.DitvxKxAMnxws EXPRESS A EEMENT.DOC. Exhibit A — Work Scope The Consultant shall assist the City with the Main Street Barge Maintenance Project. The project provides for the drydocking and repair of the Main Street Terminal barge, and the temporary installation of a replacement barge to permit continued Alameda/Oakland Ferry operations. The project is scheduled for completion in Winter 2007. Consultant shall perform the following tasks. Task 1 Replacement Barge Task 1.a Consultant shall provide a temporary replacement barge (barge 2) for use at the Main Street terminal ferry while the permanent barge (barge 1) is out of service. Barge 2 must: a) have a length between 90' and 112' long and have a beam between 33' and 52'; b) be capable of accommodating the passenger gangway leading from shore to the barge; c) be capable of being ballasted to a 4' freeboard; d) be suitable for passenger ferry operations including the loading and unloading of passengers, and the transit of passengers from the gangway to the vessel. Consultant shall make barge 2 available for City use beginning January 2, 2007. City expects to require barge 2 for four to eight weeks. However, in the event that barge 1 is not capable of returning to service, City shall have the option, at its sole discretion, of extending the barge 2 charter on a day - to -day basis through September 30, 2007. Task 1.b Consultant shall conduct barge 2 on -hire and off -hire surveys. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified surveyor acceptable to both Consultant and City. Consultant shall air pressure test barge 2 to determine if barge can sustain ballasting to a 4' freeboard. Consultant shall submit survey and test results to the City for review. City must pre- approve in writing the barge proposed by Consultant for barge 2 service. Task 1.c Consultant shall provide to City stamped engineering drawings and calculations demonstrating that the proposed gangway support system is capable of supporting the gangway. Task 1.d Consultant shall make all barge 2 modifications required for Main Street ferry operations including but not limited to ballasting, installation of a fendering system, and installation of deck structures and ballasting required for support of the passenger gangway. Consultant shall submit proposed fendering system to City for approval. Consultant is responsible for returning barge 2 to original configuration after return of barge 1. Task 2 Perform Two Barge Change -Outs. Change -outs shall be conducted over two weekends sometime during the first three months of 2007. Each change -outx shall be completed within 48 continuous hours beginning no sooner than Friday at 9:15 PM and concluding no later than Sunday 9:15 PM. Consultant shall make every effort to complete both change -outs during the January through February 2007 period. Consultant shall perform all tasks required to ensure that upon completion of change -outs barge and passenger gangway are ready for ferry operations. Change -out tasks include but are not limited to detaching aluminum gangway from barge and securing it on replacement barge, and transfer of the Blue and Gold Fleet gangway between the barges. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 10 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSITFERRY\MAM STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC Task 2.a Task 2.b Consultant shall remove barge 1 and replace it with barge 2. Consultant shall remove barge 2 and replace it with Barge 1. Task 3 Prepare Barge 1 for Drydock Task 3a. Consultant shall make all barge 1 modifications necessary to prepare the barge for drydocking. Such modifications shall include but not be limited to removal of all interior ballast materials including sand and water. Consultant shall submit Consultant's proposed method of ballast removal to City for written approval. Consultant's proposed method must meet all relevant environmental regulations and be the most cost effective method of ballast removal. Consultant shall have the option of re- inserting into barge 1 removed ballast materials upon completion of drydock work if such procedure is consistent with environmental regulations and is cost effective. Task 4 Task 5 Task 5.a Task 5.b Task 6 Tow Barge 1 to Shipyard Barge 1 Post - Drydock Tow Barge 1 to Consultant's Alameda Facility. Ballast Barge 1 to 4' Freeboard. Manage Barge 1 Shipyard Repairs Task 6.a Consultant shall provide shipyard specifications for shipyard work. Consultant provided specifications shall consist in both basic and Add Alternate options. Basic shipyard specifications shall consists of those repair and maintenance tasks required to return the barge to service with a reasonable expectation of a service life of up to 5 years. Add Alternate specifications shall consist in those work items in addition to the basic repair work scope that would improve the barge's likelihood of service beyond 5. Consultant shall submit proposed basic and Add Alternate work scopes to City for approval. The City shall at its sole discretion and upon inspection of the barge in drydock, determine which shipyard work scope shall be completed. Task 6.b Solicit Shipyard Bids Consultant shall solicit bids from both Bay Ship and Yacht and BAE Systems for barge 1 drydocking and repair. Consultant shall submit bids to City for review and approval of winning bid. Consultant shall contract with the company that offers the best combination of: a) lowest basic and Add Alternate work scope costs, b) lowest Time and Materials charges, and c) the earliest drydock availability. Consultant shall make every effort to schedule shipyard work so as to permit reinstallation of barge 1 at Main Street by February 25, 2007. Task 6.c Contract with Shipyard Consultant shall contract with the shipyard for barge 1 work. In addition, Consultant shall negotiate change orders on behalf of the City. Change orders must be pre- approved by the City Ferry Manager before Consultant authorizes shipyard change -order work. City shall contract with an independent agent to inspect shipyard's conformance to the required work specifications and to evaluate the quality of shipyard work. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 11 G:\PUB WORKS \TRANSrDFERRY\MAIN STREEI\BARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC Exhibit B — Consultant Compensation Consultant shall be paid in the following mariner: On the first day of each month, Consultant shall submit a detailed written invoice for the total amount of work done the previous month by Task specified in Exhibit A herein. After City approval, City will pay each invoice within 45 days of receipt of invoice by City. Payment shall be made by check drawn on the treasury of the City to be taken from CIP 621.2, CIP 0675 and CIP 90567. Total compensation under this contract shall not exceed $337,000, which includes a contingency of $42,320. Use of contingency requires prior written City approval. The not to exceed includes all labor, direct and materials costs required to perform the work scope specified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be compensated for ballast material removal (Task 3a) on a time and materials basis in accord with table 2. For tasks not denoted below, but approved in writing by the City, the Consultant shall be paid on a time and materials basis in accord with table 2. Shipyard costs: Consultant is required to contract with a shipyard approved by the City for barge 1 repairs. City shall pay to Consultant shipyard costs on a pass - through basis with no Consultant mark- up or fees. In order to satisfy shipyard pre - payment requirements, the City shall, prior to commencement of shipyard work, pay consultant 50% of estimated shipyard barge 1 repair costs. Shipyard change- orders must be pre- approved by City. Marine Express, Inc. Mainsheet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 12 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSITFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC Table 1 Task Description Monthly Rate Lump Sum 1 Replacement Barge (barge 2) 1.a Provide Replacement Barge (A) $6,000 1.b Test and survey barge 2 $12,000 1.c Engineering 1.d Modify barge 2 2 Barge Change -Outs $1,000 $4,800 $29,000 2.a Replace barge 1 with barge 2 2.b Replace barge 2 with barge 1 3 Prepare Barge 1 for Drydock $8,190 $8,190 3.a Perform all required tasks including remove and storage of internal ballast materials. T &M 4 Tow Barge 1 to Shipyard 5 Barge 1 Post - Drydock $1,000 5.a Tow Barge to Consultants Alameda Facility 5.b Ballast to 4' Freeboard 6 Manage Barge 1 Shipyard Repair $1,000 $3,000 6.a Provide specifications for shipyard work. 6.b Solicit Shipyard Bids 6.c Contract with shipyard. Pass - Through Costs (B): no additional payment no additional payment no additional payment Basic drydock and repair (C) Change- orders (C) $160,000 Insurance (D) $60, 000 Total (assuming 2 month barge charter) Contingency $6,500 $294,680 Total /Not to Exceed (A) City shall charter barge for an initial 2 -month period (= 62 days) for $12,000. At the end of the initial 2 -month charter, City may, at its sole discretion, extend the charter on a day -to -day basis at the rate of $193.55 per day. (B) City to pay Marine Express on pass - through basis. No Consultant mark -up or fees permitted Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 13 $42, 320 $337,000 (C) This figure is an estimate. City shall pay Consultant actual cost of shipyard invoice. Change orders must be pre - approved by City. (D) City shall pay Consultant for actual cost of insurance such cost shall not exceed $6,500. G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSITFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC Table 2 - Time and Materials Class/Type Hourly Rate Day Week Labor: Foreman $60.00 laborer $47.00 Equipment (A): Crane to 50 tons $175.00 forklift $60.00 3/4 ton pick -up truck $60.00 Small generator $75.00 60Kw generator $300.00 string lights 50' $25.00 185cfm compressor $200.00 Pumps: 1.5" - 2.5" diaphram (with hoses) $75.00 3" trash (with hoses) $75.00 Storage: Per 3rd party tank supplier based upon volume and material 21,000 GALLON TANK $50.00 18 CUBIC YARD CLOSED TOP BIN $10.00 SLURRY PUMP $1,500.00 (A) Rate includes operator. Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 14 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSITFERRY\MAIN STREETBARGE DRYDOCK\MARINE EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG20101093 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES or CONTRACTORS FORM B This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Alameda Public Works Department Alameda Point, Building 1 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, CA 94501 -7558 (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorseme applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amende Schedule, but only with respect to lia, .. aris REF: The City additio PRIMA IT IS INSU CONT SEVERA IT IS AG SHALL A TO EACH WAIVER OF IT IS UN AGAINS DESCRI NOTICE IT IS UN 1 i !E r IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION OF THE POLICY FOR ANY REASON YMENT OF PREMIUM, 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO THE CERTIFIC E'ER BY MAIL. IN THE EVENT THE POLICY IS CANCELED FOR NON - PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, 1 i 15 YS WRITTEN NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO THE ABOVE. RIGHT 0 UBROGATION CTS THE JOB OR PREMISES Marine Express, Inc. Mainstreet Terminal Barge Drydock Page: 15 G:\PUBWORKS \TRANSn\FERRYUNATN STREEI\BARGE DRYDOCK\MARME EXPRESS AGREEMENT.DOC ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PRODUCER (415)398 -5911 FAX (415)398 -6157 Jordan Harrison Insurance Brokers, Inc. 425 California St., Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94104 Jeffrey Dickow INSURED Marine Express 2900 Main Street, Pier 2 Alameda, CA 94501 DATE (MM /DD/YYYY)\ 11/14/2006 \, THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERT FICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A: RLI Insurance INSURER B: Navigators Insurance Co INSURER C: Water Quality Insurance Syndicate INSURER D: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR A ADD' T TYPE OF INSURANCE P POLICY NUMBER P POLICY EFFECTIVE P POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS GENERAL L LIABILITY M MLP0500056 1 11 /01/2006 1 11/01/2007 E EACH OCCURRENCE $ $ 1,000,00C /VEHICLES /EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENuotcSEMENT /SPECIAL PROVISIONS The City of Alameda, its officers, agents and employees are named as Additional Assureds including Naiver of Subrogation on the above shown policies as their interests may appear. Ten days notice of cancellation for non - payment of premium. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION Evidence of Insurance ACORD 25 (2001/08) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL __30__ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Serene Dong ©ACORD CORPORATION 198 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25 (2001/08) CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to Negotiate a Purchase Agreement in the Amount of $99,500, Including Contingencies, to Cabral Chrysler, Jeep, Suzuki to Purchase Six All- Electric Vehicles for City Fleet BACKGROUND On October 17, 2006, consistent with Resolution Number 13951 which established guiding principles for the management of the City fleet vehicles and equipment, City Council approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) to purchase all- electric vehicles for use by various city staff while conducting their daily work activities within the City. These vehicles will be used for travel to and from building sites, for on -going building inspection activities, for travel between different City offices to attend meetings and for the delivery of packages and mail to various City buildings. DISCUSSION City staff conducted extensive research on the internet and contacted representatives from the alternative fuel industry and local and state agency leaders in the field to identify vendors who manufacture all- electric, on -road legal street vehicles. All identified vendors were sent an RFP. The City received proposals from the following vendors: Proposer Vehicle Type Location Cost to Meet Minimum Specifications $13,455.00 Cabral Chrysler, Jeep, Suzuki GEM e4 Manteca, CA Nader Chrysler GEM e4 Martinez, CA $14,022.50 ZAP! Xebra PK XL Santa Rosa, CA $17,000.00 Trexa USA T1 Venice, CA $17,195.00 Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to negotiate a Purchasing Agreement with Cabral Chrysler, Jeep, Suzuki to purchase six GEM e4 vehicles. The agreement will include purchasing the additional 2 -year extended warranty, estimated at $755 per vehicle. It is estimated that vehicles will be received in six to eight weeks. A copy of the Purchase Agreement is attached. Agenda Item #4 -H CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Funding for the purchase of the electric vehicles are from the following sources: $99,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds, $34,500 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund and $3,000 from the General Fund. The vehicles that are being replaced will be declared surplus and sold at auction. All revenues from the sale of the surplus vehicles will be returned to the Vehicle Replacement Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Authorize City Manager to negotiate a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $99,500, including contingencies, to Cabral Chrysler, Jeep, Suzuki to purchase six all- electric vehicles for City Fleet. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN /mn Attachment G:\ pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006 \120506'e vehicles - final.doc PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Purchase Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA ( "CITY ") and CABRAL CHRYSLER, JEEP, SUZUKI ( "COMPANY "). In consideration for the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the Parties to this PURCHASE AGREEMENT agree as follows: 1. THE PURCHASE: CITY agrees to purchase, and COMPANY agrees to manufacture, sell and deliver six new and unused GEM e4 vehicles of current production model with latest design features that are licensed as an on -road legal street vehicle including extra options as selected by CITY (hereinafter the "E- VEHICLES ") which are further described on Exhibit A attached to this Agreement. COMPANY agrees to manufacture and deliver the E- VEHICLES strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the specification for electric vehicles ( "CITY SPECIFICATIONS ") as provided to COMPANY as a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued October 17, 2006 which specifications and RFP are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth, and to deliver the E- VEHICLES to CITY as provided in this Agreement. Details of construction and materials where no otherwise specified in the City Specifications shall be based on mutual agreement by CITY and COMPANY. 2. QUALITY AND WORKMANSHIP: The design and manufacturing of the E- VEHICLES shall embody the latest approved automotive engineering practices. The workmanship shall be of the highest quality in its respective field. Construction shall be rugged and ample safety factors shall be provided to meet the demands as specified in the CITY SPECIFICATIONS and RFP and to meet all requirements and speed conditions to be licensed as an on -road legal street vehicle. 3. DESIGN AND STANDARDS: The E- VEHICLES shall meet or exceed all applicable requirements and/or recommendations established for electric vehicles by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), Department of Transportation (DOT), and State of California and Federal motor vehicle and safety codes. COMPANY shall furnish certification of gross vehicle weight rating, gross combined weight rating, and gross axle weight rating on a name plate affixed to the chassis, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 35002. 4. DELIVERY: COMPANY shall deliver the E- Vehicles under its own power to the Public Works Department, Central Garage, 2040 Grand Street, Alameda, California in the rear parking area on or before February 7, 2007. COMPANY shall contact Mr. Tom Woods, Public Works Supervisor, at 510- 748 -3101, at least 48 working hours prior to the scheduled delivery date. A qualified delivery engineer representing COMPANY shall deliver the E- VEHICLE and shall remain in the City for one day to instruct the Public Works Department personnel in the proper operation, care and maintenance of the E- VEHICLES. Page 1 of 4 5. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price of the E- VEHICLES is $93,892.86 of which $7,483.86 represents local sales tax. CITY shall pay COMPANY the sum of $93,892.86 within 30 -days of being invoiced, so long as all vehicles have been received in full and complete satisfaction by CITY pursuant to this Agreement. COMPANY shall pay $7,483.86 directly to the State of California in full and complete satisfaction of the local sales tax due and owing on the E- VEHICLES. This Agreement includes a contingency of approximately $5,600 to cover additional options CITY may wish to consider including in the final purchase. Use of the contingency is at the sole discretion of CITY and may only be used by COMPANY upon written pre - approval of CITY. Total compensation under this PURCHASE AGREEMENT shall not exceed $99,500. 6. INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: CITY shall have the right to inspect an approve each vehicle that comprises the E- VEHICLES any time during the construction of the E- VEHICLE by COMPANY. 7. INDEMNIFICATION: COMPANY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY, its officials, officers, employees, Boards and Commissions from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorney's fees, regardless of merit or outcome of any such claim or suit, arising from performance of services and /or work by COMPANY pursuant to this Agreement. 8. WARRANTIES: COMPANY shall provide the standard one year warranty offered for the E- VEHICLES, and shall include any and all costs incurred for service, repairs, replacement, labor, transportation, or any costs resulting from or attributable to poor workmanship, defective parts, or materials and as otherwise stated on the warranties. CITY agrees to purchase the additional two year extended warranty, resulting in a total three year warranty period, at the cost of $755 per vehicle. Said cost is already included in the purchase price contained in Section 5 of this Agreement. 9. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Time is of the essence for the delivery of the E- VEHICLES. If the E- VEHICLES are not delivered on or before the delivery date specified in the RFP, damage will be sustained by CITY. Since it is and will be impracticable to determine the actual damage which CITY will sustain in the event of and by reason of such failure to deliver timely in accordance with this Agreement, it is therefore agreed that, at the option of CITY, COMPANY shall pay $150.00 to CITY for each and every calendar day beyond February 7, 2007 not as a penalty, but as predetermined liquidated damages. Page 2 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on this day of 2006. CABRAL CHRYSLER, JEEP, SUZUKI CITY OF ALAMEDA A Municipal Corporation Name Debra Kurita Title City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director APPROVED AS TO FORM Mohammed Hill Assistant City Attorney Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A — Vehicle Specifications and Costs Per Vehicle 2007 GEM e4 AM /FM Dome light Grab handle Heater /defogger Hazard lights Hard doors License plate bracket Gel batteries Trunk back/cargo Charging cord set Regenerative braking Rear window inset Right hand mirror Destination charge Fuel surcharge 1 -yr warranty BASE BID Ext. 2 -year warranty Doc fees Sales tax DMV license fee CA Tire Tax Curb weight GVW Payload capacity Length Height Width Wheelbase Tires Turning Circle Range Top Speed 9,170.00 495.00 30.00 25.00 350.00 25.00 2,595.00 25.00 345.00 395.00 ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs ncluded in above costs 13,455.00 755.00 45.00 1,247.31 139.50 7.00 15,648.81 1280 pounds 2200 pounds 920 pounds 128 inches 70 inches 55 inches 102 inches 12 inches 32 feet Up to 30 miles 25 MPH Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Authorize The Fire Chief to Apply for Assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program for an amount up to $419,145 to Develop and Administer a Technical Rescue Program. BACKGROUND The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006 provides $540 million in available grant money this year to fire departments. The grant, known as The Assistance To Firefighters Grant, is an 80/20 matching grant. Whereby the Department of Homeland Security awards 80% of the total requested amount and the City must provide a match of 20% if the grant is awarded. The program is designed to assist local fire departments in protecting citizens and firefighters against the effects of fire and fire - related incidents. Over the past three years, the Alameda Fire Department (AFD) has been awarded grants of $125,370 for a wellness and fitness program, $408,752 for new self- contained breathing apparatus and $404,087 for a mobile training trailer under this grant program. This year, the fire department proposes to apply for grant assistance for a technical rescue program. The department has identified this as a need to further address the training and response required for structure collapse, response to terrorist attacks and specialized rescue in the aftermath of a major earthquake or other natural disaster. The total cost requested in the grant application to enhance the technical rescue program is $419,145. If the City is awarded the full grant, the City's matching portion will be $83,829. If the City is awarded the grant, these matching funds will be requested from General Fund Reserves in a separate Council action. The funds to be requested for this project will be spent to support a comprehensive basic Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Light Operational Level training and equipment acquisition program, enabling all of AFD's firefighters to respond to structure collapse incidents to conduct effective and specialized search and rescue operations following a major earthquake or terrorist act. Agenda Item #4 -I CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Structural collapse rescue service requires personnel with specialized training and a rescue supply cache to respond and mitigate the impact of victim entrapment. Currently, AFD is dependent upon the cities of Oakland and Berkeley to provide this service. In a major disaster, both Alameda and Coast Guard Island may become isolated from outside jurisdictional assistance for an extended period of time. The plan for mitigating the aftermath of a collapse rescue incident is to enhance the existing rescue capabilities by training all AFD personnel in the certified Rescue Systems I (RSI) curriculum. To ensure the maintenance and sustainability of the RSI training modules once the grant funding terminates, nine AFD personnel will be trained as instructors to provide three trainers per work shift. The industry standard equipment that will be requested in the grant will provide the basic tools not currently owned by AFD but necessary for light operational rescue to stabilize structures from further shifting, and construct access tunnels to reach trapped victims. Grant funds will be spent on the following elements: Equipment purchases will total $146,812; Personal Protective Equipment Purchases will total $50,254; and Training costs will make up the balance at $222,079, for a grand total of $419,145. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact with this action; however, $83,829 will be requested from General Fund Reserves in a separate Council action if the grant is awarded to the City. Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Fire Chief to apply for the Assistance To Firefighters Grant understanding that the City's matching portion of $83,829 may be requested from General Fund reserves in a separate Council action if the grant is awarded. Respectfully submitted, %4f44 ames Christiansen Fire Chief By: Chris Reilly Deputy Fire Chief CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Lara Weisiger City Clerk Date: December 5, 2006 Subject: Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the Consolidated Municipal General Election Held on November 7, 2006 Background The City's General Municipal Election was held on November 7, 2006. The California Elections Code requires the governing body of the City to adopt a resolution to declare the results of the election. Discussion/Analysis Attached is the Certificate of Election Results and Official Canvass for the Consolidated General Municipal Election held on November 7, 2006. Candidate Beverly Johnson received the highest number of votes cast for the Office of Mayor. Candidates Frank Matarrese and Lena Tam received the highest number of votes cast for the Office of Councilmember. Financial Impact None. Recommendation Adopt the resolution declaring the results of the Consolidated Municipal Election. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Attachment — 1 Agenda Item #4 -J CC 12 -05 -06 ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RESULTS AND OFFICIAL CANVASS TO BE PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS IS TO PROVIDE THE CERTIFICATE NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 5, 2006 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING CANVASS OF RETURNS AND RESULTS OF CONSOLIDATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 WHEREAS, a consolidated General Municipal Election, under and pursuant to the provisions of Article XIX of the Charter of the City of Alameda, was held for the purpose of electing officers to the Office of Mayor and Office of Councilmember, as set forth hereafter: One Mayor for a full term commencing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesday in December, 2006 and continuing for four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. Two Councilmembers for full terms, each term commencing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesday in December, 2006 and continuing for four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. WHEREAS, nominating petitions were duly and regularly presented to, and filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Alameda, in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, nominating for said offices: FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR: Doug deHaan Beverly Johnson Kenneth Kahn FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER: Ashley O. "Ash" Jones Pat Bail Frank Matarrese Mike Rich Eugenie P. Thomson Lena Tam WHEREAS, said nominations were entered in a list, with the offices to be filled, which list was certified to and filed in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, whereupon a notice of nominees for public office containing a statement of the time of the election, the offices to be filled, and the names of the candidates to be voted on, was duly and regularly issued more than ten days before said election and was published twice in the official newspaper of said City, the last publication thereof being more than five days before the date of said election; and Resolution # 4 -J CC 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, there were 52 election precincts within the City of Alameda fixed and designated; and WHEREAS, all of the ballots used for said election were prepared as to form and content as prescribed by law and a sample ballot was mailed to each voter of the City of Alameda within the time and in the manner provided by law and such mailing was completed at least ten days preceding the date of said election; and WHEREAS, the officers of election for said election were duly appointed and qualified, and all election supplies furnished and election booths provided for each precinct as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda twenty -eight days following said election has met and fully canvassed the returns of the votes cast at said Consolidated General Municipal Election as required by law, and being fully advised in the premises, and having the returns of said canvass before it; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows: (1) That said Consolidated General Municipal Election was held and conducted, the votes cast thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof ascertained, determined and declared in all respects and particulars in the time, form and manner provided by law. (2) That the whole number of ballots cast in the City of Alameda at said election was (3) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for each of the aforementioned candidates for the Office of Mayor of said City was as follows: Beverly Johnson 13,116 Doug deHaan 7,083 Kenneth Kahn 1,508 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the aforesaid Beverly Johnson, having received the highest number of votes cast for the Office of Mayor, was, and is hereby declared to be, duly and regularly elected to the Office of Mayor of the City of Alameda, for a term beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m., on the third Tuesday in December, 2006, and continuing for four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified, and (4) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for each of the aforementioned candidates for the Office of Councilmember of said City was as follows: Lena Tam 10,636 Frank Matarrese 9,001 Pat Bail 5,789 Eugenue P. Thomson 5,229 Ahsley O. "Ash" Jones 4,359 Mike Rich 1,739 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the aforesaid Lena Tam and Frank Matarrese, having received the two highest number of votes cast for the Office of Councilmember, were, and are hereby declared to be, duly and regularly elected to the Office of Councilmember of the City of Alameda, for a term beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m., on the third Tuesday in December, 2006, and continuing for four years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. 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 5th day of December, 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: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Adopt Resolution Amending Resolution 10001 to Update Signing Authority for Local Agency Investment Fund BACKGROUND On March 15, 1983, Resolution Number 10001 was adopted authorizing investment of the City of Alameda monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and establishing the signing authority. The signing authority at that time was City Treasurer, Finance Director and Supervising Accountant. DISCUSSION On July 1, 2004, the Finance Director was assigned the working title of Chief Financial Officer. When the State Treasurer's office sent the form to update information, the authorization form was returned requesting that our resolution be updated to include the Chief Financial Officer as one of the signing authorities. BUDGET ANALYSIS /FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 10001 to update signing authority for LAIF. JAB:di Respectfully submitted, C1,2,6Qik -4)7m/ Juelle -Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer Agenda Item #4 -K CC 12 -05 -06 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 10001 TO UPDATE SIGNING AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND WHEREAS, on March 15, 1983 the Council passed Resolution 10001 authorizing investment of City of Alameda Monies in Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); and WHEREAS, the signing authority included specifically City Treasurer, Finance Director and Supervising Accountant; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director title was changed to Chief Financial Officer; and WHEREAS, the Chief Financial Officer needs to have signing authority. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that resolution number 10001 be amended to include Chief Financial Officer as a signing authority for the LAIF. Resolution # 4 -K CC 12 -5 -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: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Reappointing T. David Edwards as Trustee to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board BACKGROUND The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board is composed of 14 members, one member from each City and one member from the County -at- large. Mr. T. David Edwards has served on the District Board representing the City of Alameda since 1987. DISCUSSION Mr. Edwards has served on the District Board for almost 20 years. His active participation is a great asset to the District and the City of Alameda. Mr. Edwards has agreed to serve another two -year term. His new term will expire January 2, 2009. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Not applicable. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution reappointing T. David Edwards as Trustee to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board. Respectful 'submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN:gc G:\pubworks\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2006\120506\Mosquitoabate.DOC Agenda Item #4 -L CC 12 -05 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING T. DAVID EDWARDS AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT T. David Edwards be, and he is hereby, reappointed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District, to represent the City of Alameda, for a two -year term beginning January 3, 2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Board of Trustees of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. 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 5th day of December, 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 5th day of December, 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution # 4 -L CC 12 -5 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Open Market Purchase of software licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System for $117,902 from ECS Imaging, Inc for city -wide usage (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND Electronic document imaging systems keep the paper data safe, make it quickly available, reduce storage costs and enhance the ability to recover it in a disaster. The paper medium is converted to a legal, electronic copy that can be indexed with multiple tags for quick retrieval and copied on to DVDs for storage offsite in the event of a disaster. This eliminates the need for the purchase of multiple file cabinets and boxes, warehouse rentals for housing the file cabinets and boxes and reduces the insurance costs to protect all those warehouses. Laserfiche is one of the leading document imaging systems within local government agencies with over 3,000 clients world wide. In 2003, the Planning and Building Department established a document imaging pilot using the Laserfiche system to replace the antiquated microfiche storage system. The quality and ease of retrieval with document imaging surpass the previous microfiche standards. The pilot has been a success and costs have been covered by using existing document storage fees. The Planning and Building department has enhanced document handling. Since 2003, the City has purchased licenses to use the Laserfiche system for, and on behalf of, the Police Department and City Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Information Technology Advisory Team representing all city departments has expressed the need for a standard approach to document imaging to take advantage of economies of scale, common user training and ease of information sharing not possible with multiple software platforms. Capitalizing on the success of the Planning and Building pilot and the experience of the Police Department and City Clerk's office, the Information Technology Department proposes to expand the access of the Laserfiche Document Imaging system as a sole source provider to the rest of the city departments with the following: Agenda Item #4 -M CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 December 5, 2006 • Licenses for 20 additional concurrent full access users • Licenses for 39 additional concurrent retrieval (read only) users • Addition of WebLink and WebAccess products to easily and securely allow for the availability of public documents on the website. • Additional licenses for Quickfields product to enhance scanning productivity. • Additional licenses for SnapShot product to enhance search ability for PDF documents. • Consolidation of maintenance and support under Technology Fund - 704. Laserfiche does not sell their licenses or products directly but works through a channel of Certified Solution Providers and ESC Imaging, Inc is one of their top provider in the municipal marketplace in California. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The quote from ECS Imaging, Inc to provide the expanded services listed above plus training for all users, 80 hours of on site support and unlimited phone support is $117,902 including sales tax. The amount approved in the 2006 -2007 fiscal year budget for this project under the Technology Fund 704 is $121,000. MUNICIPAL CODE / POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Open Market Purchase of software licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System for $117,902 from ECS Imaging, Inc for city -wide usage. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Gitmed Information Technology Director CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE OPEN MARKET PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE LICENSES FOR THE LASERFICHE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT IMAGING SYSTEM FROM ECS IMAGING, INC. FOR CITY -WIDE USAGE WHEREAS, the City has established a need to purchase an electronic document imaging system that is readily available to all city departments and staff; and WHEREAS, the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System has worked well since 2003 in meeting the needs for document imaging in the Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the expansion of the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System requires the purchase of additional licenses, and such licenses and support services can be more easily and economically obtained from the City's existing Laserfiche vendor, ECS Imaging, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Section 3 -15 of the City Charter provides that the City Council, by four affirmative votes, can authorize an open market purchase, without competitive bidding, if it determines that the product can be purchased at a lower price in the open market. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes, hereby authorizes the execution of an agreement for the open market purchase of additional software licenses for the Laserfiche Electronic Document Imaging System to facilitate city -wide usage of the program, together with training for all users, 80 hours of on site support and unlimited phone support for $117,902 from ECS Imaging, Inc. for City -wide usage. Resolution # 4 -M CC 12 -5 -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 December, 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 December, 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project BACKGROUND On September 21, 2006, the Economic Development Commission endorsed a proposed Sixth Amendment to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Community Improvement Plan (CIP) that would update the Plan's land use designations to conform to the City's General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time. The BWIP CIP was adopted in 1991 and has been amended previously a total of five times. On October 23, 2006, the Planning Board found that the proposed Sixth Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan and recommended the approval of the proposed Sixth Amendment by the City Council and Community Improvement Commission (CIC). On November 21, 2006, the City Council and CIC held a joint public hearing to hear testimony for and against the proposed Sixth Amendment. DISCUSSION The BWIP CIP was adopted in 1991. At that time, the BWIP land use designations were found to be consistent with General Plan land use designations. Currently, there are seven areas within the BWIP with land use designations that are different from the General Plan land use designations. The proposed Sixth Amendment (on file with the City Clerk) updates the current specific land use references in the BWIP CIP to refer to the City of Alameda General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time. The proposed amendment would make the land use designations for those seven areas identical to the General Plan land use designations and would not impact the current allowable uses for those areas. Section 33457.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires the CIC to prepare a Report to the City Council that provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the Council in its consideration of the proposed Sixth Amendment and in making the various and necessary findings associated with the adoption of the amendment. The CIC approved and adopted the Report to the City Council and transmitted it to the City Council Agenda Item #4 -N CC 12 -05 -06 Honorable Chair and December 5, 2006 Members of the City Council Page 2 on October 17, 2006. A Supplement to the Report to the City Council, which includes the Planning Board's report and recommendation, and an Addendum to the Report to the City Council were transmitted to the City Council on November 21, 2006. In accordance with CRL, a Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and CIC was held on November 21, 2006. No written comments were received. Two speakers commented on the proposed Sixth Amendment but did not take a position either for or against the amendment. One speaker commented that the map in the proposed Sixth Amendment contained incorrect land use designations for parcels along Webster Street and Lincoln Avenue. As stated above, there are seven areas where the BWIP land use designation differs from the General Plan land use designation. There are two areas near Webster Street and Lincoln Avenue where the current BWIP land use designation is Commercial /Residential (this is a BWIP land use category, but not a General Plan category) and the current General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential; however, these areas are not along Webster Street and Lincoln Avenue, but are behind the commercial districts. The parcels that front Webster Street are designated Community Commercial, and those along Lincoln Avenue are designated Neighborhood Business. The BWIP and General Plan designations are consistent for the parcels along Webster Street and Lincoln Avenue and are accurately reflected on the map that is part of the proposed Sixth Amendment. This being stated, the amendment proposes to end all future land use inconsistency, by adopting the City's General Plan as it may be amended from time to time, as the guiding land use document for the project area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Sixth Amendment is technical in nature and assures continued conformance with the City's General Plan. The proposed Sixth Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Section 15061.b.3 which states that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The land use designations described in the existing CIP provide for a greater range of uses than the current General Plan; therefore, there are no significant effects on the environment because the greater range of uses allowed by the CIP would not be allowed without a future General Plan amendment and related environmental review. Thus, revising the land use designations within the CIP to reflect the General Plan would not result in any environmental effects. As a result, a Notice of Exemption will also be prepared. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT Tax increment funds were approved in the FY 2006 -07 budget for the CIP amendment. The CIP amendment is expected to cost approximately $41,000. There is no impact on the General Fund. Honorable Chair and December 5, 2006 Members of the City Council Page 3 MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This amendment changes the BWIP CIP so that BWIP land use designations are always consistent with the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended in the future. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Ordinance adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. evelopment Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DK/LAL /DES /RS:ry Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2559, 2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559, the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area "); and WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is a community redevelopment agency organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq., ( "CRL ") and is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Plan for the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended a total of five (5) times (as amended, the "Existing Plan "): on December 7, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2681, to establish time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290 (Stats. 1993, Chap. 942); on June 7, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2835, on September 20, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2844, on April 3, 2001, by Ordinance No. 2857, to make site - specific land use changes to conform with the amendments to the City of Alameda's General Plan ( "General Plan ") and Zoning Code; and on March 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2896, merging the Project with the West End Community Improvement Plan, extending eminent domain except over residential uses, and adding territory .(approximately 123 acres) to the Project Area that was previously included within the Alameda Point Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, the ordinances adopting the Existing Plan (collectively, the "Original Ordinances "), including the findings and determinations made by the City Council therein are made a part hereof by reference, and are final and conclusive, there having been no action timely brought to question the validity of the Existing Plan; and Introduction of Ordinance #4 -N CC 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, the Commission has proposed a Sixth Amendment to the Existing Plan ( "Amendment" or "Sixth Amendment ") for the purpose of amending the permitted land uses for the Project Area to provide that they shall be the land uses designated in the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda ( "Planning Board ") has reviewed the Amendment and recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment, together with its certification that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Commission the proposed Amendment, a copy of which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380, Alameda, California, together with the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment, including the reasons for the Amendment; proposed projects and programs; the proposed method of financing the continued redevelopment of the Project Area; the method or plan for relocation; the implementation plan; the report of the Planning Board of the City with respect to the conformity of the Amendment with the General Plan; a neighborhood impact report; environmental compliance; a summary of consultations with Project Area property owners, businesses and community organizations; and a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies; and WHEREAS, a Project Area Committee was not required to be formed in connection with the Amendment because the proposed Sixth Amendment does not alter the Commission's authority to use eminent domain and does not add any territory to the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Commission held a joint public hearing on November 21, 2006, on the adoption of the Amendment in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, 3rd Floor, Alameda, California; and WHEREAS, notice of said joint public hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of such joint public hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Commission; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Alameda; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first class mail to all residents and businesses in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency that receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Board, the Commission's Report to the City Council, the Amendment to the Existing Plan, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amendment and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity, if any, filed with the City Clerk before or during such joint public hearing; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate public bodies. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment is to amend the permitted land uses for the Project Area to provide that they shall be the land uses designated in the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. Section 2. Based on the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment prepared in accordance with CRL Section 33457.1, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Amendment held on November 21, 2006, the City Council hereby makes the following findings and determinations as warranted by the Amendment: a) The Amendment will permit the continued redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the CRL and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the Amendment will provide for the ongoing consistency of permitted land uses between the Plan and the City's General Plan for property within the Project Area. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. b) The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that under the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, the Commission will continue to be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment revenues; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance within the Project Area will continue to depend upon the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment generated by new investment in the Project Area; that under the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, no public redevelopment activity can be undertaken unless the Commission can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity; and that the Amendment does not alter the financing plan previously prepared and included within the Commission's Reports to the City Council prepared for the Existing Plan. c) The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, including, but not limited to, the Housing Element of the General Plan, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the General Plan and the findings of the Planning Board that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan as set forth in its Resolution No. PB- 06 -38. d) The carrying out of the Amendment would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the CRL. This finding is based on the fact that the Amendment will provide for the ongoing consistency of permitted land uses between the Plan and the City's General Plan for property within the Project Area. This action will enable the Commission to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan and allow for the future development and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan thereby further eliminating existing blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area and preventing the reoccurrence of blighting conditions. e) The Commission has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the facts set forth in the Commission's Report to the City Council, in particular that 1) the Commission has adopted the relocation guidelines promulgated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development requiring that relocation assistance and benefits be provided; and 2) the Amendment does not contemplate any actions that would lead to the displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. f) There are, or shall be provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33411 and 33411.1, and dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33334.5, 33413 and 33413.5. Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there are suitable housing units available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. Section 4. The City Council is satisfied that written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity received either before or during the noticed joint public hearing on the Amendment. Having considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any aspect of the Amendment, the City Council hereby overrules all written and oral objections to the Amendment. Section 5. Based on the evidence contained in the record, including, but not limited to, the Commission's Report to the City Council on the Amendment, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that there is no possibility that the Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment. Upon approval and adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council directs Commission staff to prepare the Notice of Exemption on behalf of the City and the Commission, and, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, Commission staff will file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Alameda County. Section 6. The Existing Plan, as adopted by the Original Ordinances, is hereby further amended as set forth in the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A. As so amended, the Existing Plan is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to combine the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A with the Existing Plan prepared for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, and when filed with the City Clerk and the Secretary of the Commission, shall constitute the official Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Section 7. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Amendment, (b) authorizes and directs the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Amendment, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Amendment. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Commission, whereupon the Commission is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of the County of Alameda a notice of the approval and adoption of the Amendment pursuant to this Ordinance containing a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Existing Plan, as amended by the Amendment, have been instituted under the CRL. Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same or a summary thereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is published and circulated in the City of Alameda. Section 12. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Section 13. If any part of this Ordinance or the Amendment which it approves, is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Amendment, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area ") was adopted by the City C ouncil of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559. The Project Area is comprised of one contiguous area containing approximately 900 acres and includes the Park Street and Webster Street business districts, two neighborhood com mercial districts along Lincoln Avenue, most of the estuary waterfront from Tilden Way to the former Alameda Naval Air Station (now Alameda Point), the Civic Center, and the primary entrances to the City of Alameda. The Plan has been am ended previously a total of five (5) times. The City Council adopted the first amendment to the Plan on December 7, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2681, establishing certain time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290. The second amendment to the Plan was adopted on June 7, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2835, which made site specific land use changes to conform with amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. The third amendment to the Plan, adopted on September 20, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2844, and the fourth amendment, adopted on April 3, 2001, by Ordinance No, 2857, also made site specific land use changes to conform with amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. The fifth amendment was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2896, and merged the Project with the West End Community Improvement Plan, extended eminent domain except over residential uses, and added terr itory (approximately 123 acres) to the Project Area that was previously included within the Alameda Point Improvement Project. PROPOSED SIXTH AMENDMENT The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is proposing a sixth amendment ( "Sixth Amendment ") to the existing Plan, the purpose of which is to amend the existing Plan land use references to refer to the City of Alameda's General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be a mended from time to time. No amendment is proposed to the boundaries of the Project Area or the fiscal or time limits. The fiscal and time limits stated in the existing Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force as adopted. The Community Improvement Plan, as amended by the first amendment, second amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, and the fifth amendment, is hereby further amended to delete certain text and to add certain text to Section IV (A. — B., §401 through 411) , Uses 1 PA0609008.ALA: CK: gbd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 Permitted in the Project Area, and to amend and replace Attachment No. 3 (Redevelopment Land Use Map) in its entirety, as follows: IV. [ §400] USES PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA Deleted text: -- - -- - • - • - -- -- B. PA0609006.ALA: CK: gbd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 [ §'02] Designated Land Uses 1. [ §103] Residential Uses 2. [ §'01] Commercial USCG 3. [ §1105] Commercial /Residential USCG '1. [ §'06] General Industrial Uses 2 5. [ §107] Mixed Uses amended 6. ( §108) Commercial Recroation Uses 7. [ §109] Parks and Public Opcn Soacc Uses 8. [ §110] Public Institutional Uses 9. [§111] Federal Facilities Uses Added text: A. [ §401] Permitted Land Uses The "Redevelopment Land Use Map ", attached hereto as Attachment No. 3 and incorporated herein by reference, illustrates the location of the Project Area boundaries, 3 PA0609008. A LA: C K: g bd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 major streets within the Project Area, and the land uses authori zed within the Project Area by the City's current General Plan. The City will from time to time update and revise the City's General Plan. It is the intention of this P Ian that the land uses and overall street layout to be permitted within the Project Area shall be as provided within the City's General Plan, as it currently exists or as it may from time to time be amended, and as implemented and applied by City ordinances, specific plans, resolutions and other laws. Uses other than those designated in the City 's General Plan and its land use map may be authorized by the City from time to time by amendments to the City's General Plan as authorized by law. B. [ §402] Reserved 1. [ §403] Reserved 2. [ §404] Reserved 3. [ §405] Reserved 4. [ §406] Reserved 5. [ §407] Reserved 6. [ §408] Reserved 7. [ §409] Reserved 8. [ §410] Reserved 9. [§411] Reserved 4 PA0609008.ALA:CK: gbd 10004.501.001/09/19/06 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 REDEVELOPMENT LAND USE MAP >~i E O M Z" 44 P4 p O � a U IS uweVth 1S pow _ .19 "aui'Se aM_._.. of ISiWB ... 9_60402.H'e'i ' I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: December 5, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Approval of Major Design Review, DR06 -0002 for 3292 Washington Street. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2006, David McCarver filed an appeal of the October 9, 2006 Planning Board's approval of the subject Major Design Review. Mr. McCarver is opposing the project because he contends that the proposed second story addition would create a building mass that would cause excessive shading to his property and would be incompatible in mass and scale with the neighborhood. The Planning Board's approval of the project represented the culmination of a design review process which began on January 20, 2006, when the Planning and Building Department first received the application to add an approximately 1,350 square -foot, second story addition at 3292 Washington Street. The Planning Board first reviewed the project on May 8, 2006 through a "call for review" of an April 4 staff approval. At the May meeting, the Planning Board directed the applicant to revise the project plans to reduce impacts on the adjacent property at 3288 Washington Street, owned by Mr. McCarver. On September 11, 2006 the Planning Board reviewed the amended plans with the reconfigured second story and directed the applicant to change the roofline to further reduce shading on 3288 Washington Street. On October 9, 2006 the Planning Board reviewed the plans with the revised roofline and approved the project. DISCUSSION In summary, Mr. McCarver's opposition to the project is based on his contention that his property would suffer the loss of morning sunlight as the result of the second story addition and that this addition would create a building mass and scale that is Agenda Item #5 -A 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Council Members December 5, 2006 inconsistent with the neighborhood and with the City's Guide to Residential Design. The Planning Board's decision of approval included review of a shading study and specifically considered these issues in making the following findings for approval in Planning Board Resolution No. PB- 06 -34: 1. The project is compatible with its site, adjacent and neighboring buildings and its surroundings and it promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The proposed addition and other modifications are in conformance with the height, setback, parking, and lot coverage standards identified in the AMC for the R -1 (One Family Residence) Zoning District. Although the proposed second -story addition would change the home's overall appearance, the architectural style of the rooflines and window types would be maintained, and the proposed front porch blends with the original design. Because this structure is located on a large corner parcel at the intersection with Fernside Boulevard, where it begins a gradual ascent adjacent to this property, the visual impact of the second story will be minimal. 2. The project will not be detrimental to existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. According to the revised shade study provided by the applicant, the proposed second -story addition will result in minimal shading of the adjacent property. The times of greatest impact are during the early morning hours during the fall and winter. Privacy between neighbors will be enhanced by minimizing the second -story windows facing the adjacent property, eliminating the bedroom windows on that elevation, and utilizing obscure glass. 3. The project is consistent with the principles and standards of the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition would utilize a stucco finish and composition- roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those found on the existing home and those in the vicinity. The second -story is stepped back from the first floor reducing the mass of the addition and, therefore, not resulting in a visual detriment. In conclusion, the applicant redesigned the project to reduce the mass of the building and impacts on the adjacent property in response to the Planning Board and public comments. Based on these changes, the Planning Board was able to make the required findings for the Design Review and approve the project. The Planning Board also noted in their discussion that this was a 1961 residence within a neighborhood of the same era and the Design Guidelines addressed by Mr. McCarver were more applicable to historic neighborhoods (i.e., pre- 1942). Therefore, Mr. McCarver's appeal does not offer any new arguments or considerations that had not been considered at the time of the Planning Board's decision to approve this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)(2) — Existing Facilities Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Council Members December 5, 2006 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding would be required. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this subject do not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Building Director recommends that the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board's approval of Major Design Review, DR06 -0002, and 2. Adopt Resolution based on the findings and conditions therein. Respectfully submitted, Cathy " oodbury Planning and Building Director By: hdrew Tho Planning Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application for Appeal Hearing, October 19, 2006 (with supplements) 2. Planning Board Minutes, October 9, 2006 3. Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -34 4. October 9, 2006 Planning Board Report (without attachments) 5. Front and West -Side Elevations 6. Shading Study City of Alameda Pei Center 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Attachment #1 Application for Appeal Hearing before the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board PLANNING & BUILDING Appellant Information (PLEASE PRINT) Le-e Uv� C i U C7=7— Name Mailing Address (Street Address, City, State, and ZIP Code) 7c �� ! T 0 "lo (9 QC'(, Telephone (Day) (Evening) Property Address: Project Title: Permit Number: Fee: $40.00 PER ACTIVITY Property Location and/or Project Connected with Appeal Matter Z- �tj S k(rt)c (o Appeal Matter Description (Describe specific nature of appeal matter and indicate the desired relief being sought): 1110 r AO PAN - Supporting Arqument(s) (Describe all atena fact in bu rt o e appeal matter. Please use additional sheets if necessary, and attach copies of any supporting information AND copy of JOB CARD): e Proposed Schedule of Work to be Done with Estimated Dates for Project Completion (attach separate sheet as needed : FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ignature of Appellant RECEIVED DATE SIGNED APPEAL # HEA}2ING DATE SIGNED G: \CENPERM.Bl\FORMS\Apea12.FRM Revised 8/12/05 APPEAL FOR THE PROJECT AT 3292 WASHINGTON STREET — APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON MONDAY OCTOBER 9, 2006 My name is David McCarver and I'm the homeowner of 3288 Washington Street, right next door to the proposed "addition" at 3292 Washington Street. Let me begin by saying that this is not an addition. I had been appealing this to the Planning Board because it had been approved by the Planning Department as a complete transformation of a single story 3 bedroom, 2 bath Ranch Home into a huge 5 bedroom 5 bath Mediterranean Monster House nearly twice the size of all the homes on our street. The tale of what I have had to go through on this is too long to tell here, but suffice it to say that I feel very bad for anyone who has to go through this process. Despite the fact that the City of Alameda's Guide to Residential Design says this can't be done, and my researching and presenting that as well as my other very strong concerns to the Planning Department at the very onset, the Planning Department completely dismissed me and approved this project stating on the approval letter "The project will have no significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity ". This out of scale and character home will most definitely have an adverse effect on my property and my quality of life. It will shade my property, loom over my home, change drastically the characteristics of our street, and cause loss in property value. Who'll want to buy the home next to the only monster house on the street? The ranch homes on our street were all specifically designed to take the most advantage of the morning sun coming into the oversized kitchen / family room which is the heart of these homes. The neighboring homes' roofline was designed to allow for this sun to come in as early as possible and stay as long as possible. The morning sun is a major characteristic for the warmth and charm of these homes and this remodel will substantially compromise this and at times outright eliminate it. Counsel that I have received during this ordeal listed this as an illegal taking from my property, no different that if the remodel included paving onto my driveway so that the neighbor could park there, taking away my driveway. Because this project was put out in press by the Alameda Sun, I received numerous calls from concerned Alamedan's. One of which came from the homeowner at 3286 San Jose, who had a similar oversized house built on what had been one of the empty lots that are along Fernside. He told me his home has never been the same. The heart of his home gets no sun and subsequently is forever to be the darkest room in his house and since that house was built, he now battles moss and mildew on that side as a result. Sounds like a "significant adverse effect" to me. The shading issue is a major concern, but it's not the only concern. The "City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design" is supposed to be the governing article over remodels and additions. For history - in 2003, a concerted effort to update the 1974 Guide was put into place. It took almost 2 years to get the Guide completed and adopted by the City Council. On the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society's website, the newsletter from March 2006 celebrates the approval of and presents a nice little history of the Guide. The newsletter states that one of the primary reasons for updating the Guide was that there were being built "Additions to existing buildings that were not well integrated with the existing structures and were out of scale with the neighborhood." It goes on to state that the new updated Guide is " a big improvement over the 1974 manual" and then lists that one of the new Guides' "Key Provisions" was "Providing that a second story addition to a one story house in a predominantly one story neighborhood be set back sufficiently from the front of the house to maintain the one story neighborhood character" (attachment 1) It seems very apparent to me that one of the leading concerns addressed by the "Guide" is to deny exactly what is going on next to me. The Guide to Residential Design states the following: ON PAGE 4, UNDER THE "STATEMENT OF VALUES" "The City of Alameda and its residents take great pride in the architectural quality of Alameda's established neighborhoods and historic identity. In the building and remodeling of individual buildings, the community wishes to maintain its continuity with its past. All of Alameda's neighborhoods have a valued context that is defined by buildings sharing qualities of mass, height and character, and any potential changes must blend into this context." The 3200 block of Washington Street definitely falls under established neighborhood and it has one of the City's most unique valued contexts defined by it's buildings' sharing of qualities of mass, height and character. Outside of the Townhouses on Bay Farm Island, our street of all single story ranch Homes is about as defined as any in Alameda and there is no way this monster house will blend into our streets' context. ON PAGE 16 - THE GUIDE STATES THAT - "So not all approaches will be equally acceptable in all cases, and although there is no "prohibition ". on second -story additions, the City may deny a particular request if it is found inconsistent with - the - following- criteria. " WHICH THEN STATES ON PAGE 17 THAT - "El the new addition should be so well integrated into the existing design to appear to be part of the original design." "❑ the new building mass must not "loom" over the street or neighboring yards." This project in no way can be deemed to be so well integrated into the existing design as to appear part of the original design as it will be completely different in size and style from the foundation on up and as such, it is certainly going to loom over my yard. ON PAGE 18 - "0 the form, mass and style of the second story addition must relate to both that of the existing building and those of the surrounding neighborhood." "❑ And while such a new "style" need not match the surrounding non - historic buildings (e.g., a "new" Mediterranean revival may be introduced into a neighborhood of 1950's ranch buildings) the scale and massing should not clash with the dominant verticality of the neighborhood." This project will not relate in form and mass with the existing building or those of the surrounding neighborhood and it's scale and massing will not only clash with but will become the dominant verticality of the neighborhood. ON PAGE 64 UNDER SUBSECTION 30 -37.5 REQUIREMENTS — CITATIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD USED TO CALL THIS FOR REVIEW - "a. Projects must be compatible with their site, any adjacent or neighboring buildings or surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses." b. Projects which do not meet the requirements of paragraph a. shall be presumed detrimental to either existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project." — AND I OFFER, THE QUALITY OF L11-'E OF THE NEIGHBORING FAMILIES. This project is in no way compatible with any adjacent neighboring buildings and will not promote harmonious transitions in scale and character — and therefore, under the Guides own statute, must be presumed detrimental to either the existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. On page 5, under the Guide's "Guiding Parameters" it states "In order for a design review application to be approved, a finding must be made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential Design." It's all there in black and white and cyberspace. Projects MUST conform to the Guide. The Guide to Residential Design was implemented to be the City of Alameda's homeowner bylaws. It is supposed to be the overseer of projects that are simply to code — by making them conform to the Guide's stated principals. Despite my repeated efforts to present these findings to the Planning Department and the Planning Board, I was consistently told by members of both parties that the "Guide" is only a guide and is not enforceable. If that is the case, I question why did the City invest countless hours of discussion and review over a 2 -year period and include the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and the Alameda Historical Society to create a "Guide" with the statement `In order for a design review application to be approved, a finding must be made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential Design." which was ultimately approved by the Planning Department and adopted by the City Council? Finally — all of my neighbors have signed a petition against this monster house. But none of us feel that an addition to one of our homes could never be done. We all agree that if our families grew or we needed to bring our parents in to live with us, we would work with each other to design an addition that was as agreeable as possible and followed the statement that "Providing that a second story addition to a one story house in a predominantly one story neighborhood be set back sufficiently from the front of the house to maintain the one story neighborhood character" However this is not the case with 3292 Washington Street. That home was bought by the applicant, for the sole purpose of transforming it into, and I quote directly from her to me, "her dream - house" with complete and utter disregard for any of her neighbors. The applicant is a single mother with one daughter and despite requests from the Planning Board, has never once spoke of her need for such a large house. I have no animosity toward the applicant and whatever her situation is that causes her to need a home of such large scale. It really is none of my business. If someone needs a 5 bedroom 5 bathroom house, by all means - purchase one. However, the Guide to Residential Design specifically states that she cannot do what she is trying to do and therefore this project needs to be denied. cWiv\evd-- A 3242 Encinal Avenue Remarkable Recycled House by Denise Brady One can easily see from the before and after photos that JP and Amy Frary have done a terrific job of renovating the exterior of their 1889 Victorian home by removing cement shingles and restoring the siding and orna- mentation. What is not obvious is that virtu- ally every piece of wood is recycled, either from the house itself or from other old wood. Based upon my first phone conversation with JP, I knew this house was going to be unique. He had removed the redwood siding, stripped it and put it back in place. The doors, stair railings, trim, windows, even some of the furniture, has been made from recycled floor and ceiling joists and some of the damaged exterior siding. The fence is recycled lumber from an old water tower in Hollister. They remodeled the kitchen and extended the second story above it, adding a master bedroom. The addition is seamless, with great care given to matching the surfaces and details, such as the hexagon shingles. The kitchen cabinets and flooring were milled from Oregon White Ash trees. JP is a very skilled carpenter teaching wood- Before shop at San Leandro High School. It is no surprise that he has a passion, even a relation- ship, with wood. He grew up with wood. He tells of his family home in Mendocino where his job was to start the fire every day in the fireplace, their only source of heat. He adds that, ironically, his parents added cen- tral heat when he left for college. Amy credits JP for his talent and hard work. She says "he taught me that wood has beauty beyond function. Imperfections add character, history and tell a story. He gives words to the wood." I credit Amy for encouraging her husband and for hanging in there throughout the ordeal of a home renovation. During the process they moved from room to room, at one point sleeping in the kitchen. At anoth- er point the back of the house was opened and covered with plastic sheeting. She had been through similar times while her par- ents renovated their old house in Chicago. The end result is that this house is truly remarkable. JP describes it as "new guts from old wood." It is nice to know that he is inspiring students and a new generation with his philosophy. We can hope that other After PRESERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT by Christopher Buckley City Finally Adopts New Residential Design Review Manual. AAPS Monitors Implementation At its March 15, 2005 meeting, the City Council adopted the city's revised Residential Design Review Manual, called the "Guide to Residential Design." Improving the Design Review Manual has for many years been one of AAPS's most important priorities. Any exterior change requiring a building permit in Alameda (with certain exceptions such as reroofing) requires Design Review approval by the Planning Department. The Design Review process can therefore have a major impact on the visual character of Alameda's older buildings and is the most critical tool for preserving their architectural integrity. The Design Review Manual is the key document in the Design Review process because the Manual establishes the criteria for what should be approved and not approved. Under the previous 1974 Manual, many projects were being approved by the City that should not have been approved. Examples included: Installation of vinyl (plastic) siding and vinyl windows on Victorian houses and other architecturally significant buildings that often looked synthetic and were not visually consistent with the original architecture. o Additions to existing buildings that were not well integrated with the existing structures and were out of scale with the neighborhood. a Inappropriate enclosures of main entry porches. The Planning Department had said that it had to approve these projects under the 1974 Manual because it was too general to require a higher standard. continued.. ALAMEDA ARCHITECTURAL PRESERVATION SOCIETY 5 Attachment #2 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7 -A. DR06 -0002 — Jenny Wong — 3292 Washington Street (CE). Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director approving Major Design Review, DR06 -0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The property is located in an R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District. [Former Planning Board President Andrew Cunningham] (Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2006.) Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David McCarver, 3288 Washington Court, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he would have liked to see the new shade studies listed in the application, and had distributed the May 2000 newsletter from the Alameda Architectural Society, which covered the City's revised Design Review manual. He noted that the manual was the key document which established what should be approved or not. He expressed concern about the mass and height of this project, and believed that the applicant could not build the front bedroom according to the Design Guidelines. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Marian noted that she was opposed to this project, and agreed with Mr. McCarver's citation of the Design Guidelines with respect to the project. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that as long as this was a legal use, it was not germane to consider whether this use was for an extended family. Member Cunningham reiterated his comments regarding not allowing someone to make modifications to their house when they were fully entitled to do so under the zoning ordinance. He noted that the Planning Board's job was to mitigate the impacts of those design improvements on the neighbors. He wished to clarify the intent of the article circulated by Mr. McCarver, which he believed intended to maintain the historic significance of older buildings versus nonhistoric (post -World War II) homes. He noted that Ms. Wong's house fell well out of the pre -World War II time period. He supported this application. Member McNamara noted that she had not discussed her opinion with any other Board member. She challenged the finding that was made in the staff report about the project being compatible to the neighboring buildings, and that it promoted a harmonious transition, scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Although the other requirements and codes had been met for this particular property, she did not understand how the first finding could have been made. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 October 9, 2006 Member Ezzy Ashcraft was satisfied that the applicant and her architect have worked and been responsive to staff's suggestions. She would have voted against the first design, but believed this design was considerably better. She believed it was sufficiently compatible with the area, and was satisfied with this staff report. She noted that this was a legal use in an appropriate zone. Member Mariani understood that this was not an historic home, but believed that the Design Guidelines should be applied to other homes. She believed this neighborhood had a unique charm, and did not believe that a homeowner's building rights must always trump the rights of the neighbors. Vice President Cook agreed with Members Ezzy Ashcraft and Cunningham, and believed that the Board has had to balance the issue of change and growth with the needs of neighborhoods over the years. She believed that unilaterally saying that someone could not build a second story effectively downzoned the entire City. She complimented the applicant and architect on their hard work with staff in revising this design. President Lynch noted that the Design Review Manual was used as a subjective guide, and that the Planning Board must consider the Alameda Municipal Code as a regulatory item. He emphasized that this was not an historic neighborhood, and that the homeowners may follow a certain process to make the neighborhood historic. This zoning was set by the zoning text that was consistent, under CEQA, with the General Plan. The Planning Board did not have the authority to change that language. He believed the changes in the design more than adequately addressed the Board's concerns since the first iteration. He was mindful that there was a difference of opinion within the Planning Board. M/S Cunningham/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -34 to approve a Major Design Review, DR06 -0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. AYES — 5; NOES — 2 (Mariani, McNamara); ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 October 9, 2006 Attachment #3 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -06 -34 APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR06 -0002 AS AMENDED TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1,350 SQUARE FOOT SECOND -STORY ADDITION, NEW DECK AND PATIO. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3292 WASHINGTON STREET, WITHIN AN R -1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, an application was made on January 20, 2006 by Jenny Wong, requesting Major Design Review approval to construct an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, a 10 -day notice was circulated to property owners within 100 -feet of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006, staff approved Major Design Review DR06 -0002 for the proposed additions to 3292 Washington Street; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2006, a call for review was filed with the Planning and Building Department by Andrew Cunningham, Planning Board President, requesting that the Planning Board review the project to address whether the Design Review Regulations (AMC Section 30 -37.5) were satisfied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered the project on May 7, 2006 and continued the project to allow the applicant and adjacent property owner to discuss additional design solutions; and WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed an addition that is more sensitive to the neighbor's concerns; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered the project on September 11, 2006 and continued the project to allow the applicant to consider and additional design solution to the roof; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1, One Family Residence Zoning. District; and WHEREAS, second story residential additions require Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on October 9, 2006 and has made the following findings relevant to the Major Design Review application: 1. The project is compatible with its site, adjacent and neighboring buildings and its surroundings and it promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The proposed addition and other modifications are in conformance with the height, setback, parking, and lot coverage standards identified in the AMC for the R -1 (One Family Residence) Zoning District. Although the proposed second -story addition would change the home's overall appearance, the architectural style of the rooflines and window types would be maintained, and the proposed front porch blends with the original design. Because this structure is located on a large corner parcel at the intersection with Fernside Boulevard, where it begins a gradual ascent adjacent to this property, the visual impact of the second story will be minimal. 2. The project will not be detrimental to existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. According to the revised shade study provided by the applicant, the proposed second -story addition will result in minimal shading of the adjacent property. The times of greatest impact are during the early morning hours during the fall and winter. Privacy between neighbors will be enhanced by minimizing the second -story windows facing the adjacent property, eliminating the bedroom windows on that elevation, and utilizing obscure glass. 3. The project is consistent with the principles and standards of the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition would utilize a stucco finish and composition- roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those found on the existing home and those in the vicinity. The second -story is stepped back from the first floor reducing the mass of the addition and, therefore, not resulting in a visual detriment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)(2) — Existing Facilities BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Major Design Review DR06 -0002, as amended, to construct an approximately 1,350 square foot second -story addition, new deck and patio, subject to the following conditions: 1. The second story windows proposed for the rear bedroom shall be eliminated. 2. The second story windows proposed for the stairwell shall all have obscure glass. 3. The existing 10' Sanitary Sewer Line easement on the east side of the property 2 shall be shown on architect drawings. No permanent structure is allowed to be located over the easement. The property owner will be required to pay for all repair costs of permanent structures should the City need to access the easement. VESTING. The Major Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by October 9, 2007, unless construction has commenced under valid permits. The applicant may apply with the Planning and Building Department for a one (1) year extension. Only one (1) extension may be granted. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 65009(c). The City of Alameda shall cooperate 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 the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by filing with the Planning and Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October 2006 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (5) Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Cook, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch NOES: (2) Mariani, McNamara ABSENT: (0) ATT ;'ndrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board 3 Acknowledgment of Conditions: I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -34 for the Planning Board's approval of Major Design Review, DR06 -0002, approved on October 9, 2006. In accordance with Conditions herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to comply with the Conditions of Approval of said Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -34 and the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Executed at: A /Air%Ol 4, By: Dl//7/7 City l/ Applica On: / /a/ O 7 D�iJrI Date Title APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT. G:\ PLANNING \PB \Resolutions \2006\100.09- 06\Washington 3292_DR06 -0002 revised reso.doc 4 Attachment #4 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ABBREVIATIONS: ATTACHMENTS: 7 -A DR06 -0002 — Jenny Wong — 3292 Washington Street. Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of a decision of the Planning and Building Director approving Major Design Review, DR06 -0002, to allow construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio. The property is located in a R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District. Low Density Residential Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15301(e)(2) — Existing Facilities Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Approve, with conditions 1. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code 2. R -1 — One Family Residence Zoning District 1. Draft Resolution 2. Planning Board Staff Report for September 11, 2006 3. Revised Plans for 3292 Washington Street (2 sheets) 4. Revised Shading Study (16 sheets) I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY On January 20, 2006, an application for Major Design Review was received by the Planning and Building Department to add an approximately 1,350 square foot, second story addition at 3292 Washington Street. This Major Design Review application has been the subject of intensive public review and comment including a 10 -day public comment period in March 2006, and Planning Board Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 1 hearings on May 8 and September 11, 2006 (see attached Planning Board Staff Report for September 11, 2006). At the September 11 Planning Board meeting, consideration of this application was continued to allow Ms. Wong to incorporate the Board's suggestions in an alternative roof design that could potentially further reduce the shading impacts of the proposed addition on the neighboring property. 11. STAFF ANALYSIS The R -1 One Family Residence Zoning District in which this property is located allows a building height of 30 feet that provides for two -story homes. The existing residence and proposed addition meet all of the height and setback requirements of the R -1 District. Therefore, the . application is being reviewed for consistency with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The revised design proposed with this report extends the roofline over the stairwell rather than creating a higher, separate roof, thereby minimizing the verticality of the second story and reducing the overall scale of the structure. In addition, privacy between the two properties is enhanced in the revised design by lowering the stairwell windows on the elevation facing the neighboring property and utilizing obscure glass. The applicant has submitted a new shade study to reflect this change in roof design, which shows that the proposed second story will still result in some shade on the adjacent property at certain times of day throughout the year (see table on page 3 of the attached Staff Report). In summary: 1. The existing one -story residence shades the neighboring home and the glass doors during certain periods throughout the year. 2. The proposed addition would increase the length of time the glass doors would be shaded. Specifically, during the fall and winter morning hours, the glass doors would be shaded throughout the morning hours whereas they are currently out of shadows before noon. Ms. Wong has worked with her architect to develop a number of alternative designs in response to the adjacent neighbor's concerns about the size of the structure and the potential shading of his property that may result from the second story addition and to address the comments received from the Planning Board and public. As a result, the proposed design, including the most recent revision to the roofline and stairwell window placement, is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines in that: Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 2 1. The project is compatible with its site, adjacent and neighboring buildings and its surroundings and it promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The proposed addition and other modifications are in conformance with the height, setback, parking, and lot coverage standards identified in the AMC for the R -1 (One Family Residence) Zoning District. Although the proposed second -story addition would change the home's overall appearance, the architectural style of the rooflines and window types would be maintained, and the proposed front porch blends with the original design. Because this structure is located on a large corner parcel at the intersection with Fernside Boulevard, where it begins a gradual ascent adjacent to this property, the visual impact of the second story will be minimal. 2. The project will not be detrimental to existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. According to the revised shade study provided by the applicant, the proposed second - story addition will result in minimal shading of the adjacent property. The times of greatest impact are during the early morning hours during the fall and winter. Privacy between neighbors will be enhanced by minimizing the second -story windows facing the adjacent property, eliminating the bedroom windows on that elevation, and utilizing obscure glass. 3. The project is consistent with the principles and standards of the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition would utilize a stucco finish and composition - roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those found on the existing home and those in the vicinity. The second -story is stepped back from the first floor reducing the mass of the addition and, therefore, not resulting in a visual detriment. III. RECOMMENDATION Find the project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approve Major Design Review, DR06 -0002 for the design of the proposed second -story addition to the single - family residence at 3292 Washington Street, based upon required findings and conditions set out in the draft Resolution. G:\ PLANNING \PB \Reports12006 \10 -09 -06 \3292 Washington St Supplemental.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 9, 2006 Page 3 Attachment #5 WONG RESIDENCE FRONT ELEVATION 0 0 uI41' CC w 0 0 O. 0 CC 0. SIDE ELEVATION • i i w Attachment #6 WONG RESIDENCE 3292 WASHINGTON STREET ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA SUN STUDY Df c WONG RESIDENCE WONG RESIDENCE WONG RESIDENCE • W cm) '7)4 w 0 L) z • WONG RESIDENCE • WONG RESIDENCE O 00 z • WONG RESIDENCE • JUNE 30, 10:00 AM Agii14:4; 4,1P 1/2.0A, Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DENYING THE APPEAL BY DAVID MCCARVER AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR06 -0002 AT 3292 WASHINGTON STREET WHEREAS, the Planning Board conditionally approved the Major Design Review, DR06 -0002 on October 9, 2006 for the construction of an approximately 1,350 square foot second story addition, new deck and patio; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2006, David McCarver of 3288 Washington Street filed an appeal to this decision; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1, One Family Residence Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing and made the following findings relative to denying the appeal and upholding the Design Review approval: 1. The project is compatible with its site, adjacent and neighboring buildings and its surroundings and it promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. The proposed addition and other modifications are in conformance with the height, setback, parking, and lot coverage standards identified in the AMC for the R -1 (One Family Residence) Zoning District. Although the proposed second -story addition would change the home's overall appearance, the architectural style of the rooflines and window types would be maintained, and the proposed front porch blends with the original design. Because this structure is located on a large corner parcel at the intersection with Fernside Boulevard, where it begins a gradual ascent adjacent to this property, the visual impact of the second story will be minimal. 2. The project will not be detrimental to existing property values or the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. According to the revised shade study provided by the applicant, the proposed second -story addition will result in minimal shading of the adjacent property. The times of greatest impact are during the early morning hours during the fall and winter. Privacy between neighbors will be enhanced by minimizing the second -story windows facing the adjacent property, eliminating the bedroom windows on that elevation, and utilizing obscure glass. Resolution #5 -A 12 -5 -06 3. The project is consistent with the principles and standards of the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The proposed addition would utilize a stucco finish and composition- roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those found on the existing home and those in the vicinity. The second -story is stepped back from the first floor reducing the mass of the addition and, therefore, not resulting in a visual detriment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)(2) — Existing Facilities BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby denies the appellant's appeal and upholds the Planning Board's approval of Major Design Review DR06 -002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The second story windows proposed for the rear bedroom shall be eliminated. 2. The second story windows proposed for the stairwell shall all have obscure glass. 3. The existing 10' Sanitary Sewer Line easement on the east side of the property shall be shown on architect drawings. No permanent structure is allowed to be located over the easement. The property owner will be required to pay for all repair costs of permanent structures should the City need to access the easement. 4. VESTING. The Major Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by December 5, 2007, unless construction has • commenced under valid permits. The applicant may apply with the Planning and Building Department for a one (1) year extension. Only one (1) extension may be granted. 5. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 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 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 5, 2006 Re: Recommendation to Adopt Amendment No. 1 to FY 2006 -07 CDBG Action Plan, and to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Grant Agreements and Related Documents BACKGROUND Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finance programs and activities that benefit low - and moderate - income persons and help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. On April 18, 2006, Council approved the FY 2006 -07 Action Plan (Plan). Amendment No. 1 will reallocate funds to several public facilities and direct service projects. All citizen participation requirements have been met. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Regulations governing the CDBG program require the City to expend CDBG Entitlement funds so that no more than 1.5 times the annual grant is available by an annual test date. This is called a timeliness test. Due to delays in implementing two projects, the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan and a Substantial Rehabilitation project, the City did not meet the HUD - mandated expenditure date on April 30, 2006. Both of these projects require a significant amount of funds, almost $1.5 million, and as a result, if those projects are delayed, the timeliness test for expenditure of CDBG funds is impacted. For example, the Substantial Rehabilitation project is budgeted for nearly $800,000. However, it is anticipated that only a portion of the total dollars will be spent by the timeliness test date of April 30, 2007. Continued non - compliance with the expenditure regulation could lead to forfeiture of CDBG Entitlement funds. Therefore, funds are being adjusted to projects that can spend them more quickly and bring the City back into timeliness compliance. To ensure the City meets the HUD - mandated expenditure requirement by April 30, 2007, staff is proposing Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2006 -07 Plan, which allocates available and reprogrammed CDBG funds for several projects that are ready for implementation. Details of the proposed Amendment No. 1 are included as Attachment A and summarized below. Agenda Item #5 -B 12 -05 -06 The Honorable Mayor December 5, 2006 and Members of the City Council Page 2 Following approval of the Amended Action Plan, Grant Modifications or Agreements will be negotiated to fulfill Federal and City requirements. The form of Agreements and Modifications are the same as those previously approved by the Council and City Attorney. Public Facilities: Several public facility activities benefiting low- and moderate - income Alamedans are proposed because of the ability to expend funds by the April 30 test date. Funding is proposed for: design of the new Alameda Boys and Girls Club; repairs to the Midway Shelter; and supplemental funding for the Civic Center Parking Garage funded with the HUD Section 108 loan, to replace the CIC tax increment operating funds. Clearance Activities: Several abandoned residential buildings at Alameda Point have been identified for demolition under the previously funded Blight Busters program. Increased funding will enable the City to eliminate blight by demolishing additional buildings that are situated close to occupied residential units. Public Services: Unanticipated Program Income received between April and June of 2006 has increased the CDBG Public Service Cap making available additional Entitlement funding for Public Service activities that will be completed by June 30, 2006. The Red Cross Short-Term Rental Assistance program provides assistance to clients needing emergency short -term rental assistance, utility and transportation support. It is also recommended to increase funding for the Child Care Voucher program which helps working families maintain their economic stability by providing direct assistance with childcare needs. Increased funding for both programs will increase the availability of direct services to low- and moderate - income Alamedans. These public service recommendations were reviewed and discussed at a special meeting of the SSHRB on Monday, November 13, 2006. The SSHRB concurred with this recommendation (see Attachment B). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Execution of related agreements and final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory clearance under 24 CFR Part 58. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. CDBG funds available from the following sources are recommended to be programmed to these activities: • $236,335 of unprogrammed funds available from FY 2005 -06 budget savings. • $320,914 from Woodstock to Webster, which represents funding for phase II of the project. Sufficient funds to complete phase I of the project remain. Funding from future CDBG monies will be used to backfill the project. The Honorable Mayor December 5, 2006 and Members of the City Council Page 3 • $90,000 from the Economic Initiative program. $10,000 of the original $100,000 funding will be retained for program development this fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt Amendment No. 1 to FY 2006- 07 CDBG Action Plan to allocate available and reprogrammed funds, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Grant Agreements and /or Modifications and related documents to implement Amendment No. 1. Leslie Little Development Se ices Director By: D- able Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager By: Terri W rig t Community Development Program Manager DK/LAL / /DP/TW:dc Attachments cc: Subgrantees G: \CDBG \CONSPLAN\AnnPlans\2006 \CC Reports & Off Agenda \Staff Report Amend #1.doc F: 32.1 (L) CDBG FY 2006/07 Action Plan Summary Adopted April 18, 2006 Proposed Amendment #1 December 5, 2006 Attachment A The activities below are funded specifically with FY 2006/07 Entitlement and Program Income and reallocated funds from previous years. Program delivery costs support continuing projects that are funded with current and prior year funds. Final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory environmental clearance under 24 CFR Part 58. Activity & Description Implementing Agency LOCATION/ ELIGIBILITY OUT- COMES* CDBG FUNDING ACQUISITION Acquisition Program Delivery: Estimated cost to deliver $130,000 in previously funded projects. (Food Bank modular) $27,043 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Reliahilitationa repairs of modular umt(s) servin �lildren's homeless shelter. Non - Profit /Public Facility Revolving Loan Fund Financial and technical assistance to non - profit organizations and public agencies providing CDBG- eligible activities to acquire, install and /or improve facilities, including disabled access retrofit. City Development Services Department Community -wide 570.201(c) or 570.202 570.208(a)(2) 03K 1 -2 facilities $50,000 Woodstock Park Phase II Design Additional funding for planning and design of improvements to neighborhood park. Public Works and Development Services Department 351 Cypress St. 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) 03F 1 park $25,000 Public Facilities and Improvements Program Delivery: Estimated cost to deliver $1,109,087 in funded projects. $230,715 CLEARANCE Clearance Activity Program Delivery: Estimated cost to deliver $245,172 in previously funded projects. (Blight Busters program) $51,001 yea omrriu3 PUBLIC SERVICES Mediation Training Program Mediation Training Certificate program for low income community members. East Bay Community Mediation Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05 30 individuals $15,000 Family Violence Prevention Services Enhanced prevention and information, referrals, legal counseling for victims of family violence. Family Violence Law Center Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05G 125 individuals $14,876 Alameda Food Bank Staffing and operating costs to support emergency food programs. Alameda Food Bank 1900 Thau Way & 650 W. Ranger 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05 4,000 individuals $20,346 Four Bridges Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled adults. Bay Area Community Services 1912 Central Ave. 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05B 60 individuals $26,079 Housing Counseling Tenant/Landlord counseling, mediation, information and referral. Sentinel Fair Housing Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05K 425 individuals $15,251 Midway Shelter Service- enriched, 24 -hour emergency homeless shelter for women and children. Building Futures with Women and Children Confidential location 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 03T 200 individuals $42,984 West Alameda Teen Club Youth recreation and leadership development. Alameda Boys & Girls Club 401 Pacific Ave. Third & Brush 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05D 150 -200 youth $21,969 Public Service Program Delivery: Partial cost to deliver $249,169 in funded programs. $15,000 SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT cono ni 1 ee ah �mc i mtiati `. ®® a �,� Deg @ p L o o o D vel P t o am to pro i�de CDBG �hgtble sta ce.to commercial open owners � and businesses r the , u osa of erea aaiingg jobs a d/or�eliri at bligh 4 ap�n��t. 570 2 3 70.20X^xy 1rrJ � / O��V \a�� 570 08(b) b s nesses7 �� REHABILITATION Housing Rehabilitation Community-wide 570.202 570.208(a)(3) 14A 5 -10 units $217,500 Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of owner- occupied units. City Development Services Department Substantial Rehabilitation Community-wide 570.202 570.208(a)(3) 14A 2 -4 units $209,168 Financial and technical assistance to restore and/or create affordable rental units in existing vacant or underutilized structures. City Development Services Department Residential Predevelopment Community-wide 570.202 570.208(a)(3) 14A 2 units $15,000 Financial and technical assistance to determine feasibility and cost associated with improving a property under the Substantial Rehabilitation program. City Development Services Department Rehabilitation Program Delivery: Estimated cost to deliver $949,316 in funded projects $249,350 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Non - Profit Technical Assistance Program Community-wide 570.201(p) 570.208(a)(2) 19C Non - Profit Capacity Building $60,000 Technical assistance to increase the capacity of non - profit agencies to carry out eligible neighborhood revitalization or economic development activities. Technical Assistance Program Delivery: Estimated costs to deliver $60,000* in anticipated projects $12,481 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION . Fair Housing Services Community-wide 570.206 21D 24 households, 24 landlords $15,000 Fair housing education; housing discrimination counseling and testing. Sentinel Fair Housing Homeless Continuum of Care Community-wide 570.206 21A Enhanced Federal /State homeless resources $7,345 Implementation of Homeless Management Information System and development of funding resources for Alameda and other County homeless providers. Alameda County Homeless Continuum of Care Council General Administration 570.206 21A $289,077 Unprogrammed Funds for cost overruns 22 $133,126 TOTAL FY 2006/07 CDBG FUNDING en en # l It t It ato: s e axl $25�13,Z24 $1955,97.; TOTAL ANTICIPATED FUNDING (from the following sources) $2,513,224 YY ! pY lhY Grnendmenttl (A�iYMa1117Q�eated Fu�nid *) *Ft111f1 Y rV Y;rous. kAc ` in ,..�. nilni $647249 FY 2006/07 Entitlement $1,367,112 FY 2006/07 Projected Program Income $190,000 FY 2005/06 Unanticipated Program Income $120,681 Reallocated Funds from Prior Years $278,182 ` Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities. G:\ CDBG\ CONSPLAN\ AnnPlans \2006\Amendments\APSummary Amd #1.doc en en # l It t It ato: s e axl Program Year Activity and Description CDBG Funding $90,000 FY 2006 -07 Special Economic Development Initiative. Full project budget not needed in FY 2006. Retain $10,000 for program development to maintain compliance with timely expenditure regulation. FY 2005 -06 Carry- forward un- programmed funds. $236,335 FY 2005 -06 Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement: Full project budget not needed in FY 2006. Will back fill project in FY 2007 to maintain compliance with timely expenditure regulation. $320,914 Total $647,249 ` Projected annual outcomes also reflect prior years' CDBG funding for some activities. G:\ CDBG\ CONSPLAN\ AnnPlans \2006\Amendments\APSummary Amd #1.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attachment B From: Cynthia Wasko, Acting President Social Service Human Relations Board Date: December 5, 2006 Re: Amendment No. 1 to FY 2006 -07 CDBG Action Plan Public Services Funding Background At the City Council's request, the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) reviews and comments on the Development Service Department's recommendations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public services funding. Unanticipated Program Income received between April and June of 2006 has increased the CDBG Public Services cap, making available additional funding for Public Service activities that can be completed by March 31, 2007. At a Special Meeting on November 13, the SSHRB considered staffs recommendation for this additional public service funding. Discussion /Analysis The SSHRB heard recommendations from Development Services Department staff. Staff recommended funding two public service programs: (1) The Red Cross Short-Term Rental Assistance program, which provides assistance to clients experiencing emergency short- term rental assistance, utility and transportation needs and (2) the Child Care Voucher program which helps working families maintain their economic stability by providing assistance with child care needs. The staff recommendation is in keeping with focus areas for public service funding identified by the Board in January of 2006. Increased funding for both programs will increase the availability of direct services to low- and moderate - income Alamedans. The recommended programs are established and have good track records. Staff reported that the programs will allocate funding awards to direct service costs and can commit to timely expenditure of additional funds. Based on the presentation and discussion, the SSHRB unanimously supports the staff recommendations. The Honorable Mayor December 5, 2006 and Members of the City Council Page 2 Fiscal Impact There is no impact on the General Fund. Recommendation The SSHRB recommends that City Council approve the CDBG public services funding recommendations as published in Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2006 -07 CDBG Action Plan. Respectfully submitted, Cy l Chia Wasko, Acting President Social Service Human Relations Board CW /MJ:cb Attachment cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Dev. Program Manager Public Reference Binder Social Service Human Relations Board G: \Comdev \SSHRB \COUNCIL \RECOMMEN \Public Services Recs Amend 1 06.doc F: CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: December 5, 2006 Re: Approve and Authorize the Execution of a Lease Agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an urgency ordinance for a 66 year lease for the development of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND East Bay Regional Park Director, Doug Siden appeared before the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Governing Body (ARRA) at its September 6, 2006 meeting to discuss $250,000 in Proposition 12 grant funds that the District has received and proposes to spend on improvements at the 26 -acre triangle park in the southeast corner of Alameda Point, sometimes referred to as Hornet Park. In order to use these funds, the District must have site control, which is defined in the grant requirements as a minimum 20 -year lease, by December 31, 2006, and must complete the improvements by December 31, 2007. In addition to the Proposition 12 funds, the District has pledged $250,000 in Measure AA funds for the proposed improvements. At the October 4, 2006 meeting, the East Bay Regional Park District made a presentation to the ARRA to develop a recreational parcel at Alameda Point. At that time, the ARRA asked EBRPD to focus on extending the San Francisco Bay Trail on the parcel until the community could have opportunity to determine its desired recreational use for the triangle park. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The lease for the Bay Trail project includes approximately 4 acres of the waterfront area located in the southeast corner of Alameda Point as shown in the attached map. The District agrees to: • Commence construction of the trail improvements in summer 2007, completing the project by the grant deadline of December 31, 2007; and • Maintain the trail in an orderly, safe and sanitary manner, free from waste, litter and other items resulting from public access in a manner consistent with its other trails; Agenda Item #5 -C 12 -05 -06 The Honorable Mayor December 5, 2006 and Members of the City Council Page 2 ■ Keep the trail free of weeds and other vegetation meeting EBRPD weed abatement standards; ■ Maintain at its expense, all trail improvements, including pavement, signs and bollards; and • Pay and be liable for any and all charges attendant upon the use of any public utilities. The property is subject to the Public Trust and therefore the maximum lease term is 66 years. To meet the requirements of funding, the EBRPD needs to demonstrate control of the property to be improved by December 31, 2006. The City's Charter requires that the City Council approve all leases for City property via Ordinance. To accommodate the district and ensure that funds for this project are not jeopardized, the City Council is being requested to adopt this ordinance as an urgency ordinance, effective immediately. The facilities being proposed will preserve public peace by increasing the recreational resources available to youth, and preserve public health and safety by making improvements that will remove debris and other conditions that have resulted from inattention due to limited financial resources. The item therefore requires four votes for approval. FISCAL IMPACT The East Bay Regional Park District will be investing $500,000 of Proposition 12 grant and Measure AA funds in Alameda for the extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail. No general funds or ARRA lease revenue will be used for the construction or maintenance of this project. None of the long term financial analysis for the reuse of the Alameda Point area anticipates revenue from this parcel. RECOMMENDATION Approve and authorize the execution of a lease agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an urgency ordinance for a 66 year lease for the development of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point. Respe ; y submitte slie A. Litt e Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager LAUNB:dc The Honorable Mayor December 5, 2006 and Members of the City Council Page 3 Attachments: Map of Lease Premises Lease co 3 lid ht 11111 Si hi! 111 ,J If• 114 in B IZ g E ccr) f2 Regarding Agenda Item #5-C 12-05-06 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, AS LESSEE, AND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, AS LESSOR, AS AN URGENCY ORDINANCE FOR A 66 YEAR LEASE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL PROJECT AT ALAMEDA POINT WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District desires to expend $250,000 in Proposition 12 grant funds on improvements at the 26 acre Triangle Park (sometimes referred to as "Hornet Park ") in the southeast corner of Alameda Point; and WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District has also pledged $250,000 in Measure AA funds for these proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, the terms of the Grant require that the District have site control over the premises to be improved by December 31, 2006, and must complete the improvements by December 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Charter to adopt an ordinance that becomes effective upon adoption if said ordinance is one relating to "the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety" and a declaration of the facts constituting its urgency is stated and passed by a four -fifths vote of the Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed expenditure of $500,000 is Measure AA and Proposition 12 funds would become unavailable for "public improvements" in the absence of the adoption of an ordinance effective immediately upon adoption; and WHEREAS, a first reading on and adoption of this Ordinance on the same date will satisfy the grant requirement of having "site control" vested in the East Bay Regional Park District by December 31, 2006 of the property to be improved; and WHEREAS, a 66 year lease upon a parcel of land suitable for the proposed improvements has been negotiated upon terms that are acceptable to the parties; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda finds and determines that the use of the property proposed, to provide for recreational facilities, is in the best interests of the City; and advances the immediate preservation of public peace by making new facilities and recreational resources available to the youth Introduction of Ordinance #5 -C 12 -5 -06 of the community, and thereby reducing the potential for unlawful mischief, and advances the immediate preservation of health and safety by facilitating the removal of debris and other physical conditions that have been allowed to exist upon the property due to a lack of appropriate funding sources for rehabilitation and remediation of the land; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that said property should be leased to the East Bay Regional Park District pursuant to an urgency ordinance upon the affirmative vote of four members of the Council to pursue the immediate preserve public peace, health and safety as noted above; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the affirmative vote of four members of the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda, by four affirmative votes that: Section 1. The City Council finds and determines the foregoing recitals to be true and correct and hereby makes them a part of this Ordinance. Section 2. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, a Lease substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out hereinabove and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to the same. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon the date of its introduction and adoption on December 5, 2006. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of December, 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 December, 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - NOVEMBER 21, 2006- -7:32 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:12 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. * * * Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog left the dais at 9:12 p.m. and returned at 9:15 p.m. * * * CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/ Commissioner Daysog - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06- CC / *06- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City - Council and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on October 17, 2006, the Special CIC Meeting held on November 1, 2006, and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on November 14, 2006. Approved. ( *06- CC / *06- CIC) Recommendation to accept the FY07 First - quarter Financial Report and approve budget adjustments. Accepted. AGENDA ITEMS (06- CC /06- CIC) Presentation of Concept Plans for Northern Waterfront Development and recommendation to approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Encinal Real Estate, Inc. for relevant properties within the Northern Waterfront redevelopment area. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Ellen Lou and Carrie Byles, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP [Architects], provided a power point presentation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 1 Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated the staff report indicates that the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (NWSP) would come to the Council /Commission in January; inquired why the Council /Commission is looking at the project now; stated that she was on the NWSP Committee; the School District owns a piece of property on the site; inquired whether a deal has been reached with the School District; stated bringing the project forward without said deal is premature; the applicant has not gone through community workshops to see if the public thinks the project is a good idea; the process seems backwards. The Development Services Director stated the process is very forward; typically staff time is spent whittling though issues before anything is in any kind of condition to go out to the public because of just the questions asked; the request is before the Council /Commission because staff is going to spend a lot of time on the project; staff wants to set up a cost recovery mechanism upfront because of the size and scale of the project; consultants need to be hired to help staff deal with some of the questions and issues, such as cost and feasibility; a Settlement Agreement with the School District in 2000 gave the District rights to certain properties within the State Tidelands area; the School District's intentions have to be worked out. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff or the developer would work with the School District. The Development Services Director responded staff would work as a team with the developer; stated the State Tidelands properties are leased to Encinal Real Estate until 2029; however, the City manages the lease; a joint effort has to be made; the City deals with more real estate transactions than the School District and could help set out an outline of what needs to be evaluated and a path of actions which need to be accomplished to bring a decision to completion. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the School District was not allowed to go onto the property to complete environmental testing; the School District was considering filing a lawsuit to access the property. Peter Wang, Encinal Real Estate, Inc., stated the City compensated the School District for loss of the Mastick Senior Center around 2000 by trying to assign the lease to the School District; the State Tidelands Commission turned it down because the Tidelands Trust designates use for maritime and commercial /public; the land cannot be used for a school; the City Manager at the time signed an extension of lease and an estoppel certificate; said documents were Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 e- mailed to the City today. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is indicating that the School District does not have a legitimate right to property within the area. Mr. Wang responded that he does not know of the school district having a legitimate right; stated the City never officially transferred the leasehold to the School District. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the School District agrees with Mr. Wang, to which Mr. Wang responded that he does not know. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the issue must be resolved before the Council /Commission considers anything on the property. Mr. Wang outlined the amount he has spent on studies; urged moving toward a solution. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor/ Commissioner Gilmore that the matter seems to be coming in the wrong order; the developer is requesting a subsidy; the developer needs to bring forward a project, not a concept, before subsidy is discussed; the Concept Plan does not appear to be compliant with Measure A; she is concerned that the project would have priority over other projects and is not convinced the City should commit to do so; she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore questioning why the matter should be addressed prior to completion of the NWSP. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated a letter from a member of the public raised the concern that there would only be two public hearings on the matter; there needs to be a commitment to more public hearings if the project happens at all; the public should be involved through the Planning Board or a process; City Hall has to be prepared to juggle a lot of balls; the NWSP is coming forward; City staff can deal with the School District issues; everything can happen on parallel tracks; a commitment for greater public involvement is needed; the Concept Plan needs to be flexible; the NWSP might have ideas on the use and access of public space, which might differ from the Concept Plan; the NWSP would take priority over the Concept Plan. Mr. Wang stated the Concept Plan is based upon the NWSP. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the NWSP has not been adopted; although the Concept Plan might be consistent with the NWSP now, the NWSP could change when presented in January. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 3 Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association, stated the concept of Clement Avenue extension has been around for 45 years; Clement Avenue extension was clearly in place when Mr. Wang bought the property; she has had it with the resistance to implement the Clement Avenue extension; the neighborhood and future West End project need the Clement Avenue extension in order to get traffic to the bridges on the East End; the process is backwards; the Planning and Building Department has not reviewed the project, which is the normal process; the project should be under the Planning and Building Department, not Development Services; the City can ask developers for concessions; the NWSP is not approved yet. Jean Sweeney, NWSP Committee Member, outlined the history of street closures for Alaska Packers; stated history should not be repeated; a road needs to be in place before the development is considered; traffic would be generated and Buena Vista residents would come forward if the road is not in place. Jay Ingram, Alameda, submitted a letter from Rosemary McNally and a copy of his comments; stated the process is backwards; urged the Council /Commission not to approve the ENA and to slow down and get the community involved with plans viewed by the Planning and Building Department, Planning Board and other commissions. Valerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted comments; urged the Council /Commission not to approve the ENA because the Concept Plan should comply with the NWSP, which has not been approved; stated an ENA is a tentative agreement to a certain schedule to proceed; inquired how a schedule could be agreed upon when there is no concrete idea of what is being planned; further stated the Conceptual Plan is nothing more than a creative meandering; urged keeping the community involved and not approving the ENA; stated the plan should go through the regular process and be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. David Kirwin, Alameda, submitted comments; stated rolling into an ENA without public and community involvement is of concern; that he does not understand the necessity of an ENA; questioned who else the City could negotiate with other than the applicant; stated requests for public concessions and money are concerning; AUSD has a right to some property; the application to the State Lands Commission for the [property] swap could proceed without an ENA; negotiations could go forward; a formal agreement is not needed to allow communication to continue. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated there might appear to be two approaches: 1) going step -by -step ironing out inconsistencies Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 4 with the NWSP, school land issues, and dealing with Clement Avenue extension issues, or 2) work on parallel tracks; however, there are not two approaches; the NWSP is to come before the Council in January; there is not a rush to do the ENA; the ENA could come back in January; there is a case for working rapidly on parallel tracks; the City has done so successfully in the past with the Catellus project; that he would encourage a commitment to more public input; although an ENA might not be approved tonight, it is not the end; the NWSP will be presented and the Concept Plan can be compared very soon. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she understands why staff is proposing the ENA, but approving the ENA now would be the wrong order; noted ENAs have been used in the past when someone does not own the property. The Development Services Director stated 6.78 acres are Tidelands property controlled by a City lease and not owned by Mr. Wang. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a project application should be submitted before considering a subsidy; the City should not commit to prioritizing staff time to a project in the concept stage. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Councilmember/ Commissioner Daysog about moving a number of northern waterfront elements along together; however, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board have brought creative concepts to reality in the past, which allows many opportunities for public comment; the NWSP should be in place before the boards consider the matter; an ENA is premature until the concept goes through the process and there is a project; an appropriate project could be brought to the CIC after being sifted and vetted; the community would have an additional opportunity to comment when the matter is brought back to the CIC to determine if the project is worth the benefit. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not want to discourage Mr. Wang from going forward with the creative project; the concept has not been flushed out in its entirety; his concern is the departure from the past practice; the sequencing is different; the procedure needs to be approved if it is the mode in which developments are going to be done; the current procedures in place should be followed; there should be an in -depth discussion, if the development mechanism is changing; the existing process works or should be addressed as an agenda item if it does not work; an ENA is not appropriate; urged Mr. Wang to go forward; stated the Planning and Building Department needs to work with Mr. Wang to make it happen, flush out options and give the community an Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 5 opportunity for involvement moving forward. Mr. Wang noted that the plan presented meets Measure A requirements; stated every lot is a minimum of 2000 square feet. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding high -rise housing, Mr. Wang stated the high -rise is for senior citizen assisted living. Mr. Wang further stated an ENA is needed because the project is very complicated. Mayor /Chair Johnson encouraged Mr. Wang to ensure whatever plan he brings forward is Measure A compliant. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated that he recognizes the need for an ENA; developers need a degree of certainty about the developer's and City's responsibilities before moving forward with the preliminary parts of a project; the ENA process would flush out the details about what is wanted for the northern waterfront; the ENA process would determine whether public financing should be tax increment financing or mello roos; the process flushes out the land use design details, financials and other issues, such as Measure A compliance and Clement Avenue extension; he is confident issues can be dealt with; however, there has to be a lot more public input and an understanding that the plan might change through the ENA process as the NWSP comes forward; the Concept Plan cannot trump the NWSP; urged Mr. Wang to keep his team together and bring the matter back rapidly if the ENA is not approved tonight. Mr. Wang stated that he is not asking the City to issue any bond, tax increment or mello roos financing; however, he cannot get private financing without the ENA and DDA; he can afford seed financing for study, but needs bank support for the development. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated waiting for the NWSP to come forward should not stop Mr. Wang from working with the Planning and Building Department and Development Services; noted most developers would not take on lagoons; encouraged Mr. Wang to continue and directed staff to work with Mr. Wang. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated direction needs to be included in a motion; stated there is very little information on the project, such as the number of residential units and building height; too much is being requested based on a concept; staff time should not be directed until an application is put forward. Mr. Wang noted the land exchange might take three to four years. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 6 Mayor Johnson stated a project application is needed before prioritizing staff time on the project. Mr. Wang stated that he cannot submit a project application until he knows what the project should be; said work requires staff time; otherwise years continue to go by without anything being completed; encouraged the Council /Commission to direct staff to work with him; stated that he could provide the City with tentative maps applications. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the Council /Commission does not know how many units are being proposed. Mr. Wang stated approximately 200 housing units are proposed. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how many square feet of commercial and retail space are proposed, to which Mr. Wang responded 200,000 square feet. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated another way to work out cost recovery needs to be figured out if staff believes it is appropriate to dedicate a lot of staff time to the project; cautioned against prioritizing staff time at the expense of other projects that have been waiting to move forward, including individual homeowner projects. Mr. Wang stated privately funded projects can move forward much faster than the Naval Air Station project; perhaps tax increment could be used for the City's next project. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of postponing an ENA until the following occur: 1) that there is an approved NWSP; 2) there is an application or staff can move forward on the project as a project, not a concept, concurrent with public hearings at the EDC because tax increment money was mentioned, and at the Planning Board because projects at said stage rightfully go through the Planning Board for screening before returning to the CIC. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's motion refers to the ENA returning to the CIC for consideration, to which Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan requested Councilmember/ Commissioner Matarrese to clarify whether the Planning Board and EDC addressing the issue would be the opportunity for the community Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 7 input and outreach that would occur; stated how the community would be engaged is a concerning factor; inquired whether the Planning Board and EDC would be the appropriate forum. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated there is a City process for engaging the community; the project proposer has their own outreach responsibility. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese amended the motion to include direction to have the developer work with the public within the process prior to bringing back an ENA. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the public process outlined is very preliminary because the ideas presented are conceptual; that he likes the idea of having public input on the preliminary aspect; encouraged work be done within a quick timeframe following NWSP adoption; encouraged additional public meetings also be held after the public input which would occur prior to the ENA. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated after the NWSP is approved there would be a measuring device that could be used and would help the applicant fine -tune his concept; the EDC should probably be the first stop because the EDC deals in concepts; the Planning Board would be subsequent; there would be a chance for the public to visualize from concept to economics to hard planning issues and comment at least three to four times prior to the EBA coming back. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would add encouraging the applicant to set up a meeting with the neighbors and neighborhood association regardless of the City's public process; sometimes neighbors cannot attend public meetings and the applicant could set up the most convenient time for the neighbors who would be the most directly affected by the development and the most well versed in the history of the site. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the motion should set forth minimum requirements, not maximum requirements because there might be some steps not being raised tonight; the Council /Commission should not necessarily set a timeframe because pushing the project through is not the City's job. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the motion should address concerns about Clement Avenue extension and its impacts, which hopefully are addressed in the NWSP. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the matter might need to go to the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 8 Transportation Commission. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated there ought to be a goal or timeline for the initial EDC and Planning Board public meetings; the meetings should happen soon after the NWSP is adopted in January or February. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the timing depends upon when further information is developed and there is a more specific plan; how much time it will take is not known; it is too early to start setting timeframes. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to have the Transportation Commission review prior to the ENA returning for a vote as well as adding in a minimum expectation that the applicant makes direct contact with the neighborhood association and neighbors of the site; said additions [to the motion] are good; Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog's point is that the issue should be revisited to determine the timing once the NWSP is approved; timing might not be known; the Council /Commission should receive a report indicating the applicant's status and the potential for meeting with the EDC and Planning Board within a month of the NWSP being approved; the Council /Commission can decide what direction to take at said point and the update would afford another opportunity for public input. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's recommendation is reasonable. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated an update on the status would return to the Council /Commission. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the developer or someone else would have to make the case to bring the matter back sooner rather than later. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan suggested the Recreation and Parks Commission address the issue. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the action would set the minimum; there could be other commissions. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be discussed at the meeting addressing the status because then the plan may start talking about a public park in more real terms; the developer is doing a lot of work that may be moving the project along quite fast and items might become a project sooner than anticipated; said information would not be known until the NWSP is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 9 passed. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the outline of the public input process would return following the NWSP adoption; there should be a commitment to enter into an ENA if the developer satisfies the public input meetings. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated said commitment cannot be made now; the ENA would come back for consideration; the Council /Commission should not commit to entering into an agreement if the developer completes various steps; the Council /Commission might decide an ENA is not appropriate when the matter returns; it is not the appropriate time to consider the ENA; after the proposed meetings is the correct time to consider an ENA, but the Council /Commission is not committing to approval. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the process allows for reaching the correct point to consider an ENA. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the process allows consideration [of an ENA]; however, he is not sure an ENA is necessary; he does not know whether the 6.7 acres [of Tidelands property] kicks in the need for an ENA. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated said discussion would occur when the ENA returns; the City would have the benefit of the NWSP, additional public input and board /commission deliberation at said time. Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the modifications. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated although he would like an understanding that the City would enter into an ENA, he is satisfied that there is a process in place once the NWSP is adopted. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the steps that the City expects the applicant to complete would lead to consideration of an ENA; however, the City is not committing to enter into an ENA upon completion of said steps; the process is normal; the City does not commit to an agreement with a developer when all the City has is a concept. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the normal process is the developer comes forward with a concept, which is reviewed for consistencies with applicable plans; the plan is presented to the public, which involves being flexible; entering into an ENA is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 10 reasonable once said processes are completed. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated there might be an ENA or some other agreement or no agreement at all. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- CC /06- CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: None. Opponents: None. Neutral: Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda, Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to respond to Ms. Kerr's comments regarding the use designations. The Development Services Director stated land use changes in the current redevelopment plan would make it consistent with the General Plan; the modifications to the CIC's land use map are being made in order to have it conform with the City's General Plan. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the General Plan has the designation of Community- Commercial (C -C) , which is the designation he is familiar with for all of the stations; inquired whether there is an error and requested someone to check. The Development Services Director responded that she does not have a way to check tonight; the documents were reviewed by the Planning and Building Department staff because the General Plan needed to be overlaid onto the land use map; the language in the plan amendment being considered would make the General Plan the dominant land use document; the General Plan, as amended from time to time, would be the guiding land use plan. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese requested the land use map be modified to match the General Plan if the General Plan has the C -C designation; stated the City needs to get on a path to amend the .General Plan if C -C is not the General Plan designation; the stations have always been referred to as C -C; said change would be an administrative change; the General Plan needs to change if it Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 11 has the medium density residential designation. The City Manager stated staff would check for consistency with the General Plan; the matter would be addressed if the General Plan does not reflect C -C. The Development Services Director stated separate land use maps for the CIC improvement areas would be done away with and default to the City's General Plan; the General Plan would become the dominant, guiding principle behind all land use evaluations for the CIC. In response to Mayor /Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding when said change would take place, the Development Services Director stated the amendment is being considered tonight. Mayo /Chair Johnson inquired whether the action tonight is the last step, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. There being no further speakers, Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of closing the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- CC /06- CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider certification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment and a new Disposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development. Continued to December 5, 2006. Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Hearing was continued to December 5, 2006. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated there are six different topics; noted that he would not have the ability to vote on one item with six different topics; stated the City should report out on closed session discussions on the matter. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested staff to describe the process; noted the agreement would be available to the public a certain number of days prior to the hearing. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 12 The Assistant City Manager stated State law requires that the DDA be published fourteen days prior to being considered for adoption. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the document has been made public, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Manager noted that there would be one agenda item with eight actions. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the existing agreement with Catellus is also available, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the document would be made available. Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog noted that the meeting to adopt the Catellus DDA was held in the Elks Lodge. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese noted there is a nice overflow room at the library. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the public needs to know the proposed agreement has not been approved by the CIC; the draft is coming to the CIC at a public hearing. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the speaker's request for an outline of the closed sessions seems appropriate. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the documents could be posted online, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on meetings. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:04 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 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 13 City of Alameda Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Date: The Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Debra Kurita City Manager /Executive Director December 5, 2006 Re: Authorize Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission's Annual Report to the State Controller's Office and the City Council and Accept Annual Report BACKGROUND State Law requires the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to submit an Annual Report to the City Council, and file a copy of this report with the State Controller by December 31st of each year. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The CIC's Annual Report is available for review in the City Clerk's office. The CIC's annual report for FY 2005 -06 includes the following: • Independent Auditor's Report on financial statements; • Independent Auditor's Report on legal compliance; • Annual Report of Financial Transactions of Community Redevelopment Agencies (Fiscal Statement); • HCD Annual Report of Housing Activity of Community Redevelopment Agencies; • Housing Activities Report Summary; • Blight Progress Report; • Loan Report; and • Property Report Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Agenda Item #1 -B 12 -05 -06 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council The Honorable Chair and MembersPage 2 of the Community Improvement CommissionDecember 5, 2006 The independent financial audit for the fiscal year 2005/06 has been prepared by Maze & Associates. The audit examines the CIC's compliance with State laws, regulations, and administrative requirements including CIC policies and procedures related to record keeping, public hearings, contracting for services, use of tax increment funds and indebtedness. According to the audit, the CIC was found to be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and administrative requirements, with one exception. Consistent with §33490 and §33413(b), the CIC was required to adopt its first five -year implementation plan within five years of the Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Plan Area (APIP) was adopted FY 98/99. A five -year implementation plan should have been adopted by June 30, 2004 but was not adopted until June 2006. Because the property at Alameda Point has not been conveyed for development, there is nothing yet to implement. Under these circumstances, this does not typically constitute a violation. The fiscal statement contains the information required by Health & Safety Code §33080.5. The Housing Activities Report describes CIC activities affecting housing and displacement. The Blight Progress Report describes the CIC's progress to alleviate blight. The Loan Report describes CIC loans in default or not in compliance. The Property Report describes CIC owned and acquired property. The Goals of the CIC's Three Redevelopment Projects are included with the information on file. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund or the CIC's Budget. RECOMMENDATION Community Improvement Commission: Authorize transmittal of the Annual Report to the State Controller' Office and the HCD Annual Report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the City Council. City Council: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council The Honorable Chair and MembersPage 3 of the Community Improvement CommissionDecember 5, 2006 Accept the Annual Report of the CIC. RespectUetlfy submitted ie A. Little Development Services Director By: Nanette Banks, Manager Finance and Administration Division DK/LAL/NB: sf Attachments on file in the City Clerk's Office: Attachment 1: Independent Auditor's Reports Attachment 2: Fiscal Statement Attachment 3: HCD Annual Report of Housing Activity Attachment 4: Housing Activities Report Summary Attachment 5: Blight Progress Report Attachment 6: Loan Report Attachment 7: Property Report Attachment 8: Goals of the CIC's Three Redevelopment Projects cc: Economic Development Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: December 5, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: TRANSMITTAL OF: 1) CITY OF ALAMEDA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2006 2) AUDITOR'S REPORT ON AGREED UPON PROCEDURES ON COMPLIANCE WITH VEHICLE CODE SECTION 40200.3 PARKING CITATION PROCESSING 3) AGREED UPON PROCEDURES REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSITION 111 2004 -05 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT INCREMENT 4) POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PENSION PLANS 1079 AND 1082 AUDIT REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2006 5) METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GRANT PROGRAMS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2006 6) COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, BASIC COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2006 7) ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, BASIC COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2006 BACKGROUND Transmitted herewith is the City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended June 30, 2006. The report, intended to be easily readable and efficiently organized, provides detailed financial information by which the Council, the public, including market analysts and investors, may assess the relative attractiveness of investing in Alameda as compared to alternative investment opportunities. Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Agenda Item #2 -A 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 2 of 3 Also transmitted are the auditors' reports on Agreed Upon Procedures for Compliance with certain vehicle code provisions, the report on our compliance with the Proposition 111 calculation procedures, the Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Program for year ending June 30, 2006. Blended Component Unit reports for the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority are also being forwarded. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The CAFR report has three sections: Introductory Section: This section contains the transmittal letter from the Chief Financial Officer, which highlights accomplishments and discusses economic conditions and outlook. This section also contains our awards for excellence in financial reporting from the Governmental Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada and from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. Financial Section: This section includes the auditors' opinion letter, the Management Discussion and Analysis, and the general purpose financial and supplemental combining statements. Budget to actual comparisons by fund can be found within these statements. Comparisons from one year to the next are also presented. Statistical Section: A new requirement for the year ending June 30, 2006 added new items to this section. It includes a number of tables concerning city operations, demographic and miscellaneous information. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is on file with the City Clerk and can also be reviewed at the Alameda Free Library and its branches. After acceptance, it will be added to the Finance section of the City's website. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT The financial statements, supporting schedules, statistical tables and narrative explanations are presented to help assure that all financial data are presented in order to provide interested groups with all necessary information pertaining to City finances. These interested groups include the City Council, boards and commissions, oversight bodies, investors and creditors, grant or resource providers, taxpayers, employees and others. The City of Alameda had net assets as of June 30, 2006 of $295,890,907. This represents an increase of $33,279,010 over the prior year. The total capital debt decreased by $1,444,481 during this year. Honorable Mayor and December 5, 2006 Councilmembers Page 3 of 3 The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City of Alameda. At the end of 2005/06, the unreserved fund balance was $17,947,381. This full amount was designated by City Council policy for use for economic uncertainties. This policy was adopted by the City Council in December 1989. At June 30, 2006, the Community Improvement Commission's governmental funds reported combined fund balances of $28.4 million of which $11.3 million is legally reserved and $17.1 million is available to fund ongoing Commission operations and projects. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority at June 30, 2006, had $9.1 million fund balance of which $6.5 million was unreserved and undesignated. RECOMMENDATION These reports are presented for informational purposes only. The City Auditor, a representative from Maze and Associates, our external auditors, and the Chief Financial Officer will be available at the December 6,2005 City Council meeting to answer questions and /or receive ideas from the City Council as to areas it would like emphasized during the 2006 -07 audit cycle. Respectfully submitted, JAB:di Attachments on file in the City Clerk's Office cc: City Auditor City Treasurer Maze & Associates uelle -An '`: oyer Chief Financial Officer CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: To: December 5, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita City Manager /Executive Director Re: Public Hearing to consider certification of the Alameda Landing Mixed -use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, and a Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment and new DDA to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000 square feet of retail use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed -use Development. The project area is located south of the Oakland - Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda, east of Coast Guard Housing, and west of Webster Street. The site is located in the MX (Mixed -use) Zoning District. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2000, the City of Alameda and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved the Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (Master Plan) and associated General Plan and Zoning amendments and entered into a Development Agreement and a Disposition Development Agreement with the Catellus Development Corporation' • The approved Catellus Master Plan includes the 485 -unit Bayport Residential project, a 62 -unit affordable housing project (The Breakers), a community park, a K -8 school, a 39 -unit affordable housing project and a 1.3 million square foot Research and Development (R & D) and office park. The office and R &D portion of the Master Plan is located along the Oakland - Alameda Estuary, west of the Mariner Square commercial area, north of the College of Alameda, and east of U.S. Coast Guard Housing. Although the Bayport residential portion of the 2000 Master Plan is well underway, the downturn in the 1 To avoid confusion, the project developer is referred to as "Catellus" throughout this staff report. However, the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation is the successor by merger to the Catellus Development Corporation. Therefore all references to the Catellus Corporation have been removed from the Master Plan and the new Development Agreements and Disposition and Development Agreement are between the City of Alameda or the CIC and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Agenda Item #2 -B 12 -05 -06 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 2 of 21 Bay Area office market delayed construction of the office and R & D uses as well as the adjoining waterfront promenade. Over the past four years, the City and Catellus have been exploring a variety of opportunities to revise the existing Catellus Master Plan to better achieve the City's objectives. These objectives include: • Expediting redevelopment of the waterfront to provide public access and open space, • Providing a greater mix of uses on the site, including affordable housing and retail uses, • Reducing retail sales tax leakage to neighboring jurisdictions, • Providing more specific design guidelines for the redevelopment of the site that reflect current community priorities, and • Improving transit, pedestrian and bicycle orientation of the site. In 2005, Catellus submitted the current proposal to replace 1,300,000 square feet of office and R &D space with a mix of uses, including 300,000 square feet of retail (or 50,000 square feet of retail and 370,000 square feet of office/R &D), 400,000 square feet of office, and up to 300 housing units. Specifically, the proposal (referred to as the "Alameda Landing Project ") would: • Redesignate approximately 31 acres of the remaining property within the Master Plan to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of waterfront retail, a retail shopping center of approximately 250,000 square feet of floor area (Variant A) or 370,000 square feet of R &D uses (Variant B) and 20,000 square feet of health club or similar uses. • Redesignate approximately 22 acres of land from the Master Plan currently designated for office/R &D to accommodate up to 300 housing units. Twenty -five percent of the housing units will be restricted for very low, low and moderate - income households. • Revise the Master Plan to provide a mix of uses, public amenities and design guidelines to ensure a high quality, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit oriented, mixed -use development that reconnects Alameda with the waterfront. • Retain approximately 400,000 square feet of waterfront office space with supporting ground floor retail space on approximately 21 acres. In January of 2006, the City and Catellus began an intensive community engagement effort to solicit community input on the Alameda Landing proposal. In January, over 100 members of the community participated in a public open house to review and comment on the preliminary plans. In February, the project team held another community forum, which included a site planning exercise in which participants were invited to redesign the site to better reflect community priorities. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 3 of 21 Over the course of the next nine months, the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, and Economic Development Commission worked to further focus and refine the Alameda Landing proposal. The Planning Board held a study session on the proposal on April 10th, a public hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 22nd, and public hearings on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the project proposal on July 10th and July 24th. The Economic Development Commission reviewed the project in June, and the Transportation Commission considered the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the project transportation plans at a number of meetings between May and August. The Recreation and Parks Commission considered the project in September. Through this series of meetings, the Boards and Commissions further refined the Alameda Landing proposal. On July 24, 2006, the Planning Board held a final public hearing to consider the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment and new Development Agreements. The public hearing included over 50 speakers and represented the culmination of an intensive public planning effort for the project. Of the 50 speakers, approximately 45 speakers spoke in favor of the project and encouraged the Planning Board to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. After careful deliberation and addition of further conditions to improve the mix of uses, the design of parking lots, and the consideration of future development plan submittals, the Planning Board approved a series of resolutions recommending approval of the project to the City Council. In late July, Clif Bar announced that the company had selected Alameda Landing as the preferred site for its new corporate headquarters. The prospect of including Clif Bar within one of the existing waterfront warehouses created an exciting opportunity for the project and a need to modify project phasing. Accommodating Clif Bar requires that the project immediately undertake major infrastructure and waterfront wharf improvements. The challenge of accelerating the waterfront improvements caused City and Catellus representatives to reevaluate the planned land acquisition and infrastructure improvement phases and costs. As a result of this reevaluation, the City and Catellus chose to delay City Council and CIC consideration of the project's financial terms as described in the Disposition and Development Agreement until further analysis could be conducted and any necessary changes could be addressed. This reevaluation and renegotiation process required four months and delayed the City Council's /CIC's consideration of the project from the originally planned date in August to December 5, 2006. The final recommended financial terms are described below. DISCUSSION In order to implement the proposed Alameda Landing project, a number of City Council actions are required: A. Environmental Review: Certification of the Supplemental EIR, pursuant to the California Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 4 of 21 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of the required CEQA findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. General Plan Amendment: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on that portion of the site north of Willie Stargell Avenue that is currently designated Business Park to Specified Mixed -use (MU -7) to allow for the proposed mix of uses. C. Master Plan Amendment: A Master Plan Amendment to revise the text and diagrams of the existing Master Plan to incorporate the proposed land use revisions. D. Development Agreements: An amendment to the existing Development Agreement (DA) and two new DAs to implement the Alameda Landing Project. E. Disposition and Development Agreements: An amendment to the existing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and a new DDA for the Alameda Landing portion of the project area to implement the Alameda Landing Project. The CIC must act on: A. Environmental Review: Approval of the Supplemental EIR, pursuant to the CEQA and adoption of the required CEQA findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. Disposition and Development Agreements: An amendment to the existing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and a new DDA for the Alameda Landing portion of the project area to implement the Alameda Landing Project. Each of these actions is described below. A. The Environmental Review Process Supplemental EIR: The proposal to re- entitle the project is subject to the CEQA. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared because the proposal is a change to an approved project for which an EIR was already prepared. The Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Development Project SEIR provides the public and the City's decision makers with information about the potential environmental impacts of the proposal. In addition, the SEIR describes how these impacts may be similar to, or may differ from, the impacts that may be expected to occur as a result of the existing entitlements (e.g., Master Plan, DAs, DDA, etc.). Finally, the SEIR describes how the program of required mitigation measures imposed on the existing project should be modified to address the impacts of the revised project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 5 of 21 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The draft resolution making findings of fact regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures includes a recommended Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MJVIRP). The MIVIRP complies with the requirements of CEQA. It describes the mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant impacts of the project and the monitoring and reporting process, and the role and responsibilities of the City of Alameda and others to whom the City may delegate responsibility in ensuring the effective implementation of the mitigation measures. The MMRP has been modified from the original Catellus Project MMRP in three primary respects: 1. The MMRP has been updated to reflect the mitigation measures identified in the Supplemental EIR. As indicated in the Final SEIR, the most significant changes to the 2000 mitigation measures are the traffic mitigation measures, which have changed as a result of a number of factors including the revised land uses, changes to existing traffic conditions, and changes to background growth assumptions. In addition, some mitigation measures (e.g., hydrology, geology, public services) have been updated to reflect new regulatory standards; while others (e.g., hazardous materials, utilities) have been updated to reflect additional information from studies that have been completed since the 2000 EIR. 2. The MMRP now includes an allocation of responsibility for implementation of each mitigation measure. This allocation will benefit all parties by making clear the responsibility for implementation of each measure. The MMRP is incorporated into the DAs and DDA, so that all existing and future parties will be contractually bound to undertake their respective obligations as identified in the MMRP. 3. Under the existing DDA, the CIC is obligated to fund the cost of all project demolition and backbone infrastructure mitigation measures, with no cap on that obligation. Under the proposed DDA for the new project, the Developer is responsible for funding all demolition and backbone infrastructure mitigation measures related to the Alameda Landing project. Therefore, the new MMRP shifts the financial burden from the CIC to the developer. Since publication of the Final SEIR, further analysis has resulted in three changes to the MMRP: 1. The SEIR inaccurately stated that the project contributed to a cumulative impact at the intersection of Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) and Main in 2025. Further examination of the traffic calculations included in the appendices determined that the project's contribution was less than 3% (approximately 1 %). A one percent contribution is not considered significant under the City's significance criteria; and therefore, the mitigation was removed from the MMRP. (A 1% variation is unnoticeable; the standard variation in traffic flow during weekday peak periods at a given location is generally 5% or more.) The anticipated impact at Willie Stargell Ave (Tinker) and Main will only occur upon full development of Alameda Point. If the anticipated impacts are confirmed in a future Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 6 of 21 Alameda Point EIR, the Alameda Point project will be responsible for mitigating those impacts. 2. The SEIR included a requirement for a fixed estuary water pumping facility for fire prevention. The Alameda Fire Department has determined that the project would not compromise fire safety and the fixed pumping facility is not needed and is not consistent with the Department's long -term plans for fire prevention in West Alameda. Therefore, the mitigation has been removed from the MMRP. 3. Further analysis has determined that the Alameda Landing Project will result in a net decrease in overall peak flows to EBMUD sewer treatment facilities. The decrease is attributable to the complete replacement of all sewer lines within the project area. Replacement of the old lines results in a significant reduction in infiltration into the system from wet weather, ground water, and the estuary. Elimination of this existing infiltration results in an overall benefit to the sewer system. Therefore, mitigation measure ULT -4 has been removed from the MMRP. Transportation Commission Concerns: The Transportation Commission reviewed the SEIR and raised concerns about proposed mitigations that include roadway widening. The SEIR found that adding travel lanes at Central/Eighth, Atlantic /Constitution, and Lincoln/Constitution to accommodate full development of Alameda Point and Alameda Landing was contrary to the City's policies to retain Alameda's "small town feeling ", pedestrian orientation, and "Transit First" priorities. The SEIR recommends a widening of Atlantic and Webster to accommodate Alameda Point, Alameda Landing and other West End development over the next 20 years. The Alameda Landing project is providing a "fair share" contribution to the improvement; but the City Council retains the discretion to determine at a future date whether the widening is necessary or appropriate. Widening of this intersection would also require property acquisition; and, for this reason, the SEIR finds the impact to be significant and unavoidable. Finally, it should be noted that the Master Plan requires pedestrian- oriented, bicycle - friendly streets throughout the development. The two primary transportation corridors through the project (i.e. the Mitchell Extension and the Fifth Street Extension) are both planned with a single travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane where needed and bicycle lanes. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Similar to the 2000 EIR, the SEIR identifies a number of hazardous material and transportation impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, due to specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that make infeasible the mitigation measures that would avoid the significant impacts. The City actions include adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the City's reasons for approving the project notwithstanding its significant, unavoidable environmental impacts. As described in the SEIR, the hazardous material impacts are the result of removal of hazardous waste from the site. The significant unavoidable traffic impacts include the following (other significant unavoidable impacts Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission are described in the SEIR): December 5, 2006 Pg. 7 of 21 • Regional Roadways and Oakland Freeway On- Ramps. The proposed project will contribute traffic to the I -880 Freeway and the regional roadway system. The specific locations and contributions are described in the SEIR. Although these contributions (when compared to regional traffic growth) are relatively small, these transportation systems are already congested and even small contributions are deemed significant when combined with cumulative regional growth. Due to regional growth, including planned growth in Oakland, Alameda and the Bay Area, the regional freeway and roadway system is at capacity and is projected to get progressively more congested in future years. Due to limited State and Federal funds for regional freeway and roadway improvements, the ability of Caltrans, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), and local governments to implement regional transportation improvements is extremely limited. Although the project will be contributing funds for regional roadway improvements, these funds can only be used if solutions are identified and approved by Caltrans and Oakland. To date, Caltrans, the CMA, and Oakland have been unable to develop technically feasible improvement plans for the I -880 and Webster and Posey Tube access points within the constrained conditions in Oakland's densely populated and growing downtown. For these reasons, the Final SE1R finds that the impact of the project on regional roadways and freeway on ramps is significant and unavoidable. • Project Area Intersections and the Tinker Extension Project: The project will also contribute traffic to Alameda's already constrained west end roadway network. The intersections at Atlantic /Webster, Mariner Square Loop /Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker), Mariner Square Drive /Constitution, Marina Village Pkwy/Mariner Sq. Loop, Marina Village Pkwy/Mariner Sq. Drive and Atlantic/5th will be significantly impacted with full development of Alameda Landing and Alameda Point and other anticipated development in Alameda in the next 20 years. To mitigate some of these impacts, the project includes plans to construct the Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) Extension to Webster Street. The Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) Extension will provide a direct connection to the Webster and Posey tubes for the project and Alameda Point, and avoid the need for Alameda Landing and Alameda Point traffic to use the existing congested intersections described above. However, construction of the Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) Extension requires permits from Caltrans and acquisition of land from the Peralta Community College District. Since Caltrans may not grant the approvals and/or the City or Developer may be unable to acquire the needed right of way from the District, the SEIR finds that if the Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) Extension is not completed, significant unavoidable congestion will occur at the existing west end intersections. As noted above, the SEIR also identifies significant, unavoidable impacts at Central/Eighth, Atlantic /Constitution, and Lincoln/Constitution, where lane additions were determined to be contrary to Alameda policy. In conclusion, the SEIR for this project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and all local guidelines and adequately evaluates the potential environmental consequences of Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 8 of 21 the project and all necessary mitigation measures. The document was prepared by experts in their respective fields; and the information was generally well received by the community and reviewing agencies. The community, adjacent jurisdictions, the State Clearinghouse and all relevant and responsible agencies were notified early and regularly throughout the preparation and review process. As described above, the SEIR was circulated for public review for 45 days and was the considered by the public at several public hearings before the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission. The resolutions recommend that the City Council and the CIC certify the SEIR as adequate, approve the MMRP and make the necessary finding regarding environmental effects and the necessary statements of overriding considerations. The findings summarize all of the environmental impacts of the project including those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The statement of overriding considerations identifies the public benefits the project will provide that justify project approval despite the significant unavoidable environmental impacts. B. General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment is required to maintain consistency between the proposed Master Plan described below and the City of Alameda General Plan. The proposed General Plan amendment changes the General Plan Land Use Diagram designation of the Alameda Landing site (the area north of the Bayport Project) from Business Park to Specified Mixed -Use Area. This change is necessary to allow the recommended mix of uses that includes residential uses. The recommended General Plan amendment will also amend Land Use Element Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and associated tables to incorporate the new Specified Mixed -Use Area and the associated development program as recommended in the revised Master Plan. These text changes are necessary to maintain an internally consistent General Plan. In addition to maintaining consistency with the Master Plan, the proposed General Plan amendment provides clear policy guidance to ensure that all future development of the property: ■ Is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan to strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small town feeling, and respect for history; de- emphasis of the automobile; and retain and promote mixed -use development on the waterfront; and • Will benefit the general welfare of the community by facilitating development of a vacant, underutilized former military site with a mixed -use development that includes residential, commercial and/or R &D uses, and provides tax revenues to the City and substantial public amenities, including affordable housing and public waterfront open space. C. Master Plan Amendment The proposed Master Plan Amendment replaces a 1.3 million square foot office and R &D park with Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 9 of 21 a mixed -use, transit - oriented development that includes employment, retail, and residential uses. Throughout the public planning process, the concept of moving from a single- use plan to a mixed - use plan received almost unanimous public support. The public review of the Alameda Landing proposal never questioned the benefit of a mixed -use plan; instead, the public focused on how the mixed -use plan could be made even better. The major improvements to the Master Plan made by the community and Planning Board are summarized below: Vertical and Horizontal Mixed -use: Although the community was very supportive of the concept of replacing an office park with a mixed -use development, the community and the Planning Board required that the Master Plan be amended to ensure a greater mix of uses within each planning sub- area. The Master Plan revisions include sub -area land use programs that require a specific amount of both a vertical and a horizontal mix of uses in each sub -area. Each sub -area is required to have at least two land uses and open space. In addition, the Master Plan identifies specific locations or "nodes" where a vertical mix of uses is required. The mixed -use nodes are at the following critical locations within the project area where a vertical mix of uses is most important: • At the waterfront retail center, the Master Plan requires that all of the ground floor uses be retail uses and that 50% of all buildings include second floor uses such as office, senior care facilities, or Measure A- compliant residential units. • At the "Village Green" on Fifth Street at the center of the project site, the Master Plan requires that all retail and residential uses face onto the public park and that at least 50% of the retail buildings include residential or office uses on the second floor. On the residential side of the public green, ground floor commercial spaces are required with residential units above. • Along the waterfront, the Master Plan requires that the waterfront offices include a minimum of 10,000 square feet of ground -floor retail uses and restaurants. In addition to the required mixed -use programs, the Master Plan includes a "Mixed -Use Procedure" which allows the City to approve a greater mix of uses provided that the proposed mix of uses does not result in any more traffic or other environmental impacts than what was expected from the planned mix of uses evaluated in the SEIR. For example, under this procedure, the City may approve senior care facilities or residential uses on the waterfront office sub -area provided that the proposal includes the necessary reduction in office uses to ensure no new environmental impacts. Under this procedure, the City retains the discretionary power to approve or deny the proposal. Parking and Parking Lots: The amount of parking and size of surface parking lots planned for the retail and office areas were consistent concerns expressed by the community at the workshops and by the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board. The direction from the public and the Planning Board was to ensure that the project did not provide too much parking, which could negatively impact the effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, or Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 10 of 21 create excessively large parking lots which would be detrimental to the pedestrian orientation and design of the project. In response to these concerns, the Master Plan includes three important revisions: • Maximums not Minimums: The current Master Plan and the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance establish minimum parking requirements for each use. In response to public concerns, the Master Plan establishes a maximum parking requirement instead of a minimum parking requirement. Under the new parking standards, the project is encouraged to provide a reduced amount of parking that is less than current City standards. The applicant may provide additional parking if the additional parking is needed to address parking needs of a particular tenant. Any additional parking above the maximum would require Planning Board approval. • Maximum Sized Lots: To ensure that no parking lot is too large, the Master Plan was revised to include a new requirement that large parking areas should be broken into smaller lots with no more than 250 spaces. Landscaped buffer areas to screen the individual lots and provide pedestrian access through and around the lots must separate individual lots. • Parking Behind Waterfront Retail Buildings and Waterfront Office Buildings: In the waterfront office area, all parking is to be located behind (i.e., on the south side of) the buildings. In the waterfront retail area north of Mitchell Avenue, all parking is to be located behind the buildings; and no cars or parking are allowed within the Waterfront Plaza. ■ Shared Parking: Given the reduced amount of parking provided, the revised Master Plan includes requirements for shared parking. The office parking must be shared with all open space and recreational uses, so no additional parking would be required for these public uses. In addition, the western portion of the Waterfront Retail area is required to share parking with the adjacent office area. Connections between the site and other parts of Alameda: The Transportation Commission, the Planning Board, and the local bicycle community emphasized the need for good pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between the site and the rest of Alameda. As a result, the proposed Master Plan includes guidelines and diagrams to enhance and improve the connections between the site and other parts of Alameda and the waterfront. Specific written guidelines have been added to ensure that the future project provides appropriate vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle connections and that the development provides a pedestrian- friendly grid system of streets. Alternatives to the Automobile: The Transportation Commission and the community at large emphasized the importance of providing alternatives to the automobile to reduce traffic congestion in the area. The Master Plan requires a phased implementation of a TDM program that can be initiated early in the project development process and grow as the project builds out. The TDM program is also designed so that other projects in West Alameda can contribute resources to allow the program Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 11 of 21 to expand to serve the entire west end. With occupancy of the first 100,000 square feet of commercial development or the first 150 residential units (whichever comes first), the initial shuttle services to Oakland BART will be provided. As the project develops, additional services will be provided. The Master Plan conditions require that the first phase of the development also include a comprehensive plan detailing how the TDM program will be organized, funded and managed. Sustainable development and high quality site and architectural design: The current Master Plan includes few requirements to ensure high quality, pedestrian- friendly site and architectural design. The revised Master Plan includes an extensive new set of site planning and architectural design standards to ensure that the new development achieves high quality building materials and design. The revised Master Plan also includes a number of requirements designed to create a more sustainable development, such as requirements for bio- swales; bicycle and pedestrian paths that are located throughout the site and connect to existing paths off -site; recycling of existing building materials; improved TDM programs to reduce automobile and energy use including a BART shuttle and water shuttle; and the use of "Green Building" features that meet LEED standards wherever possible. In conclusion, the revised Master Plan represents a significant improvement over the existing Master Plan. The revised Master Plan will ensure a well designed, mixed -use development. The TDM program and site improvements will establish Alameda Landing as a new standard for west end development that can be replicated and improved upon with future developments. D. Amendment to Existing Development Agreement (DA) and New Development Agreements (DAs) Implementation of the Alameda Landing project as envisioned in the Master Plan requires an amendment to the existing DA by and between the City and Catellus as well as two new DAs. The proposed new DAs and the amended DA ensure that all future development within the Master Plan area meets the intent of AMC Article VI. The DAs contain provisions that provide for an orderly mix of office, research and development, retail, openspace, mixed -use and related uses. The DAs will promote economic welfare by revitalizing an underutilized area of the City of Alameda with new offices and retail establishments and creating a new source of tax revenue for the City, as well as the local consumer and employee base needed to stimulate such revenues, and ensure the provision of adequate circulation, utilities and services. In 2004, Catellus assigned its rights and obligations to the Bayport Housing project to FOCIL -BP, LLC. In order to move forward with a re- entitled project at Alameda Landing, the Bayport project must be separated from the Alameda Landing project so that the DAs are consistent with the ownership structure for both the Bayport project and Alameda Landing project. Therefore, a third amendment to the existing DA is required to revise the geographic boundaries of the project regulated by the existing DA to solely the Bayport project; and two new DAs are needed for the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 12 of 21 Alameda Landing project. One new DA covers the commercial portions of Alameda Landing and the second DA addresses the residential portions of the property. The proposed third amendment to the existing DA and two new DAs are summarized below. Third Amendment to Existing Development Agreement: The existing DA by and between the City and Catellus regulates the entire Master Plan site. The existing DA, adopted in 2000, envisioned that Catellus would build out the entire project including the Bayport development and the 1.3 million square foot office park. The proposed amendment to the existing DA revises the document to address only those lands and development issues that pertain to the Bayport housing portion of the site. The Third Amendment also incorporates the updated MMRP and Master Plan Conditions of Approval, including the allocation of obligations described above. The Alameda Landing Commercial Mixed -Use Development Agreement: This new DA addresses the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Commercial portion of the site, i.e. that land north of the Bayport Development identified in the Master Plan as Sub -Areas 1, 2, and 3. One change has been made to the DA since it was published. The attached errata sheet notes the change which conforms language requiring insurance for the wharf with the same language in the DDA. The Alameda Landing Residential Mixed -Use Development Agreement This new DA addresses the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Residential portion of the site, i.e., that land north of the Bayport Development identified in the Master Plan as Sub Area 4a and 4b. The rights and responsibilities outlined in the Residential DA are generally similar to those within the Commercial Mixed -Use DA. The Alameda Landing DAs contain the basic rights and obligations of the City and the Developer for the redevelopment of the Alameda Landing site. The basic provisions include: 1. Long -term entitlements for the Developer to develop the property consistent with the Master Plan. 2. Long -term obligations for the Developer to construct all on and off -site improvements including all required sewer, storm, roadway improvements identified in the Master Plan, MMRP, and Master Demolition, Infrastructure, Grading, and Phasing Plan. 3. Limitations on the City's ability to revise the project conditions or requirements or impose additional fees on subsequent project phases. The third Amendment to the existing Catellus DA and the two new DAs are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. In addition to the City Council actions described above, the City and CIC must consider a Fifth Amendment to the existing DDA with Catellus Development Corporation and Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Sources of Repayment (Memorandum of Agreement) and a new DDA for the Alameda Landing project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission A. Fifth Amendment to DDA and Memorandum of Agreement December 5, 2006 Pg. 13 of 21 The CIC entered into a DDA with Catellus Development Corporation to purchase and develop approximately 215 acres at East Housing and the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) in May 2000. Over the course of developing the Bayport subdivision, the DDA has been amended four times. Past Amendments included relocating the Ruby Bridges K -8 school site, incorporating an additional affordable housing project, and assigning Catellus' rights and obligations related to the Bayport project to another entity. The proposed Fifth Amendment to the DDA limits the geographic scope of the existing DDA to the Bayport project. This is consistent with the proposed amended DA for the project. It also releases to Catellus land sales proceeds and tax increment from the development of the FISC property to benefit the Alameda Landing project. These revenue sources were previously retained as a potential source of repayment for the shortfall loan and predevelopment obligation for the Bayport project as currently required in the DDA. The shortfall loan is the money that the CIC is required to borrow from the Developer in the event that it does not have sufficient funds to carry out its obligations to construct backbone infrastructure and undertake other project activities. The predevelopment obligation is payment of %2 of the expenses incurred by the Developer prior to approval of the DDA in May 2000. The Fifth Amendment also fixes the interest rate on the shortfall loan and predevelopment obligation at 8.75 %. The current interest rate is base on an index set at the Developer's cost of funds plus 2 %. Because Catellus will no longer be involved in the Bayport DDA, the index is no longer applicable. The CIC is currently paying 8.73% interest on the shortfall loan and the predevelopment obligation. This interest rate was established, using the index, in February, 2005. Catellus' cost of funds plus 2% is approximately 9% today. It is estimated that 90% of Catellus' cost of funds is fixed, therefore, it is appropriate to establish a fixed interest fate that reflects what the CIC has paid over time and provides certainty going forward. It is anticipated that the shortfall loan and predevelopment obligation will be paid off within three years. The Memorandum of Agreement documents all of the funding sources that FOCIL, as the entity that acquired all of Catellus' rights and obligations to the Bayport project, is entitled for repayment of any shortfall loan amount or predevelopment obligation. The funding sources identified in the Memorandum of Agreement are all of the funds provided in the DDA including land sales proceeds, tax increment, profit participation, and funds from sale of gravel and insurance claims (except FISC land sales proceeds and tax increment). The combined Fifth Amendment to DDA and the Memorandum of Agreement separate and keep FOCIL "whole" and allow Catellus to move forward with the Alameda Landing project with a new DDA. The Fifth Amendment and Memorandum of Agreement are effective only if the new Alameda Landing DDA is approved. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission B. Alameda Landing DDA December 5, 2006 Pg. 14 of 21 Pursuant to the existing DDA between the CIC and Catellus, the former East Housing and FISC properties are proposed to be developed with a 485 -unit subdivision, 1.3 million square feet of office and R &D space and a waterfront park. With 438 lots conveyed, 273 homes sold, 101 homes under construction and 64 lots awaiting construction, as of October 31, 2006, Bayport is projected to be completed by the end of 2008. Catellus has until June 2008 to begin purchasing 14 -acre parcels of office/R &D land. At that time, 14 -acre parcels must then be purchased every two years until all 74 acres of office/R &D land are acquired. While the office/R &D project may be a viable development scenario over time, Catellus anticipates that a mixed -use project that reduces the amount of office space to 400,000 square feet, replaces R &D with up to 300 units of housing and 300,000 square feet of retail, and retains the waterfront park will be developed more quickly, generate more revenue for the City, and provide a more exciting project that allows improved access to the waterfront and enhanced amenities for the community. Therefore, Catellus approached the CIC to renegotiate the DDA to develop a mixed -use proj ect. The CIC's primary concern about a mixed -use project was the proposed mix and type of retail uses. The CIC did not want to compromise the City's existing retail areas; primarily its two "Main Streets ", Park and Webster, and Alameda Towne Centre. In 2004 -2005, the City undertook two initiatives, resulting in the Citywide Retail Policy and the Alameda West Strategic Recommendations. The Citywide Retail Policy was a community -based effort that examined the types of retail tenants the community would like to see in Alameda, including a leakage assessment. The Policy report also proposed several tools for evaluating new retail projects including conducting site - specific retail impact analyses. The Alameda West Strategic Recommendations was a more focused effort that analyzed future retail market demand at a renovated Towne Centre, on Webster Street, at the Alameda Landing site and at Alameda Point. This focused effort was undertaken to check the priorities identified in the Citywide Retail Policy (e.g., targeting retail goods and services that residents have to seek outside of Alameda but would like to find locally, attracting new. retail that complements rather than competes with existing retailers, and encouraging a scale and design that is consistent with Alameda's small town character and access to the water) against market forces including the achievable amount of new retail square footage, sufficiency of anchor tenants interested in the west end, and sites that optimize leasing and sales success over the long -term. The study concluded that there was demand for 520,000 - 580,000 square feet of new retail development. Of that demand, it suggested that 300,000 square feet could be accommodated at the Alameda Landing location. However, the study concluded that the Alameda Landing site should not include a grocery store so that capacity remained for a west end location where a grocery store would Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 15 of 21 be critically needed as an anchor tenant for surrounding retail. The study also assumed that a new Target and Kohl's store would locate at Alameda Towne Centre and not at Alameda Landing. With these reports concluding that a retail project of approximately 300,000 square feet could be built at Alameda Landing in a manner that complements, rather than competes with, the City's existing retail areas, the CIC authorized staff to renegotiate the existing DDA and Catellus submitted an application to re- entitle its project. The Alameda Landing DDA establishes the business terms for the proposed mixed -use project at the former FISC property. The DDA, which is the CIC's purchase and sale agreement with Catellus, contains terms ranging from the land price and project phasing to the CIC's financial contribution to the required backbone infrastructure to support the project. Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, beginning two weeks prior to the public hearing, the DDA has been available for public review in the City Clerk's Office as well as on the City's web site. Key aspects of the DDA are summarized below: Project Phasing: The project is divided into three demolition and backbone infrastructure phases (see attached map). The first phase includes 37.7 acres; the second phase includes 26.5 acres; and the third phase consists of 8.7 acres. Each phase has a number of conveyance parcels. The CIC and Catellus have a number of conditions that must be met prior to beginning Phase 1 demolition and infrastructure. Once demolition and infrastructure work begins on a given phase, Catellus must purchase all of the conveyance parcels in that phase pursuant to an established schedule. Catellus has up to seven years to begin the first demolition phase if any of the conditions precedent have not been met. However, if all of the conditions for moving forward have been met except the condition requiring that the first phase have a minimum 12% return, Catellus must commence backbone infrastructure work and purchase a minimum 14 -acre parcel within five years. Demolition and backbone infrastructure work must begin for the remaining 23.7 acres in Phase 1 within two years of commencing work on the 14 -acre parcel. If work has not commenced within five years or seven years as described above, the CIC can terminate the DDA and the property reverts back to the CIC. Catellus has up to an additional three years to commence Phase 2 demolition and backbone infrastructure following the outside dates for Phase 1 demolition and infrastructure activity. Backbone infrastructure and demolition on the remaining approximately nine acres in Phase 3 must begin three years after commencing Phase 2 demolition and infrastructure work. If Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 work has not begun as required, the CIC can terminate the DDA and the unconveyed property reverts back to the CIC. The DDA requires that the last demolition and backbone infrastructure parcel be under construction by 2019 and Catellus must acquire the last conveyance parcels by 2026. These outside dates are for Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 16 of 21 the Phase 3 demolition and backbone infrastructure parcels, which comprise approximately nine acres or approximately 12% of the site. Approximately 64 acres, or approximately 88% of the property, must be purchased by 2021. Under the existing DDA, Catellus must purchase all of the business park land, in minimum 14 -acre increments, by 2018. Land Purchase Price: The DDA contains a formula for establishing the land purchase price at the time of sale for the office and retail property. Use of a formula allows the CIC to capture the fair market value of the land at the time of sale. Consistent with the existing DDA, there is a minimum land price of $11.29 per square foot for the office land. There is no minimum purchase price for the retail land. The current pro forma assumes a retail land sale price of $12.01 per square foot, well above the $8.18 per square foot for R &D land contained in the existing DDA. The purchase price for the residential land is the "net" amount paid by a third party homebuilder after which certain costs of preparing and entitling the residential land are accounted. The pro forma assumes a "net" price of $30 per square foot for the residential land. All land sale proceeds are reinvested back into the project to fund backbone infrastructure. Reinvestment of land sale proceeds is also required in the existing DDA. CIC's Financial Obligations: In addition to reinvesting land sale proceeds, the CIC is committing $27.5 million in Bayport and Alameda Landing tax increment funds, as well as Bayport profit participation currently estimated at $5 million, towards the demolition and backbone infrastructure construction including the Willie Stargell Ave. (Tinker) Extension. In the event that the entire project fails to achieve a 12% return, up to an additional $8 million in Alameda Landing tax increment is available, and committed to the project, to achieve the minimum return. The CIC's obligation to contribute funds to the project is absolutely capped at $40.5 million. Funds are not required to be contributed until they are available. The current pro forma anticipates the CIC issuing Bayport tax increment bonds in 2009 and Alameda Landing tax increment bonds in 2012 and 2015 (see attached public financing plan) to finance the CIC commitments contained in the DDA. In contrast, the existing DDA requires that the CIC fund all demolition and backbone infrastructure, any required environmental remediation, all demolition and backbone infrastructure mitigation measures required pursuant to the EIR, all staff and third party consultant costs, and any other identified project expenses. This financial requirement is not capped. Therefore the CIC bears 100% of the risk of project expenses increasing over time and/or discovering unanticipated costs as part of reusing a former military property. In addition, under the terms of the existing DDA, if the CIC does not have the required funds when needed, and Catellus so chooses, Catellus can lend the funds to the CIC and the CIC is required to repay the loan with interest equal to Catellus' cost of capital plus 2 %. Total infrastructure and related project costs for the Alameda Landing Project are currently estimated at approximately $103 million. Catellus estimates that it will spend another $285 million to construct the in -tract infrastructure and building improvements. While the current estimated project costs may be higher than those associated with a business park, the CIC's obligation to fund all project costs associated with the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 17 of 21 currently entitled project exceeds its capped contribution under the proposed DDA. It is also unlikely that the CIC would have the required funds available to fund on -going demolition and infrastructure under the current DDA and would be required to borrow the necessary funds from Catellus to be repaid with interest. Catellus' Obligations: Catellus is responsible for funding and implementing all aspects of the project, including funding all of the City's /CIC's cost of administering this project. Its funding obligations are offset by the CIC's capped contribution to the project as funds become available. Catellus is required to purchase the land as described above. Land proceeds received from Catellus are reinvested in the project. Catellus assumes all risk for increased cost of the demolition and backbone infrastructure and/or unanticipated expenses. Because Catellus is assuming the risk of developing the project, the project must generate a minimum 12% return on investment. In addition to the minimum 12% return, the DDA provides that Catellus can earn up to a maximum 18% return. If the project earns a return over 18 %, the CIC and Catellus will split all profit over 18% on a 50 -50 basis. CIC profit participation if the project is extremely successful is not contemplated in the existing DDA. If Catellus terminates the DDA prior to completing any portion or phase the project, it must reimburse the CIC for any portion of the project that generated a return over 12 %. This "early termination" payment to the CIC of all profit over 12% ensures that Catellus will not earn a windfall on a portion of the project and decide not to proceed with a less financially successful project phase. Catellus is required to construct all backbone infrastructure, including several improvements in public rights -of -way. The City has to construct the Willie Stargell Ave. Extension Project because of state and federal funding requirements. However, the DDA provides that Catellus will act as the City's construction manager and fund the cost of the Willie Stargell Ave. Extension Project . Fiscal Neutrality /City Fees: The proposed DDA provides for establishment of a Municipal Services District (MSD) to fund maintenance of all public infrastructure and other public services. The MSD will be modeled after the existing Bayport MSD. The existing DDA precludes the City /CIC from establishing any assessment district at Alameda Landing. The year 2000 entitlements cap City fees at FY 2000 -01 levels (subject to certain escalators). For example, Catellus has no obligation to comply with the City's public art ordinance because it was adopted after the project was approved in May 2000. With the re- entitled project, all of the fees are updated to FY 2006 -07 levels (again subject to certain escalators) and public art will be required in the new project. Retail Development: As described above, a retail development that is complementary to, and not competitive with, the City's existing retail areas was key to CIC's willingness to evaluate a mixed -use project at FISC. A retail impact analysis was prepared for the proposed 300,000 square foot retail center at Alameda Landing. The attached report, Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 18 of 21 Update, was prepared by Strategic Economics and was presented to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in June 2006. The EDC endorsed the study's conclusion that the proposed center would not adversely affect the City's existing retail areas. Given the City's strong commitment to develop new retail that addresses existing retail leakage, provides a unique retail experience not available elsewhere in the City, and fits into the existing retail fabric, the DDA requires that Catellus prepare a leasing plan and meet quarterly with the Executive Director and staff to discuss their progress. The leasing plan must be consistent with the Retail Impacts Assessment Update 's tenanting strategy and target those retailers that meet local demand, are compatible with existing retailers and fit an identified market niche. The DDA also requires high quality retail design and construction consistent with the Master Plan, and in an effort to create a unique community presence, requires Catellus to use reasonable efforts to lease 15% of its retail space to local and regional tenants. In addition, Catellus and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding efforts to coordinate retail activities and promote linkages to Webster Street and the Alameda Landing project, including joint marketing activities, shuttles to Webster Street and Catellus participation in the various business assessment districts along Webster Street. Since the Fifth Amendment to DDA and DDA were published on November 21, 2006, there have been several revisions to the DDA and one revision to the Fifth Amendment that are summarized on the attached errata sheet. The version of the Fifth Amendment and DDA signed by Catellus and approved as to form by the CIC's General Counsel include the modifications noted in the attached errata sheet. FISCAL IMPACT This project does not impact the City's General Fund. All staff costs and City /CIC third party consultant costs required to carry out the project will be funded separately as part of the project. A MSD will be established to fund maintenance of all public infrastructure and other public services required by the project. All demolition and backbone infrastructure mitigation measures required to address the Alameda Landing project's environmental impacts are paid for by the Developer. The CIC's financial commitment is $32.5 million in tax increment funds generated by the Bayport and Alameda Landing projects and Bayport profit participation received by the CIC. An additional $8 million in Alameda Landing Tax Increment is pledged only if available and required to achieve a 12% return on the project, for a total capped commitment of $40.5 million. This capped contribution, along with reinvesting land sale proceeds, improves the financial position of the CIC relative to the existing DDA. Under the existing DDA, the CIC is responsible for 100% of project costs including backbone infrastructure, mitigation measures, any required environmental remediation, etc. and is required to borrow funds from the Developer if funds are not available and to repay those monies with interest. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission RECOMMENDATION December 5, 2006 Pg. 19 of 21 It is recommended that the City Council and CIC hold a joint public hearing to consider the Alameda Landing Mixed -use Project including: certification of the SEIR and approval of a general plan amendment, amendment to DA, two new DAs, amendment to DDA and new DDA. Following the joint public hearing it is recommended that the City Council adopt resolutions: 1. Certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report For The Revised Catellus Mixed -use Development (State Clearinghouse # 2006012091). 2. Making Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts And Mitigation Measures, Making Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adopting A Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program And Adopting A Statement Of Overriding Considerations In Accordance With The California Environmental Quality Act For The Alameda Landing Mixed -use Development Project (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). 3. Approving General Plan Amendment, GPA- 06 -01: General Plan Amendments To: (A) Amend The General Plan Land Use Diagram To Change The Designation Of Approximately 77 Acres Of The Catellus Mixed -use Development Project Site From Business Park To Specified Mixed -use Area, And (B) Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 And Associated Tables Of The Land Use Element To Reflect The New Specified Mixed -use Area. 4. Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA -06 -001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential And /Or Mixed -uses For Approximately 77 Acres Of Previously Entitled Office/Research And Development Uses. 5. Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 To The Development Agreement By And Between The City Of Alameda And Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, As Amended. 6. Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 By And Between The City Of Alameda And Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor By. Merger To Catellus Development Corporation) Governing The Development Of Up To 400,000 Square Feet Of Office Space; A 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up To 300 Residential Units; And 300,000 Square Feet Of Retail Space Or 50,000 Square Feet Of Retail Space And 370,000 Square Feet Of Research And Development Space. 7. Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 By And Between Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor By Merger To Catellus Development Corporation) Governing The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 Pg. 20 of 21 Development Of Up To 300 Housing Units. 8. Approving and Authorizing Execution of (1) An Amendment of The Disposition And Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor By Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC And Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC Catellus Development Corporation for the Sale And Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") And The East Housing Portion Of The Naval Air Station; and (2) A New Disposition And Development Agreement With Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor By Merger To Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. It is recommended that the Community Improvement Commission adopt the resolution: Approving a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project And: 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures; 2) Adopting Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives; 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 4) Adopting a Statement Of Overriding Considerations; 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor By Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at The Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") and the East Housing Portion of The Naval Air Station; and (6) Authorizing the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition And Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. Cathy loodbury Planning & Building Director By: Andrew homas Planning Manager Rest - ctfully su' mitted, Leslie Little Development Services Director Debbie Potter Base Reuse & Community Development Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Phasing Map B. Alameda Landing Commercial Development Agreement Errata Sheet C. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update D. Public Financing Plan E. DDA/Fifth Amendment to DDA Errata Sheet December 5, 2006 Pg. 21 of 21 On File in the City Clerk's Office: A. Bayport/Alameda Landing Master Plan B. Catellus Mixed -use Development Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report C. Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and the Catellus Development Corporation, dated June 6, 2000, as Amended D. Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merge to Catellus Development Corporation for the Development of up to 400,000 square feet of office space, a 20,000 square foot health club, up to 300 residential units, and 300,000 square feet of retail space or 50,000 square feet of retail space and 370,000 square feet of research and development space E. Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merge to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Development of up to 300 Housing units F. Fifth Amendment, to DDA and Release between the CIC, Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at FISC and East Housing G. Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Sources of Repayment Pursuant to Fifth Amendment to DDA and Release H. DDA by and Between the CIC and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp \DebbiePotter \Catellus\Alameda Landing \12 -5 -06 Meeting \12 -05 -06 Catellus DDA Report.doc 0 o a (9111 900Z »9wanory siaDJ d 6uipue- epaweiy M VITAMIN Total (acres) r- r co 26.5 oo Approx. Lot Size (acres) 4.2 Qo 4.0 1.6 a 10 P. 0). 3.5 3.8 12.3 3.7 _ c0. Q Land Use Residential Office Office Office Office Residential Residential Retail Retail Residential Residential Retail . . Office Office Office Parcel r CO Q In (o 15 N 12 13 - h Co co Demo and Backbone Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 V 1NHIAIHDV L.LV Attachment B ALAMEDA LANDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ERRATA SHEET Section 4.2.2(a) • Add that City or CIC, as applicable, is only required to maintain flood and earthquake insurance for the Wharf to the extent that it is available on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. • Add that, in the event of catastrophic damage to the Wharf from earthquake or flood, the City will submit a claim to FEMA and use funds allocated by FEMA to repair and reconstruct the Wharf. The text is revised as follows: 4.2.2 Wharf. a. The Parties acknowledge that the CIC shall convey to the City, and the City shall accept from the CIC, those portions of the Wharf (as defined in the DDA) not included within a Re -Use Parcel (as defined in the Section 4.9.2 below) in phases which correspond with each of the Demolition and Backbone Infrastructure Phases which include the Wharf improvements for the applicable Re -Use Parcel. Upon acceptance by the City of the applicable Wharf improvements and the formation of an MSD for maintenance of such portions of the Wharf, the Parties acknowledge that the CIC shall convey, and the City shall accept, the applicable portion of the Wharf not included in the Re -Use Parcels, and thereafter the City shall (i) maintain such portions of the Wharf, and (ii) maintain insurance (with a third party insurance provider and not by self- insurance) to pay for the cost of repair or replacement of the Wharf (including the piers) not located within any of the Re -Use Parcels in the event of casualty damage thereto. The , provided that the obligation to maintain third party earthquake and Mood insurance shall be limited to the extent to which such insurance is available on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. In the event of a catastrophic loss as a result of earthquake or flooding of those portions of the Wharf ( includin .; the piers) not located within any of the Re -Use Parcels, the City shall diligently pursue a claim with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and shall use all funds allocated therefrom to repair and reconstruct such portions of the Wharf (including the piers). The insurance costs incurred by the City pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence this Section 4.2.2(a) may be paid by the MSD. The Developer and any successor owner of a Re -Use Parcel shall maintain the portion of the Wharf (including the piers) located within such Re -Use Parcel and maintain insurance to pay for the cost of repair of the Wharf (including the piers) located within any of the Re -Use Parcels in the event of casualty damage thereto. Attachment C Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update June 7, 2006 STRATEGIC ECONOMICS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 City of Alameda Retail Policy 3 II. LEAKAGE ANALYSIS 5 Past studies 5 Alameda Demographics And Buying Power 5 Current Study 6 I11. TENANTING STRATEGY 9 IV. EXISTING ALAMEDA RETAIL AREAS: CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 15 Alameda Landing Context 15 Impact Findings: Alameda Landing 20 V. CONCLUSION 21 APPENDICES 23 Appendix A: 2005 Leakage AnalysisAppendix B: 2010 Projections Leakage Analysis... 24 Appendix B: 2010 Projections Leakage Analysis 25 Appendix C: "Main Street" Shopping Areas 26 Appendix D: Existing Shopping Center 27 Appendix E: Leakage Analysis Methodology 29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the last ten years, the City of Alameda has taken serious strides toward developing Alameda's retailing environment in the context of new development opportunities and continued growth on the island. This report builds on these efforts to assess the impacts of 300,000 square feet of retail proposed for a portion of the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center property located west of the Webster Tube. The development, known as Alameda Landing, seeks to leverage the area's strengthening purchasing power while working in concert with the City's strategies for safeguarding the overall viability of retail on the Island. These strategies seek to manage retail expansion on the island so that residents benefit from improved access to goods and services without directing sales away from existing businesses. Citywide strategies aimed at achieving this balance are articulated in the City's General Plan, the 2000 City's Economic Development Strategic Plan (CEDSP), and, most recently, in the Citywide Retail Policy which stresses that new retailers complement, not duplicate, the primary role /retail niche and major economic segments of existing retail areas. Together these efforts represent a citywide commitment to retail and a desire to thoughtfully apportion this resource throughout the City's neighborhoods. Alameda Landing's developer, Catellus Development Corporation, has adopted this commitment and retained Strategic Economics to prepare an analysis of the impacts of its new development on the existing and planned retail environment in Alameda. Key Findings of this analysis include: • Alameda Landing may serve as an anchor for Webster Street by elevating the street's visibility. • Alameda Towne Centre and Alameda Landing will overlap in sales of Apparel and Home Furnishings, though attempts should be made to stratify the two centers based on price point and merchandise mix to minimize overlap. • There is little to no crossover between existing or planned neighborhood centers since grocery and drug are not part of the retail makeup of Alameda Landing. • Alameda Point will need to develop a retail strategy that accommodates Alameda Landing's retail presence. • Alameda Landing will have minimal impact on other proposed projects. The analysis behind these findings is included in the report that follows. Section I introduces the policy context and the history of retail research that has been undertaken in the City. Section II presents a leakage analysis representing an update of previous studies that were completed to develop the City's retail policies. Presently Alameda residents spend more than $268 million — 39 percent of their purchases — off - island. Alameda Landing could capture a significant portion of these sales and draw shoppers from outside of the City. Categories that exhibit strong leakage in potential sales include: • Apparel; • Furniture/ Home Furnishings; • Home Improvement/Garden; and, • HH Appliances & Electronics. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 1 In Section III, Strategic Economics prepared an evaluation of the potential tenant mix for Alameda Landing based on the existing body of work that has been developed around retail in Alameda, the updated leakage analysis and, interviews with retailers, brokers, and developers. It was determined that Alameda Landing will best serve the community as a mid -range lifestyle center focusing on affordable yet high quality retail items. The mixture of retail stores will include home improvement, furniture and home furnishings, consumer electronics, sporting goods and specialty apparel and an assortment of dining establishments clustered near the water. Section IV considers the impacts of this tenant mix on the existing and planned retail environment in Alameda. SE concludes that the tenanting mix described in this report is in keeping with City's policy direction for retail by addressing gaps in the provision of goods and services while limiting the potential to shift sales away from existing businesses. Supporting tables are included in an Appendix. 2 1 Strategic Economics I. INTRODUCTION The Catellus Development Corporation retained Strategic Economics to review previous studies of retail in Alameda and at Alameda Landing and to update a previous assessment of the impact Alameda Landing would have on existing retail areas in Alameda. The center concept proposed by Catellus entails 300,000 square feet of retail on a portion of a 77 -acre site currently zoned R &D /office. The remainder of the site will be developed up to 300 homes, 400,000 square feet of office space and 9.2 acres of open space. This project would be adjacent to the new Bayport residential home site (485 units), currently being jointly developed by Warmington Homes and Catellus. Catellus previously obtained entitlements to build 1.3 million square feet of R & D space on a portion of the site, but given the current commercial real estate market conditions, is seeking to convert the entitlements to a mixed -use project with retail, offices and new homes. CITY OF ALAMEDA RETAIL POLICY Since the closure of the Naval Air Station (NAS) and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), major new development opportunities have opened up on the West end of Alameda. These opportunities have served as a catalyst for the City to review, study and strategize about its citywide retail development policies. The City of Alameda has shown a steady commitment throughout the years to strategically plan for commercial development while maintaining its character and integrity. Alameda's General Plan lays the foundation for commercial development with the goal of providing enough retail business and services space to enable Alameda to realize its full retail sales potential.' The City's 2000 Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) builds on this concept in its Strategy #2 by articulating support for business associations in their efforts to increase the availability and quality of retail goods and professional services that meet the purchasing preferences of Alameda residents and the employees of Alameda firms. A retail development planning process was completed in 2004 - The Citywide Retail Policy - with the goal of updating the retail components of the City's General Plan and the EDSP to reflect current market trends. The Citywide Retail Policy, developed in part through a series of four citywide retail forums held between April 2003 and January 2004, crafted potential policies to be added to existing City policy. Four among them are: • CW1: New retailer should complement, not duplicate, the primary role /retail niche and major economic segments of existing retail areas. Retail areas may have some overlapping target markets with the possibility of similar retailers locating in more than one location. • CW2: The City should modify the General Plan to strengthen the role of Main Streets as the City's primary concentration of specialty shops. • CW3: Planning Board may require that significant new retail proposals demonstrate, through independent analysis, that they: o Will primarily serve the community or will meet a high priority local need; General Plan Policy 2.5a. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 3 o Be consistent with retail policy of the General Plan and EDSP and not have significant long term deleterious effects on existing retail areas /or the local economy; o Sizing of tenant space is appropriate to current retailing practice and is intended to fill a documented aspect of retail sales leakage for the geographic area served. • CW4: New commercial /retail development along a waterfront should be consistent with best practices for waterfront - oriented development. The Citywide Retail Policy was accepted by the council in 2004. Further evaluation of Alameda's retail climate has occurred over the years as the City ventured into a variety of studies by various consultants to obtain the necessary information to make thoughtful and strategic decisions about retail development. Of the many studies since 1996, each identified sufficient demand for additional retail development given the comparatively low amount of retail sales within Alameda relative to the City's population. This under - supply of retail sales will only become exacerbated by a rise in median residential income, an increase in housing units, and the continued absence of certain types of retailers from the Alameda marketplace. It is clear that Alameda faces tremendous opportunity for growth in its retail sector; the challenge lies in protecting and enhancing the existing citywide retail base while pursuing these new opportunities. It is within this context that Alameda Landing is proposing a 300,000 square foot retail development to serve Alameda's residents and employees and to address the unmet demand currently facing the City's retail marketplace. 4 1 Strategic Economics 1I. LEAKAGE ANALYSIS PAST STUDIES In 1999 Applied Development Economics (ADE) completed a retail analysis in conjunction with the EDSP, quantifying current demand for retail spending by store type, the capture rates of existing businesses, and the amount of new square footage to meet demand by retail category. This study was updated in 2002, with projections for 2006 showing substantial unmet demand, with residents spending roughly 27 percent of their retail dollars off- island.2 In this study the following areas were identified as the most promising for future retail development based upon such things as: leakage, space requirements, and size of trade area. Table 1: Highest Sales Leakage Areas - 2002 Type of Retail 2002 Leakage ($million) $37.1 Projected 2006 Leakage ($million) $43.2 Discount Stores Furniture and Home Furnishings Establishments 26.4 31.9 Specialty Apparel 23.3 28.9 Household Appliance and Electronics 9.7 1 1 .5 Specialty Retail and Specialty Foods 5.6 7.4 In terms of square footage, the total unmet demand translates to 695,678 square feet in 2002, and a projected 908,466 square feet in 2006.3 Strategic Economics (SE) updated the 2006 projections in 2003, and similar conclusions were reached regarding high leakage retail sectors.4 The greatest leakage of local sales occurred in the categories of Discount Stores ($43 million), Furniture and Home Furnishings ($31.9 million) and Apparel ($28,4 million). ALAMEDA DEMOGRAPHICS AND BUYING POWER The City of Alameda is a self - contained island, and its physical characteristics define the primary trade area, giving the City a sense of identity and culture distinct from other neighboring areas. As of the 2000 Census, Alameda had 73,555 persons living in approximately 30,477 households. Based upon the 2000 Census and other demographic data, the City of Alameda is relatively affluent with an estimated median income (adjusted to 2005 dollars) of $66,139 and an average income of $81,590. As population and income continue to increase in Alameda, buying power will continue to increase. More than 3,000 homes will be built in Alameda in the next five years and the incomes associated with these new households will be substantially higher than present Alameda households. 'City of Alameda, Alameda Citywide Retail Policy, June 1, 2004, p.7. 'City of Alameda, White Paper: Citywide Retail Strategy, 12/19/05. Strategic Economics, Retail Impacts Analysis: Proposed Enterprise Landing Shopping Center, 9/2003. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 15 To further explore the demographics of the area, SE looked at psychographic data that uses other descriptive information to portray Alameda residents. The two categories accounting for the highest percentages of households were Money and Brains and Bohemian Mix, together accounting for over half of all Alameda households. Money and Brains describes a cohort of households that are upscale, over 45 years old, married couples who are college educated professionals and own their homes. In contrast, the prototypical Bohemian Mix household is mid - scale, under 35 years of age, single and a college graduate who rents. The remaining half of the Alameda households fall into categories that are mid- to upper -scale in income orientations. It is this mix of residents that is driving the demand for higher -end types of retail in Alameda's existing retail districts and in new developments such as Alameda Landing. The leakage analysis presented below provides a more detailed analysis of Alameda's aggregate buying power by retail area. CURRENT STUDY The current study, based upon 2005 data, shows an overall sales leakage in the City of Alameda of $268.1 million. This figure is consistent with the 2006 projections made by ADE in its 2002 leakage analysis ($260 million) despite the fact that these 2006 projections were predicated on many new housing units that have yet to be built. The sales categories showing the greatest leakage in 2005 are as follows: Automotive Group ($105.5 million), primarily from new cars and service stations; General Merchandise ($78.8 million), including department stores and discount stores; and, Building Materials and Home Furnishings ($52.8 million), including home appliances, furniture and hardware stores. The tables for the 2005 and 2010 leakage analyses appear in the appendix as Appendix A and B, respectively.s Below, the results of the analyses are described in more detail; retail categories appear in hierarchical order according to sales leakage figures in 2005. The projections for 2010 are based upon the estimated number of new housing units, both proposed and in the pipeline. More than 3,000 new housing units are planned, of which slightly over one -third are classified as affordable. The leakage numbers in Alameda are impacted greatly by the high -end nature of the majority of the new housing units and the high income necessary to afford them. The level of household expenditures is predicted to increase by 20.1 percent from 2005 to 2010. The overall sales leakage by 2010, holding taxable sales constant, is predicted to be $362.1 million, an increase of over 35 percent from 2005. Automobile Dealers Residents of Alameda are currently spending $105.5 million on new and used automobile sales off the island. The leakages are projected to expand to $150.9 million by 2010 upon completion of 3,000 new housing units. Despite this strong demand, this is not a retail area of focus for Alameda Landing given its location and site constraints. s Please note that some retail sub - categories had to be combined due to confidentiality limitations with the data, but remain consistent with the ADE 2002 analysis, . In cases when there were fewer than three companies in a retail sub - category or when a retail sub - category was dominated by one company, these retail sub - categories were combined with other sub - categories within their respective larger categories. 6 1 Strategic Economics Discount Stores This store type includes retailers such as Target, Wal -Mart and Kmart. In 2005, residents of Alameda spent $41.1 million at discount stores in surrounding communities, since this type of store is not currently represented on the island. This sales leakage figure can support 223,400 square feet of new discount retail development. Examples of stores and locations that are currently absorbing this leakage are Target or Wal -Mart in San Leandro, or the K -Marts in Oakland and Emeryville. The unmet demand is sufficient for Alameda to attract a discount retailer such as Target. Alameda Towne Centre is currently in discussions with Target and as a result Alameda Landing has opted not to pursue this type of retailer. In the absence of any new retail development in Alameda, the sales leakage is predicted to increase to $49.4 million by 2010. Warehouse Clubs and Other General Merchandise Establishments In 2005, Alamedans spent $25.6 million at warehouse clubs such as Costco and Sam's Club, all of which leaked off - island since this retail category is not represented in Alameda. Spending in this category is predicted to expand to $30.6 million in 2010. Despite the high sales leakage figures in 2005, the demand is still not great enough to sustain a store of this type by resident support alone. A typical Costco earns approximately $113 million in sales and Alameda's demand falls far short of this figure. Apparel This retail group consists of several different types of apparel — women's, men's, family and shoe stores — all of which experienced sales leakage in 2005. The overall group in 2005 had $22.8 million in sales leakage, with family apparel and women's apparel together accounting for 70 percent of the leakage. Sales leakage is expected to increase to $30.6 by 2010. This leakage is sufficient to attract multiple national retailers of which there is quite a variety in terms of nature of product and size of store. Alameda Landing is an ideal location for this type of retailer given its site plan, location and proposed retail strategy and mix. Furniture and Home Furnishing Establishments Sales leakage in this category for 2005 is significant at $22.4 million and is expected to increase to $28 million by 2010. Alameda Landing is poised to address this leakage and is strategically located in close proximity to the new high -end housing units that are already under construction. The demand is sufficient enough to attract a major national furniture retailer, such as Breuners, Ethan Allen, or Scandinavian Design. The average national furniture store captures between $3 and $8 million per year in consumer expenditures. Home Improvement This retail category consists of multiple sub - categories under the Building Materials and Home furnishings Group. Together these sub - categories accounted for more than $19.5 million in sales leakage in 2005 and increasing to $25.6 million by 2010. The sub- categories include: Lumber and Other Building Materials, Home Centers and Hardware Stores, Paint & Wallpaper, and Nurseries and Garden Supply Stores. Examples of stores classified in this retail sector are Lowe's, OSH and Home Depot. There is a significant size variation among these three retailers. Alameda can sustain a retailer of this nature, but most likely a smaller format store such as OSH, which has a typical size store of 55,000. Alameda landing, again because of location, site plan and retail strategy is in a good position to have a store in this category as a tenant. Alameda Landing Retail impacts Assessment Update 1 7 Gasoline Stations Alameda residents spend $11.6 million at gas stations outside the community. Alameda's ability to attract more gas stations will depend on the availability of key sites. Household Appliances and Electronics Alameda residents purchased an estimated $10 million from household appliance and electronic stores outside the community. This figure is predicted to increase to $12.5 million by 2010. A smaller format store in this retail category, such as CompUSA that requires approximately $10 million in sales, can be supported by local demand alone. Other retailers, like Best Buy, are larger format stores and capture nearly $40 million in sales per store, and would be dependent upon off - island shoppers. Alameda Landing, given its location close to new and existing houses and easy access location, especially from the West End, would be a good fit with a retailer in this category. Specialty Retail This retail group consists of eight sub - categories, most of which experienced some leakage in 2005 and all of which are predicted to experience leakage by 2010. Alamedans spent $6.8 million on specialty goods outside the community and this figure is expected to increase to $11.2 million in 2010. Specific opportunities are among gift and novelty stores ($1.9 million), and books and stationery ($933,794). Grocery Stores In 2005, the grocery store category was saturated, and this continues to be the case in 2010 as well. In the future, should demand for a grocery store increase, a grocery store should be located elsewhere in the West End so that other retail areas can benefit from the synergies generated by convenience grocery shopping Restaurants and Fast Food Alamedans spent less at restaurants and fast food than local restaurants experienced in sales. Additional demand created by employees who do not live in Alameda but frequent local establishments regularly is not measured in the leakage analyses due to data limitations. It should be noted that sales leakage figures are based upon Alameda resident spending alone, and do not include non - resident employee expenditures or business -to- business transactions. If expenditures generated from these two groups were included in the leakage analysis, total demand may be as high as 25 percent larger than what is indicated in the analyses for store types such as restaurants, home improvement and office supplies /computers.° 'Applied Development Economics, 2002 Leakage Analysis, April, 2002. 8 Strategic Economics III. TENANTING STRATEGY This section reviews the possible tenanting strategy for Alameda Landing in terms of its ability to meet local demand and its overall impacts on existing retail areas in Alameda. While individual retailers are suggested by name, they are merely examples to test the larger categories of retail and to generate a discussion of market niche. Alameda Landing Concept The development at Alameda Landing will create a community: a place providing complementary retail to existing retail offerings while providing access to national retailers and trends. Place has become as important to consumers as the retail itself; consumers across the nation are opting to shop, eat and visit open -air centers that are convenient, attractive, safe, and inviting. These open -air centers capture an urban setting without the sometimes negative aspects of urban life. This concept, known as life -style centers, has gained in popularity and continues to evolve. There are two important and typical features of lifestyle centers as they exist today: 1) an open -air configuration; and 2) at least 50,000 feet of space occupied by upscale national chain specialty stores.' Tenanting of lifestyle centers remains fluid and responsive to the varied pursuits of modern consumers. Once thought of as only geared toward affluent, high -end retail, developers now are tailoring the centers to meet the various income levels of the trade areas in which they reside. A center targeted toward moderate - income households is being proposed for Alameda Landing given the existing income - levels of its residents and the estimated new incomes that are associated with new housing being developed on the island. Lifestyle centers are generally not anchored since the place itself acts like an anchor — attracting consumers with its environment and mix of retail establishments. Retail space offerings are typically larger than those traditionally found on Main Streets, which allows for a mix of retail that represents some larger, national chain stores. The Alameda Landing site has the added advantage of being on a waterfront in a location with mild year -round temperatures providing the ideal outdoor location for a lifestyle center, particularly for restaurants and pedestrian walkways. Overall Tenanting Strategy Strategic Economics has evaluated the potential tenant mix for Alameda Landing based on the following sources: • Existing studies described in the Introduction; • An updated leakage analysis described in Section I; • A list of specific retailers identified for Alameda Landing through a community process that resulted in the retail strategy; and, • Interviews with national and chain retailers, brokers, and developers. The merits and limitations of the potential retail tenant categories considered are discussed in the section that follows. Overall, Alameda Landing will best serve the community as a mid -range lifestyle center focusing on affordable yet high quality retail items. The mixture of retail stores will include home improvement, furniture and home furnishings, consumer electronics, sporting goods and specialty apparel and an assortment of dining establishments clustered near the water. ICSC Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, Issue 4, Winter 01 /02 Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 9 High Volume General Merchandise Store (Discount Store) A general merchandise store such as Target would both help to offset substantial leakage of general merchandise sales and would benefit from community support. The current leakage analysis indicates the lost sales to be $41 million. However, re- tenanting and renovations at Towne Centre have significantly influenced the tenanting strategy at Alameda Landing in this category. Towne Centre is actively trying to secure Target as a tenant. If this occurs, there is not enough demand to support two discount retailers on the Island. However, if Target is not part of the tenant mix at ATC, Target would be an ideal tenant for the lifestyle center being proposed for Alameda Landing. Target stores are currently locating in lifestyles centers across the country and are consistent with a lifestyle center when configured, designed and merchandised accordingly. Target is symbolic of the type of retailer that would meet the increasingly higher end needs of Alameda residents. Target's "cheap chic" strategy has proven successful among its generally younger, educated and more affluent clientele (as compared to other general merchandisers, such as Wal-Mart.)8 This analysis found that Target is used by developers to update their tenant mix and the store also generates strong cross - shopping to adjacent, small shop retailers. Target is a retailer with a merchandising format that is specifically focused on smaller, community- oriented shopping patterns and not dependent upon high patronage from long distances to thrive. The discount merchandiser is well - recognized as having value - priced, upscale merchandise. A study conducted by ICSC in 2004 noted that lifestyle centers have evolved since their inception and now often feature department and discount department stores as part of the retail mix.9 The tenanting strategy is principally the same (not including a discount store) for Alameda Landing, regardless of Target's presence. However, should ATC not secure Target, a strong case can be made for Target's presence at Alameda Landing that is consistent with the existing tenanting strategy. Furniture 41 Home Furnishings As indicated in several previous studies including SE's 2003 analysis, Furniture & Home Furnishings stores have tremendous potential for Alameda Landing given market need and community support. Proximity of Alameda Landing to the newer higher income West End households also bodes well for this category of stores as a major retail segment for the center. Because this category is targeted for expansion at ATC, stores at Alameda Landing should differ somewhat in market niche. Potential retailers include: Bed, Bath and Beyond, Linens `n Things, Container Store, Pier 1, Z Gallerie, Ethan Allen, Heilig- Meyers, and Bombay Company. The home furniture and furnishings category, which represents 15 percent of space in lifestyle centers, according to a 2004 ICSC study, currently has a supportable square footage of over 139,000 square feet; this number is estimated to be 172,800 by 2010, in the absence of any additional retailers in this category. Several home furniture and furnishings companies average significant amounts of square feet per store, including Bed, Bath & Beyond (30,000 square feet); Linens 'n Things (35,000 square feet); and Pier .1 Imports (10,000 square feet). i° a Simply Better: Winning and Keeping Customers by Delivering What Matters Most. Patrick Barwise and Sean Meehan. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2004. ICSC Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, Issue 4, Winter 01/02 10 ICSC Research Quarterly V. 11, No. 2— Summer 2004 10 1 Strategic Economics Household Appliances & Electronics There is significant leakage in the Household Appliances & Electronics category, and strong community support for such a store locating in the City. Best Buy is a large format store (20,000 to 45,000 square feet with population density of 300,000), and it would be heavily dependent on sales to non - residents. While a Best Buy would be a good fit for the center, the developer could also explore other smaller format stores (e.g., Circuit City, CompUSA) as possible alternatives. Circuit City prefers a gross leasable area (GLA) of 33,500 square feet with a population density targeted at 200,000 within a 10+ mile radius. CompUSA has a smaller format at 25,000 square feet and prefers communities with a population density of 300,000 within a 10+ mile radius. The current leakage analysis shows supportable square footage to be 29,500 and increasing to 36,800 by 2010. Apparel Sales at Apparel stores show significant leakage from the City ($22.8 million in 2005). This category of stores has strong potential for Alameda Landing, but should also differentiate in market niche from Towne Centre where apparel is a major store category targeted for expansion by the owner. The retail stores, representing the Women's ready -to -wear segment of apparel (leakage of $7 million in 2005), that have typically become the core of lifestyle centers around the country are: Ann Taylor Loft, Chico's, Coldwater Creek, and Talbots. In addition, small retailers that are still in the early phases of their growth cycles, including J. Jill and Urban Outfitters' Anthropologie, have started to appear frequently in lifestyle centers.) I Family apparel is the largest apparel category appearing at lifestyle centers nationwide (leakage of $9.1 million in Alameda in 2005). Family apparel tenant space is 11.6 percent in lifestyle centers. These family apparel stores include retailers such as Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, J. Crew, Eddie Bauer, Express and more.12 A combination of the stores mentioned would provide Alameda with the moderate to high -end apparel shopping experience that is in such high demand. Typically stores in this category are around 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Restaurants In general at lifestyle centers, restaurants play a key role in this type of center's appeal. According to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the intent of lifestyle center restaurants is not to offer shoppers a quick respite, but more of a "third place" between home and office, where they can congregate and linger.13 Waterfront restaurants at Alameda Landing should be large format national chains such as Cheesecake Factory, California Pizza Kitchen, Pei - Wei , Macaroni Grill, and P.F. Chang. Although there is not any documented leakage in the restaurant business according to the leakage analysis, there are opportunities for new and different restaurants or even offshoots of local establishments to be located at Alameda Landing as it will serve as a destination for residents, non - resident employees and off - islanders alike. Specialty Stores There are a number of sub - categories under Specialty Stores that typically have a targeted retail scope. The overall leakage for the category was $6.8 million in 2005. " ICSC by Anna Robaton, "lifestyle centers Compete for Retailers," February, 2005. 12 ICSC Research Quarterly V. 11, No. 2— Sunnier 2004 13 ICSC Research Quarterly V. 11, No. 2— Summer 2004 Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 1 1 • In the Gifts and Novelties sub - category, retailers such as BBQ Galore, a BBQ cookware establishment, and Sunglass Hut could be targeted for Alameda Landing. • Books & Stationery is a sub - category of specialty stores with leakage of $933,800 and supportable square footage of 5,122. These figures increase by 2010 ($1.74 million sales leakage with supportable square footage of 9,554). A Large format bookstore such as Borders would likely garner community support, however store sales, generally between around $5 million, greatly surpass leakage in this category), indicating that such a store would be dependent on outside sales. A smaller, local store (typically on the order of 2,500 to 5,000 square feet and earning less than $1 million in annual sales) with multiple locations such as Cody's would likely fit in better with Alameda Landing Bookstores are a widely supported on the island and attract many non - residents from around the area. The psychographic data suggests that the island is more oriented to supporting a bookstore than other areas of the same size due to the interests of the local population. Other bookstores on the island are more specialized, such as Tavistock Bookstore, specializing in rare and used books. A more mainstream bookstore, whether a national or local chain, would round -out Alamedas niche as a place people come to buy books. • Sporting Goods has strong community support in terms of fitting with the overall interest profile of the community, but this retail area is not substantiated by the 2005 leakage analysis ($111,047 in 2005). One of the smaller high -end stores such as REI or Any Mountain would accommodate the high -end Alameda households, especially the newer households in the West End. Other potential retailers include Copeland Sports, Lombardi's, and Sportmart, each typically around 40,000 square feet. As of 2005, supportable square footage was nearly 600 square feet; this figure increases to 6,500 by 2010. Some retail at Alameda Landing, like sporting goods, is not going to be supported by local dollars alone. However, sporting goods is an important retail category because it provides synergy with other retail offerings both at Alameda Landing and other local retail stores. Home Improvement The current leakage is $19.5 million for home improvement type sales and 73,500 in supportable square feet, which includes the sub - categories: Nursery and Garden Supply, Lumber and Other Building Materials and Home Centers and Hardware Stores. With the new home building soon to be underway in Alameda, the need for this type of store may become even more profound. Potential candidates include OSH (Orchard Hardware Supply) and Lowe's. Both of these retailers offer an outdoor garden supply element to their retail stores, which is an area of significant leakage on its own ($4.7 million, 30,000 supportable square feet). The typical square footage for an OSH store is 55,000 square feet, which includes approximately 8,000 square feet for the garden component of the store. Department Store Although the department store category is facing an uncertain future at Towne Centre, with the closing of Ross and the poor company -wide financial performance of Mervyns, this category presents too much of a risk for Alameda Landing. Catellus does not want to create a drain on an already poor performing Mervyn's and yet all potential department stores tenants would serve as a direct competitor to Mervyns. It is possible that Catellus could phase in a department store at a later date depending upon what happens at Towne Centre, but the current tenanting strategy does not include a department store at Alameda Landing. For confidentiality reasons regarding the data, the leakage numbers for department stores had to be combined with drug and proprietary stores, both under the General Merchandise heading. Together these two categories account for $5.7 million in leakage. 12 1 Strategic Economics Grocery Store As indicated in SE's 2003 study, the grocery store category is saturated in Alameda. At Alameda Towne Centre, Trader Joe's opened a store on September 27, 2005, the Safeway store has expanded and Albertsons will be closing. Another grocery store has been proposed for Bridgeside (59,000 square foot Nob Hill Grocery store) and an Albertsons already exists at Marina Village. In the future, should demand for a grocery store increase, a grocery store should be located elsewhere in the West End so that other retail areas can benefit from the synergies generated by convenience grocery shopping. Catellus agreed to forgo a grocery store at Alameda Landing to WABA's interest in pursuing one for its catalyst project on Webster Street and Alameda Point Community Partner's interest in pursuing a grocery store for its neighborhood center. Overall Tenanting Alameda Landing will best serve the community as a lifestyle center targeting moderate - income customers with an emphasis on furniture and home furnishings, home improvement, apparel, electronics, restaurants, and a number of specialty stores such as book stores, sporting goods, and others that complement existing retail. The tenant assortment at Alameda Landing will distinguish itself from Alameda Town Centre on the basis of product mix and a slightly higher price - point. To assess the impact of Alameda Landing on the 2005 leakage analysis, an assessment of the leakage recapture is presented in Table 2. Table 2 summarizes the proposed tenant mix, estimating the potential sales and supportable square footage among each merchandise category. Potential sales are estimated using a percentage of the leakage a new retail development can hope to capture. Capture rates are shown as a range indicating the percentage of total leakage a given store category can expect to capture. For each category of retailer, likely sales capture rates were estimated based upon the products being offered and the proximity of similar retailers. In general, comparison items garner significantly lower capture rates than convenience items, but other factors such as the prevalence of internet shopping for a particular category are also considered. The sales capture rate is then applied to total leakage to arrive at an estimated sales figure by store category. This figure is then divided by estimated annual sales by retail category to calculate the percentage of store sales that could be supported by local expenditures.14 The leakage numbers represent an opportunity to harness more of Alameda's buying power. Several of Alameda's retail districts exhibit large amounts of leakage, and the capture rates are realistic percentages of leakage that Alameda Landing can hope to garner. Any community cannot capture 100 percent of the aggregate buying power of its residents since there will always be a symbiotic relationship between a community and its surrounding secondary trade areas. Alamedans will continue, regardless of Local retail offerings, to purchase some things off - island and non - residents will continue to come to Alameda to shop. " Strategic Economics, Retail Impacts Analysis: Proposed Enterprise Landing Shopping Center, 9/2003, p.21. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 13 Alameda Landing Sales Supported by Alamedans a) 0 0 M 0\ O N W o 0 0 O 0 0 N 0% 0% 0% 0% f 0 0 f\ 46% 53% Est. Gross Annual Sales at Alameda Landing (e) 0 N ai 03 4 Vf M N 69 N — 69 ,0 ^ a+9 t 4 b9 "O M 69 M O 69 $4.2-11 co Ln 4 N N Q' F N V V 4a, •O b ' N Vi $339 1 CO bV 9 U W $302 LO «9 $182 2005 Net Leakage (d) $ Low $ High `? 0• b9 403. ^ o +H 0 69 CO w 00 69 in bN9 Ln 49 L'0$ L•0$ ao 69 N b9 o °V! O wi 1 0.0$ 0.0$ N «°4 .0 69 $37.7 $43.3 Sales Leakage Recaptured by Alameda Landing (c) $ Low $ High N Lei V. 4--) 69 h M 6H M N — N. +A N O — h � h ^ 4,9 O to O 0 4,9 N •- 0 M O � O 0 b9 O 4 O 0 N! $0.3 $0.4 $34.4 $40.0 % Low % High 0 Lel N Lo 0 '0 ) V) 0 0 't h Ln 0 03 h N 0 o M 00 0 h O D 0% 0% 0 OV o M $2.7 $3.2 d h m 00-' N $ E rA c N CV N h P 69 O O 69 O 6• O• +R O O V) O 00 69 O 49 N by '• N o tL 0 00 N 00S "•Z 55,000 I o M07 0 22,500 1 0 V 22,500 1 O� 0 N �y Sample Tenants Ann Taylor Loft, Chico's, Old Navy Bed, Bath & Beyond, Mary's Home, Scandinavian Designs, Z Gallerie OSH, Smith & Hawken CompUSA, Circuit City REI, Copelands, Any Mountain Papyrus, Bath & Body Works PF Chang, Pasta Pomodoro amba Juice, coffee borders, Loay's Store or Retail Category T.1). a Furniture/ Home Furnishings (1) Home Improvement /Garden (1) J EH Appliances & Electronics (1) Sporting Goods (1) Gifts & Novelties (3) Restaurants (2) Small food purveyors (3) 'Books & Stationery (1) TOTAL N 0 _ OT -0 O O _a� _T oo 0 O O N (� O s0 a� Q o s 'u y _rn 8 E .4.'72 O s N a1 cc N O • 0 >O • O < f a y m a E E o c _ w ` y '0 d w o d 0 y V CO N a" V C O O O N G co C2 -0 • u o ° `o a > U 0 d y O a- LL -o 0 rn°' N y E OO U° 8 a y u p o V 7 • O c O c y- -p c • M 0 o Ugc y _0 .v :2 m °2' it n ° -0 L ii m o Q L y 7 0 -0 V "D 0 2) Assumed 15% of the 300,000 square feet of retail space is occupied by restaurants occupying 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. 3) Assumed 15% of the 300,000 square feet of retail space is occupied by business such as juice bars, cafes and specialty stores, each occupying less than 3500 square feet. 0 m a 8 y 0 O t N O s O 3 8_ O) O 0 LEI 0 O p ✓ N O ") O 0 "D O 0 0 s 0 o O L 0 X00 o .g -E d O E o O O - • c N to O O O 0 C•1 O 21.c • c C - O V y � C y 0 ?� a o 0 3 14 1 Strategic Economics IV. EXISTING ALAMEDA RETAIL AREAS: CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ALAMEDA LANDING CONTEXT As part of the City's goal to take advantage of market opportunities while maintaining and strengthening the quality of life in Alameda, much attention and study has recently been focused on the character and future opportunities of its retail nodes. Alameda has five functioning shopping districts that comprise the bulk of the City's retail industry and are located throughout the city. Each of these districts fills a niche in the lives of Alameda's residents. The City of Alameda contains 720,000 square feet of retail space in three shopping centers (Towne Centre, Marina Village, and Harbor Bay Landing) and about 590,000 square feet of retail and service space on Park and Webster Streets, for a total retail inventory of about 1.3 million square feet. Please note: Bridgeside has been vacant since 1997, and although it is in the process of renovations and expects to re -open within a year, its square footage is not included the analysis of existing retail supply. This section profiles the characteristics of Alameda's distinct retail areas, such as tenant mix, market niche, current market performance and potential impact from the proposed lifestyle center at Alameda Landing. In addition, the market performance and tenant mix of each area was researched using sales tax data provided to the City by MBIA Services. This section first profiles Alameda's Main Streets: Park and Webster Streets; Alameda Towne Centre, (formerly South Shore Shopping Center); three neighborhood shopping centers; and planned and proposed projects. Appendix C and D provide tables detailing major features and market trends of individual areas and selected projects. Main Street Retail Districts The traditional main street districts of Park and Webster Streets are profiled in Appendix C. It should be noted that the Citywide Retail Plan has proposed the policy to strengthen the role of Main Streets as the City's primary concentration of specialty shops (CW2 of the Alameda Retail Study, 2004). The two potential areas of overlap between the Main Streets and Alameda Landing are specialty stores and restaurants. Webster Street has the potential of being more directly impacted by Alameda Landing's presence given its location in the West End. However, the developer of Alameda Landing and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA), are working cooperatively with each other to create a complementary and not competition- oriented relationship between the two shopping nodes. Catellus has signed an MOU with WABA agreeing that no more than 20% or 36,000 square feet of the Alameda Landing's retail space will be devoted to stores of less than 2,500 square feet. It should be noted that Alameda Landing, given that it is a new development, will typically have higher rents to off -set construction costs and offer larger retail spaces than those available on Webster or Park Streets. Alternatively, small business that may enjoy lower rents will prefer to locate on the Main Streets over Alameda Landing. This dynamic will allow for different kinds of business to co -exist in the same area of the city, as well as many small stores (like coffee shops, ice cream parlors, eateries, etc.) that will thrive in multiple locations. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 15 Park Street Park Street is Alameda's principal commercial district, with an estimated 385,000 square feet of commercial space concentrated primarily in storefront retail. In 2005, taxable sales were $162.7 million, inclusive of car sales, which account for 40% of this total.15 Park Street has experienced renewed investment over the last several years, with the rehabilitation of several buildings and the attraction of newer types of retailers. As affluent young professional households bought up homes in the traditionally middle class blue - collar city, have they have brought their taste for higher end types of retail. The leasing and marketing company for 1336 Park Street has focused its efforts on attracting higher end restaurants, salons and gifts and novelties. The Alameda Marketplace is catering to an affluent, educated customer as well with high -end groceries, specialty foods and a cafe and restaurant. Park Street retail now blends older businesses that have faithfully served a primarily local clientele with a proven product and service, more marginal businesses that rely upon the lower rents afforded by poorly maintained buildings, and newer higher end businesses. The current vacancy rate for Park Street is very low. Retail space typically ranges from 800 to 3,000 square feet with the majority space at the lower end of the range. Rental rates are $0.90 to $3.00 per square foot. Space that leases for $3.00 is located in newly renovated multi- tenant projects at 1336 Park and the Alameda Marketplace. In addition, 1336 Park Street landed the street's first major national retailer, Starbucks, followed more recently by Peet's Coffee, serving as a signal to other retailers that the street has untapped potential. Park Street auto dealerships (new and used), all located north of Lincoln Avenue, make up nearly half the street's sales tax generation. The other businesses present an eclectic range of local and destination businesses whose diversity is characteristic of many older business districts today. Second to auto - related sales, restaurants account for 19 percent of sales tax contributions, and function as an anchor use for the street. The other major store categories on Park Street include Antiques and Second Hand stores, Gifts & Novelties, Personal Services such as salons, and Apparel. Alameda Landing's focus on home furnishings and housewares, larger chain restaurants, home improvement and specialty apparel should have minimal impact on the viability of Park Street businesses. While some of Alameda Landing and Park Street stores may fall into the specialty retail category, the independent nature of Park Street boutiques and shops is expected to isolate these businesses from direct competition with Alameda Landing. Webster Street Webster Street is an historic street in West Alameda with a unique past during which it catered to a more transient audience than a surrounding neighborhood. The closure of the Naval Air Station and the rapid and continued influx of new households and greater spending power into West Alameda have provided the District with an opportunity to re- position itself toward a local market, and to better meet the needs of area households. The District's physical characteristic of small, irregular parcels, and the desire to keep the small city feel have created a market niche of international cafes /restaurants and arts and crafts oriented retailers.I6 The Citywide Retail Policy identifies Webster Street as one of two "main street" business districts whose role is to meet the needs of its surrounding neighborhood. Major goals set forth 15 Please note: business to business transactions were not parsed out of the retail node taxable sales data as most business to business activity occurred outside of the business districts. 1d West Alameda Strategic Plan, Strategic Economics, March 2005, p.17 -18. 16 I Strategic Economics for Webster Street are to maintain the small city scale of the street and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the district. Like Park Street but to even a greater degree, restaurants and other eating establishments are a principal retail use on Webster Street, comprising 32 percent of taxable sales in 2005. There are a total of 205,000 square feet of retail space on Webster District. Businesses primarily fall in the categories of eating establishments and specialty retail. New retail businesses are primarily restaurants /cafes and specialty retail and some unique destination business like West Marine. A local broker who was interviewed for this study cited several examples of stores that have closed on Park Street due to high rents and re- opened on Webster. The addition of these storefronts has helped to transform Webster Street into a more upscale retail district. Currently the vacancies are very low on Webster Street, and where they do exist it is more of a decision by current ownership than lack of interest by prospective retailers. Gasoline service stations receive the greatest percentage of taxable sales on Webster Street — 34 percent. Rents are in the $0.60 to $1.65 per square foot range. Commercial space increments on Webster Street range from approximately 1,000 to 4,800 square feet. Despite the challenges to the street's marketability, there has been some notable recent reinvestment in its buildings and new businesses have entered the area. Recent developments include the Hawthorne Suites Hotel, the Elders Inn assisted living facility, and the signing of West Marine. In addition, the Webster Hotel is being renovated with plans to attract a small gourmet grocery and a restaurant to the ground floor retail space. The New Zealander restaurant and Spritzers cafe appear to be catering to a higher end market. The MTC- funded Webster Streetscape Project has recently completed physical improvements to the street. The farmer's market is very popular and attracts people from all over Alameda. The presence of the market ensures that improvements to the street and new businesses will be on display to a good cross - section of the greater Alameda population as the area improves. As mentioned earlier, Alameda Landing and WABA have a cooperative relationship. Because of Alameda Landing's location on the West End, Webster Street may gain from additional visibility as a result of its proximity to the new development. Undoubtedly Alameda Landing will attract residents from the east side of Alameda to the west, creating opportunity for those unfamiliar with Webster Street to discover its unique mix of independent businesses. This will also be true for non - residents who travel to Alameda to visit Alameda Landing and in the process learn of the other retail areas on the island. Regional Shopping Centers: Alameda Towne Centre Originally built in 1958, and renovated and expanded over the years, Alameda Towne Centre totals 544,000 square feet and is the largest concentration of retail space in Alameda. The center has a range of anchor tenant types, with grocery stores that serve an almost exclusively local customer base; Mervyn's, a major regional anchor, that relies in large part on regional or destination shoppers; and Trader Joe's, which serves a local and Oakland customer base. Alameda Towne Centre is currently going through a process of reinventing itself. The site plan for the renovated center will also improve the center's orientation to the beachfront across the street. The market positioning strategy for the renovation involves a focus on apparel and home furnishings that target a somewhat higher end shopper than the average current Towne Centre customer. The owner anticipates that the renovation will take several years due to the complexities of lease expirations, tenant relocations and renovations that attempt to minimize the impacts on current businesses. The majority of current retailers in the center serve a mid -range market niche, though recent arrivals like Trader Joe's and Blue Tomatoes serve a slightly higher end market. The Center is in discussions with Target as a possible future tenant and has applied for an additional 49,000 sq. ft. to accommodate the discount retailer. If Target Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 17 locates at the Towne Centre, it will also absorb much of the Centre's previously approved 112,000 sq. ft. expansion. Other recent changes that have occurred are: the closing of Ross and Albertsons and the expansion of Safeway from 37,000 square feet to 59,000 square feet. Since Alameda Towne Centre has the only department store in Alameda, sales data for that specific retail category is combined with drug stores for confidentiality purposes. Sales for these two retail sub- categories under General Merchandise were 28 percent of the Centre's sales tax generation, while grocery stores comprised a total of 21 percent, followed by miscellaneous retail stores with a total of 19 percent of taxable sales and apparel stores with 10 percent of sales tax generation. The decline of the Centre's main anchor, Mervyn's is likely a result of overall loss of market share of the chain in general, and the fact that the Towne Centre is in need of upgrades to bring more customers through the door. Since the Centre is going through several transitions right now, the vacancy rate is difficult to measure. It is unclear if existing retailers at the Centre will expand into the space previously occupied by Ross, or if new retailers will be targeted. Rents at Towne Centre range from $1.75 to $3.00 on a triple net basis.'? Besides Park and Webster Streets, ATC is the other retail area that could potentially be most directly affected by development at Alameda Landing. The retail categories of apparel and home furnishings are currently offered by ATC and are targeted for Alameda Landing. However, the leakage analysis substantiates the need for additional retail offerings in these categories, and the targeted retailers will be differentiated from those currently at ATC. The furniture and home furnishings category and the home improvement category will be important components of Alameda Landing and will be unique from other existing offerings. Neighborhood Shopping Centers: Marina Village and Harbor Bay Landing The two operating neighborhood shopping centers, anchored by grocery and drug stores that serve the daily shopping needs of Alameda residents are Marina Village and Harbor Bay Landing. The Bridgeside neighborhood shopping center, currently vacant but undergoing renovations, will be addressed below under "Planned and Proposed Retail Developments." Analysis of rents and vacancy rates suggests that these centers and their respective tenants are performing well. A brief and general description of these centers follows below, and additional information is shown in Table 1 of the Appendix. In general, the neighborhood shopping centers will not be directly impacted by retail at Alameda Landing, particularly Harbor Bay given its distance from the development. The closest shopping center to Alameda Landing is Marina Village and the potential for synergy between the two centers is strong. Employees from the Marina Business Park will hopefully frequent restaurants either for lunch or after work at Alameda Landing and will also add to the retail sales. Marina Village Constructed in the late 1980's, the Marina Village Shopping Center is located within the Marina Business Park and is currently the only major grocery/drug- anchored shopping center in the West End of Alameda. The 110,000 square foot center serves both nearby employees in the business park and West End households. During 2005, taxable sales at the center were roughly $134 per square foot, attesting to the center's market strength. The retail areas that are most prominent at Marina Village are: grocery, restaurants, and drug stores. The current 3 percent vacancy rate and average rents of roughly $2.50 (triple net) indicate that the center is performing very well. Source: Mike Corbitt Towne Centre. 18 1 Strategic Economics Alameda Landing will serve as a destination for employees at the Marina Business Park, which could have a negative affect on eating establishments at Marina Village. However, Alameda Landing is more focused on the larger, national and local, specialty restaurants rather than fast food, which is the majority of restaurant type at Marina Village. Harbor Bay Landing Harbor Bay Landing is the only major shopping center on Bay Farm Island and totals approximately 60,000 square feet, anchored by Safeway and Longs. The center serves Bay Farm Island households and employees of Harbor Bay Business Park. Harbor Bay Landing businesses are fortunate to be located in a center that is the only shopping option on the Bay Farm Island, and as a result enjoys very high sales for a neighborhood retail center. Harbor Bay Landing is currently fully leased, and while rental rates were not available, the $283.80 per square foot 2005 taxable sales attest to the center's marketability. Alameda Landing will have little to no impact on Harbor Bay since the retail areas of the centers do not have much cross -over, and they are located far apart. Major Planned and Proposed Retail Developments These three projects in addition to Alameda Landing are all proposed or in the pipeline for development. Each of these developments has some retail component to it. Alameda Point Alameda Point Community Partners' master plan for the 770 acre Naval Air Station includes a proposed mixed -use development with approximately 3.4 million square feet of commercial space, including retail development slated for land at the water's edge. The Preliminary Development Concept (Feb. '06) calls for up to 336,000 square feet of retail to be built in two phases. The first phase will include community- serving retail anchored by a 115,000 square foot grocery store. Later retail development will provide goods and services not available elsewhere in the West End and visitor - serving retail, facilitating the adaptive reuse of historic structures and supporting the recreational, open space, and cultural uses at Alameda Point. Since Alameda Landing will not include a grocery store or the smaller retailers associated with a community shopping center, the balance of this development will not be impacted by Alameda Towne Centre. Later phases emphasizing visitor retail should also not be impacted, though tenants providing "goods and services not available on the West End" will need to likely need to adapt to the presence of Alameda Landing retailers. Del Monte Mixed -Use The property owner of the former Del Monte warehouse has submitted an application to the City for reuse of the building to include 140,000 square feet of retail space, as well as live /work lofts and a parking structure. The EIR for the project is currently being completed. The retail component of the proposal is modeled in concept after Market Hall in Rockridge, with different vendors of specialty foods all housed under the same roof. Since food retailing is not included in the proposed tenant mix at Alameda Landing, Alameda Landing should have no impact on the potential for retail at the Del Monte Mixed -Use. Bridgeside The City of Alameda has acquired the center and is pushing ahead with the developer's plan to tear down and redevelop the center to include 110,000 square feet anchored by a 58,000 square foot Nob Hill Foods Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 19 accompanied by stores and restaurants oriented to the estuary, as well as some professional office space. The developer hopes to tenant the center with restaurants that will pull from a greater trade area than the local neighborhood alone. Alameda Landing will not include a grocery store in its tenant mix and the stores and restaurants that are expected to accompany the grocery store will be those typical of a suburban shopping center. Therefore, there is no direct competition expected between the Alameda Landing lifestyle center and Bridgeside. IMPACT FINDINGS: ALAMEDA LANDING Guiding the development of Alameda Landing is the goal of creating a successful retail area that responds to the shopping needs and tastes of the community while serving as a complement to existing and planned Alameda retail offerings. There is significant leakage to support development at Alameda Landing. The market niche for Alameda Landing is mid- to high -end regional and national stores and restaurants with in -line tenants primarily in the categories of Furniture & Home Furnishings, Home Improvement and other `hard goods,' and other tenants in the Apparel category. Restaurants should not only meet the needs of the daytime shopper but also serve as a destination for local residents and non - resident employees. Considerable effort by Alameda Landing's developer, Catellus Development Corporation, has been made to coordinate with and complement existing retail on the island. The general impact findings are as follows: Main Streets: By working together, Alameda Landing can actually serve as an anchor for Webster Street by elevating the street's visibility. Many of the independent stores on Webster are supported by regional sales, and Alameda Landing will attract residents and non - residents who may not yet have discovered the West End of the island. Cross advertising can occur between Webster Street and Alameda Landing to further enhance their synergistic relationship. Catellus has committed to marketing and support programs and policies with WABA. Alameda Towne Centre: The main areas of crossover between ATC and Alameda Landing are home furnishings and apparel. The leakage analysis indicates that there is significant leakage in each of these areas and room for additional retail development. Every attempt will be made to stratify the two centers based on price point and merchandise mix to minimize overlap. Neighborhood Centers: There is little to no crossover between these centers and Alameda Landing since grocery and drug are not part of the retail makeup of Alameda Landing. Proposed Projects: Alameda Point will also be located in the West End, and it is assumed there will be a grocery/drug anchor on site. If Alameda Landing is approved, Alameda Point will need to respond to a retail climate that factors in Alameda Landing's retail presence. Bridgeside, when completed, will function as a grocery- anchored community shopping center and will have little to no overlap with Alameda Landing. 20 I Strategic Economics V. CONCLUSION Taken together the impacts associated with the tenanting strategy described in Section IV are in keeping with City's policy direction for retail in Alameda. The mix of retailers at the site will address gaps in the provision of goods and services while limiting the potential to shift sales away from Alameda's existing business districts. The new retailers will complement existing and planned retail areas and will support the Park and Webster "Main Streets" as destinations for specialty shops. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 21 APPENDICES Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 23 APPENDIX A: 2005 LEAKAGE ANALYSIS Retail Group Total Supportable Typical Household Total Retail Sales Square Soles Per Net Capture of Spending Taxable Sales Sales Leakages Footage Sq.Ft. Regional Sales $683,055,880 $384,831,519 $530,714,151 $268,129,334 $115,787,606 Apparel Store Group 538,053,246 $15,247,645 815,247,645 $22,805,601 $0 Women's Apparel $8,507,415 $1,457,694 $1,457,694 $7,049,721 34,057 $207 $0 Men's Apparel $3,058,135 $0 $0 $3,058,135 12,958 $236 50 Family Clothing 518,956,447 $9,849,515 59,849,515 59,106,932 37,474 $243 50 Shoe Stores $7,531,248 $3,940,436 $3,940,436 $3,590,812 13,316 $270 $0 General Merchandise Group 5127,757,194 $45,989,073 $86,163,815 $78,758,361 $37,164,983 Discount Stores $41,072,630 $0 $0 $41,072,630 223,403 5184 50 Other General Merchandise $34,029,026 $1,898,521 $2,021,854 $32,007,172 n/a n/o $0 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $25,552,613 50 $0 $25,552,613 81,892 $312 50 Misc. General Merchandise 58,476,413 $1,898,521 $2,021,854 $6,454,559 43,909 $147 50 Department Stores /Drug Stores' $52,655,171 $44,090,552 $84,141,961 $5,678,192 13,904 $408 $37,164,983 Specialty Retail Group 542,946,871 $41,006,860 $41,289,521 $6,772,487 85,115,138 Gifts & Novelties $3,205,389 51,334,451 $1,352,027 $1,853,362 9,551 $194 50 Sporting Goods $5,285,911 55,169,689 $5,174,864 $111,047 588 $189 50 Florists $1,232,854 $813,683 $817,772 $415,082 2,540 $163 $0 Photographic Equipment $693,925 50 $0 $693,925 3,767 $184 50 Records & Music $2,327,932 5318,004 $318,004 $2,009,928 7,899 $254 $0 Books & Stationery 53,962,035 53,028,241 $3,028,241 $933,794 5,122 $182 50 Jewelry 83,538,704 82,780,572 $2,783,355 $755,349 2,689 $281 $0 Misc. Specialty Retail /Office Supplies & Computer Equipment* 522,700,120 $27,562,220 $27,815,258 $0 0 $451 $5,115,138 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $173,093,699 $113,033,705 $214,924,758 $1,452,403 $43,283,462 Grocery Stores $108,584,027 $37,428,553 $129,860,055 $0 0 $390 $21,276,027 Specialty Food Stores $3,320,635 $2,313,340 $3,995,406 $0 0 $277 $674,771 Liquor Stores $5,421,607 $3,901,727 $3,969,203 $1,452,403 5,716 8254 $0 Eating Places 555,767,431 $69,390,085 $77,100,094 $0 n/a n/o $21,332,664 Full- Service Restaurants & Bars $29,006,841 $40,658,118 $45,175,687 50 0 $302 $16,168,846 Other Eating Places 526,760,590 528,731,967 $31,924,408 50 0 $457 $5,163,818 Building Materials And Homefumishings Group 568,294,171 $16,956,990 $16,974,000 $52,807,479 $1,487,308 Furniture & Home Furnishings $26,109,618 $3,661,796 53,669,134 $22,440,484 139,028 $161 $0 Household Appli & Electronics $11,976,976 $1,963,876 $1,963,876 $10,013,100 29,557 $339 50 Used Merchandise $1,694,808 $862,380 $862,380 $832,428 4,650 $179 50 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $6,255,622 $1,559,877 $1,563,003 $4,692,619 30,061 $156 $0 Lumber & Other Building Materials $13,582,554 $441,659 8441,659 $13,140,895 31,453 5418 50 Home Centers and Hardware Stores 58,233,988 $6,539,488 $6,546,034 $1,687,954 12,013 $141 80 Paint & Wallpaper $440,606 $1,927,914 $1,927,914 50 0 $181 $1,487,308 Automotive Group $232,910,699 $152,597,246 $156,114,411 $105,533,004 $28,736,716 New Car /Used Car Dealers' 5166,203,918 $72,360,962 $72,360,962 $93,842,956 n/a n/a 50 Gasoline Service Stations $57,924,957 $42,761,322 $46,278,487 $11,646,470 31,308 $372 $0 Mobile Homes & Trailers $43,578 $0 $0 $43,578 n/a n/a $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $4,141,923 $5,672,104 $5,672,104 $0 0 $220 $1,530,181 Other Vehicles $4,596,324 $31,802,858 531,802,858 $0 n/a n/a $27,206,534 'Collapsed categories due to confidentiality issues (less than three companies in a retail category or one dominant leader(. Source: Strategic Economics, 2006 APPENDIX B: 2010 PROJECTIONS LEAKAGE ANALYSIS Retail Group Total Total 2010 Supportable Typical Net Capture Household Total Retail Square Sales per of Regional Spending Taxable Sales Sales Sales Leakages Footage Sq. Ft. Sales 5820,563,217 $384,831,519 $530,714,151 $362,055,931 572,206,865 Apparel Store Group 545,800,315 $15,247,645 $15,247,645 530,552,670 50 Women's Apparel 510,239,465 $1,457,694 51,457,694 58,781,771 42,424 5207 50 Men's Apparel 53,687,213 50 50 53,687,213 15,624 5236 50 Family Clothing 522,811,397 59,849,515 59,849,515 512,961,882 53,337 5243 50 Shoe Stores 59,062,240 $3,940,436 53,940,436 55,121,804 18,993 5270 50 General Merchandise Group 51 53,198,778 $45,989,073 886,163,815 $99,492,819 832,457,856 Discount Stores 549,353,744 50 50 549,353,744 268,446 5184 50 Other General Merchandise 540,780,282 51,898,521 52,021,854 538,758,428 n/a n/a 50 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores $30,590,170 $0 $0 530,590,170 98,036 $312 $0 Misc. General Merchandise $10,190,111 $1,898,521 52,021,854 $8,168,257 55,566 5147 80 Department Stores /Drug Stores' $63,064,312 544,090,552 584,141,961 511,380,206 27,865 5408 532,457,856 Specialty Retail Group 551,719,932 $41,006,860 $41,289,521 $11,244,164 $813,753 Gifts & Novelties $3,854,317 51,334,451 51,352,027 52,502,289 12,896 5194 50 Sporting Goods $6,397,680 5.5,169,689 $5,174,864 $1,222,816 6,474 5189 $0 Florists 51,503,262 $813,683 $817,772 5685,490 4,194 $163 50 Photographic Equipment 5841,570 $0 $0 5841,570 4,569 5184 50 Records & Music 52,807,325 5318,004 $318,004 $2,489,321 9,783 $254 50 Books & Stationery 54,770,194 53,028,241 $3,028,241 51,741,953 9,554 5182 50 Jewelry $4,272,570 52,780,572 52,783,355 51,489,215 5,302 $281 50 Misc. Specialty Retail /Office Supplies & Computer Equipment' $27,273,015 527,562,220 $27,815,258 $271,510 603 5451 $813,753 Food, Eating and Drinking Group $207,066,589 5113,033,705 5214,924,758 52,735,289 510,593,458 Grocery Stores $129,602,769 537,428,553 5129,860,055 50 0 5390 $257,286 Specialty Food Stores 53,963,429 52,313,340 $3,995,406 $0 0 5277 531,977 Liquor Stores 56,494,944 $3,901,727 53,969,203 $2,525,740 9,940 $254 50 Eating Places $67,005,447 $69,390,085 $77,100,094 $209,548 n/a n/a $10,304,196 Full- Service Restaurants & Bars $34,871,491 $40,658,118 $45,175,687 50 0 5302 $10,304,196 Fast Food Restaurants $32,133,956 528,731,967 $31,924,408 5209,548 458 5457 50 Building Materials And Homefurnishings Group 582,673,769 $16,956,990 $16,974,000 567,095,945 51,396,176 Furniture & Home Furnishings 531,563,251 53,661,796 53,669,134 $27,894,117 172,815 5161 50 Household Appliances & Electronics 514,435,668 51,963,876 51,963,876 $12,471,792 36,815 5339 $0 Used Merchandise $2,041,586 5862,380 $862,380 51,179,206 6,588 5179 50 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $7,632,773 51,559,877 51,563,003 56,069,770 38,909 5156 50 Lumber & Other Building Materials $16,481,191 5441,659 5441,659 $16,039,532 38,390 $418 $0 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $9,987,561 56,539,488 56,546,034 53,441,527 24,493 5141 50 Paint & Wallpaper 5531,738 51,927,914 $1,927,914 50 0 5181 $1,396,176 Automotive Group 5280,103,834 $152,597,246 5156,114,411 5150,935,045 526,945,622 New Car /Used Car Dealers* 5200,186,528 $72,360,962 572,360,962 5127,825,566 n/o n/a $0 Gasoline Service Stations $69,335,111 542,761,322 $46,278,487 523,056,624 61,980 5372 50 Mobile Homes & Trailers 552,855 50 50 552,855 n/a n/a 50 Auto Party & Accessories 54,971,796 $5,672,104 $5,672,104 $0 0 5220 5700,308 Other Vehicles 55,557,544 $31,802,858 531,802,858 50 n/o n/a 526,245,314 OL a Z d Major Business Types -n o 2 O u - m yy T y 1 'a u ` o 8j a, Z — 2 v') o N C 0 0; Z -- 0 TI) F > > � c � � O 0- . O if, ..,,, y a �j Q CC Q V a. Q CC # # i ► i 41 i, N u N Z 2 o�•o 1 p O N y O n �, c c, `L O ,N ON yi `n N 7O u_ aC < > . Proposed Projects O en O Y N Q u $ m U o E Laoi - c ppu 2 40 ' 3 Q 1— N u . N N v-i. c 2 New Projects `. w g . v v ari d d E s o p o Y'~ -a 1 c 0 a o c C O s v3 O 0 i Z u o E u ic 0w M u h O0 O • � ' ' c' c -° ,_ 0 c . u 8 c 0 E c c O _Zs Q Ce N O M— c w .O Gl N N M -u 8 E o n E o E`E — m m 4< N U V 0< co ._. 'Hawthorne Suites 50 rooms (1,200 sq. Ft Renovation of Neptune Hotel Elders Inn The Webster Renaissance streetscape Project. Croll's Restaurant Spritzer's Otaez Rest. (4000 sq. ft.) Kelly -Moore Paints (6500 sq.ft.) Katsu Sushi Chef's Wok restaurant Issues Reported rn c en '> c `o ° o 3 8. E >-. o o N E O 'd �' °o E'� .E Z H :c _ ai u N w L.E' o v O ; 5 m e O O c c o f o ai o•N •ao o.E 'o .E F E V Trends o c E c c 2 ` W O -o N >. c o O 0 c2 T O- H d o 33� O .c O > V a f y b w O o O N N u o. _0 L N N 47 2 13 0 0 in m .E o> Retail Vacancy Rate 0 N o 00 Space Range tp �g = M p g v O tn y Z 1 V X W O. Rents o, p0, a h. csi so Approx. Retail Floor Area p to Lei co co S tri N rn c o� Nad a. 3 soO h S E 0 N E 0 0 -o Qi 0 0 0 w U • z( 2 Major Business Types K } k f {7 E 8 o- ± o a ( k 8 7 k ± d a Grocery Drug Vacant space in the center is due in part to renovation underway and the closing of Ross; 7 -year expansion proposed to increase center to approx. 705,000 sq. ft., improve orientation to beach front. Also wants to attract higher end shops and restaurants to improve center's draw. o oriented to estuary. New tenants will include cafes and z Trends /Recent Tenants \ 0 } in trailer at site Mervyn's, Trader Joe's, Safeway - ® S e - b \�k\\ < 9 z @ - o z Safeway, Longs I x c / / { \ @ § w 2 a. ¥ • % R E I G a$ / 2 —� \\ \ -0 _ 0\ Local residents I Z z Z } § 2 - - r N Lo & - 7 e Z iai v 0 Zo E = CD z Vacancy Rate*** / 0 a� E� a) J \ 7 $ a ° \ 0 ® J 7 \ k .$ /.° \ 9., ° 0 $ } / o 60,000 ILI [Year Built ghborhoo 1958 2 \ 2 e k Shopping Center ■6) _ ° \ J 0 ° > E $ f 0 : APPENDIX E: LEAKAGE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Advanced Development Economics conducted the leakage analysis using a similar proprietary model that was used for the 2002 leakage analysis. Household Spending The retail model estimates household retail demand by major retail categories and sub - categories. The variables that go into the model are average household income, the number of households in the study area, and any necessary inflation and income growth factors. The source of the data for the household product type demand is the 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. For purposes of analyzing the household spending in Alameda, ADE used the income - stratified urban consumer sample. Data for analyzing the household demand by retail category came from the 1997 and preliminary 2002 US Census of Retail Trade. Taxable Sales The taxable sales data was provided by MBIA MuniServices Company, which audits the California State Board of Equalization (SBE) sales tax allocation records. The taxable sales data includes all establishments in the City of Alameda for calendar year 2005. Due to confidentiality requirements, any retail category with fewer than three establishments must be aggregated together with other retail categories before data can be reported. ADE also used a listing of City of Alameda businesses by business code to eliminate any business -to- business establishments from the taxable sales data given that this analysis is focused solely on retail. 2010 Leakage Projections Overall there are more than 3,500 dwelling units planned and proposed for development between now and 2010 within the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda's Housing Element Report was used as the basis for determining new housing that has recently been completed and those units that are in the pipeline for construction. Of these new units, 1,248 are targeted for moderate - income households and 2,2,83 will be sold at market rates. Households eligible for affordably priced units are expected to earn between 80 and 120 percent of the area median income. The median income was based upon the 200 US Census and inflation adjusted to 2005 — 80% of the inflation adjusted income was $53,814. Market rate homes are expected to sell between $850,000 and $1,200,000. Households living in market rate housing must make an average of $275,251 in order to afford these homes. For the existing households in Alameda, the incomes were adjusted using the ABAG income growth rate for Alameda to adjust the 2005 total to 2010. The projected expenditures from the affordable homes, the market rate homes and the increased incomes of existing households were then added together to derive an estimate of total 2010 spending. Additional Assumptions The data from MBIA MuniServices only reflects taxable sales, and some retail categories (such as grocery) must be adjusted to account for nontaxable retail items. These items include food and prescription drugs. The adjustment inflates the taxable sales by the average ratio of nontaxable to taxable products for an individual store type. This distribution of sales by product type comes from the 2002 Census of Retail Trade. Information regarding the taxability of different retail products comes from the California Tax Code. Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update 1 29 Table 2 Methodology Based upon the 2005 leakage analysis, Table 2 attempts to portray the recapturing of the leakage as a result of the proposed retail at Alameda Landing. Estimated retail square footage is based upon discussions with Catellus and typical store size for a particular retail category. Capture rates refer to the realistic percentage of leakage a store can hope to capture. These capture rates are based on retail type and sample list of tenants. It is important to note: different retailers can generate different capture rates. Housing The City of Alameda's Housing Element report was used as the basis for determining new housing that has recently been completed and those units that are in the pipeline for construction. Since 2001 and as of April 2006, 3, 531 units have been or will be added to the housing mix in the next three years. Of those units, 35 percent or 1,248 are affordable and 65 percent or 2,283 are market rate units. 30 1 Strategic Economics Attachment D DDA ERRATA SHEET 1. Recital 11 Correct dates of Second Addendum and Third Addendum. 2. Section 3.1(d) Correct cross - reference. 3. Section 3.5 (b) • Clarify that Developer receives a management fee of 3% of hard construction costs for work for which Developer acts as general contractor in lieu of hiring a third party general contractor. • Add payments to tenants pursuant to Section 5.7(c)(1) to the list of items that are excluded from Developer's 4% administrative and management fee on Project Expenditures. 4. Section 4.1(a)(3), 4.1(b)(3) and 4.1(c)(2) Add that Developer must in good faith make application for permits. 5. Section 4.1(d)(i)(D)(2)(I) Clarify that Tinker In Lieu Payment is only payable to the extent that it does not lower the IRR below 12 %. 6. Section 6.2(a) -(c) • Add a defined term, "20% Set Aside Funds ", defined as those net tax increment funds received by the CIC that are restricted for affordable housing purposes pursuant to redevelopment law. • Clarify the text describing the commitment to the Project of Bayport Project Net Proceeds and Alameda Landing 80% Tax Increment. 7. Section 7.1(k) Correct references to Impact Fee Exhibits of Development Agreements. 8. Section 7.2(e) Add that City or CIC, as applicable, is only required to maintain flood and earthquake insurance for the Wharf to the extent that it is available on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. Add that, in the event of catastrophic damage to the Wharf from earthquake or flood, City or CIC, as applicable, will submit a claim to FEMA and use funds allocated by FEMA to repair and reconstruct the Wharf. 9. Section 7.3 Provide that deemed approval provisions do not apply to CIC. 10. Attachment 5A Substitute new Attachment 5A, Site Plan, to include previously omitted Alameda Landing Residential sites. 11. Attachment 7 Substitute new Attachment 7, Backbone Infrastructure Plan, to conform text and graphics and remove erroneously included Private Infrastructure (which is shown in Attachment 12) Graphic to be revised consistent with attached text. 12. Attachment 12 Substitute new Attachment 12, Private Infrastructure, to add text to go with graphic and add Private Infrastructure that was erroneously shown as Backbone Infrastructure. Graphic to be revised consistent with attached text. 13. Appendix I • Add definitions of "20% Set Aside Funds ", "Re -Use Parcel ", "Tinker In Lieu Account ", "Tinker In Lieu Payment ", and "Wharf Building ". • Correct definition of Tinker Avenue Extension Project. 2 pe�lno JalemwJols 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iL Alameda Landing Conveyance Parcel -6 ▪ November 2006 asnoya1ef 6unsix3 v+ v • o • r ▪ tra T rD Text to Attachment "7 ": BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Page 1 of 2 Phase I Demolition: • Abatement and Demolition of Warehouse Building 2A • Abatement and Demolition of Hospital • Abatement and reuse or Demolition of Warehouse Building lA • Abatement and Demolition of northern 2/3 of Warehouse 4 • Abatement and Demolition of northern 2/3 of Warehouse 5 • General demolition of existing site paving in Phase I area Phase I Infrastructure: • Construction of Developer's MSL Work and Interim Tinker Work, both as defined in the DDA. • Construction of Mitchell from Mariners Square Loop to the western limit of the Phase I limits of work. Improvements will include all utilities, drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping. • Construction of Fifth Street from Mitchell south to the southern edge of the Phase I new retail work up to and as required to provide access to the Phase I retail and residential areas. Improvements will include all utilities, drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping. • Construction of Village Green and adjacent streets to north and west. Street improvements will include all utilities, drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping. • Installation of signals at Fifth and Mitchell [NOTE: shown on exhibit, but note that MMRP does not require until Fifth goes through to Tinker, so could be moved to Phase II] and at Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Loop. • • Construction of the Waterfront Promenade from the eastern edge of the project to the eastern edge of the Re -Use Parcel located in Phase 1. Improvements to include the public open space, architectural resurfacing of the wharf deck as required, landscape, and site furnishings. • Construction of the Water Taxi Landing. Improvements to include a landing structure for docking and loading of a water taxi and public from the wharf to the landing structure. • Installation of underground conduits in the Phase I limits of work to support the potential future under - grounding of the 115Kv electric transmition lines. Phase II Demolition: • Abatement and Demolition of Southern 1/3 of Warehouse 4 • Abatement and Demolition of Southern 1/3 of Warehouse 5 • General demolition of existing site paving in Phase II area Text to Attachment "7 ": BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Page 2 of 2 Phase II Infrastructure: • Construction of Fifth Street from the northern edge of the Phase II new retail work north to the intersection of Tinker. Improvements will include all utilities, drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping. • Installation of signals at Fifth and Tinker. • Installation of underground conduits in the Phase II limits of work to support the potential future under - grounding of the 1 l5Kv electric transmition lines. Phase III Demolition: • Abatement and reuse or Demolition of Warehouse Building 1C • Abatement and Demolition of Warehouse Building 1B • Abatement and Demolition of Warehouse Building 2B • General demolition of existing site paving in Phase III area Phase III Infrastructure: • Construction of Mitchell from the western limit of Phase I to the western project boundary. Improvements will include all utilities, drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping. • Construction of the Waterfront Promenade from (1) the western limit of the Re- Use Parcel in Phase I to the eastern limit of the Re -Use Parcel in Phase III and (2) the western limit of the Re -Use Parcel in Phase III to the western edge of the project. Improvements to include the public open space, architectural resurfacing of the wharf deck as required, landscape, and site furnishings. • Installation of underground conduits in the Phase III limits of work to support the potential future under - grounding of the 115Kv electric transmition lines. Under - grounding of the 115Kv electric transmition lines if determined necessary by Developer in its sole and absolute discretion. Text to Attachment "12 ": PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE Page 1 of 1 Phase I Infrastructure: • Construction of the Plaza Open Space (bioswale) in the Phase I retail area. Improvements to include site concrete, landscape, backbone drainage improvements, and site furnishings. • Construction of the Waterfront Promenade within the Re -Use Parcel located in Phase I. To the extent required by the Development Agreement, improvements may include structural improvements of the wharf structure to support building IA. Improvements to include the public open space, architectural resurfacing of the wharf deck as required, landscape, and site furnishings. Phase II Infrastructure: • Construction of the Plaza Open Space (bioswale) in the Phase II retail area. Improvements to include site concrete, landscape, backbone drainage improvements, and site furnishings. • Construction of the Waterfront Plaza from the southern edge of the Waterfront Promenade to Fifth Street. Improvements to include architectural site concrete, public art / water features as required, landscape, and site furnishings. • Construction of the Entry Plaza on the corner of Fifth Street and Tinker. Improvements to include architectural site concrete, public art as required, landscape, and site furnishings. Phase III Infrastructure: • Construction of the Waterfront Promenade within the Re -Use Parcel located in Phase III. To the extent required by the Development Agreement, improvements may include structural improvements of the wharf structure to support building IC. Improvements to include the public open space, architectural resurfacing of the wharf deck as required, landscape, and site furnishings. ATTACHMENT D ALAMEDA LANDING FINANCING PLAN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY - IN NO WAY BINDING ON DEVELOPER OR THE CIC THIS ANALYSIS IS NOT MEANT TO INTERPRET OR MODIFY THE PROJECT APPROVALS THE ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE VERY PRELIMINARY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Pdcinc Office Transfer Price Retail Transfer Price Residential Sale Price Absorption Office Building Sq Ft Retail Building Sq Ft Residential Land Sq Ft 12.62 12.62 14.47 14.47 14.47 21.25 21.25 21.25 21.25 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 12.01 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 0 100,000 0 130,000 0 60,000 110,000 0 0 0 139,000 181,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 945,252 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 320,000 945,252 Sources Office Land Sales 0 3,010 0 4,486 0 3,041 5,575 0 0 16,111 Retail Land Sales 0 6,931 9,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,956 Residential Land Sales 0 0 28,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,376 Bayport TIF Tax Allocation Bonding Capacity 0 0 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,500 Bayport Excess Residential Profit Participation 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 State Transportation Improvement Program Grant 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 Community Facilities District 0 0 0 0 8,957 0 0 0 2,768 11,725 Alameda Landing TIF Tax Allocation Bonding Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 14,749 0 0 11,252 26,001 Total Sources 0 14,941 46,901 8,486 8,957 17,789 5,575 0 14,020 116,670 Uses Demotlition and Public Backbone Infrastructure Improvements 16,376 39,458 13,413 6,706 0 14,898 7,449 0 0 98,301 Other 300 300 300 842 300 733 300 0 1,660 4,735 Total Uses 16,676 39,758 13,713 7,548 300 15,631 7,749 0 1,660 103,035 Developer Profit (16,676) (24,817) 33,188 938 8,657 2,158 (2,174) 0 12,361 13,634 ATTACHMENT E DDA/ FIFTH AMENDMENT TO DDA ERRATA SHEET DDA 1. Recital H Correct dates of Second Addendum and Third Addendum. 2. Section 3.1(d) Correct cross - reference. 3. Section 3.5 (b) • Clarify that Developer receives a management fee of 3% of hard construction costs for work for which Developer acts as general contractor in lieu of hiring a third party general contractor. • Add payments to tenants pursuant to Section 5.7(c)(1) to the list of items that are excluded from Developer's 4% administrative and management fee on Project Expenditures. 4. Section 4.1(a)(3), 4.1(b)(3) and 4.1(c)(2) Add that Developer must in good faith make application for permits. 5. Section 4.1(d)(i)(D)(2)(I) Clarify that Tinker In Lieu Payment is only payable to the extent that it does not lower the IRR below 12 %. 6. Section 6.2(a) -(c) • Add a defined term, "20% Set Aside Funds ", defined as those net tax increment funds received by the CIC that are restricted for affordable housing purposes pursuant to redevelopment law. • Clarify the text describing the commitment to the Project of Bayport Project Net Proceeds and Alameda Landing 80% Tax Increment. 7. Section 7.1(k) Correct references to Impact Fee Exhibits of Development Agreements. 8. Section 7.2(e) Add that City or CIC, as applicable, is only required to maintain flood and earthquake insurance for the Wharf to the extent that it is available on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. Add that, in the event of catastrophic damage to the Wharf from earthquake or flood, City or CIC, as applicable, will submit a claim to FEMA and use funds allocated by FEMA to repair and reconstruct the Wharf. 9. Section 7.3 Provide that deemed approval provisions do not apply to CIC. 10. Attachment 5 Substitute new Attachment 5 (2 ❑d attachment to staff report) to reflect change in acreage in first and third demolition parcels due to 70' right -of -way for Mitchell Avenue versus 65' right -of- way. 11. Attachment 5A Substitute new Attachment 5A, Site Plan, to include previously omitted Alameda Landing Residential sites. 12. Attachment 7 Substitute new Attachment 7, Backbone Infrastructure Plan, to conform text and graphics and remove erroneously included Private Infrastructure (which is shown in Attachment 12) Graphic to be revised consistent with attached text. 13. Attachment 12 Substitute new Attachment 12, Private Infrastructure, to add text to go with graphic and add Private Infrastructure that was erroneously shown as Backbone Infrastructure. Graphic to be revised consistent with attached text. 14. Appendix I • Add definitions of "20% Set Aside Funds ", "Re -Use Parcel ", "Tinker In Lieu Account ", "Tinker In Lieu Payment ", and "Wharf Building ". • Correct definition of Tinker Avenue Extension Project. Fifth Amendment to DDA 1. Section 5 Replace the index for calculating interest on the shortfall loan and the predevelopment loan with a fixed interest rate of 8.75% 2 E L 0 a CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REVISED CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2006012091) WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000, the City of Alameda certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project ( "2000 EIR "); and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City of Alameda approved an Addendum to the 2000 EIR in connection with approvals for the construction of approximately 6Q additional residential units; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the City of Alameda approved a Second Addendum to the 2000 EIR in connection with approvals for the construction of a stormwater treatment and detention pond, pump station, force main and outfall; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2006, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR ") for a revision to the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the City conducted an extensive scoping process to identify potential environmental issues and concerns that would be raised by the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project, including placing notices in local newspapers, conducting a public scoping meeting (February 9, 2006) and using direct mail, electronic mail, newspaper advertisement and postings; and WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was circulated for public comment between May 5, 2006, and June 19, 2006, and written and oral comments were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft SEIR on May 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant environmental issues raised by commentors during the public review period and published as the SEIR Response to Comments Addendum (July 2006); and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR and SEIR Response to Comments Addendum, was made available to the public for review on July 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final SEIR on July 26, 2006, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments received; and Resolution # 2 -B (1) Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Planning Board recommended that City Council certify the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2006, the Planning Board approved a Third Addendum to the 2000 EIR in connection with approvals for the construction of a 39 unit affordable apartment project; and. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Final SEIR on December 5, 2006, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments received; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings: 1. The Final SEIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered by the City Council. 2. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Alameda. 3. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby certifies the SEIR for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project. 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 meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNIRG ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2006012091) WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommended that the City Council certify that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (the "Project ") was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and state and local guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Report ting Program and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of an application that also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment, amendment of a Development Agreement and adoption of two new Development Agreements and amendment of a Disposition and Development Agreement and adoption of a new Disposition and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the required City approvals, the City Council certified the FSEIR. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (Attachment A), the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment B), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Resolution # 2 -B (2) Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 Attachment A to City Council Resolution: Making Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City 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 official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Laura Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GPA- 06 -01: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO: (A) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 74 ACRES OF THE CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE FROM BUSINESS PARK TO SPECIFIED MIXED USE AREA, AND (B) AMEND SECTIONS 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 AND ASSOCIATED TABLES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REFLECT-THE NEW SPECIFIED MIXED USE AREA WHEREAS, the subject property is part of a larger project that is currently entitled to allow the construction of 485 single - family homes, 101 multi - family residential units, approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial office /research and development space, a seven -acre school site and 15 acres of public open space ( "Catellus Mixed Use Development "); and WHEREAS, the subject property is presently designated Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the City certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ( "2000 EIR ") for the Catellus Mixed Use Development on May 13, 2000, as well as an Addendum to the 2000 EIR on December 18, 2001, and a Second Addendum to the 2000 EIR on July 6, 2004; and a Third Addendum to the 2000 EIR on September 25, 2006; and WHEREAS, an application was made by Palm Tree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation) requesting General Plan Amendments relating to approval to replace the existing office /research and development entitlements with entitlements for up to 400,000 square feet of office space; a 20,000 square foot health club or similar use; up to 300 housing units; and 300,000 square feet of retail space (Variant A) or 50,000 square feet of retail space and 370,000 square feet of research and development space (Variant B) on approximately 74 acres of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project, plus public open space. The project, known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project, would be completed in phases over a multi -year period, depending on market conditions; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting General Plan Amendments to (a) amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of that portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project site currently designated Business Park to Specified Mixed Use Area (approximately 74 acres), and (b) amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and associated tables of the Land Use Element to reflect the new Specified Mixed Use Area; and Resolution # 2 -B (3) Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, the proposal for a General Plan Amendment is necessary to allow a mix of uses on the site; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommended that the City Council certify a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") regarding the environmental impacts related to this project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2006, and recommended approval of the application; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City Council certified the FSEIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on December 5, 2006, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents in connection with the application; 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), including the Mixed Use land use designation of the site, and the General Plan policies incorporated by reference within the CIP; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings relative to the General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The City's General Plan policies focus on five broad themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small town feeling, respect for history, de- emphasis of the automobile, and retention of multi -use development on the Northern Waterfront. The project, as proposed, is consistent with these themes. The proposed General Plan amendments are internally consistent with the themes and policies of the General Plan. 2. The project incorporates all the mitigation measures described in the SEIR, but will have significant adverse effects as a result of (a) generation of hazardous waste during demolition; (b) unacceptable levels of service at intersections and roadway segments; (d) air emissions; and (e) cumulative air quality, traffic and circulation, population and housing, and public services impacts, and, therefore, requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. 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 a former military site with a mixed use development that includes residential, commercial and /or research and development uses. 4. 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. 5. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are in the public interest as they would allow redevelopment of the site with appropriate uses consistent with the nearby Marina Village Business Park, Aegis senior housing project and existing residential uses in the West End of Alameda. 6. The Project will increase tax revenues to the City and provide substantial public amenities, including affordable housing and public waterfront open space. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves the General Plan Amendment, GPA -06 -01 as shown in Exhibits "A" and "B ". Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment 06 -01 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 -7: Alameda Landing" to list of Specified Mixed Use Districts. Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -1 to include: "MU -7 Alameda Landing: Residential, Office, Commercial: 300 residential units, 300,000 sq.ft. commercial retail, 400,000 sq.ft. office, and 20,000 sq.ft. of health club facilities. Up to 250,000 sq. ft of commercial retail may be exchanged for up to 370,000 square feet of research and development uses. Other uses may be exchanged or substituted as permitted by the Master Plan." 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 -7: MU -7 Alameda Landing This area of the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Alameda Annex and Facility provides an opportunity to create a new waterfront oriented, mixed -use district with residential, commercial research and development, office and other uses and a major new public waterfront park. Implementation policies, standards, and guidelines for private and public developments and improvements in this mixed use area are included in the Bayport/Alameda Landing Mixed Use Master Plan. Land Use Diagram: Amend Land Use Diagram to change designation of area located north of Tinker Avenue and.west of Mariner Square Loop that is currently designated Business Park to MU -7. ueid asn pue1- E luawlpelly 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 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 F CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA -06 -001 SUBSTITUTING OFFICE, RETAIL, HEALTH CLUB, RESIDENTIAL AND /OR MIXED USES FOR APPROXIMATELY 77 ACRES OF PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED OFFICE /RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USES BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Master Plan Amendment MPA- 06 -01, as shown on Exhibit "A" and amended by the conditions in Exhibit "B" is hereby adopted for all the real property within the MX -zoned site situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, west of the Mariner Square commercial area, north of the College of Alameda and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, and east of Main Street, exclusive of the Alameda Gateway Center, U.S. Coast Guard Housing, and Miller Elementary School. Section 2. The Master Plan, as amended by the above Master Plan Amendment MPA- 06 -01, shall be known as and referenced to as the Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan (hereinafter Master Plan) approved June 6, 2000, as amended. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage, subject to the amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, dated June 6, 2000, as amended, and the adoption of a new Development Agreements between the City of Alameda and Palm Tree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation). NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Ordinance # 2 -B (4) Special Joint CC /ARRAICIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 Exhibit A to City Council Ordinance: Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA -06 -001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and /or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office /Research and Development Uses. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DA -06 -0002 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED JUNE 6, 2000, AS AMENDED BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002, as shown on Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted for the real property generally located north of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, south of Tinker Avenue, west of Fifth Street and east of Main Street within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement Amendment DA -06- 0002 shall be known as and referenced to as the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, dated June 6, 2000, as amended. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage, subject to the execution of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Ordinance # 2 -B (5) Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 Third Amendment to Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA -06 -0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify and regularly adopted and passed by regular meeting assembled on the by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: that the foregoing Ordinance was duly Council of the City of Alameda in a day of , 2006, IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -06 -0003 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE; A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB; UP TO 300 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND 300,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE OR 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND 370,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPACE BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement DA -06 -0003, as shown on Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted for real property generally located north of Tinker Avenue, south of the Oakland Estuary, west of Mariner Square Loop and Webster Street and east of the United States Coast Guard housing development within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement DA -06 -0003 shall be known as and referenced to as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation), dated December 5, 2006. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage, subject to the execution of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Ordinance # 2 -B (6) Special Joint CC /ARRA /CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement DA -06- 003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up To 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -06 -004 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 300 HOUSING UNITS BE IT ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Development Agreement DA -06 -0004, as shown on Exhibit "A ", is hereby adopted for real property generally located north of Tinker Avenue, south of the Oakland Estuary, west of Fifth Street and east of the United States Coast Guard housing development within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California. Section 2. The above Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 shall be known as and referenced to as the Alameda Landing Residential Mixed Use Development Project Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated December 5, 2006. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage subject to the signature of the Development Agreement. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and /or Section 1085 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Ordinance # 2 -B (7) Special Joint CC /ARRA /CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 Development Agreement attached to City Council Ordinance: Approving Development Agreement DA -06 -0004 By and Between Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. Is on -file in the City Clerk's Office I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF (1) AN AMENDMENT OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) FOCIL -BP, LLC AND BAYPORT ALAMEDA ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE FLEET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER ( "FISC ") AND THE EAST HOUSING PORTION OF THE NAVAL AIR STATION ; AND (2) A NEW DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) FOCIL -BP, LLC AND BAYPORT ALAMEDA ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE FISC WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000, the City of Alameda certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project ( "2000 EIR "); and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2000, the Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC "), pursuant to Resolution #00 -88, authorized the Executive Director to execute a Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") with Catellus Development Corporation ( "Catellus ") for the sale and development of certain property at the FISC and East Housing portion of the Naval Air Station; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the DDA on June 16, 2000; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City of Alameda approved an Addendum to the 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the construction of approximately 60 additional residential units; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the First Amendment to the DDA as of December 18, 2001, in order to implement construction of the FISC /East Housing Affordable Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the Second Amendment to the DDA as of April 2, 2003, in order to amend the DDA Initial Residential Conveyance Conditions Precedent; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the Third Amendment to the DDA on November 19, 2003, in order to accommodate the construction of facilities for ACET, a nonprofit public benefit corporation; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the City of Alameda approved a Second Addendum to the 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the construction of a stormwater treatment and detention pond, pump station, force main and outfall; and Resolution # 2 -B (8) Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the Fourth Amendment to the DDA on August 17, 2005, in order to amend the rights of the CIC to terminate the DDA; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2006, the City of Alameda approved a Third Amendment to the 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the 39 -unit affordable housing project; and WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the City Council has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "SEIR ") on the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (the "Project "), including the proposed Fifth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the CIC and Catellus (the "Fifth Amendment ") and the proposed new Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the CIC and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project (the "Alameda Landing DDA ") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA "), the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and procedures adopted by the City Council relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft SEIR and thereafter, in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies which have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft SEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the City's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final SEIR was prepared by the City; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the CIC and the City Council on December 5, 2006, on the Project, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the SEIR and all comments and responses thereto have been considered; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City of Alameda certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") pursuant to Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, adopted findings regarding environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which together address the impacts of a proposed revision of a portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project commonly known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the CIC is authorized, with the consent of the City Council, to pay all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction of any building, facility, structure or other improvement which is publicly owned either within or without a project area upon a determination by the City Council that such building, facility, structure or other improvement is of benefit to the project area or the immediate area in which the project is located, that no other reasonable means of financing such building, facility, structure or other improvement are available to the community, that the payment of funds for the cost of the building, facility, structure or other improvement will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area, and that the provision of the building, facility, structure or other improvement is consistent with the implementation plan adopted by the CIC; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC And Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC desire to execute the Fifth Amendment in order to limit its applicability to the portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project that is commonly referred to as the Bayport residential project, which is currently under construction, and to enter into the Alameda Landing DDA with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project commonly known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council finds the proposed Fifth Amendment and the proposed Alameda Landing DDA to be consistent with the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, including the Mixed Use Land Use Designation, and the City of Alameda General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds and determines that the costs of backbone infrastructure improvements to be funded by the CIC as provided in the DDA, as amended by the Fifth Amendment, and in the Alameda Landing DDA, including, but not limited to water, wastewater, storm drainage, waterfront park and transportation facilities, (collectively,. the "Infrastructure Improvements ") are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan, and consents to the CIC providing the Infrastructure Improvements using tax 'increment funds. The City Council further finds and determines that the Infrastructure Improvements are of primary benefit to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area (the "Project Area "); that no other means of financing the Infrastructure Improvements is available to the City; and that the payment of funds by the CIC for such Infrastructure Improvements will assist in eliminating blight within the ,Project Area and is consistent with the CIC's Implementation Plan for the Project Area adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law ( "Implementation Plan "). These findings and determinations are based upon the following facts: a. The Infrastructure Improvements will provide infrastructure needed to serve the retail and commercial businesses, and residences, within the Project Area; b. The City has explored and sought other funding alternatives for the costs of the Infrastructure Improvements; however the City does not have funds available for the costs of the Infrastructure Improvements, and no other means of financing are reasonably available; c. The Infrastructure Improvements will eliminate blight by providing adequate land and facilities for public access to and use of the Project Area, and stimulating new commercial expansion, employment and economic growth within the Project Area; and d. The Infrastructure Improvements are consistent with the Implementation Plan, as the Implementation Plan's goals include the elimination of inadequate infrastructure, the provision of adequate land for Infrastructure Improvements, and the strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area; and one of the programs of the Implementation Plan is the improvement of public infrastructure facilities that are of benefit to the BWIP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the Fifth Amendment to DDA in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the CIC. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the Proposed DDA in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the CIC. 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 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND: 1) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES; 2) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES; 3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; 4) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; 5) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) FOCIL -BP, LLC AND BAYPORT ALAMEDA ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE FLEET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER ( "FISC ") AND THE EAST HOUSING PORTION OF THE NAVAL AIR STATION; AND (6) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A NEW DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORPORATION FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE FISC WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000, the City of Alameda certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project ( "2000 EIR "); and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2000, the Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC "), pursuant to Resolution #00 -88, authorized the Executive Director to execute a Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") with Catellus Development Corporation ( "Catellus ") for the sale and development of certain property at the FISC and East Housing.portion of the Naval Air Station; and WHEREAS, the parties executed the DDA on June 16, 2000; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City of Alameda approved an Addendum to the 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the construction of approximately 60 additional residential units; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the First Amendment to the DDA as of December 18, 2001, in order to implement construction of the FISC /East Housing Affordable Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the Second Amendment to the DDA as of April 2, 2003, in order to amend the DDA Initial Residential Conveyance Conditions Precedent; and WHEREAS, the parties executed the Third Amendment to the DDA on November 19, 2003, in order to accommodate the construction of facilities for ACET, a nonprofit public benefit corporation; and Resolution # 2 -B (9) Special Joint CC /ARRA /CIC Mtg. 12 -5 -06 WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the City of Alameda approved a Second Addendum to the 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the construction of a stormwater treatment and detention pond, pump station, force main and ouffall; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2006, the City of Alameda approved a Third Amendment to the, 2000 EIR to address any environmental effects of the 39 -unit affordable housing project; and WHEREAS, the CIC and Catellus executed the Fourth Amendment to the DDA on August 17, 2005, in order to amend the rights of the CIC to terminate the DDA; and WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the City Council of the City of Alameda (the "City Council ") has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "SEIR ") on the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (the "Project "), including the proposed Fifth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the CIC and Catellus (the "Fifth Amendment ") and the proposed new Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the CIC and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project (the "Proposed DDA ") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA "), the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and procedures adopted by the City Council relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft SEIR and thereafter, in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, forwarded the Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies which have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft SEIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the City's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final SEIR was prepared by the City; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the CIC and the City Council on December 5, 2006, on the Project, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the SEIR and all comments and responses thereto have been considered; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City of Alameda certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") pursuant to Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, adopted findings regarding environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which together address the impacts of a proposed revision of a portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project commonly known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the CIC is authorized, with the consent of the City Council, to pay all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction of any building, facility, structure or other improvement which is publicly owned either within or without a project area upon a determination by the City Council that such building, facility, structure or other improvement is of benefit to the project area or the immediate area in which the project is located, that no other reasonable means of financing such building, facility, structure or other improvement are available to the community, that the payment of funds for the cost of the building, facility, structure or other improvement will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area, and that the provision of the building, facility, structure or other improvement is consistent with the implementation plan adopted by the CIC; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute a Fifth Amendment to the DDA in order to limit its applicability to the portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project that is commonly referred to as the Bayport residential project, which is currently under construction, and to enter into a new DDA ( "Alameda Landing DDA ") with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus) for the portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project commonly known as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project; and WHEREAS, the FSEIR addresses the impacts of the proposed Fifth Amendment to the DDA and the proposed Alameda Landing DDA; and WHEREAS, the CIC is a Responsible Agency, as defined in Section 21069 of the Public Resources Code, with respect to the proposed Fifth Amendment and Alameda Landing DDA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CIC, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, having reviewed the FSEIR for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project and the entire record, and having considered the environmental effects shown in the FSEIR, hereby approves the FSEIR and makes the Findings of Fact Regarding the Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project, labeled as Attachment A (on file in the City Clerk's Office), makes the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, labeled as Attachment B (on file in the City Clerk's Office), adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program labeled as Attachment C (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, labeled as Attachment D (on file in the City Clerk's Office). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CIC finds the proposed Fifth Amendment to the DDA with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL -BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of a Portion of the FISC and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station to be consistent with the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, including the Mixed Use Land Use Designation, and the City of Alameda General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CIC finds the proposed Alameda Landing DDA with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of a Portion of the FISC to be consistent with the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, including the Mixed Use Land Use Designation, and the City of Alameda General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CIC hereby finds and determines that the costs of backbone infrastructure improvements to be funded by the CIC as provided in the DDA, as amended by the Fifth Amendment to DDA, and in the Alameda Landing DDA, including, but not limited to water, wastewater, storm drainage, waterfront park and transportation facilities, (collectively, the "Infrastructure Improvements ") are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan, and consents to providing the Infrastructure Improvements using tax increment funds. The CIC further finds and determines that the Infrastructure Improvements are of primary benefit to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area (the "Project Area "); that no other means of financing the Infrastructure Improvements is available to the City; and that the payment of funds by the CIC for such Infrastructure Improvements will assist in eliminating blight within the Project Area and is consistent with the CIC's Implementation Plan for the Project Area adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law ( "Implementation Plan "). These findings and determinations are based upon the following facts: a. The Infrastructure Improvements will provide infrastructure needed to serve the retail and commercial businesses, and residences, within the Project Area; b. The City has explored and sought other funding alternatives for the costs of the Infrastructure Improvements; however the City does not have funds available for the costs of the Infrastructure Improvements, and no other means of financing are reasonably available; c. The Infrastructure Improvements will eliminate blight by providing adequate land and facilities for public access to and use of the Project Area, and stimulating new commercial expansion, employment and economic growth within the Project Area; and d. The Infrastructure Improvements are consistent with the Implementation Plan, as the Implementation Plan's goals include the elimination of inadequate infrastructure, the provision of adequate land for Infrastructure Improvements, and the strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area; and one of the programs of the Implementation Plan is the improvement of public infrastructure and facilities that are of benefit to the BWIP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CIC hereby authorizes the Executive Director to enter into a Fifth Amendment to the DDA with Catellus for the Sale and Development of a Portion of the FISC and the East Housing portion of the Naval Air Station substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the Fifth Amendment to the DDA (on file in the City Clerk's office), subject to any minor conforming, technical or clarifying changes approved by the Executive Director and CIC Counsel. The Executive Director and Secretary of the CIC are hereby further authorized and directed to take such further actions and execute such documents as are necessary to carry out the DDA, as amended by the Fifth Amendment, on behalf of the CIC. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CIC hereby authorizes the Executive Director to enter into a DDA with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the sale and development of a portion of the FISC substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants set out in the proposed Alameda Landing DDA (on file in the City Clerk's office), subject to any minor conforming, technical or clarifying changes approved by the Executive Director and CIC Counsel. The Executive Director and Secretary of the CIC are hereby authorized and directed to take such further actions and execute such documents as are necessary to carry out the proposed Alameda Landing DDA on behalf of the CIC. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in special 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 CIC this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission