Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004-05-18 Packet
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - MAY 18, 2004 - - - 6:05 P.M. Time: Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 6:05 p.m. Place: City Council. Chaers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: Two. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - MAY 18, 2004 - - - 6:40 P.M. Time: Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 6:40 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City. Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /Authority 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 LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Be rly Jo. .• �yor Chair, A m:.1= 7 'i: Reuse Redevelopment Authority and CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - MAY 18, 2004 - - - 7:15 P.M. Time: Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 7:15 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Authority 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 LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of Case: Determination of Restitution - Juvenile Court Case No. 187780 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - MAY 18, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Authority on agenda items or business introduced by Authority may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Authority. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2003. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Authority) ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA AGENDA TUESDAY 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 rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 18, 2004 - - - - 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 6:05 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:40 P.M. ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 6:50 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7:25 P.M. AUTHORITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:31 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring May 17 -21 as Alameda Bike Commute Week and May 20 as Alameda Bike to Work Day. 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 Social Service Human Relations Board Meeting held on April 22, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 4, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting held on May 6, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 for June 15, 2004. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2004. 4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of Ransome Company for Littlejohn Park Upgrades, No. P.W. 03- 03 -06. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Procurement for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement; [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] and • Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $235,356 to Alameda Paving and Excavating, Inc. for Said Contract. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Street Lights for the Webster Street Renaissance Project and Park Street Streetscape Project Using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 and to Set a Public Hearing for June 1, 2004. 4 -H. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Board approval of a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building at 2515 Blanding Avenue into seven work /live studios with associated parking and landscaping; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. Applicant: Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC. Appellants: Ed Murphy and Pat Bail. 5 -B. Public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (TM7387) for the subdivision of a vacant site into twelve lots: ten for the construction for -sale single - family homes; one for the construction of 52 affordable housing units; and one to be landscaped at 2391 Fifth Street. The site is located at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center site on the north side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway within the M -X, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zoning District. Applicants: Resources for Community Development and Alameda Housing Authority; and • Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Map 7387 at 2391 Fifth Street (The Breakers at Bayport). 5 -C. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing to Release the ACET Parcel from the Catellus Development. 5 -D. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing that would modify Catellus' Obligations to Meet Certain Requirements of the Master Plan by Allocating Those Obligations between ACET and Catellus. 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) 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. 7 -A. Discussion of United States Coast Guard's proposal to install a floating barrier. [Councilmember Matarrese] 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - MAY 18, 2004 - - - 7:31 P.M. Location: Council Cbaers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6, 2004 and May 4, 2004. AGENDA ITEMS 1 -A. Recommendation to consider allocating funds for the potential property acquisition and development for the proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. 1 -B. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Rite -Aid). [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] 1 -C. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Launderland). [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 10, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers From: Re: James M. Flint City Manager Regular and Special City Council Meetings, and Industrial Development Authority and Community Improvement Commission Special Meetings of May 18, 2004 Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings, and the Industrial Development Authority and Community Improvement Commission Special Meetings of May 18, 2004. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2004. It is recommended that the members of the Authority accept the minutes of the Meeting of May 20, 2004. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring May 17 -21 as Alameda Bike Commute Week and May 20 as Alameda Bike to Work Day. At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring May 17 -21 as Alameda Bike Commute Week and May 20 as Alameda Bike to Work Day. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 Human Relations Board Meeting held on April 22, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 4, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting held on May 6, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board Meeting held on April 22, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 4, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting held on May 6, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal year 2004 -05 for June 15, 2004. It is recommended that Council set June 15, 2004 as the scheduled public hearing for establishing the City of Alameda's spending limitation for fiscal year 2004 -2005 and that the Clerk make appropriate notification. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2004. It is recommended that Council accept the City's Investment report for period ending March 31, 2004. The average yield for the investment portfolio is 1.92 %. 4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of Ransome Company for Littlejohn Park upgrades, No. P.W. 03- 03 -06. It is recommended that Council accept the work of Ransome Company for Littlejohn Park improvements. The project came in under budget. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing an Open Market Procurement for Contract Services for Fiscal Year Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement; [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] and • Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $235,356 to Alameda Paving and Excavating, Inc. for Said Contract. Adoption of this resolution authorizes the City Manager to by -pass the formal bidding process and awards a contract to an experienced local company for various sewer repairs. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Street Lights for the Webster Street Renaissance Project and Park Street Streetscape Project Using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. It is recommended that Council authorize the purchase of streetlights for the Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 Webster Renaissance and Park Street Streetscape projects at a total estimated cost of $230,000, using the State of California's competitive bid award program. Both WABA and PSBA have approved the street lights. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the city of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 and to set a Public Hearing for June 1, 2004. It is recommended that Council approve this year's PSBA and WABA reports pursuant to their existing BIA agreements with the City, adopt a resolution of intention to levy an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area for FY 2004 -05, and set a public hearing for June 1, 2004. 4 -H. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Board approval of a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building at 2515 Blanding Avenue into seven work /live studios with associated parking and landscaping; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. Applicant: Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC. Appellant: Ed Murphy and Pat Bail. It is recommended that Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information, act to uphold the Planning Board approval of a use permit for the first work /live studio project in Alameda at 2515 Blanding Avenue, and adopt the related resolution. As described in the staff report, the appellants argue that the work /live project violates Measure A. The Planning Board and the City Manager recommend allowing the project to proceed because work /live units are not dwelling units and therefore are not regulated under Measure A. 5 -B. Public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (TM7387) for the subdivision of a vacant site into twelve lots: ten for the construction for -sale single- family homes; one for the construction of 52 affordable housing units; and one to be landscaped at 2391 Fifth Street. The site is located at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center site on the north side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway within the M -X, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zoning District. Applicants: Resources for Community Development and Alameda Housing Authority; and • Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Map 7387 at 2391 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 Fifth Street (The Breakers at Bayport). It is recommended that Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information, act to uphold the Planning Board approval of a Tentative Map for a 12 lot subdivision of a vacant site located at the former FISC site, and adopt the related resolution. This is for the "The Breakers at Bayport" planned development. 10 lots would be developed for the construction of for -sale affordable, single - family homes within duplex structures, one lot for the construction of 52 affordable rental housing units, and one landscaped lot. 5 -C. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing to Release the ACET Parcel from the Catellus Development. Final passage of this ordinance approves amendment to the Development Agreement for a mixed use development project area at the former FISC and East Housing site which releases the ACET parcel from the Catellus development. 5 -D. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing that would modify Catellus' Obligations to Meet Certain Requirements of the Master Plan by Allocating Those Obligations between ACET and Catellus. Final passage of this ordinance approves amendment to the Master Plan for a mixed use development project area at the former FISC and East Housing site. This will modify Catellus' obligations to meet certain requirements of the Master Plan by allocating those obligations between ACET and Catellus. 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. 7 -B. Discussion of United States Coast Guard's proposal to install a floating barrier. [ Councilmember Matarrese] Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 5 May 10, 2004 Planning & Building Services staff sent a letter to the United States Coast Guard describing the City's concerns regarding the proposed floating barrier. The letter is included in this agenda packet. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6, 2004 and May 4, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6 and May 4, 2004. AGENDA ITEMS 1 -A. Recommendation to consider allocating funds for the potential property acquisition and development for the proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. It is recommended that the CIC allocate $2,000,000 in funding for potential property acquisition and development for the proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. The proposed expansion would increase revenues to the City's General Fund. The funds will not be spent until the CIC has approved a DDA and taken project approval steps. 1 -B. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Rite -Aid). [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] It is recommended that the CIC hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution authorizing acquisition of the Rite -Aid leasehold interest by eminent domain for the Bridgeside Shopping Center Redevelopment Project. 1 -C. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Launderland). [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] It is recommended that the CIC hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 6 Councilmembers May 10, 2004 authorizing acquisition of the Launderland leasehold interest by eminent domain for the Bridgeside Shopping Center Redevelopment Project. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 20, 2003- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7:43 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr and Chair Johnson - 4. Absent: Board Member Matarrese - 1. MINUTES (03- ) Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 21, 2002. Board Member DeWitt moved approval of the Minutes. Vice Chair Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Board Member Matarrese - 1.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Industrial Development Authority The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Industrial Development Authority May 20, 2003 Proclamation Whereas, bicycling to work alleviates traffic congestion, reduces air pollution, and decreases fuel consumption; and Whereas bike -to -work days have proven effective in converting drivers to bicyclists and educating citizens about the environmental and health benefits of biking to work; and Whereas, the City of Alameda encourages its citizens to bike to work to improve air quality and promote the health benefits of cycling; and Whereas, cities and counties throughout the Bay Area are promoting Thursday, May 20, 2004, as the Bay Area's Bike -to -Work Day, 2004; and Whereas, Bike. Alameda, a local organization, is sponsoring, in partnership with the City, a variety of events supporting Bike -to Work Week; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 -21, 2004 as 2004 ALAMEDA BIKE, COMMUTE WEEK and proclaim Thursday, May 20, 2004 as ALAMEDA BIKE, -TO- WORKDAY, 2004. FURTHERMORE, I commend Bike Alameda for their partnership with the City, and encourage all of our citizens to join with the City of Alameda and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Bicycle Coalition, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and RIDES for Bay. Area Commuters in supporting the Ba 1Area's Bike-to-Work day. Jo son 111''s Proclamation 3A .�ii�1 5 -18 -04 '.)l,l '(■a∎ UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING THURSDAY- -APRIL 22, 2004- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3; Board Members Bonta, Chen, Currie, Wasko, Werner and President Franz - 6. Absent: Councilmembers Gilmore and Kerr - 2. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) A Work Session was held to discuss: 1) the Social Service Human Relations Board's (SSHRB's) 2003 Accomplishments and Goals; 2) Work Group Accomplishments and 2004 Work Plans for Alamedans Together Against Hate, Assessment and Awareness, Family Support Work Group, and Sister City Work Group; and 3) the SSHRB's directions for coming year. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:45 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 Social Service Human Relations Board April 22, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 4, 2004- -6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained a briefing from and gave direction to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 Unapproved Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - MAY 4, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:49 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. None. AGENDA CHANGES (04- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the Citywide Retail Policy Report [paragraph no. 04- ] would be continued to June 1. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (04- ) Proclamation declaring the month of May as Older Americans month. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Chuck Monedero, Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board President, and Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager. (04- ) Presentation by the Police and Fire Chiefs on Emergency and Disaster Preparedness. The Police and Fire Chiefs gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the information is very important; the public needs to know the City is well prepared; requested that the presentation, possibly translated into video format, be put on the City's website; stated the schools should be made aware that the City has a system in place; parents should know children will be safe in schools. The City Manager stated staff would place the information on the website. Vice Mayor Daysog suggested information about the resource be placed in each schools Parent Teacher Association's letter. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Police Department works with schools on campus safety and security. The Police Chief responded that every fall the Police Department Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 1 meets with staff at each campus; School Resource Officers are at the middle and high schools all the time; staff works closely with the Alameda Unified School District on a variety of levels. Mayor Johnson stated some schools have implemented videotaping and metal detectors; inquired whether the City is comfortable with the campuses in Alameda. The Police Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there is a gun problem in schools, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the schools and public buildings have yearly exercises in order to be prepared for a real emergency. The Fire Chief stated the school handles its exercises and drills; the Fire Department is involved to ensure evacuation times are met; the Department will test City buildings in the future. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that introduction of the ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 2 -8.2 [paragraph no. 04- ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of April 19, 2004 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 20, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending March 31, 2004. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2005. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to approve the purchase of two vehicles for the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 May 4, 2004 ( *04- ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amended and Restated Agreement for Operation, Maintenance and Management of Public Marine Transportation Terminal Facility and the Assignment and Assumptions regarding certain licenses, permits and obligations under Planning approvals for the Marine portions of the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal. Accepted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13701, "Approving the Proposed Revisions to the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Agreement." Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13702, "Authorizing the City Manager to Submit Grant Applications to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for All Available Grants under the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act and All Available Household Hazardous Waste Grants under the California Integrated Waste Management Act for the Period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2008." Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13703, "Adopting the City of Alameda Measure B Paratransit Service Plan." Adopted. (04- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal) and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation Commission) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow for Staggered Terms; and Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five to Four Members. Not introduced. Councilmember Kerr stated that introduction of ordinances should be on the regular agenda; the tradition for boards, commission and committees has been for the Mayor to make nominations, with Council choosing whether or not to approve the appointment; the recommendation includes that two specific members be eliminated from the Transportation Commission, which should fall under the Mayor's prerogative for nominating. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of having the matter [introduction of ordinance] return allowing the Mayor to choose what to do [about elimination of members]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired how the terms were staggered for the Public Art Advisory Committee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 3 The City Clerk responded that the Recreation and Parks Director had the Committee hold a random drawing to select terms; three members have four -year terms and two members have two -year terms. Mayor Johnson stated that said practice follows tradition; the recommendation tonight seems complicated; that she would prefer to follow the normal process for staggering terms; four members should have the same term expiration, which differs from the other three members' term expiration. Councilmember Kerr amended the motion to include the Mayor's wish to have the term staggering conform to the usual process of other boards and commissions. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with the amendment to the motion. The City Attorney inquired whether Council would prefer the ordinance be introduced tonight and changes be made at final passage. Councilmember Kerr stated the motion was to have the ordinance return for introduction. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,697,550.91. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Resolution No. 13704, "Appointing Heather Tremain as a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Public hearing to consider DAA04- 01 /MPA04 -0001 for Advancing California's Emerging Technologies, 555 Mitchell - Mosley, the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Site northwest of Mariner Square Loop, Tract 7179. The Applicant requests: 1) Development Agreement Amendment to release the ACET parcel from the Catellus development; 2) Amendment to the Catellus Master Plan to modify Catellus's obligations to meet certain Master Plan requirements by allocating obligations between ACET and Catellus; and 3) Amendment to the Catellus Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) mitigations to modify Catellus's obligations to meet certain MMRP Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 4, 2004 requirements by allocating obligations between ACET and Catellus. The site is located within the MX, Mixed Use - Planned Development Zoning District; (04- A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single - Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing to Release the ACET Parcel from the Catellus Development. Introduced; (04- B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment •MPA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing that would modify Catellus' Obligations to Meet Certain Requirements of the Master Plan by Allocating Those Obligations between ACET and Catellus. Introduced; and (04- C) Resolution No. 13705, "Amending the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Catellus Mixed Use Development (State Clearinghouse #1998112078) Modifying Catellus' Obligations to Meet Certain Requirements of the MMRP by Allocating Those Obligations between ACET and Catellus." Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing and there being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Kerr requested an example of the responsibilities that will be split between Catellus and ACET. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager stated the Master Plan requires development of a Master Sign Plan for the entire business park; the responsibilities would be divided to require that ACET prepare a sign plan for its project and Catellus would submit a sign program for the balance of the development when the first building in the remainder of the business park is built; Catellus is required to create a program for carpooling /ridesharing; ACET would be required to create a program, with Catellus presenting the balance of the program when the remainder of the business park is first developed; ACET will be required to contribute its prorata Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 5 share for the traffic signal which will be installed at Mariner Square Loop. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether staff and Catellus are discussing sign design with ACET. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the three party Disposition and Development Agreement gave Catellus the right to review design and have input. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinances and adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired when construction would begin. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager responded a groundbreaking ceremony would be June 4; however, construction would not begin until September. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there is a reason Harbor Bay LLC is involved in a number of large delinquencies. The Finance Director responded that she is not aware of any dispute; the company simply happens to be delinquent in paying for business licenses. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why there would be a sizeable late fee without showing license payment is past due. The Finance Director responded that the license was probably paid late and only the penalty payment is outstanding. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Recommendation to accept the Citywide Retail Policy Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 6 Report. Continued to June 1, 2004. (04- ) Ordinance No. 2922, "Approving and Authorizing First Amendment to the Multiple Site Lease Agreement between City of Alameda and American Tower Corporation for Development and Operation of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities on City Property at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and Fire Station #4." Finally passed. Councilmember Gilmore moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (04- ) Frank Anderson, Alameda, stated that he was speaking on behalf of himself, George Wong and their neighbors; stated the vacant lot at the corner of Peach and Calhoun Streets is being used as a construction staging area for Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) to lay fiber optic line; AP &T's subcontractor stores and breaks up asphalt and cement on the site; there is constant noise and dust in the residential neighborhood; the activities pose an environmental health and safety concern; Mr. Wong's children have experienced increased sinus problems within the past month; another neighbor wears a mask when outside. George Wong, Alameda, showed photographs to the City Council and submitted a letter to the City Manager. Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Wong work with the City Manager. The City Manager stated staff would follow up. Councilmember Kerr stated the type of activities mentioned are not allowed in the Zoning Code, even in the M -2 [General Industrial] district; construction activities must happen in an enclosed building in the M -2 zone; a contractor tried activities near her residence and was shut down and moved out promptly; that she cannot imagine a City department violating the Zoning Code. Mr. Anderson stated activities have been on -going for eight months; the area has been used as a staging area before; future activities should not be tolerated; the site should be used in a positive way. (04- ) Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA) and Operating Engineers Local 3, stated ACEA has authorized its Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 4, 2004 negotiating committee to call a strike or other work action should negotiations with the City falter; the defensive action was necessitated by the City management's departure from the agreements that exist between the two groups; by law, the City has an obligation to offer terms and conditions of employment and to advise, inform and invite discussion when it seeks to deviate from existing terms and practices; said departure forced the union to pursue its current agenda; the union has filed for judicial remedy at the Public Employee Relations Board, which has jurisdiction over such matters; it is disappointing that the City would choose to spend scarce resources to defend an action that would cost less than the potential future litigation if the City would relent to the condition that exists; ACEA remains committed to negotiate. (04- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, thanked Vice Mayor Daysog for sending a letter last month. (04- ) Michael Miraglia, Miraglia Catering, submitted a letter to Council; stated next week, he will be forced to take action against the City; outlined the history of his interactions with the City regarding the Officers Club. (04- ) Cheryl Miraglia, Miraglia Catering, stated Miraglia complied with all promises until the City indicated it would no longer honor the agreement; outlined legal activities; stated that she would like to meet with the Council to discuss the matter. (04- ) Pam Telschow, Alameda, discussed bus shelter safety concerns; stated there should be more opportunity for public comment before a decision is made. Mayor Johnson stated there would be opportunity for more public comment. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like certain issues addressed when the retail policy document returns to Council; Council directed that new retail not take away from existing businesses; although the Council did approve going forward, the document assumes Enterprise Landing will go in; the report does not adequately cover capture of retail leakage in areas which will be developed, such as the Del Monte building and new construction at Alameda Point; the study of Enterprise Landing indicated 40% of retail leakage occurs because Harbor Bay Isle residents are closer to Davis Street; when the big box shopping center goes in on Hegenberger, it will be more convenient for Harbor Bay Isle residents, who have the highest disposable income; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 May 4, 2004 said residents probably will not travel all the way to the west end; Alameda Point Community Partners consultants put out a report, which made more sense than the two quoted in the retail policy document and should be incorporated. The City Manager stated the issues would be addressed as part of the presentation on June 1. Mayor Johnson stated there would be a presentation on June 1; there might be other comments and questions; the report does not need to be accepted June 1. The City Manager concurred with Mayor Johnson's comments. Mayor Johnson noted the report would result in changes to the General Plan. Councilmember Gilmore stated the most important recommendations from the report are already underway; the Webster Street business district would not lose any ground while the City takes time to review the policy. Vice Mayor Daysog noted the retail environment is competitive; other shopping centers could come on line; the Council should determine what is best for residents. The City Attorney noted the matter is on the agenda and could be opened or Council could provide comments to the City Manager prior to June 1. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Target might want to locate in Alameda, but could end up in Oakland; issues need to be considered and reviewed. Mayor Johnson and the City Manager requested comments be submitted to the City Manager. (04- ) Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether a policy is in place regarding placing introduction of ordinances on the Consent Calendar. The City Manager stated, traditionally, introduction could be placed on the Consent Calendar; if there are concerns, the ordinance can be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Kerr stated that she understood ordinances were generally on the regular agenda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 4, 2004 9 The City Clerk clarified final passage has always been placed on the regular agenda; however, introduction could be on either the Consent Calendar or Regular Agenda. The City Manager stated staff could no longer place introduction on the Consent Calendar. (04- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a letter from Pacific Shops about a floating barrier project in the Estuary; requested staff review the matter and provide a report to the Coast Guard from the City on the proposal; provided a copy of the letter to the City Manager; stated the proposal seems ill advised. The City Manager stated staff would follow up. Councilmember Matarrese requested the matter be placed on a Council agenda for discussion. Councilmember Gilmore stated if the City would be talking with the Coast Guard, the wake issue should also be addressed. The City Manager stated staff would follow up. Councilmember Kerr stated one question is what would happen to the barriers when the Coast Guard docks its cutters. Councilmember Matarrese stated the barriers would increase the wake problem. (04- ) Mayor Johnson wished Councilmember Gilmore's daughter a happy birthday on behalf of the Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:13 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 May 4, 2004 10 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY- -MAY 6, 2004- -5:59 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:17 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- ) Written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's Special General Assembly Meeting. Councilmember Kerr stated that a special meeting was called to discuss whether the League should continue pursuing its initiative to amend the State constitution to protect City's revenues or begin negotiating with the Governor. Councilmember Matarrese nominated Councilmember Kerr serve as the delegate and Mayor Johnson be the alternate. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 6, 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: From: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers James M. Flint City Manager Date: May 4, 2004 Re: Set Hearing for June 15, 2004 for Establishment of Prop 4 Limit 2004 -2005 BACKGROUND Local governments must annually establish their appropriation limit pursuant to Section 7900 et seq of the Government Code which implements SB 1352 passed in November, 1979. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The legislation provides that the public be given adequate notice of the Council's intended action to set the appropriation limit. It is proposed that the Prop 4 hearing be set for June 15, 2004. The document supporting our calculation is then made available for public review up until the spending limitation is adopted by Council on June 15, 2004. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the: 1. City Council set June 15, 2004 as the scheduled public hearing for establishing the City of Alameda's spending limitation for fiscal year 2004 -2005. 2. City Clerk make appropriate public notification. g:finance \counci I \051804 \prop4hearing. doc Respectfully sub fitted, Zenda James Finance Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Report 4 -B CC 5 -18 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: May 4, 2004 Re: Quarterly Investment Report for Period Ending March 31, 2004 BACKGROUND Attached is the investment portfolio for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 DISCUSSION The attached portfolio reflects the invested operating funds as well as the various assessment district funds. These investments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the City's approved Investment Guidelines. The City of Alameda's expenditure requirements for the next six months are more than sufficiently covered by two sources, namely (1) anticipated revenues from regular operations and (2) liquidity of current investments. FINANCIAL IMPACT This report is provided for information purposes only. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council accept the City's Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2004. Attachment g:finance \council \051804 \investmentl stqtr Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: Zenda James Finance Director `Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service' Report 4 -C CC 5 -18 -04 N cC 2 U 0 Z_ 0 Z W Q O w Wcc 1 Q Q 0 WW 0 U 0 0 LL 1- K 0 0 1- z W 1- u) w W Z '0 1,-'1` O:n,NI co 0 a 4 1 - 4 : O O In 10 0,0'I- o1N' O OIM0 �0) N': CO 0 (17 N I 'O)i;(3) ;� W (O,N O) .0 M O ! V (O CO : CO °• U)', co co In O f.10(O�', N N. 0 OIO'W cola O) (O IIO N ,(O '' O O).O co O)'N MOOT. O):O) 0) 0 II�'iCO O CO CO � I N Efl,� n N.I IN V o to to I'o O 1" 'M 0I0 (n O)10 , I(OI 0 0 • Ni 001�'n O u)'oO,((7 1 7.7 o.z }' o 1u> 1 co 'w''Q'IW • > �!w v3. LL •c o . •o 'lo to O 0 N ' LO 1,- M M O, :0 1-,J m''M N OW 00 Z Q U" N- N IICO' O. U O O N (n.0 r- 0 • IW ~, 0_ • 0 10 1Inl, N. n 0' H O O '.(O O I- O (f1'I-!,N J O '00 N o OO, pp } co cc) N C,4 C010 '.1� Z OIN �. w O'O'M CO 0'10 O' OIO 01 , 'W c) MIM O N O', 10 N 'M �', 2 0 �,,M O,M':O OI Z N 0 'Q M'N (0 CID ',O hw' �. () > 6o Lc) N Z Z Y, e» w 1 Z w 1 z 0Z 0 u_ _71 'LL 0 W W ›- z O, I= (/) ;WW 1- 107 cc�E- I0 CC d a1C0 H W a la � I }'�'H ZIZ 02IIZ Q} 2'I 0) W 12 (n U U 1—I W 01 I— • R z (n U q▪ ,� w o BIZ LL L.L ~ • Q • J , J i ix p ', 0 W In V 1, FQ.. I W W > 0! 0 IULL!2 —liJI 11- ._ w. 1 O ZI cn w! W Z F- 0I 9: O • N' , Q' w 0' 0 • 0 • Z • g wl 1- 0 '?I CO Z 0!. W 1 �, w. 0 414 H Z W W W Z' -3 1- W; O a o Z! o cc U'! • IO Q 0 W WI 'N ›- a J U' Z 0 w Q U H w. Q} = m 1- > }>} J 1Z u- W z 10w<' U > 0' - W Wi (1) o=Q'' J U LL 2100 0 } Id U w J Z 0 1 W L• WL LL } M 2 H 0 W W W W CC, O 0 >laLci > c0D1 � ~Z�'I 0 0 W w Q - I— 0 0 H U 0 C7 (7 } L- W W ?r� �F- U U > Q Q 0 00 N M 2 O Q z 0 Z w w 0 W w Q Q 0 LL W 0 = U 2 0 0 LL 0 0 H Z W 1- V) w > 2 W W Y'J < Q Q > w w J 0 > •o U) z'Q Z'ID "'TAU W.J Q H O W CO a W. 0 0 0 a JII w BOOK VALUE z 0 10_ 0 CC 10 U) W 0 N O' M0 C). CO M M olo .0 0 LL. (pl0 O CO :0 0 .co • 0;0 '0 0 i0.0 10:H 0 0'. 0 01 0 0 0 (O o .I I 0' O 010 • I0 0 010, • i O IL 10)0) 0 M CD CO OD 0 O O (� 0 (TOTAL AND AVERAGES .O O) 010 O 0 O)' U) c0 '.O OIO O OI O'. O' O 10)''I O' O O' co . M' O co '' O O N'V u)l u)I O co ' co '' u7 N.O cA c0' � co r`10 c0 O, O.O 1 c N!M O O co OIO O N'h 1c0 N c) co �,N co co N h V I- h In c0 �!NN '.O N co n co oo'r�',6 N I� O (D'N 6''O Lci O 6 csi cric0 W,V U) tri ni 6 cO O N u) M,M MlM N,O M 6M 6 < (0 O M'0 �r 'V' CO 0 O 0I0 0 OI NIO CO co) co r• n r-- co O' O N .'. c(), CO CO, CO CO CO 1') V U7 h M'6'O O N f",� cI) co.. 'O 01co ?IOJ .-'. 00'CO N'u -) NICO V �ICn co oo oo .-,6 N co. .V N'N'N M O O)' O cf)',0 O M O', N. 0) V10. 0 V <r:6 o :(OO � N CIO IA N 6 V ice! coin (0(0 ,-'10, co OIN M 0 OIMIO',�I� O V'(O II�,N NN'NI ,-IO) O O f� co I�''O, CV co 1�'1� cn MIco co :co:n.1:6 co :co O 7'COIO LL) cn co c0 O.cn 'c00)'uo �'r- fV 010 O.o.co 0 cn 'NIcn goo co quo N,OV co:N 010,0',0) 0) 00 (0 O co MIU)'c0 •- 'N r 01010:0:0 0 00.0'0 6:010,016 0 ',0 010 0 .0.0'0'0:0 :0'10 0)'010 010 10,0 01)010(0 0'.O ON 'N 0 I 0 • 0 010'0 OIO 0 10 0,0.0 ''IolO' O O'100',O 010 O OIO O O 0'.0,0 O 010,0 OI0 O 000000000000000000000000000000000 O :o O'O OI0 O'O 0 ''0 0'0''01,0'10 0!0 00'',0 OIO O 0'10 O 01c).0.00.60:0 010 O 0'0 O'Ol0' :0 Ol0 0 'Ol0.O O,0 0'0 Ol0 0•0 :0, 0 O 0,0 0 l0 0', O,o.o O'�O 0•0'0 O Ol0 go 010010.0110'. O' O Ol 0, 0 O :Ol0 O 0',0 O O OIO OI0 '0 :010.0 0..0.0.0.0 O o i3O c[) Ol0'O OIO 0 '0 0''0 0!u) O'.O 010.010''0 o O'O'' :O (0) 0 0 O'0I0 010 O O!O o O 0) N O (4 N 0:0 01010) 0 0 x 0 :0I0I.- 1n10'u) 0 O 0114 NIO N 0)!10 0 h',0 0'0',0 (0) CO :CO 0, .-.("N.0,0 010 I'1f)'ln:10:N,O.O,OIO 0:0 NIO V O,N 61O.OI611--10'O'O O :M',u) • • • • 0)' O'.V IO W ''.--'N•N'�N N 0) 0) <'',0'' c0.CD ;OD ;0 OOD :O CO 0,(D'(0 (D . -- 0 :O,W 0 0 0 0) 0 O'0), - N10) O - N. 0.Ol0.0lL0 0 N'.hll� W'W'N V r„I. r` O NIM'M Ml,(O N,r'N' :N O.O ,- ,- CO V N N'IMIM'M.7 •�1, <(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0 11-',Is N't` n (0(0(0(0(0(0(0 CO .0)' :0)'0,0 O ,- a- .- .- • OD OD < - N. CO Cr) '. CO 0)� N. 0 M•M M 0D N. O 11- CO M'O O) O',!'- 0)1".0 0)'0 Is O O 7. M N 0 M.0 M CO :h'(0.0 (D O O'.0'. c0 O1, u) O'', co N -, OIO O, W',(0 00 0)'0). V' co . co O_W 016.6 co _,O • alO CO co M (O 010 0',0100,0'.0 O O OOW r'. CO O '� t`',ti'1- .M_.0,� 0) C1) • co. p''6 T". .V_ co. 6 6 .- .-: c� co. O ._ .- N,I� • vvvOU) 0.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U c 0,7 u_ Li O'6 6 6 u O O O'O 01096 O 0 0 0 0 O'0 'o o,o 0 0 0,0 0'0,0 0 010'0'0 0 0'0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 1 CO 0;00i,m0 o co1 (0) 0)0)!x'0 -'I o 1 o 1 m'�> Q,� ' ' Q,Q QIQ'o Z •0'- O O O O O 6 uou-) O RICN O N'O'O L(') O.-I� O r cco•, - :M M � "t• N. M CO N M M N N (M OD CO M', M N M. M.7 :a O'O O O 9 O'O,O:O�O'.O 910 O 010 0 O > b c c c c c o _ ) a. a1 c • � ' ' > o 1 O' c.0 0 c ) ' 7 7 a) a) 7 7 7 0 0 0 0) 0 ) 10 0 ) c)' a) Z0'-) ?(n,(n, ?'QQQIQ-)OZOOO'�LL O). N.M N N.N. -'O M'I O,N (O ,N N N '. M'.V co V', N M', CO 1 VI NI CO M' N,' MI M. N N CV :•4-' N N'N''N O.O1c:',:9!.99199) '. OIO O 010,0I19'0I0 O 0!09010''.0 NN M'' CD '- N'0',r' :M ,-I� N!N A'N'N r'(A Q1 • 0 0 0'0 '0 <'0'0 0 ''''0 l'0 0 ''0 '0 0'0'0 0.0 0!0 '0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O u) NI 0.1 CO I O O'6 �CO N'CO '�M ,f"N..�CO CO '(O O 6'6' N_, O'N 0 0) OD CD CV CO f` OD ��0 O 0 O 4 0�< 0. V,6 0I V' co . h 0) -' co M1V 10 (0 .,(0 h O c0 0) O ',M CV co M'0 c0 m. O I� r' 0) O 00 co cs,'NIV M NICO W OR CI) M'O) O''O OIN LO CCC000 CO N'O'h LO CD N.: CO .OD I. 'Cr CO Is 't CO .0 CV r N. 0 f� V'� �'N ��'N N' C Di M N N N M CV M N NAM 4'M N M O 00'0'0'00000'1000100, 010000' 000000001000'01000'00''0001000 O O.O' OIO O O',O 010 0 0'.0,0 O' L0,0 0 O',O LO O'O O.O O O,0 .0'O 0.0'0 O'0' OIO co 010 O co O Is 0 N. (0 0 N N 0 0 0 LO �O'IO',p f` O O (. 1,0 Ns • t` N N n OICO 0 O CD O 1'10 0 O O O O N n NCOO O O u)'H- O ' O O N OO LO C O , O CO O CO CO M 00 N - 0 0 (0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 (4 (0 0 (0 (0 0 0 (0 co co O, NV MAO O co N N'IN O M M MI, r.l M M!M'. M' CV !,- N N N- 'I O CV '(V N N N.: I N NI (0 LO V'N O O O • M O M h O' V N co N'. --0 V' W O'h,(D (0 co (O cs, .co co,N co IV (D 'IS O M'. CO O c0 IO N O'M'. -.0 �'I�'N .-If0 Q1 O'.N'. Q) O IL h V10 CO CO CO ',O 0),N Is "'a CO I V'10 O'CO �,�, r-- r-- O V I(V M' ' 0)I Oi •', CD ,h O CO ' t` 1. NIN N1.0) O N!O (0 < O) O). O' 0) co 16 c0 0)', 6' co '. N 11 � co L0 (0 v'6 O O r• O O (O, O MI CD M CO (`')'11 10 61,N t` V"(0 M h N 0 CO 'O CO CO CO NIM .0'O O M'.c0'0) 0: 0 O CO N V CV (O O cOIMIN CO CO CO I1` 710 Ns O N CO O.� M �!V N -W N3 C') M N 6.0 •- 0'.- 10 N dojo' I(O N. IN h' N 100 OI M_, N 00 0010 6 (O ,(O cO ''N f` n (016 c0 0) c0 !O O' 0'- (. 4IL0 (0 7 0 N 6 (0 0'O 10'.0 O'',1�'cV N I6 001.0'6 1".'- O'O,1-0'(0 h h O IW O. 0) O. '(O .O O c00'.O W!6'O .-,hIN O OIO'. 6IOO' V' N.O O O.00 O NO 'O N OIO O'6CDIOIO co_ LO CO 1 �. U)10 IH Fri H 0 0'10 1Z, ZIZ! W W 0 W:0: OI 0 z J,� ce''cc', w Z U) m -m W.(n l W W U) IQ'' O ZZ ❑ g W'�'' W w 1W- J ZOW m IW'. ,Q U)!'- Q' }' < ? < '7 �'. w a z WI(n m =',N calm W .:71(.0 'C[ W LL CO (0 O'�.0,ai''LL 010 0 O''LL 0 J W ZIO U` QQ U`I0Q J.Q > 0 0 ° 01Z:( wiH O'1OIH O 0 m m m �Im m 2,2im mica m CO m��,� 0 Z 2,LL = 2 =,U).= =1212 21= 21LL V) 2 Z Z.2 Z N 'LL LLILL LLILL LL,DLL LL1LL',LL LLILL'LLLL 71LL.LL LL,LL•LL LL CO W 0 0 Z Z Z in 0 W la pmEt w 0 (n m' WWZg��W o °mWZ gW H H Y J W W H Z'02 H Y 0 J H 00CC 4: a 0(0 w 0 W O WZZQ0 J JZ0 JiHZQw> Uz O } }"QQ }ZmQ }MI -IcC >- U)CCCC2U)mmCCOQ ZLL. 2OD(n i010)LL' d w z H OJ OJ d JINN ((o z aQFW- N''.1W- 0 Q w w m z 0 0 w Q vw Qm QwzZz W m et Ct Q Q'2 2 Ct m m1!m W Q m,H Q l< Q Ct J H H 2'2 J J H J J0 H 2 J m. 22 2 H TILL D cn D LZL LL LL LL D LL LLILL D u. 12)..,D LL LL LZL D CIw w� 2 Q 0 a w o= U 2 0 J 0 LL H a 0 a 1- z w F- w w > z 0 0 N 0 2 0 ccz 0 z w pw wce <0 LL W O = a' (7)P,_ O J 0 LL O a F- Z W 2 (J) W > Z F- WW ¢ • > :CD :�.OIM m171W(O i,- CD ;LID h- MICO 00 :N O m O CO m �t'U) I- c0 '0 CIm •-' CD :CO 'W M'.0) ,- t— W'. M CWO 10 "1(0 V M U) 0 s- M O N CC)'0 COD U)1- '(A101Eo,m) d.10 M O O C'(MO WO j0 0 W m 0 0 V (W+) (OO U)iLO O) V '.O '.h h C M M v N, 010 N�11W O m N 0 n C 7 n W I(0 N O V W 0) C O (O 0) n O U) 0) M (O 'IC U) 0) .N fA f` O W N W O m W N M 'V' C -� 0 M V w..,-NN ' 0) V_ V_ CO,N N N C4,-06 EA'I , fA U9 O'I 69 1Wo 0 M 0) V''W W' CD:O M C N N O O 0 • W O WI O Mm o I,O M W W M CO V M U C) ,O,� • N 0 0 U1 'IM',� M N Ih N,'N U) �,W C M '.N 0 o WOW W h'6910 6910) V':(O M O M:O 0 W h o U)IU) m• ',� O !� ,-IN. W M M Tr N OIm ,C O M N O 'W'(O N O '',V Zvi W',7 0) C O N m O''. (O 0) N- O W: 0 (O�n'. 0 O. '� N Tr 'NV_ , -- M V 069 N N 0) d' V 69. M co Efl EA to) 0) N Ea co • O O M O N- c6 06 (0 CI- M,-0)01 N- ND C N N C W W O ) U M w 0 IY 0 m M N M W CO M 0) N N N O M 00 69 O N CDC o 'O 01,0'0110'0 0'10 ',O 010'0' :O 0.0 ',O 1I 0 :010 O 010 O O O OI CO 0 CD :CD WIm 0) 0) m 0)0) 0)W'W 0)0) W'm'm co ;CD CO m m mIW :CD IW 010,0) m NIW WICD IN'. p1 W U) O CD 7 N O) Tr 14):0 U) O CD O 0) CD n co (000 N O a 0 U) O co O,O co co N In Ft O',M N O M O 14) h CO 0) (01 0) O 0 U) 0 N CC) UJ _ V CO O C'J' 0) In (O 0) 61.-11 , W yy M N I 0) h 0) 0) O W IW N D1 MIT W 1 W M W O I ' uD O 0 14 N O g U) I O U) O' W O U) W � !C N O V O (() • m (+) N C) (i) O) O U) O (0 O 0) o W W c0 (0 0 N 0 M 0 m h C O) (0 0) O O O 0711 1 N W'W N W 0 U) M 0 C COO C • N N 00) CO ) O CD CO Ui c6 c '01 v- :N. N y- N V- N' N V- 'V} CV): (O 0) CO 0)1: IN C' I CO. o 1 ' ri', I i. .. m co W it O10'O C , 1� 0)0) CI IW (n0 0m,m O,m'm 110 V O I 0 '5'710 0 0 0 0 0I V' 0,0 710!0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 V'0 0 0 0 0 0 0t 0 0 0 0'0 V,(O 0 0 0 M 'd'1V (O 0 0 0 0 •0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 01o',o1011o.o O o 0 0 0!010 0 0 o O.O o 0 0 0 0 o 7 o O o M O o 0 0 o O 7 CL. a1 a a a a a a a'I a a1 a a'', a' $1 Si. a' a' all a s al, a a a a a a n, a `o_ a 0 a a a w ,1 a1 a `m a a1 m a a1 m', m • 515¢ 515 5 5 1151.5 aa;a5 :51.5 111Q51¢ 555115¢ .55 .5z¢ 51p7151¢�¢¢,755117 O !010 0 0 0,0 0 010 0 010 0 0 00'0 010 0,01!0 010 0 0'0 0v) 0 0 0 0,00 5; 0110 o a.o 010 0 0 0'0 O'o1C') N 0)'m NIO 4')'' ' 7 ''. 7! 7 .7 7 17 7 7 7 17 7 7 M 7 7 7 7' 7' V 7 7 7 7 7 0 C10 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 01010,0 OIO 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 0 O O C C C C' C C C1 C C C C C C C I 0 0 0- C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CO co co co CO 1 co I CO m m CO m co co CO : co co m m co co co 1 co CO CO co co CO co co CO CO co N1, N 1,N N ('( -.4 NIN''N N N N N icy iN N N N N N NI.NININ N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 M 0 0 0f 0 0 0 7 7' 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 OIO' >. C C C U O C I C C C C C C C C 1 C C4)( CO CO m m N CO m C(i CO m m m CQ CQ N N N N N Cp Cp NIN N N N,N!N N NIN • 0 0!0100 0 0 ':0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 '0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 -e-e: .0I27) 12D 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 O ',O I O O :O ,O O .O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 M O O D 10 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0)!M10 'W .O O,'O m m m W O N N N W O CO N N O N N N N N W N 0 N,N CO C N N N' N N O N O N N COI IO ' 'C9.�,V ol'!M -'O O M M M M 7 m m m U) O M C C 7 W C W W W W W O C C W U) W W W 0 M C W N W M M W W 0) o ' O'Ui l,0 o,o'o' :o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0.o� -,0 0 0.6 U),o 0 0 010.7.0 0 0 0 o co O o 0 7I,- 0 o LCD 1o1CO3 .- ,0 d 10 O, '0 010 00'10'',0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,010 0 o�Oi0i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O1IO O!O'o olo O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O 'm IU) O 'm', O!O',O W m 01 0) O N N N W O W NIN O N N N N N W N O N N M O N N CO 'N NON M N N CD 0 ':M1v7 0I,MIO7',O M M M M? m m m U) O M W'W 7 W W W W W W W O W C C L W W U) M C C N W W M'W W ml0 • 1611U)lo o!o to 1, 010 0,0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 a 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 W O,O O,M 0 0 0 7 ,- O O,U) 0 0 0 0 O'O. • U) O W O ::."2. (O O U) O W N m: 0) 1, 0 CO' M 1 0,- ''' M I 0 W 2:g W W N U) , 0 M 0 0) 0 co 0) n (O M W N U) O W 1� N CO (O W N O V N U) ', co co W O CO M • O .-- Cl O 0) (DLO C N, n' 0 U) M ,'. (,) N h W,N U7 7 W CO M (0 0 co W -W 00,-WW (.2: ',...j h m M U) N, M M m O U) `4.- COI 0110',0 VII�'.0,� W .-J� au M M W M'1 U) U) C'(� N O O 7 M N" W M O 69'tt ,I.: a O- N-1' W W (00 W O O :01, O 7 W' 7 m V N C 0) U) ' W O M^ O C M W U) r, T"' CM 7 C C N 7 W 0 U) M U) C 7 �. W1 W.N ',m • -4 N IW EA 1� W O NI1 O C m O U) 0)- W N O C N EA W M N m m m.0: . ,01CC:V 101 N 7 - M VO 6C9 M CND N O a VO CND co N M co ,N 7 W W fR N m M W W'. �'1 Ui I c6 W 0 '�. 69 6N9' 0 C'4 M 1� I_ I Z'�� 0 . ) O W 0 0 1.- 0 > z z z I Z Z F-', o()WLL LL 2 F- W W 0 q UJ U ¢ d cc W W O W - 11 lL W W F- (n .0) 00 '1() CO CO 'I(n(n(0(0(/)(A 22 fX o0002.00000Z0 000(000000000000 a,' 0 J J J J J J J J J J J J >> '7 J 0 D W J 7 0 0 0 O 0 D D 0 W 0 0 0 F- F- D 0 0 0 0- 0 D N a LL 0_110_ a a a a a a a a 0 0 a a LL LL O U U 1 LL LL E U LL LL LL L L L L L :� W,��1�7���������OZO W j�o)) (0 CO (~i)(0 CO W N ~OD0)) ▪ >-CO UU)) D))Z Z CO 0) 0_0 U))Z 0 OD pa ,� 2Itn CO OD O O O N O "� F O Z Z z Z Z z z z F Z Z Z W Z Z Z tr z z (qq(�, Z Z o ¢ WI¢ ¢11¢ W W W'W W W W W W W ▪ W O w w z z z z Z Z Z W Z Z Z Z Q Z Z Z w w~- ~ O~~ `� Z Z N 00''. W W W W W t< W W W (<u W W W W W W W 'IF MICC W:W M F M CC W W W M Y Y Y w w W w w l- w w W W w> w w W W w W W W z z W W o W W O W,W 400`'1 F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0❑ 0 0 Z 0 0 0 ❑'p ZI 10 ¢:0 0';0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ 0) ¢ 0 55 > » » > > >>I-.>>> � � >>0>>>>1-0; 0 O OF- '00.00 C9C9000007.2 ZF- 000Z00000.W OOOOO 000¢¢OOZOO-OOn Z Iw Z ;ct (Y .w ¢ x cc w w ec r Y x } } } o z LL w w- a a w w a w w w w 7 a 0 w w LL w d z ¢ 0 '¢ W¢¢¢¢¢W W W o W¢ a' a a a a a w F- a a d d 0 d rI d ILL LL LLILL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL a Z ZZW ZIn F(-100)0n0(0000000 H(YYYYYYYQYZY YYYYYYYYYYYYn W 1 J L'/: -I JJJJJJJ J !J WIJ JIJ J J J J J J J J _J-i2 2 Z Z - Z Z Z Z Z M Z n Z Z m Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z m Z ZZ - Z Z m W> W W 1W W W W W W W W W : q> W m m Z m m m m • m ▪ m • m • z Z z 2 ;F�z��1�3�������nnaJz Z2! 2 2! ZZZZOZWZZZZZZZ(i(iz• m F- m m m m o¢- 1 m m m m W LL ¢D I I} }I} }} } } } } } } }} 2 2 1 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0¢ 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 M Y. 0 :z zIz ZIZ z Z z z z Z Z z Q z z Z I0 Z zzzz m Z w.z Z Z Z Z z Z 0 0 z z 0 z z 0 z 1z LJ i0) 1 CO m m m m m CO CO CO U O U g 2 m> DO >>>>> M 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 O O 00 ¢I> > O 00 WI¢ Z O 0 Cr) W 10 Cr) Iw w cn () 0 ce !F- F- (n z z w 1- co w z T. O LIJ W � 2Q 0 W o= U � 0 J 0 LL H 0 a H z w 1- r w w z City of Alameda California May 4, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council I have reviewed the City of Alameda's Investment Report for the quarter ending Marcy 31, 2004 and find that it complies with the Investment Policy established by my office. The interest of the Council is always appreciated. Sincerely, Kevin K nedy City Tr- asurer KK/fl "Dedicated to ExceOence, Committed to Service" Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer Office of the City Treasurer 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 220 Alameda, California 94501 510. 748.4560 • TDD 510. 522.7538 Business 510. 748.1898 • Fax 510. 748.1896 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 4, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ransome Company for Littlejohn Park Improvements, No. P.W. 03 -03 -06 BACKGROUND On August 5, 2003, the City Council adopted plans and specifications for Littlejohn Park Improvements, No. P.W. 03- 03 -06. On November 18, 2003, the City awarded a contract in the amount of $167,200, including contingencies, to Ransome Company. The project included replacement of park lighting, repaving the basketball courts, landscaping two park entrances, removing two planters, repairing two planters, installing two benches, and installing a drinking fountain. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. Extra work orders were issued for additional work required to bring the basketball court up to grade, and additional irrigation work required at the new landscaped entry areas. The final project cost, including extra work orders, is $161,788. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP #02 -04, with all funds coming from a Community Development Block Grant. Funds not expended for the construction work will be used to reimburse documented Public Works staff costs. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gryormameda tublicWorks apartment Public Works W for Y ,! Report 4 -D CC 5 -18 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 May 4, 2004 The City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, accept the work of Ransome Company for Littlejohn Park Improvements, No. P.W. 03- 03 -06. Respect 757mitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN:JW /dl V O114J z dorC By: John V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin \council\ 2004\ 050404 \acceptcouncilLittlejohn.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Crivoffilarneda Publ(Works impartment Public Work, J kfor You! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 4, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to Authorize Open Market Procurement for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) and Award Contract in the Amount of $235,356 to Alameda Paving & Excavating Inc. for Said Contract BACKGROUND In December 2000, the City of Alameda went to bid for Annual Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement. There were no bidders. On June 17, 2003, Council approved plans and specs and authorized bids for Annual Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement. At the time, one bid was received from J.W. Riley & Son, Inc. and on September 16, 2003, Council awarded a contract to J.W. Riley & Son, Inc. That contract was terminated effective April 26, 2004, due to unsatisfactory performance. Section 3.15 of the City Charter states, "The Council, by four votes, either with or without prior advertising, as hereinabove set forth, determines that in its opinion the public work or improvements in question will be performed more economically by the City without contract, or that the materials or supplies can be purchased at a lower price in the open market, or that great necessity or emergency requires immediate action, and thereupon proceed to make such public work without contract and to purchase materials or supplies in the open market." DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Public Works Department is mainly staffed to handle sewer back -ups and repairs to sewer laterals and mains to a depth of five (5) feet. For work at greater depths or work that requires special equipment due to site conditions, such as fine sandy material, we rely on contracting services. While the City is able to employ contractors during emergencies, it is more cost effective to have one contractor working on these projects to ensure consistency with City standards and to provide a timely, reliable response to avoid potential health and safety issues. Glyafwanwda Ppublic Works apartment Public Works Works fwY u! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Reso 4 -E CC 5 -18 -04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers May 4, 2004 Following is a brief description of the contractor services required to perform annual sewer point repairs and asphalt concrete pavement replacement for the City of Alameda: (1) Sewer Main/Lateral Repairs (2) New Sewer Main/Lateral Installations (3) Manhole Type A Repairs (4) Asphalt Bridge (5) P.C.C. Gutters, Driveways, Sidewalks and Curbs (6) Replacement of Traffic Striping/Pavement Markings Alameda Paving & Excavating, Inc. (APE), a City of Alameda contractor, has been in business in Alameda for 21 years. The City has utilized APE for emergency sewer point repairs and asphalt concrete pavement replacement for the past 20 years. APE possesses the skills, experience, background and knowledge to provide the services required. APE personnel have an extensive background in excavating and paving in Alameda and are equipped to handle excavating and trenching in Alameda's unique soil conditions. APE has a proven track record in responding to emergency situations, most recently at a cave -in on Otis Drive within the hour and with all the necessary material and heavy equipment within 12 hours. Due to the City's lack of success in finding a qualified contractor under normal formal bid procedures and the potential health and safety issues that could occur without a contractor available to supplement City staff, the City Manager requests that the City Council by passage of a resolution by four -fifths vote declare sewer point repairs and asphalt concrete pavement can be done under open market procurement. The proposed contract with Alameda Paving & Excavating, Inc., provides for renewal of the contract by the Public Works Director for a period of up to four years upon satisfactory performance and with mutual agreement of both parties at the same terms and costs as the existing contract plus an annual increase based on the construction price index for the San Francisco Bay Area appropriate to the trades associated with the work as reported in the Engineering News Record (ENR) for the previous calendar year. The Contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The services outlined above cost approximately $275,000 per fiscal year. Funds for these contractual services are budgeted under the Sewer Service Fund, 602 - 66010. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlemeda PublicWorks Der melt Public Works Work, for You! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 3 May 4, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize open market procurement for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement (requires four affirmative votes) and award contract in the amount of $235,356 to Alameda Paving & Excavating, Inc. for said contract. MTN/PJC:dl Respect fy submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Pete J. Carrai Public Works Superintendent G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \051804 \Sewer Point Repairs.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtvafitlameita IublicWorks eparbnent Public Works Wolin for You! E d • 0, 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING OPEN MARKET PROCUREMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR SEWER POINT REPAIRS AND ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT WHEREAS, there is an ongoing need to make emergency repairs to sewer mains and sewer laterals; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is mainly staffed to handle sewer main and lateral repairs to a depth of five (5) feet; and WHEREAS, certain repairs at greater depths are required; and WHEREAS, certain repairs are also required in special conditions; and WHEREAS, it is desirable to have the repairs completed in a timely, reliable and consistent manner; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has been unsuccessful in finding a qualified 0 , contractor under normal formal bid procedures; and WHEREAS, Section 3 -15 of the City Charter provides that the City Council, by four affirmative votes, can authorize sole source procurement of services if it determines that in its opinion the materials or supplies can be purchased at a lower price in the open market, or that great necessity or emergency requires immediate action, and thereupon proceed to make such public work without contract and to purchase materials or supplies in the open market. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby authorizes, by four affirmative votes, the sole source procurement of contractor services for fiscal year sewer point repairs and asphalt concrete pavement replacement. Resolution #4 -E CC 5 -18 -04 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 4., 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Street Lights for the Webster Renaissance and Park Street Streetscape Projects Using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award BACKGROUND On May 4, 2004, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the Webster Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. This project will provide many streetscape upgrades including new street lighting. The City of Alameda also plans to construct the Park Street Streetscape, No. P.W. 10 -02 -13 during 2005. This project also provides for new street lighting. The design committees of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) have chosen the same lighting for each project. The recommended streetlights, consisting of luminaries, poles, and related hardware, are manufactured by Holophane, Inc. This manufacturer provides the only luminaries made of tempered glass, which has a high aesthetic appeal. The steel poles also have a traditional, architectural appearance. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Purchase of the streetlights would be through the state of California's competitive bid award program. The Public Works Department has purchased vehicles and other commodities using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Awards and found the process to be quite efficient and reliable. Staff recommends purchase of the street lights for the project at this time and specifies that the contractor will install the City - furnished materials. The reasons for this recommendation are: • Providing City — furnished lights is an acceptable to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), who is monitoring the project. Typically Caltrans specifications do not allow the use of sole - source materials. • Purchase of the streetlights by the City will also avoid a contractor's mark -up on the materials, usually 5 -10% of the price. • Purchase at this time will utilize a guaranteed price for the streetlights, which could be substantially higher after November 2004. • The streetlights have a long lead -time for fabrication; ordering early will assist in keeping the projects on schedule. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlameda P�ublicWorks apartment PINic Works Wokefo Yo„! Re: Reso 4 -F CC 5 -18 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 4, 2004 A total of 80 streetlights would be purchased. The materials for each project would be ordered separately upon the submittal of bids and award of the construction contract for each respective project. Storage space for the streetlights is available at AP &T's storage yard off Webster Street. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Webster Renaissance and the Park Street Streetscape projects have been declared Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with section 15301, minor alterations to existing facilities. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The Webster Renaissance project, CIP #00 -15, and the Park Street Streetscape project, CIP #02 -75, have funds available from the Transportation for Livable Community grant and from Redevelopment funds. The total estimated cost for the 80 streetlights is $230,000, and includes taxes and delivery. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the purchase of streetlights for the Webster Renaissance and Park Street Streetscape projects using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. Respeclly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: John V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer MTN /JVW:dl G:\PUB WORKS\PWADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004\PurchaseStreetLights. WPD Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GryafAlmrda tublicWod s apartment Public Works W lsfw You! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF STREETLIGHTS FOR WEBSTER STREET RENAISSANCE PROJECT AND PARK STREET STREETSCAPE PROJECT USING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, PROCUREMENT DIVISION, COMPETITIVE BID AWARD WHEREAS, the City of Alameda will construct major street upgrade projects on Webster Street and Park Street; and WHEREAS, new streetlights having traditional and architectural appearance will be a part of the Webster Street Renaissance Project No.P.W. 07- 02 -07, and Park Street Streetscape Project, No. P.W. 10- 02 -13; and WHEREAS, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), and Park Street Business Association (PSBA) have chosen the streetlights manufactured by Holophane, Inc.; and 0 z WHEREAS, purchase of the streetlights manufactured by Holophane, Inc., will be m through the State of California's competitive bid award program; and WHEREAS, consistent with the authorization granted by Alameda Municipal Code section 2 -61.7, the Public Works Department has purchased vehicles and other commodities using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, 0 Competitive Bid Awards and found the process to be efficient; and WHEREAS, purchase of the streetlights by the City will avoid the contractor's mark up price; and WEHERAS, purchase of the streetlights at this time will utilize a guaranteed price for the streetlights, which could be substantially higher after November, 2004; and WHEREAS, streetlights have long lead -time for fabrication, and ordering earlier will assist in keeping the projects on schedule; and WHEREAS, Webster Street Renaissance Project and Park Street Streetscape Project have been declared Categorically Exempt under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), Section 15301; and WHEREAS, Funds are available from the Transportation for Livable Community grant and from the City Redevelopment fund to purchase 80 streetlights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda authorizes the purchase of the streetlights for the Webster Street Renaissance Project and Park Street Streetscape project using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. Resolution #4 -F CC 5 -18 -04 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: lN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \051804\street light reso.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: May 5, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council James M. Flint City Manager Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 and Set a Public Hearing for June 1, 2004 BACKGROUND On May 17, 1989, City Council established a Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Park and Webster Street business districts. The City contracts with the Park Street and West Alameda Business Associations (PSBA and WABA) to administer BIA funds collected from businesses in their respective areas. DISCUSSION The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 requires Council to appoint an advisory board to make an annual report and recommendations to Council on the proposed expenditure of BIA revenues. The appointment of the advisory board is accomplished through annual adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment in which PSBA and WABA are appointed as 2004 -05 advisory bodies for their respective geographic zones of the BLk. PSBA and WABA have prepared this year's reports pursuant to their existing BIA agreements with the City. The reports (included as Attachments A and B and also on file with the City Clerk) itemize activities, revenue and estimated costs for FY 2004 -05. Attachment C provides information that will enable business owners to determine the amount they will be assessed. The Council may approve the reports, or modify them and approve them as modified. After report approval, the Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for FY 2004 -05. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT There is an impact on the General Fund in the form of Finance Dept linent staff costs to process BIA billing and expenditure. BIA billing is done concurrently with Business License billing. Revenues from the BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the promotion of business and similar eligible activities. The impact on the General Fund will be handled through Finance Department staffing proposed for funding in the FY 2004 -05 budget. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Reso 4 -G CC 5 -18 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 5, 2004 Page 2 MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05; and 2. Set a public hearing for June 1, 2004. Respectfully submi Director By: JMF /LAL /SGR:ry Attachments cc: Economic Development Commission Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association sse Mana -ment Analyst Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004- 05\First staff report - intent.doc Parking and Business Improvement Area/Assessment/2004 -05 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council bcc: Zenda James Laura Gwynne Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004- 05\First staff report - intent.doc Parking and Business Improvement Area/Assessment/2004 -05 May 5, 2004 Page 3 Business Association April 28, 2004 Sue Russell Management Analyst Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Russell: ATTACHMENT A As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report and accompanying 2004/2005 budget for our Association. We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2004/2005. We have provided a description of the activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget. This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted this week and will be confirmed at the May 5, 2004 board meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we anticipate 04/05 BIA revenue of $79,300, and a carryover of $7,000 resulting from more than anticipated 03/04 revenues and cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 04/05 BIA budget to $86,300. We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material. Sincerely, Lars ansso President Park Street Business Association 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302 (510) 523 -1392 Alameda, CA 94501 A California Main Street Program FAX (510) 523 -2372 PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 INTRODUCTION: The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is recommending a BIA budget of $85,800 for the Park Street Business District for fiscal year 2004/2005. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 03/04 as well as a carryover from the 03/04 budget, which resulted from more than expected revenue and cost containment by PSBA. The formulas, budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of Director and committee meetings between December, 2003, and May, 2004. BUDGET: The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line with the National Trust's Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities. BOUNDARIES: We are not proposing any changes this year. ACTIVITIES: Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2004/2005. These activities are designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District. Several projects are continuations from the 2003/2004 fiscal year. In addition, we will be breaking ground on our Streetscape Project in January. Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Design Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Streetscape a. Assure continuation of the streetscape project b. Conduct public meetings to gain approval of final plans c. Ensure MTC timeline is met d. Monitor construction progress e. Begin Phase II planning and funding 2. Design Guidelines a. Solicit sub - committee members b. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria c. Write guidelines d. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval e. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council 3. Sign Ordinance a. Review New Draft b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance c. Review Final Draft d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. f. Review completed ordinance g. Submit completed ordinance to Council h. Council Approval i. Begin Enforcement 4. News Rack Ordinance a. Review New Draft b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance c. Review Final Draft d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. /City Attorney f. Review completed ordinance g. Submit completed ordinance to Council h. Council Approval i. Begin Enforcement j. Review Santa Clara Ave. Newsstand Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Econ -Revi Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Identify Locations For New Businesses a. Work With City of Alameda b. Work With Commercial Brokers c. Physical Survey of the District d. Provide district vacancy list on a monthly basis 2. Ordinances a. Newsracks — assist with council passage b. Signs — assist with council passage c. Vacant Buildings — begin discussions with city staff to beef up ordinance d. Work with city and ACI for better working garbage contract 3. Maintenance a. Continue current level of service b. Request additional grant funds from the City of Alameda c. Ad one additional maintenance person d. With additional maintenance person, implement 4 days on/3 days off overlapping work schedule 4. Security a. Coordinate with Police Department implementation of private security in the district b. Contract with private security company Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Membership Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Conduct Meetings a. Mixers b. Special Meeting (October) c. Programs at half the meetings d. Holiday Party 2. Awards a. Continue current awards program 3. Welcome/New Members a. Update New Members Packet b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members c. Greet new members with packet as they move into the district 4. Kiosks a. Review effectiveness b. order new signs if appropriate c. install new signs if appropriate 5. Newsletter a. Continue mailing newsletter every month b. Update mailing list Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Promotions Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Continue Special Events a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend) c. Art & Wine Faire (the first weekend in August) d. Classic Car Show (2nd Saturday in October) 2. Promotions a. Traditional shopping guide to continue for general distribution b. Web site (newly improved) c. Work with ACLO on cross marketing idea d. Work with U.S.S. Hornet on cross marketing idea 3. Print Advertising a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages (defines the district and our members) b. Continue SF Chronicle campaign c. Continue Holiday campaign d. Continue Alameda Sun campaign e. Continue Alameda Magazine campaign f. Possible Oakland Magazine campaign 4. Cable Advertising a. Continue Spring Festival ads b. Continue Art & Wine Faire ads c. Continue Classic Car Show ads d. Continue Holiday campaign ads e. Continue month of March campaign ads 5. Holiday Promotional Event a. two weekend program b. Two weekends prior to Xmas c. Friday Nights (stores have to commit to staying open late) d. Saturdays (free parking, entertainment, attractions) 6. Radio Ads a. Solicit bids for special events b. With West Advertising determine best proposals c. Implement selected proposals d. Determine effectiveness of event ads e. Determine if radio ads are appropriate for other marketing opportunities throughout the year METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget: See Exhibit A CONCLUSION PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District. Exhibit A Park Street Business Association 2004/2005 BIA Budget Submission INCOME: BIA Projection $79,300 Accumulated Carryover $7,000 Total Income: $86,300 EXPENSES: Personnel Services Executive Director $0 Maintenance Person $4,000 Administrative Assistant $28,200 Payroll Taxes $10,000 Workers Comp Insurance $10,900 Sub Total $53,100 Membership Services Meetings /Training $2,000 Supplies $1,200 Printing $525 Newsletter $5,000 Postage $2,800 Sub Total $11,525 Indirect /Overhead Accounting/Audit $7,000 Rent $11,775 Utilities $1,400 Equipment $1,500 Sub Total $21,675 Total Expenses $86,300 ATTACHMENT B WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -5955 westalameda@yahoo.com PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2004 - JUNE 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for the Webster Street Business District FY 2004 -2005. The formulas, budgets and proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The draft Business Improvement Area (BIA) Budget will be presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting May 19, 2004. PROPOSED CHANGES WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area. ACTIVITIES The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2004 -2005. These activities are an update of the 5 -Year plan and have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings, and by request. WABA's mission is to use these activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda. The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Carry forward from the 2004 -2005 budget is estimated to be $ 0. The estimated BIA revenue for 2004 -2005 is $ 31,900. The following are activities proposed for 2004 -2005. Several projects are continuations from the 2003 -2004 year. 1 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING • Integrate 5 -Year Plan into community activities related to Economic Restructuring • Facilitate development of high- potential properties • Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses • Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects • Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity • Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda • Finalize and implement a Strategic Economic Development Plan • Proceed with Phase Two of the Property Based Improvement District concept DESIGN • Collaborate with the City on the implementation of the Webster Renaissance Project • Work with consultant and the City in the refinement of Design Guidelines for commercial buildings • Develop beautification program • Help members with the Storefront Assistance Program • Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects SPECIAL EVENTS • Develop additional promotions for the district • Produce advertising for the Association and businesses • Produce year -round Farmers' Market • Produce Concerts at the Cove • Produce annual Halloween event • Produce 3rd annual Peanut Butter & Jam Festival PUBLIC RELATIONS • Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda • Maintain contacts with key media representatives • Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses • Develop and implement an improvement campaign for the district 2 ORGANIZATION • Manage the administrative activities of the organization • Expand community and business participation with WABA • Develop and implement a fundraising plan • Organize and host business and community events for members • Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff • Produce and distribute WABA newsletter • Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents • Distribute information door -to -door • Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in WABA's activities METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget, see Exhibit A Assessment, see Attachment C CONCLUSION WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown that the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business district. 3 Exhibit A West Alameda Business Association 2004/05 BIA Budget INCOME: BIA Projection Accumulated Carryover Total income EXPENSE: Membership Services $31,900 -0- $31,900 Meetings & Training 4,000 Supplies 1,400 Printing 1,400 Postage 2,500 Newsletter /website 5,000 Committees 2,000 Equipment 2,000 Business retention, attraction, & marketing 1,500 Subtotal 19,800 Indirect /overhead Accounting/audit 6,000 Rent /utilities 2,100 Liability insurance 4,000 Subtotal 12,100 Grand Total 31,900 * ** ATTACHMENT C ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON - RETAIL FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients and/or do not operate retail stores. Accountant Advertising Ambulance Answering service Architect Attorney Building maintenance Business services Construction Consultants Contractors Counselor Credit Unions with restricted membership Decorator Electrician Employment Engineer Gardener Graphic arts Handyman Health/Medical professions Importers Insurance Landscape Mail order Manufacturer Manufacturer's /sales reps Mortuary Newspaper publishing Nursing facility Painters Pest control Plumber Property management Real estate School/Instruction Security Stockbrokers Tax consultants Travel Veterinary Wholesalers Misc. professional /office 1 AREAA= $114.00 AREA B = $ 75.00 PRO -RATED FEES A B $114.00 $ 75.00 JULY 114.00 75.00 AUG 105.00 69.00 SEPT 95.00 62.00 OCT 86.00 56.00 NOV 76.00 50.00 DEC 66.00 44.00 JAN 57.00 38.00 FEB 48.00 32.00 MAR 38.00 25.00 APR 29.00 19.00 MAY 19.00 13.00 JUNE 9.00 6.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service. Alarm and fire extinguisher service Appliance service Athletic/Health Club Auto glass Auto upholstery Auto wash/parking Auto repair Barber Beauty Cleaners Electronics service Furniture repair Hotel/motel Keys/Locksmith Laundromat /laundry Marine service Pet services Photography studio Printing Shoe service Storage Tailor Tattoo Upholstery 2 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 114.00 MAXIMUM = $1,512.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 75.00 MAXIMUM = $742.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $114.00 $75.00 114.00 105.00 95.00 86.00 76.00 66.00 57.00 48.00 38.00 29.00 19.00 9.00 75.00 69.00 62.00 56.00 50.00 44.00 38.00 32.00 25.00 19.00 13.00 6.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product. Alcoholic Amusement Antiques Appliances sales Art Auto dealer Auto stereo Auto supply Bakery Bar Bicycles Books Clothing Coin Computer sales Drug/variety Electronics sales Fishing Floor coverings Florist Food Furnishings Furniture Gasoline stations Gift Hardware Hobby Jewelry Magazines /newspaper sales Marine sales Market Medical supplies Music Nursery Office supplies /equipment Optical supplies Pet supply Product rentals Restaurant Shoe sales Sporting goods Thrift /used merchandise Theater /club 3 AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 227.00 MAXIMUM = $1,512.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 114.00 MAXIMUM = $ 759.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $227.00 $114.00 JULY 227.00 AUG 209.00 SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE 188.00 170.00 152.00 132.00 114.00 95.00 75.00 57.00 39.00 18.00 114.00 105.00 95.00 86.00 76.00 66.00 57.00 48.00 38.00 29.00 19.00 9.00 Video Other retail goods ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS /UTILITIES FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Banks Savings and Loans Credit Unions operating to the general public Utilities AREA A & B = $ 759.00 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2004 -05 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 1, 2004 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter "Area "); and WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit A and C, respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to O take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the L" furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance 0 rr of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and 0 I I- 0 0 WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City") and the Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association (hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area (hereinafter `BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2003 -04 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2004 -05. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2004 -05; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or change in boundary for June 1, 2004, at which time written or oral protests may be made; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing. Resolution #4 -G CC 5 -18 -04 • '• • • ' • EXHIBIT A: Park Street geographic zone R-1 :11_0:R.41 •Ail,1111 ia 11-51717-177P-g7 • " • A •i Hi ;;1.11_,Lqun =-9 11! • 00 • / 9=1 eez-711; EVr 00 illgz.n" 444 rj " 11111 dfingeteu e . 144:1-P4 - .gtatti r• rountenimi 1E11 I IrSIMMIIIIMEMnfilk PARK STREET COMMERCIAL AREA A:. Benefit Area B: Benefit Area=3- EXHIBIT B: Webster Street geographic zone • rr C . 0A- • R•, o \OAr C{ C_1 • • WEBS TER STREET CIAL ARBA,?i tiw.J A: Benefit Area . A A B: Benefit Area B \ �. EXHIBIT C LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area: Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St. Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St. Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. 2501, 2521 Park St. Eagle Ave. 633 -707 odd/even Webster St. Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Haight St. 629 -728 odd/even Webster St. Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd/even Webster St. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St. Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St. Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd only Park St. 1400 -1499 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St. odd/even San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St. Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2599 odd/even Park St. Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St. Times Wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St. Page 1 of 2 G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004- 05 \LISTA &B.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05 Webster St. 1345 -1999 odd/even Webster St. Memo: Benefit Area "B " Zone Only Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St. odd/even, 1600 -1999 Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St. Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St. Page 2 of 2 G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004- 05U_JSTA &B.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda May 13, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 123473 - 124013 E12195 - E12296 EFT 087 Void Checks: Amount 2,714,144.32 56, 799.22 40,000.00 69446 (10.00) 69992 (22.00) 71282 (22.00) 72195 (230.00) 72215 (60.00) 73455 (1,190.00) 75070 (36.00) 75467 (202.00) 75855 (56.00) 79376 (228.00) 114484 (35.00) 121184 (159.00) 122782 (10,643.14) 122886 (475.40) 123542 (245.90) 123599 (448.20) 123636 (464.00) 123731 (12,736.70) GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: " Finance Director Council Warrants 05/18/04 2,783,680.20 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley BILLS #4 -H 05/18/04 City of Alameda Memorandum Date: 11 May 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Public hearing to consider appeals of a Planning Board approval of a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building at 2515 Blanding Avenue into seven work/live studios with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. Applicant: Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC /Appellants: Ed Murphy and Pat Bail. BACKGROUND On 12 April 2004, the Planning Board unanimously approved a Use Permit for the first work/live studio project in Alameda. Janet Koike, the owner of 2515 Blanding Avenue (former Clamp -Swing Building), requested the permit to allow the conversion of the 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios with associated parking and landscaping. The application is fully compliant with the Work/Live Ordinance approved by the City Council in 1998 (Please see Attachment #3 for a detailed project description). On 15 April 2004, Edward J. Murphy appealed the approval and on 20 April 2004 a second appeal was filed by Patricia H. Bail. These appeals challenge the City's interpretation of Measure A. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Mr. Murphy's basis for the appeal is that the use permit violates Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter. Ms. Bail's basis of appeal is that that project does not comply with Measure A due to multiple units when Measure A only allows two units per building to allow control of density; that the Council cannot pass an ordinance to supersede Measure A; and that the Work/Live Ordinance is illegal. In March of 1973, the electorate voted to pass "Measure A." The measure was enacted and became Article XXVI of the Alameda City Charter and created section 26 -1 and 26 -2. Section 26 -1 states, "There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda." (As explained in greater detail below, work/live studios are not regulated under Measure A because they are not "dwelling units. ") Section 26 -2 provided an Re: Public Hearing 5 -A 5 -18 -04 exception for the replacement of Alameda Housing Authority units and the proposed Senior Citizens low cost housing complex (i.e., Independence Plaza.) Immediately following the adoption of Article XXVI, on May 29, 1973, the City Council adopted ordinance number 1693 for the purpose of interpreting and implementing section 26 -1 of the Charter. With this amendment, the Council clarified that duplexes would not be considered multiple dwelling units under section 26 -1 of the Charter. AMC section 30 -51 -3 states: "Multiple dwelling units, construction of which is prohibited by this article and by Article XXVI of the Charter, shall not be deemed to mean or include: a) Dwelling, one - family; b) Dwelling, two - family... " In March of 1991, the electorate enacted a second Measure A and added Section 26 -3 to the City Charter. That section states that the maximum density for any residential development shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land. (This project is composed of 7 work/live spaces on a 15,840 square foot lot.) In 1998, the City Council adopted the Work/Live ordinance (AMC section 30 -15). The ordinance was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17958.11. There the State Legislature found that older commercial and industrial property was an untapped resource in the State. To utilize this resource, the Legislature authorized the creation of work/live units to make these units economically viable. Significantly, the Legislature found that work/live space was primarily a place of work and that all residential use of such space was only an accessory use. The City's interpretation that work/live spaces do not constitute dwelling units is based on the State Legislature's determination that work/live units are primarily a place of work, with residential use merely as an accessory function. In adopting the Work/Live ordinance, the Council found that "(t)he proposed zoning text amendment [Work/Live Ordinance] contains appropriate restrictions, such as limitations on the portion of the studio that may be used for dwelling purposes, the required integration of the work and live areas, and the regulation of work/live studios as a commercial use which will require a business license, to ensure that work/live development will be a commercial /industrial use." Section 30- 15.1(f) of the Work/Live Ordinance further states: "(n)o portion of a work/live studio shall be considered a "dwelling" as that term is defined in section 30 -2 (Definitions) and 30- 51.1(Multiple- Dwelling Units)." Thus, because work/live spaces are not dwelling units, they do not conflict with Measure A since Measure A only prohibits multiple dwelling units. As for section 26 -3 of the Charter, even if Measure A did apply to work/live units, this project would be compliant as it contemplates 7 work/live units on a 15,840 square foot lot. In conclusion: * Work/live spaces are commercial in nature. * Work/live spaces are not dwelling units under Charter section XXVI. * AMC section 30 -15 is consistent with, and based upon, State law. * The work/live ordinance (AMC section 30 -15) does not conflict with article XXVI of the Charter. * This work /live project complies with AMC section 30 -15 and does not conflict with Article XXVI of the Charter. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information and then act to uphold the Planning Board approval of Use Permit, UP -03 -0019, as provided in the draft City Council Resolution. Attachments: Cc: By: Respectfully submitted, Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director Ju s . A ' schuler S 3 pe ising Planner 1. Petition for Appeal by Edward J. Murphy 2. Petition for Appeal by Patricia H. Bail 3. Staff Report prepared for the Planning Board meeting of 12 April 2004 with attachments 4. 2/23/04 Memorandum from Judith Altschuler responding to the 2/17/04 e -mail from Ed Murphy 5. Minutes from the Planning Board meeting of 12 April 2004 6. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.11 1. Edward J. Murphy 2. Patricia H. Bail 3. Janet Koike 4. Thomas Dolan G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \j -May 18\ blanding- workliveappeal_05- 13- 04.doc PETITION FOR APPEAL TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA City Hall 263 Santa Clara Avenue #190 Alameda CA 94501 This petition is hereby filed as PL ii i W& B&4& D (Planning Director /Zoning. Administrator /Planning Advisory Board) Ci fE COJAiC J . (Planning Board or City Council) an appeal of the decision of the. which QJRAPJTh D Board /Historical (Denied/Granted/Established Conditions) U t' 03 00 1 et at 0�5 1 5 kAW b v& AvENvE for a (Application Number) (Street Address) Design Review X Use Permit Subdivision Map Rezoning Development Planned Development /Amendment for n on 2. 01+ (Specify Date) Variance Plannned Other (Specify) The basis of the appeal is: 111* USE pekMir V1 oZ.,4TE5 A1Zrt c,L.E 24, Pr thg ALAM EIDA cht.1 CH4ITtR. (If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side additional sheets.) Ebumizb a. MUR I1 (Name) P Y ‘,1 1ANx s C 1�cC (Address) Ak,4 M 6DA , e Q 98501 (City /State) or attach (Telephone (Telephone - Home) ************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** ? * *� (For Office Use Only) Date Received Stamp - Work)51O 5111257 Received By: I.t UI Gust e5i'` Receipt No.: `zSc,5 G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL01.WPD AR 1 5 c'f :• City Clerk's Office Attachment # 1 Alameda City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue MAT 13 2004 MliEi;@IVED Re: Use Permit (UP03 -0019) Appeal PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 Please consider the following matters as they relate to the my appeal. 1. Section IIC. of the Planning Board's Staff Report contains the following sentences: No portion of any work/live studio is considered a dwelling unit as defined in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Work/Live Ordinance meets all City Charter (Measure A) requirements. The first sentence begs the question "Why not? The second sentence is false and misleading. (I will substitute the term, ` work/live unit' for the term, ` work/live studio', in order to more easily make my point.) The work/live ordinance referred to (Ordinance 2784) was passed in 1998. The purpose for passing ordinance 2784 was to free work/live developments from the restrictions imposed by article 26 -1 of our charter. The 1998 city council, without legal power to do so, simply attempted to shorten the reach of 26 -1 so that work/live developments would be free to have more than two dwelling units in a building. If the people had voted in favor of the same shortening, the change would have been legal. But that's a big 'if'. The people did not so vote, and the 1998 council was not legally empowered to change charters. As to the second sentence mentioned earlier in which current staff wrote that the work/live ordinance meets all City Charter (Measure A) requirements, I can only say that the sentence is misleading in grand l fashion. The Work/Live ordinance does not meet 26 -1 requirements. Rather the Work/Live Ordinance allows work/live units not to meet 26 -1 requirements. Let us turn now to reasons that the 1998 council should have considered work/live units to be dwelling units. City Attorney Korade, herself, is on record as advising us that both "housing units" and "residential units" are considered to be "dwelling units ". (See City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of Measure A on 1991 Ballot.) If we persist in arguing that work/live units are not dwelling units, we, following the City Attorney's advice, must also say that work/live units are not residential units, nor are they housing units. And, if they are none of the above, the question must be raised as to why work/live units are not beyond the reach of 26 -3 in addition to being beyond the reach of 26 -1. A refusal to consider work/live units as dwelling units leads to more problems that it solves even apart from legal considerations. Those legal considerations are very important, however, and I wish to emphasize that the reach of Measure A can not be shortened or lengthened by any city council. A charter provision trumps a council ordinance. That's the law, the law each councilperson has sworn to uphold. The law is spelled out in the Constitution of California and interpreted by a vast amount of case law. 2. IV of the staff report reveals that each work/live unit will have a kitchen, a bedroom, and a bathroom. (Item 6 in Altschuler's reply to Murphy, reveals that the kitchens may be full sized.) Whatever the size of the kitchens, people will be residing and therefore dwelling in such units. Ordinary language treats the words `dwelling' and `residing' as synonymous. Furthermore, our city council is not empowered to issue peremptory edicts which limit the reach of our charter. What we have here is a flagrant usurpation of a power reserved to the people by the Constitution of California. 3. The Altschuler reply to Murphy in item 7 is most 2 revealing. There is an admission that the council carefully crafted the language of ordinance 2784 such that work/live units would comply with Measure A. (Emphasis added) By a stroke of orwellian genius, they chose the word comply in order to shift attention from what was really going on. Namely, that work/live units would be placed beyond the reach of Measure A and therefore would not have to comply with Measure A at all. The truth is readily apparent. The council carefully crafted the language of the work/live ordinance in order to circumvent Measure A. Ordinance 2784 is an insult to the Alameda electorate. It should not stand. de.#21J,_ /1A")''217 Edward J. Murphy 2618 Janis Circle PETITION FOR APPEAL TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA City Hall (Planning Board or City Council) 2263 Santa Clara Avenue #190 Alameda CA 94501 This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the (Planning Director /Zoning Board) which Administrator /Planning Board /Historical Advisory for for a 671M4e41 (Denied/Granted/Established Conditions) uP03.- ©0i (Application Number) at 7BIANIGrj (Street Address) Design Review X Use Permit Subdivision Map Rezoning Planned Development /Amendment on (Specify Date) The basis of the appeal is: -Does l oT C,OM Q (KA., o - key., W o U \I DU � rl S Co un ( Ca.q no's' S ` i O e_ W r-45: I l4 -14:C e. (If more ace is needed, continue on sheets.) Variance Plannned Development Other (Specify) t, (11, b4eaSU.e 4- -- 116 cue KaA-5 UE-6--- A- ©h,1 A- /low -5 --(-orr A-Nto 4o Lo 44-1,44 d 6►c�ih��1Ge 4 h5oke 1 S L((eck . the revere side or attach additional (Name) Tkl`-00.., c� ( ddress) 1.zrrecrIA., Cam- 3 (City /State) ( ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (For Office Use Only) Received By: Receipt No.: G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL0I.WPD - Work) - Home) P0 ) (g4o 5.1-77 A * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Stamp Attachment #2 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: I. STAFF REPORT 8 -B UP03 -0019 — Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC — 2515 Blanding Avenue. The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. General Industry Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332 — In -fill Development Projects Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Approve with conditions AMC — Alameda Municipal Code 1. Draft Resolution 2. E -mail from Michael Schiess in support of the project. 3. E -mail from Ed Cassel in support of the project. 4. E -mail from Melissa Harmon in support of the project. 5. Text of the Work/Live Ordinance 6. Draft Work/Live Permit 7. Survey of Property dated 6/8/2003 8. Plans prepared by the applicant. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant intends to convert the existing Clamp Swing building into seven work/live studios The studios would range from 1,273 square feet to 2,384 square feet. All studios would be two stories. The lower floors of all two level units would be devoted to "work" areas including a fully accessible toilet room and a sink/counter combination. Accessible toilet rooms would be available in the lobby area adjacent to the unit. The "live" areas of all units would consist of a small bedroom, bathroom and open kitchen area. A total of 16 off - street parking spaces would Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 12 April 2004 Attachment # 3 on traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS This is the first application that the Planning Board will be considering for a Use Permit for work/live studios. This report will address each item of the development standards for work/live studios to show how this particular application meets these standards. Please note that the Ordinance language is in italics. Staff's responses are in regular type below. See attachment #4 for the complete language of the Work/Live Ordinance. Building: Work/live studios are only allowed in existing buildings. The proposal complies with this requirement. The application is for the conversion of an existing industrial building. Zoning: Work/live studios may only be developed in the following districts: C -M (Commercial - Manufacturing), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial [Manufacturing]), and M -2 (General Industrial [Manufacturing]) Zoning Districts. The proposal complies with this requirement. The site is located within the M -2 Zoning District. Geographical Area. Work/live studios may only be developed in the following area: On the west: Sherman Street as projected northerly to the Estuary; on the north: the Estuary; on the east: Tilden Way; on the south: Buena Vista Avenue. The proposal complies with this requirement. The subject site at the corner of Blanding Avenue and Everett Street which is within the geographical area where work/live studios may be developed. Minimum Floor Area. Each work/live studio shall include at least one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. The proposal complies with this requirement. The proposal is for seven work/live studios ranging from 1,273 square feet to 2,384 square feet of floor area. Permitted Floor Area. Not more than thirty (30 %) percent or four hundred (400) square feet, whichever is greater, of the work/live studio shall be reserved for living space which shall mean that portion of a work/live studio that is used for residential purposes including, but not limited to, a sleeping area, a food preparation area with reasonable work space, and a full bathroom including bathing and sanitary facilities which satisfy the provisions of applicable codes. The proposal complies with this requirement. Below is a table showing: the square footage of each unit; the "live" area; and a percentage of "live" area compared to the total unit area. Please note that all units comply: units #1, #2, #6 and #7 have less than 300 square feet of "live" area Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 12 April 2004 3 Unit # Square Footage Parking requirement 1 1,857 2 2 1,436 1.5 3 1,273 1.5 4 1,273 1.5 5 1,299 1.5 6 2,384 3.5 7 1,393 1.5 Total 13 Parcel Area: There shall not be less than two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot area for each work/live studio. The proposal complies with this requirement. The site contains 14,054 square feet. Thus seven work/live studios would be permitted on this site. Use Permit Required. Each building that contains work/live studios shall be subject to a use permit, which shall include conditions of approval as required to assure adequate standards of health, safety, and welfare and consistency with the purposes for work/live studios set forth in this Chapter. Each work/live studio shall be subject to all conditions of approval for the building in which it exists unless the use permit states otherwise. The proposal complies with this requirement. The applicant has applied for a Use Permit. Conditions of approval are contained in the draft resolution and a deed restriction will be recorded with the county recorder containing these conditions prior to the issuance of any building permit for the conversion of this building to work/live units. Work/Live Permit Required. Each tenant or owner of an individual work/live studio must obtain a work/live permit prior to occupancy. Such permit shall be issued by the Planning Director based on a determination that the proposed occupancy is consistent with the approved use permit and all applicable requirements of this section. Application for a work/live permit shall be made to the Planning Department in writing on a form approved by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the City Council. This requirement will need to be met by each tenant of this particular work/live project once the Planning Board has approved the Use Permit. Since this is the first work/live studio project, there is no established process for applying for and issuing the work/live permit. Staff has developed a draft form (attachment #5) to be provided to each work/live tenant by the owner to be filed with the business license required for each work/live studio under the Ordinance. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 12 April 2004 5 No specific tenants have been proposed except for unit #6 which the applicant, Ms. Koike, will use as her dance /music studio. Ms. Koike has indicated to staff that she has had inquiries from other artists eager to lease one of these studios which include a jewelry designer, a yoga instructor, a woodworker and a musician. As required, the Planning and Building Director will review each proposed use as part of the work/live studio permit. Because this is the first such use proposed, staff has included a condition in the draft resolution requiring staff to report back to the Planning Board on the specific use of each studio once all have been leased. Additions to Building Envelope. No modifications shall be made to the exterior of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work/live structures shall comply with the purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area for purposes of this section. The proposal complies with this requirement. No expansion of the foot -print of the building is proposed. New windows and new openings for the roll -up doors will be installed. The interior of the building will be modified to develop the seven work/live studios, common area and, lobby. Landscaping. Where a building to be converted to work/live use is adjacent to residentially - zoned land, screening landscaping shall be provided and maintained as a buffer between the work/live building and adjacent residentially -zoned land where feasible in light of building setbacks, existing and required parking and whether there is land available along the property boundary. This project is not adjacent to any residentially zoned land. Landscaping is proposed along the parking area as required and small landscaped areas are proposed along some of the entries to the individual studios for aesthetic purposes. All landscaping will be drought resistant as required by the Alameda Municipal Code. Hazardous/Toxic Materials. A Phase I Environmental Assessment for a site proposed for work/live occupancy, including but not limited to an expanded site investigation to determine whether lead based paint and asbestos hazards exist, is required to be submitted as part of the application for a use permit. The purpose of this requirement is to assess whether there are any hazardous or toxic materials on the site that could pose a health risk. Where the Phase I shows that there are potential health risks, a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment shall be prepared and submitted to determine if remediation may be required. A Phase I Environmental Assessment has been submitted and it shows that two on -site underground storage tanks are present which are recommended to be removed; that oil is present in the boiler room of the building which is recommended to be investigated for possible subsurface impacts; and it is recommended that an asbestos survey be completed as well as a lead -based paint survey due to the age of the building. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 12 April 2004 7 This finding can be made. The area proposed for this work/live studio project is an eclectic commerciallindustrial area which includes: a boat yard, small shopping center, video store, sail maker, and automobile repair facility. The work/live use will not affect these uses or any future permitted uses in the area. 3. Any building containing work/live studios and each work/live studio within the building has been designed to ensure that they will function predominantly as work spaces with incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability requirements in compliance with applicable regulations; This finding can be made. Only small areas of each studio will be designed for "live" space: separate sleeting and sanitary facilities and kitchen areas integrated into the "work" areas which are similar to food preparation areas in modern offices or other commercial uses. There are no walls separating the work areas from each other within each studio and six of the studios have roll up doors leading to workspaces to accommodate large equipment or materials. 4. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of the building will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses. If there'_ - .1;acent.residentially -zoned land, then the proposed changes to the building shall make the commercial or industrial building being converted more compatible with the adjacent residential area. This finding can be made. Exterior modification proposed for this conversion are minimal and take their design from the existing industrial design of the building: metal roll up doors; industrial sash windows to match the existing and marquees which are typical of the 1930's industrial architecture of the building. The building will continue to essentially appear as it looks today. CONCLUSION: All required findings for both the specific work/live Use Permit as well as those findings general to all Use Permits can be made. Further, the proposal complies with all requirements of the Work/live Ordinance. Staff does ask guidance from the Board regarding the parking layout and any conditions of approval associated with this and any other element of the proposal. VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to approve the Use Permit, based upon the findings and conditions contained in the attached Draft Resolution. G:\PLANN ING\PB\REPORTS\2004\2515 b land i ng2. doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 12 April 2004 9 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB - draft A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA GRANTING USE PERMIT UP04 -0019, FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO WORK/LIVE STUDIOS AT 2515 BLANDING AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on 12 November 2003 by Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC, requesting, approval of a Use Permit to convert a 15,940 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios with associated parking and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete for processing on 4 December 2003; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is in the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 — In -fill Development Projects; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on 12 April 2004 to consider this application, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings regarding the Use Permit application request: 1. The location of the proposed is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area. This finding can be made. This project is surrounded by a variety of retail and industrial uses. Thus, the work/live studios used by artists and craftspersons would be compatible with the existing uses, which include a boat yard, electrical contractor and sail maker use. 2. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities. This finding can be made. The proposed use is in a fully serviced building. An AC Transit stop is one block east of the site. 3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect of the property in the vicinity. This finding can be made. Any noise or vibration associated with this use would not adversely affect 1 Attachment #1 of the building. The building will continue to essentially appear as it looks today. THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Use Permit UP04 -0019, to permit the conversion of an industrial building to work/live studios subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN: The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans, titled "Blanding Avenue Work/Live ", revised through 5 April 2004, prepared by Thomas Dolan Architecture, marked Exhibit "A ", on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department, except as modified by the conditions in this Resolution. 2. VESTING: The Use Permit shall expire on 12 April 2005, unless the conversion of the building has commenced under valid permit. 3. DESIGN REVIEW: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, minor design review for the proposed exterior modifications shall be completed. 4. BUILDING AND FIRE CODE: The conversion shall be subject to all applicable building and fire codes. 5. LIMITATION ON MODIFICATION: Areas within a work/live studio that are designated as living space shall be an integral part of the work/live studio and not separated from the work space, except that mezzanines and lofts may be used as living space subject to compliance with other provisions of this Article. Examples of ways to integrate the work space and living space in compliance with this section include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Doors or solid walls between the work space and areas used for living space do not extend all the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities and rooms used primarily for sleeping, (b) There is a single entrance to the work/live studio, (c) There are no walls separating the food preparation area from the work space, (d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms designated for sleeping are enclosed and all other portions of the living area are not separated from the workspace. 6. PERMITTED WORK ACTIVITY. The work activity in a building where work/live units are allowed shall be any use permitted by right or use permit in the zoning district, except that, in order to protect the health and safety of persons who reside in a work/live studio or in a building which contains one (1) or more work/live studios, no work activity shall be permitted nor shall any work/live studio be established on any site that contains those uses which the Planning Director when considering a work/live permit or the Planning Board when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of employees or the nature of the operation, have the potential to create significant impacts by reason of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration or other impacts, or would be hazardous by way of materials, process, product or wastes including, but not limited to: auto service /repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car washes, service stations, bars /lounges /night clubs, adult businesses, marine engine repair /refueling facilities, animal 3 13. CHANGE OF USE FROM WORK/LIVE STUDIO. No work/live studio shall be changed to exclusively residential use in any building where residential use is not permitted, where two (2) or more residential units already exist, or where the conversion would produce more than two (2) attached dwellings. The conversion of an existing work/live studio to exclusively nonresidential use is permitted when the conversion meets all other applicable zoning and building code requirements for the proposed use. Such a change shall be subject to all applicable requirements for the district where the proposed dwelling unit is located. 14. INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USE. No work/live studio shall be changed to increase the floor area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Planning Director. In no case shall the floor area devoted to residential use be increased to more than four hundred (400) square feet or thirty (30 %) percent of the gross floor area of the unit whichever is more. 15. ADDITIONS TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. No modifications shall be made to the exterior of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work/live structures shall comply with the purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area for purposes of this section. 16. DEED RESTRICTION REQUIRED. The owner of each work/live studio or each building containing work/live rental studios shall record a notice on the property specifying the limitations of use and operation included in the use permit. 17. ON- PREMISES SALES. On- premises sales of goods are limited to those produced within the work/live studio. Retail sales of goods produced within the work/live studio shall be incidental to the primary work use in any building used exclusively for work/live occupancy. These provisions shall permit participation in occasional open studio programs and gallery shows. 18. NON RESIDENT EMPLOYEES. Up to two (2) persons who do not reside in the work/live studio may work in the studio unless such employment is expressly prohibited or limited by the use permit because of potential detrimental effects on persons living or working in the building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in the vicinity of the subject property. The employment of three (3) or more persons who do not reside in the work/live studio may be permitted subject to a use permit based on additional findings that such employment will not adversely affect traffic and parking conditions in the area where the work/live studio is located. The employment of any persons who do not reside in the work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable Building Code requirements. 5 Judith ALTSCHULER -2512 Blanding AvEr Page 1 From: Michael Schiess <ujuju@comcast.net> To: <jaltschu C ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 3/1/2004 8:37:19 PM Subject: 2512 Blanding Avenue To: Judith Altschuler Supervising Planner City of Alameda Dear Judith, I totally support work/live space in Alameda and am writing in support of developing 2512 Blanding Avenue into work/live space. I have lived in Alameda for 20 years and own a beautiful Victorian here. I am very much in favor of preserving Alameda's buildings and recycling them into new uses. There are so many historical buildings that instead of being demolished; could be better used as a work/live space. It would also reduce the need for building new multi -unit homes that take away from the flavor of this town. Another benefit would be to hopefully have more artists in the community, and nurture the arts he YVILI local artists. I am an artist/landlord who works for the Exploratorium, Chabot Space and Science Center, The Crucible and Ned Kahn Studios. I also run the Lucky Ju Ju Pinball on Saturday nights in Alameda. www.ujuju.com <http: / /www.ujuju.com /> and you are always welcome to come by and play a game or two. Thanks for your time, Michael Schiess 1029 Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -2305 (510)521 -7262 CC: Michael Schiess <ujuju@comcast.net >, <rhythmix@earthlink.net> Attachment #2 Judith ALTSCHULER - work/live alameda Page 1 From: ed cassel <edzkastle @alamedanet.net> To: <jaltschu @ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 3/2/2004 4:52:45 PM Subject: work/live alameda To whom this may concern, as a twenty year resident of Alameda, as well as a professional artist, I'm delighted to learn that you're contemplating developing 2512 Blanding into work/live space.) happen to live near the site and have often wondered, while driving by, what would become of the property.How magnificent it would be to preserve the historic facade while implementing a resource to nurture creative arts activities.A win -win situation and an idea whose time has come. There seems to have been a dearth of work/live on the island in the past; although I've worked on such grand projects as the restoration of the Oakland Main Museum murals and Feature Film set productions in hangars at Alameda Point,(all the while an Alameda resident),there has not been much prospect of large studio space and arts community...until now. Alameda is a very special town.Supporting the arts through developing 2512 Blanding will be one more jewel in the Island City's crown. Sincerely, Ed Cassel Attachment #3 Judith ALTSCHULER - Development of 251'1-Blanding in Alameda Page 1 From: Melissa Harmon <melharmlessa@yahoo.com> To: <jaltschu@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 3/2/2004 11:44:11 AM Subject: Development of 2512 Blanding in Alameda Dear Ms. Altschuler, I'd like to support the development of 2512 Blanding Avenue into work/live space. I live here in Alameda with my husband in a Victorian house that has been authentically renovated. Having artists in the old industrial sector of Alameda is a great asset to our city, and is a good way to recycle the buildings. I am a curator with recent shows in Berkeley and San Francisco. Thanks very much! Sincerely, Melissa Harmon, 1029 Central Ave., Alameda Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster http: / /search.yahoo.com Attachment #4 30-14 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE 30-15. WORK/LIVE STUDIOS. 30 -15.1 Purpose. The intent of this section is to set forth regula- tions and standards for establishing and operating work/live studios as a primary commer- cial/lndustrial use, in which the proprietor would be allowed to reside as a secondary land use activ- ity. The purposes of these provisions for work/live studios are: a. To provide for and make feasible the reuse of existing commercial or industrial buildings and related sites in the Northern Waterfront and other specified commercial, manufacturing, and indus- trial zoning districts as proposed in the Alameda General Plan; b. To provide cost - efficient alternative work space that will provide an incentive for entrepre- neurs, business owners, artists, artisans, and other individuals to continue to work in Alameda and contribute to the City's economy; c. To reduce traffic and associated adverse im- pacts on air quality, energy resources, and the quality of life in the City by reducing the number and length of work - related trips by employed Alameda residents; d. To promote the preservation and reuse of commercial or industrial buildings that contribute to the historic character of the community in a manner that is consistent with other community goals and policies; e. To allow activities that are compatible with and will not compromise or interfere with existing and potential industrial or commercial uses in the districts where such work/live studios are estab- lished; f. To ensure that work/live studios will func- tion predominantly as work spaces with incidental residential accommodations that meet basic habit- ability requirements in compliance-with applicable regulations. No portion of any work/live studio shall be considered a "dwelling" as that term is defined in Sections 30 -2 and 30 -51.1; 3072 g. To ensure that the exterior design of struc- tures converted to work/live use reflects the pre- dominant industrial or commercial character of such buildings and will be compatible with adja- cent commercial or industrial uses; h. To ensure that, where there is adjacent resi- dentially zoned land, changes to the exterior of structures converted to work/live are designed to make the commercial or industrial building being converted more compatible with the adjacent resi- dential area. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6) 30 -15.2 Applicability. Work/live studios are only allowed in existing buildings that have been converted subject to the approval of a use permit in the C-M (Commercial - Manufacturing), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial [Manufacturing]), and M -2 (General Industrial [Manufacturing)) Zoning Districts within the area bounded as follows: On the west: Sherman Street as projected northerly to the Estuary; on the north: the Estuary; on the east: Tilden Way; on the south: Buena Vista Avenue. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6) 30 -15.3 Definitions. The following definitions aha11 be applicable in this Article: a. Living space shall mean that portion of a work/live studio that is used for residential pur- poses including, but not limited to, a sleeping area, a food preparation area with reasonable work space, and a full bathroom including bathing and sanitary facilities which satisfy the provisions of applicable codes. b. Work /live studio shall mean a commercial or industrial unit with incidental residential ac- commodations occupying one (1) or more rooms or floors in a building primarily designed and used for industrial or commercial occupancy and provid- ing: 1. Adequate working space reserved for com- mercial or industrial use and regularly used for such purpose by one (1) or more persons residing in the studio; 2. Living space as defined in subsection 30- 15.3(a) and in accordance with the provisions of this section. c. Adjacent shall mean that properties share a common property boundary or are directly across a street right -of -way. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6) Rev. Ord. Supp. 1199 Attachment #5 30-15 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE work activity shall be permitted nor shall any work/live studio be established on any site that contains those uses which the Planning Director when considering a work/live permit or the Plan- ning Board when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of em- ployees or the nature of the operation, have the potential to create significant impacts by reason of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration or other impacts, or would be hazardous by way of materials, process, product or wastes including, but not limited to: auto ser- vice/repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car washes, service stations, bars/lounges/night clubs, adult businesses; marine engine repair/refueling facili- ties, animal kennels/grooming/pet shops, liquor stores, veterinary offices/hospitals, funeral par - lors/mortuaries, outdoor storage as a primary use, crematories/columbaria, dismantling facili- ties/scrap yards, public utility structures and facilities, tire sales/service, truck stops/repair. Uses allowed under the foregoing paragraph that may, depending on how they are operated, also have the potential to generate impacts or would constitute a change in occupancy under the building code shall not be approved unless the Planning Director finds that as proposed to be conducted, or as modified by conditions of use permit, they would not conflict with or adversely affect existing work uses in the building and in the area where the work/live studio is located. No use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the work/live studio, there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the studio. An example of a potential health im- pact is the potential for food contamination from uses which generate airborne particulates in a studio with an unenclosed kitchen. Retail activities must be accessory and subordi- nate to any permitted commercial or industrial work activity in buildings used exclusively for work/live studios. e. No Separate Sale or Rental of Portions of Unit. No portion of a work/live studio may be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living in the premises or as a residential space for a person or persons not working in the same studio. f. Business License Required. At least one (1) occupant of each work/live studio shall maintain a current City of Alameda business license for a business located in that studio. g. Mixed Occupancies. If a building contains mixed occupancies of work/live studios and other nonresidential uses, occupancies other than work/live shall meet all applicable requirements for those uses, and proper occupancy separations shall be provided between the work/live studios and other occupancies, as determined by the Building Official. h. Notice to Occupants Required. The owner or developer of any building containing work/live studios shall provide written notice to all work/live occupants and users that the surrounding area may be subject to levels of noise, dust, fumes, or other effects associated with commercial and in- dustrial uses at higher levels than would be ex- pected in residential areas. State and Federal health regulations notwithstanding, noise and other standards shall be those applicable to com- mercial or industrial properties in the district Lie the project is located. For purposes of noise control, work/live studios shall be classified as commercial property under Table 1T in Section 4 -10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code. i. Change of Use From Work ILive Studio. No work/live studio shall be changed to exclusively residential use in any building where residential use is not permitted, where two (2) or more resi- dential units already exist, or where the conver- sion would produce more than two (2). attached dwellings The conversion of an existing work/live studio to exclusively nonresidential use is permit- ted when the conversion meets all other applicable zoning and building code requirements for the proposed use. Such a change shall be subject to all applicable requirements for the district where the proposed dwelling unit is located. j. Increase in Residential Use. No work/live studio shall be changed to increase the floor area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Planning Director. In no case shall the floor area devoted to residential use be in- creased to more than four hundred (400) square feet or thirty (30%) percent of the gross floor area of the unit whichever is more. k. Additions to Building Envelope. No modifi- cations shall be made to the exterior of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occu- pancy that would result in a substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase 3072.2 Rev. Ord. Supp. ]/99 30 -15 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE d. Any changes proposed to the exterior ap- pearance of the building will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses. If there is adjacent residentially -zoned land, then the proposed changes to the building shall make the commercial or industrial building being converted more compatible with the adjacent resi- dential area. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6) 3072.4 Rev. Ord. Supp. 1/99 Work/Live Permit (draft) 1. Name 2. Address 3. Telephone number 4. Use Permit number and date of approval 5. Name of property owner 6. Address of property owner 7. Telephone number of property owner 8. Detailed description of work activity 9. Does the activity include any retail sales 10. Detailed description of materials /tools used 11. Detailed description of materials produced, if any 12. Number of customers /students /participants 13. Number of employees 14. Hours of operation 15. Number and nature of special events, if any 16. Attach floor plan of all levels of the work/live studio including furniture /fixture placement drawn to t/ or 1/4 scale. G:\PLANNINGTORMS\worklivepermitdraft.doc Attachment #6 gVE;rirT% 5r. (6o' /00, 0 0 o5 3.05 N 34 2+' 100.00 0 Gv2g PNp ZgDwOop Hvg rti COPn"2 ThC . /v 55 °3G'w /z e6 14R l ov,Uv.a2r SvjzV gy 0i— LJr /0 ` // 5c0 c,i4- 5, J t u 1 ✓ 5 4 / - 1 - D k, 1.1 5 i E4 c, , A c,/a it4 P.4 4 LH M a"/741- Go LJN t-r G4 Wr—orL tir .4 DATE 6- g -Wo3 _0, SCALE 2 CLIENT: , A N �r koik� 2237 Pah-ice 5T. 1:30..�E7,Er SURVEY D�L�Li ANDREAS PEAK LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR 2116 BVENA vI r& AVENUE AL.A. 1eDA G.4. '144991 PHONE: 665. 4269 PLAT E: -_ 4( .J 70 -156 -z2 Attachment #7 City of Alameda Interdepartment Memorandum Date: To: From: RE: 23 February 2004 Greg Fuz Planning and Building Director Judith Altschuler Supervising Planner Work/Live Studio Proposal on Blanding You asked me to respond to an email dated February 17, 2003 to the Planning Board by Ed Murphy. Below is my response. An application for a Use Permit has been made by the owner of 2515 Blanding Avenue to convert the existing Clamp Swing Building into work/live studios. The owners, Cal Vita LLC, intend to create seven fully compliant work/live studios. They would range from 1,753 square feet (where the ordinance requires a minimum of 1,000 square feet) to 4,897 square feet with live spaces of between 213 square feet to 452 square feet. This would calculate to between 4.3% and 25.8% for the live spaces where the Ordinance permits 400 square feet not to exceed 30 %. A total of 14 parking spaces would be provided (6 in a park lift configuration) which is that total that the Ordinance requires. The tenants would consist of a variety of artists, artisans and musicians. This is the first Use Permit for a Work/Live use considered by the Planning Board. A plan set is attached. Mr. Murphy states that Alameda Ordinance No. 2784 N.S. Work/Live Studios is inconsistent with Measure A. He believes that no Use Permit should be issued for the "...construction of multiple dwelling units at 2515 Blanding Avenue." . Mr. Murphy asks the Board to consider the following: 1. Measure A makes no exception for work/live units. Any such exception would require voter approval. The text of Measure A does not make exceptions for work/live studios. However, work/live studios are not dwelling units. Section 30- 15.1(0 of the Work/Live Ordinance states that " (n)o portion of a work/live studio shall be considered a "dwelling" as that term is defined in section 30 -2 (Definitions) and 30- 51.1(Multiple- Dwelling Units)." Thus, work/live studios are not exceptions to Measure A, but are not regulated under Measure A since they are not dwelling units. Attachment #4 2. Measure A's implementing ordinance does not contain the term "food preparation area ". The word, kitchen, is used. Mr. Murphy is correct that section 30 -51.1 (Multiple - Dwelling Units) defines "dwelling unit" as "...a group of rooms, including one (1) kitchen, a bath and sleeping quarters.... ". The Work/Live Ordinance uses the words "food preparation area" in the definition of what constitutes the "living space" which is permitted to be part of any work/live studio. The use of this language is broader than the word "kitchen" and acknowledges that in a work/live studio an area may exist where food is prepared. 3. Measure A was passed by an electorate opposed to higher residential density. A use permit for Blanding will be followed by work/live use permits elsewhere, a situation opposed by a majority of the Alameda electorate. Contained within the Work/Live Ordinance is an Applicability Section (Section 30 -15.2) which states that "( w)ork/live studios are only allowed in existing buildings that have been converted subject to the approval of a use permit in the C -M (Commercial - Manufacturing), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial [Manufacturing]), and M -2 (General Industrial [Manufacturing]) Zoning Districts within the area bounded as follows: On the west: Sherman Street as projected northerly to the Estuary; on the north: the Estuary; on the east: Tilden Way; on the south: Buena Vista Avenue." Thus, the City Council in adopting the Ordinance, encouraged work/live studios to re -use exiting buildings in a specific geographic area. 4. The Blanding units will be primary residences. There is no prohibition against the tenant /owner from maintaining the work/live studio as his /her primary or only residence. The City Council intended work/live studios to "...reduce traffic and associated adverse impacts on air quality, energy resources, and the quality of life in the City by reducing the number and length of work - related trips by employed Alameda residents ". Thus it may be inferred that the Council intended the work/live studios to function as the sole residence in order to reduce traffic and other adverse affects of vehicular commuting between home and work. 5. Those units will have all the amenities required for long term occupancy. While there is no prohibition for long -term occupancy, the concept of "work/live studio" is essentially a commercial /industrial space with a small residential component as an accessory use. Some tenants /owners of work/live studios may opt to use the spaces on a long -term basis; others may work and live in a work/live studio to establish their business and then move to a more traditional home for their residence. One stated purpose of the Work/Live Ordinance is to provide "...cost-effective alternative work space(s) that will provide an incentive for entrepreneurs, business owners, artists, artisans, and other individuals to continue to work in Alameda and to contribute to the City's economy." 6. Those units will have what ordinary people call kitchens. The Work/Live Ordinance permits "food preparation areas" which would be considered as part of the accessory live, or residential, use. These areas could be similar to traditional kitchens containing the full range of contemporary kitchens including full - sized refrigerator, dishwasher, stove and cabinets. They could also have less formal food prep arrangements similar to those found in offices: under- the - counter refrigerators, bar sink, microwave oven and minimal storage spaces. There is no prohibition to install a full sized kitchen, but the area used as a kitchen would be counted toward the limited residential square footage allowed. 7. Section 30.15.1f of Ordinance 2784 warns that no portion of any work/live unit shall be considered a dwelling. By avoiding the words, `kitchen' and `dwelling', the work/live advocates hope to circumvent Measure A. Their strategy is to obfuscate rather than clarify. The City Council in approving the Work/Live Ordinance carefully crafted the language such that the concept of work/live, ie an essentially commercial /industrial use with a limited residential accessory use would comply with Measure A. Rather than "avoiding" the use of the words "kitchen" and "dwelling ", the Council made a clear distinction between a work/live use and a residential use. 8. Who were those advocates? Ask yourself who first proposed using the term, `food preparation area', in a city ordinance. Who gave that person legal advice? Ask the City Attorney. The concept of "work/live" is contained in the General Plan as a possible use in the Mariner Square area and the Northern Waterfront which was adopted by the City Council in 1991. Adoption of Work/Live Ordinance by the City Council provided the regulations for such a use. Since the Blanding Avenue application is the first one to be considered by the Planning Board, I have asked support staff to retrieve all files relating to the adoption of the Work/Live Ordinance in case more research in necessary to respond to questions regarding the Ordinance. G:\ PLANNING\ PB\ CORRES \2004\murphyliveworkresponse. doc February 17, 2004 2618 Janis Circle Alameda, CA 94501 510 -521 -7257 Planning Board Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Dear President Piziali and Members of the Planning Board: Alameda Ordinance 2784 is inconsistent with Measure A. No use permit should be issued for the construction of multiple dwelling units at 2515 Blanding. Avenue. Please consider the following: 1. Measure A makes no exception for work/live units. Any such exception would require voter approval. 2. Measure A's implementing ordinance does not contain the term "food preparation area ". The word, kitchen, is used. 3. Measure A was passed by an electorate opposed to higher residential density. A use permit for Blanding will be followed by work/live use permits elsewhere, a situation opposed by a majority of the Alameda electorate. 4. The Blanding units will be primary residences. 5. Those units will have all the amenities required for long term occupancy. 6. Those units will have what ordinary people call kitchens. 7. Section 30.15.1f of Ordinance 2784 warns that no portion of any work/live unit shall be considered a dwelling. By avoiding the words, `kitchen' and `dwelling', the work/live advocates hope to circumvent Measure A. Their strategy is to obfuscate rather than clarify. 8. Who were those advocates? Ask yourself who first proposed using the term, `food preparation area', in a city ordinance. Who gave that person legal advice? Ask the City Attorney. If ordinance 2784 did not exist, would Measure A allow more than two work/live units in a building? The obvious answer is no. If Measure A did not exist, would ordinance 2784 allow more than two work/live units in a building? The obvious answer is yes. When an ordinance passed by the City Council conflicts with a charter provision approved by the people, the charter provision prevails. Respectfully, Ed Murphy PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8 -B. UP03 -0019 — 2515 Blanding Avenue — Cal Vita LLC (JA). The applicant requests a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios and two retail /commercial spaces with associated parking and landscaping. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 22, 2004.) President Piziali advised that Ms. Mariani left the meeting during the break. Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that three new letters had been received and distributed to the Board members. She added that Mr. Murphy's letter and staff's response to that letter were also distributed to the Board. Staff recommended approval of this item. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, inquired whether staff's response to his letter had been sent to him. Ms. Altschuler indicated that she did not know. Mr. Murphy stated that he had never received a staff response. He inquired whether the project was as described on the agenda, or in the staff report; he did not believe they were described in the same way. Ms. Altschuler advised that the project as described in the staff report was the current project. Mr. Murphy noted that how the first live /work project is dealt with by the City would be critically important. He expressed concern the reasoning exercised by Planning and legal staff, as well as the Board, with respect to Measure A. Ms. Janet Koike, applicant, 2237 Prince Street, complimented staff on the completeness and accuracy of the staff report. She noted that she was an artist who was able to buy the subject building. She described her history with respect to work/live space in Oakland, and noted that she wished to contribute to the artist community with a professionally - developed work/live space. She believed that this project would contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood. Planning Board Meeting Page 17 April 12, 2004 Attachment #5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Thomas Dolan, project architect, noted that the design more than complied with the ordinance, and added that they have expended great effort to be within both the letter and the spirit of the work/live ordinance. He appreciated that this would be the first project of its kind in Alameda. He detailed his history in designing work/live spaces over the past 30 years, and had spoken and worked all over North America, helping cities write code for work/live spaces. He applauded the City's rigid definition of work/live space, and noted that they would not be lifestyle lofts. He noted that the work component of the spaces would be predominant over the living component. Mr. Michael Schiess, 1029 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this item, and believed that this was an important step for Alameda to take. He noted that he was in full support of Measure A, and added that this was not a new structure, but was rather an existing building that would be recycled. He did not wish for this building to deteriorate. Mr. Dave Olson, owner, Stone Boat Yard, 2577 Blanding, noted that his site was immediately adjacent to the subject property, and added that he supported this project. He believed that this project would enhance the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Mr. Lee Smith, 391 Clifton Street, spoke in support of this item, and added that he was a potential occupant of the building. He noted that he had lived in warehouse space in Oakland for 25 years, and added that working artists contributed to the economy and tax base of Alameda. Ms. Carolyn West, 456 Centre Court, spoke in favor of this item. She noted that she was an attorney practicing in Oakland, and was a performing musician as well. She supported work/live space in Alameda, and noted that it enhanced the quality of life in the community. She noted that turning an empty building into a site for craftspeople energized the community. She believed the City needed to do more to encourage work/live space in Alameda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Cook noted that she fully supported this project. Mr. Dolan advised that all of the conditions were acceptable to them. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was an intervening property between this site and the Estuary. She added that because Stone Boatyard was a through property between the street and the Estuary, that if the Bay Trail were to be placed anywhere, it would be on the street. Planning Board Meeting Page 18 April 12, 2004 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook with respect to the possibility of reducing the six -foot fence to a four -foot fence in order to increase visibility of the building, Mr. Dolan advised that he would be open to working with staff to refine that issue. He noted that artists often created tangible items of value, and that some security was necessary. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham whether this project came under the provisions of the public art ordinance, Ms. Altschuler replied that it would depend on the amount of money spent for improvements; $250,000 would qualify the project under the ordinance. Ms. Cook supported saving the paintings on the side of the building. Mr. Dolan advised that they planned to retain those paintings, and would waterproof them as well. Mr. Cunningham advised that the canopies were projecting into the fire lane circulation, and inquired whether they had consulted with the Fire Department. Mr. Dolan advised that they would meet with the Fire Department and make any required revisions. If any of the revisions impacted the appearance of the building, they would consult with staff. They planned to use steel and glass for the canopies. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham with respect to shading for the parking stalls as defined under the tree ordinance, Ms. Altschuler advised that with a new parking lot, one tree must be provided for every four required parking spaces. Because this was an existing parking lot, it would be grandfathered in, and would not need to have trees installed. She noted that the applicant may install trees at their discretion. Mr. Lynch would support a minimum of three trees with open space, and would leave staff to develop the final details. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff wished to ensure that there was sufficient parking for both of the uses. The interior spaces generally functioned for the tenants, rather than customers or students. Staff suggested a plan to maximize the parking, from which the Board could reduce it. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Dolan advised that there would be some sort of controlled access to the parking, such as a keycard. He noted that there was generally one car per unit, but that couples will often have one car where they would have had two in a different living Planning Board Meeting Page 19 April 12, 2004 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board situation. He noted that the car count in true work/live spaces were often quite low because of the zero - commute nature of the use. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Koike replied that originally, she intended for all the units to be for sale as soon as the project was developed. Because of insurance restrictions, she later decided to rent them for ten years, and that they could be sold after that. A discussion of the commercial uses of live /work spaces ensued. Mr. Dolan advised that they would like to be relieved of the need to place the three parking spaces beyond the required spaces inside of the building. They would like to be able to provide street trees and vines on a fence or trellis. President Piziali did not believe that was what the Board had in mind, and would not want to reduce the parking spaces inside the building. Ms. Altschuler advised that when the parking spaces were removed, more parking would be required. M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -25 to approve a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios and two retail /commercial spaces with associated parking and landscaping. The following condition would be added: The parking requirement would be limited to 13 spaces. the additional three spaces currently provided external to the building would be removed, and landscaping would be added with the intent of providing a minimum of three trees along Blanding Avenue. AYES — 5 (Bard, Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice President Bard). Planning Board Meeting Page 20 April 12, 2004 § 17958.11. Alternative building regulations; joint living and work - quarters; -geographic areas (a) Any city or county may adopt alternative building regulations for the conversion of commercial or industrial buildings, or portions thereof, to joint living and work quarters. As used in this section, "joint living and work quarters" means residential occupancy by a family maintaining a common household, or by not more than four unrelated persons, of one or more rooms or floors in a building originally designed for industrial or commercial occupancy which include (1) cooking space and sanitary facilities in conformance with local building standards adopted pursuant to Section 17958 or 17958.5 and (2) adequate working space reserved for, and regularly used by, one or more persons residing therein. The alternative building regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall be applicable in those geographic areas specifically designated for such occupancy, or as expressly permitted by a redevelopment plan with respect to a redevelopment project area. The alternative building regu- lations need not impose the same requirements as regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922, except as otherwise provided in this section, but in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary to accom- modate joint living and work quarters, the alternative building regula- tions shall impose such requirements as will, in the determination of the local governing body, protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (b) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that a substantial num- ber of manufacturing and commercial buildings in urban areas have lost manufacturing . and commercial tenants to more modern manufacturing and commercial premises, _ and . that the untenanted portions of such buildings constitute a potential resource capable, *hen appropriately altered, of accommodating joint living and work quarters which would be physically and economically suitable particularly for use by artists, artisans, and similarly - situated individuals. The Legislature further finds that the public will benefit by making such buildings available for joint living and work quarters for artists, artisans, and similarly- situated individuals because (1) conversion of space to joint living and work quarters . provides a new use for such buildings contributing to the revitalization of central city areas, (2) such conversion results in building improvements and rehabilitation, and (3) the cultural Iife of cities and of the state as a whole is enhanced by the residence in such cities of large numbers of persons regularly engaged in the arts. (c) The Legislature further finds and declares that (1) persons regular , . ly engaged in the arts require larger amounts of space for the pursuit of their artistic endeavors and for the storage of materials therefor, and of the products . thereof, than are regularly found in dwellings, (2) the financial remunerations to be obtained from a career in the arts are generally small, (3) persons regularly engaged in the arts generally find it financially difficult to maintain quarters for their artistic endeavors separate and apart from their places of residence, (4) high property values and resulting rental costs make it particularly difficult for per- sons regularly engaged in the arts to obtain the use of . the amount of space required for their work, and (5) the residential use of such space is accessory to the primary use of such space as a place of work: It is the intent of the Legislature that local governments have discre- tion to define geographic areas which may be utilized for joint living and work quarters and to establish standards for such occupancy, consistent with the needs and conditions peculiar to the local ' environment. The Legislature recognizes that building code regulations applicable to resi-. dential housing may have to be relaxed to provide joint living and work, quarters in buildings previously uted for commercial or industrial pur- poses. . (Added by Stats.1979, c. 434, p. 1557, § 3.5.) Attachment #6 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT UP04 -0019, FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO WORK/LIVE STUDIOS AT 2515 BLANDING AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on 12 November 2003 by Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC, requesting, approval of a Use Permit to convert a 15,940 square foot industrial building into seven work/live studios with associated parking and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete for processing on 4 December 2003; and E WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry on the General Plan u- ill Diagram; and O 1] 0 WHEREAS, the subject property is in the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District; and ▪ 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 — In -fill Development - Projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12, 2004 and acted to approve Use Permit, UP04 -0019; and WHEREAS, on 15 April 2004, Edward J. Murphy filed an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on 20 April 2004, Patricia H. Bail filed an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council interprets Article XXVI as not applying to work/live spaces; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal and fmds that there are no merits in the bases of appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the appellants' bases of appeal and relative to the Use Permit application: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City Charter. Work/live studios are not dwelling units under the City Charter, State Law or Alameda Municipal Code section 30 -15. 1 Resolution #5 -A 5 -18 -04 2. The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area because this project is surrounded by a variety of retail and industrial uses. Thus, the work/live studios used by artists and craftsperson would be compatible with the existing uses, which include a boat yard, electrical contractor and sail maker use. 3. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities because the proposed use is in a fully serviced building. An AC Transit stop is one block east of the site. 4. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect the property m the vicinity because any noise or vibration associated with this use would not adversely affect property in the vicinity since the general neighborhood is commercial and industrial in nature including a boat yard and a number of contracting and vehicle repair facilities. 5. The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan because Work/live studios are specifically mentioned as a use in the northern waterfront area in the General Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings specific to Work/Live Studios: 1. The proposed or existing use of each work/live studio is a bona fide commercial or industrial activity consistent with Section 30- 15.5(d) because any uses proposed will need to secure a Work/live Permit as well as a business license. Thus, the Planning and Building Director will be able to review all uses to ensure that this condition is met. 2. The establishment of work/live studios will not under the circumstances conflict with nor inhibit industrial or commercial uses in the area where the project is proposed because the area proposed for this work/live studio project is an eclectic commercial/industrial area, which includes: a boat yard, small shopping center, video store, sail maker, and automobile repair facility. The work/live use will not affect these uses or any future permitted uses in the area. 3. Any building containing work/live studios and each work/live studio within the building has been designed to ensure that they will function predominantly as work spaces with incidental residential accommodation meeting basic habitability requirements in compliance with applicable regulations because only small areas of each studio will be designed for "live" space: separate sleeping and sanitary facilities and kitchen areas integrated into the `work" areas which are similar to food preparation areas in modem offices or other commercial uses. There are no walls separating the work areas from each other within each studio and six of the studios have roll up doors leading to workspaces to accommodate large equipment or materials. 2 4. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of the building will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses. Exterior modifications proposed for this conversion are minimal and take their design from the existing industrial design of the building: metal roll up doors; industrial sash windows to match the existing and marquees which are typical of the 1930's industrial architecture of the building. The building will continue to essentially appear as it looks today. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda upholds the Planning Board's approval of Use Permit UP04 -0019, to permit the conversion of an industrial building to work/live studios subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN: The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans, titled "Blanding Avenue Work/Live", revised through 5 April 2004, prepared by Thomas Dolan Architecture, marked Exhibit "A ", on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department, except as modified by the conditions in this Resolution. 2. VESTING: The Use Permit shall expire on May 18, 2005, unless the conversion of the building has commenced under valid permit. 3. DESIGN REVIEW: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, minor design review for the proposed exterior modifications shall be completed. 4. BUILDING AND FIRE CODE: The conversion shall be subject to all applicable building and fire codes. 5. LIMITATION ON MODIFICATION: Areas within a work/live studio that are designated as living space shall be an integral part of the work/live studio and not separated from the work space, except that mezzanines and lofts may be used as living space subject to compliance with other provisions of this Article. Examples of ways to integrate the work space and living space in compliance with this section include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Doors or solid walls between the work space and areas used for living space do not extend all the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities and rooms used primarily for sleeping, (b) There is a single entrance to the work/live studio, (c) There are no walls separating the food preparation area from the work space, (d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms designated for sleeping are enclosed and all other portions of the living area are not separated from the workspace. 6. PERMITTED WORK ACTIVITY. The work activity in a building where work/live units are allowed shall be any use permitted by right or use permit in the zoning district, except that, in order to protect the health and safety of persons who reside in a work/live studio or in a building which contains one (1) or more work/live studios, no . work activity shall be permitted nor shall any work/live studio be established on any site that contains those uses 3 which the Planning and Building Director when considering a work/live permit or the Planning Board when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of employees or the nature of the operation, have the potential to create significant impacts by reason of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration or other impacts, or would be hazardous by way of materials, process, product or wastes including, but not limited to: auto service /repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car washes, service stations, bars /lounges /night clubs, adult businesses, marine engine repair /refueling facilities, animal kennels /grooming/pet shops, liquor stores, veterinary offices/hospitals, funeral parlors /mortuaries, outdoor storage as a primary use, crematories /columbaria, dismantling facilities /scrap yards, public utility structures and facilities, tire sales /service, truck stops /repair. 7. ADDITIONS TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. No modifications shall be made to the exterior of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work/live structures shall comply with the purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area for purposes of this section. 8. WORK/LIVE PERMIT REQUIRED. Each tenant or owner of an individual work/live studio must obtain a work/live permit prior to occupancy. Such permit shall be issued by the Planning and Building Director based on a determination that the proposed occupancy is consistent with the approved use permit and all applicable requirements of this section. Application for a work/live permit shall be made to the Planning and Building Department in writing on a form approved by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the City Council. 9. NO SEPARATE SALE OR RENTAL OF PORTIONS OF UNIT. No portion of a work/live studio shall be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living in the premises or as a residential space for a person or persons not working in the same studio. 10. BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED. At least one (1) occupant of each work/live studio shall maintain a current City of Alameda business license for a business located in that studio. 11. MIXED OCCUPANCIES. If a building contains mixed occupancies of work/live studios and other nonresidential uses, occupancies other than work/live shall meet all applicable requirements for those uses, and proper occupancy separations shall be provided between the work/live studios and other occupancies, as determined by the Building Official. 4 12. NOTICE TO OCCUPANTS REQUIRED. The owner or developer of any building containing work/live studios shall provide written notice to all work/live occupants and users that the surrounding area may be subject to levels of noise, dust, fumes, or other effects associated with commercial and industrial uses at higher levels than would be expected in residential areas. State and Federal health regulations notwithstanding, noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial or industrial properties in the district where the project is located. For purposes of noise control, work/live studios shall be classified as commercial property under Table II in Section 4 -10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code. 13. CHANGE OF USE FROM WORK/LIVE STUDIO. No work/live studio shall be changed to exclusively residential use in any building where residential use is not permitted, where two (2) or more residential units already exist, or where the conversion would produce more than two (2) attached dwellings. The conversion of an existing work/live studio to exclusively nonresidential use is permitted when the conversion meets all other applicable zoning and building code requirements for the proposed use. Such a change shall be subject to all applicable requirements for the district where the proposed dwelling unit is located. 14. INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USE. No work/live studio shall be changed to increase the floor area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Planning and Building Director. In no case shall the floor area devoted to residential use be increased to more than four hundred (400) square feet or thirty (30 %) percent of the gross floor area of the unit whichever is more. 15. ADDITIONS TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. No modifications shall be made to the exterior of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work/live structures shall comply with the purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area for purposes of this section. 16. DEED RESTRICTION REQUIRED. The owner of each work/live studio or each building containing work/live rental studios shall record a notice on the property specifying the limitations of use and operation included in the use permit. 17. ON- PREMISES SALES. On- premises sales of goods are limited to those produced within the work/live studio. Retail sales of goods produced within the work/live studio shall be incidental to the primary work use in any building used exclusively for work/live occupancy. These provisions shall permit participation in occasional open studio programs and gallery shows. 5 18. NON RESIDENT EMPLOYEES. Up to two (2) persons who do not reside in the work/live studio may work in the studio unless such employment is expressly prohibited or limited by the use permit because of potential detrimental effects on persons living or working in the building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in the vicinity of the subject property. The employment of three (3) or more persons who do not reside in the work/live studio may be permitted subject to a use permit based on additional findings that such employment will not adversely affect traffic and parking conditions in the area where the work/live studio is located. The employment of any persons who do not reside in the work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable Building Code requirements. 19. CLIENT AND CUSTOMER. VISITS. Client and customer visits to work/live studios are permitted subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the use permit in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially zoned areas. 20. SITE PLAN REVISIONS: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the site plan shall be revised to remove up to three unenclosed parking spaces and show the installation of a minimum of three parking lot trees to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 21. HOLD HARMLESS: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Use Permit 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 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant/project sponsor of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant/project sponsor of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant/project sponsor shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 22. REVOCATION: This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Board, should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 23. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS: The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this Use Permit to be exercised. 6 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Date: Memorandum May 11, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Re: James M. Flint, City Manager Public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (TM7387) for the subdivision of a vacant site at 2391 Fifth Street into twelve lots: ten for the construction of for -sale affordable, single - family homes within duplex structures; one for the construction of 52 affordable housing units; and one lot to be landscaped. The site is located at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC/East Housing) site on the north side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway within the M -X, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: Resources for Community Development/Alameda Housing Authority. BACKGROUND In Spring of 2003, the Planning Board approved a Planned Development for the construction of 52 affordable rental housing units and ten affordable for -sale homes, now known as "The Breakers at Bayport", as part of the larger Bayport Development at the former FISC/East Housing site. On April 26, 2004, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council approve the associated Tentative Map 7387 for a 12 -lot subdivision. Ten of the lots would be developed with for -sale, affordable single - family homes within duplex structures, one of the lots would be developed with 52 units of affordable rental housing, and the remaining lot would be landscaped. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Map has been reviewed by both City Staff and Harris and Associates, who function as the City Engineer for this project. The Map meets all requirements for review under the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance. Conditions of approval have been developed by staff which are contained in the draft Resolution relating to the Map. Once the City Council approves the Map, the applicant will need to comply with all conditions of approval. After that is accomplished, the matter will be brought back to the City Council for action on the Final Map. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts on the General Fund. Re: Public Hearing 5 -B 5 -18 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 May 11, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information and then act to uphold the Planning Board approval of Tentative Map, TM7387, as provided in the draft City Council Resolution. Attachments cc Respec ylubmiffed Gregory Fu Planning and Building Director By: Ajam Judith Altschuler Supervising Planner 1. Tentative Map 7387 2. Staff Report prepared for the 26 April 2004 Planning Board meeting without attachments 1. Mike Pucci, Alameda Housing Authority 2. Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services Department 3. Brian Saliman, Resources for Community Development G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \j -May 18 \tm7387.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service t# laaun{aeud O�p'SLI v -LOV4\ .throo[SO \ =Icy M :JMI NIMVW DESIGN EXCEPTIONS . 1 6:a. + b u el k S • • R of Q } + y • • 31E r Hgl n � No E= � 5g; Xs a aalaaaas §3§im € .5. Gimg §90W64$oaode4.11s GENERAL NOTES SYMBOL LEGEND 0 6 J O m • N d� Xg4aY114 .g.7, :r:g: iiiiiiiiiii iii i NI e.a•u=Au4nw\mo..40�wo :afro ZI1 3��a �3T11 ONI MYtlO .N.s>31 &A.m\'JN 2goi ovI 3K M :31A1NI0 eo9 L9•[ LL 1 99' 3NV7 H�LOR ol11 1011 01.909 01. SLY -set > 0010 ]L 909 060 le •L 00 Ay��9, spa ,t2 kg, '�� $9 .SGF:: �SNA m . 16y 'iHlr 0„, co i� �� F: q® LLG I Ma I'Ap LL 9 LLLL .00 OLD. 2 My0ZL11L9H IN A ..I MIN% 1.1# M,19.19.L9N MB up.c NLY9 -YO,�llB8 M\aggoao4ge9ro �31YN 00ltl �W 3��9 ��NN ONIMYb9 SHM110 [R J- [TS SOVlLL (ROHM{ .,Rf 3Noo RR SSN MI i S83os 4 =n== --mss AA o 11 ■ ►illilIMIMMOINIMII11EW'111=11 tYJ11111.111110.11111 Er 113111.0 AR 3N00 RR OS S.LNawaA02[d➢CI 3[1N3AV r' SN30'RVJ :IN 3N nrb I eaiiiuve- sol�lu4'�+n \macro \cos i� :3rrtiiaiiMVUo CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT 7-B PD03- 0001 /TM03- 0002 /UP04 -0004 -- 2391 Fifth Street -- Resources for Community Development /Alameda Housing Authority. Applicant is requesting: 1) An extension of a Planned Development to permit the construction of 62 affordable housing units including 52 rental units and 10 for - sale residences, a community center, landscaping, internal street and associated improvements; 2) A Tentative Map (TM7387) for the subdivision of a vacant site into twelve lots: ten for the construction of for -sale single - family homes; one for the construction of 52 affordable housing units; and one residential lot; 3) A Use Permit to permit the installation of a construction trailer. The site is located at the former FISC site on the north side of Atlantic Avenue within the M -X, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zoning District. Medium Density Residential A Final Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Overrriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Addendum to the EIR were previously prepared and approved for the Project. Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Recommend approval with conditions of the Tentative Map with condition; approve extension of the Planned Development and Use Permit. 1. Draft Resolution relating to the Tentative Map 2. Draft Resolution relating to the extension of the Planned Development approval 3. Draft Resolution relating to the Use Permit 4. Staff Report prepared for the 27 May 2003 Planning Board meeting. 5. Tentative Map prepared by the applicant. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 26 April 2004 Attachment #2 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The application includes a Tentative Map for 12 lots. Ten of the lots would be developed with a for -sale home, one of the lots would be developed with 52 units of affordable rental housing., and the remaining lot would be landscaped. The applicant is also requesting a one -year extension of a Planned Development for the project which was approved on 27 May 2003 and Use Permit to permit the installation of a construction trailer in the northeast corner of the site. II. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions The site is vacant and contains approximately three acres. It is part of the former Fleet and Industrial Service Center. A Planned Development for the construction of 62 affordable units, ten for sale and 52 for rent, was approved on 27 May 2003 by the Planning Board. Please see attachment #4 for further details. B. Surrounding Land Use North — vacant (will be developed as Bayport homes) West- vacant (will be developed as Bayport homes) South- vacant (will be developed as Bayport homes) East- vacant (will be developed as Fifth Street in the future) with the College of Alameda beyond. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The EIR as well as the Project have undergone an extensive public review process. The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Catellus Project on November 23, 1998 and a second NOP to taxing agencies in December 1998. The City received 27 comment letters from interested public agencies, organizations and individuals in response to this NOP which was distributed for public review from November 23 through December 23, 1998. The City conducted a public scoping meeting on December 16, 1998 to identify potential environmental issues and concerns that would be raised by the Project. The scoping process included placing notices in local newspapers, conducting a public meeting, and using direct mail. Oral and written comments were received from members of the public, interested groups, and Federal, State, and local agencies. In addition, the City of Alameda held a special meeting of the Planning Board on August 6, 1998 to present preliminary plans for the Project and to take public comments. The City and Catellus also sponsored three community workshops to explain the Project and take comments from the public. These workshops were held on July 6, 1998, May 26, 1999 and August 10, 1999. The Draft EIR was subject to a 45 day comment period that began on December 13, 1999 and ended Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 26 April 2004 2 on January 31, 2000. Two public hearings on the Draft EIR were held by the Planning Board on January 29, 2000. Finally, a workshop was held by the Planning Board on March 25, 2000 to review the Project, the public review process, and the Master Plan. The Catellus Mixed Use Development constitutes the proposed Project evaluated in the EIR. The EIR examines the potential impacts to the environment that may result from implementation of the Project, from three alternative scenarios and from a No Project Alternative. A description of the proposed Project, other alternatives to be evaluated and probable environmental effects is included in the Draft EIR. The EIR was recommended for certification by the Planning Board on May 13, 2000 and certified by the City Council on May 31, 2000. Addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development EIR: The recent revisions to the project (reconfigure school and park sites, modify the street grid and include alleys to serve rear loaded garages and designation of a three acre affordable housing site) were analyzed in the Addendum to the EIR dated November 26, 2001 and a separate traffic study conducted by Dowling Associates. The traffic study concluded that neither the addition of the 60 multiple family units nor the reconfiguration of the school and park site and the street grid would create any new traffic impacts or require any additional mitigation measures. The Addendum analyzed all potential impacts resulting from the proposed project revisions including land use, public policy, population and housing, hydrology, geology, hazards, biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, public services, utilities, cultural resources, and aesthetics. The Addendum concludes that the proposed revisions would not trigger the need for subsequent environmental review pursuant to section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The project would not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previous EIR. Conclusion: No further environmental analysis is required for the current application. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) into the proposed Project and it has been included as a condition of approval in the resolution approving the Master Plan as well as the Planned Development. The MMRP is also attached to the Development Agreement which is a legally binding contract. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Tentative Map The Map has been reviewed by both City Staff and Harris and Associates, who function as the City Engineer for project, known as The Breakers at Bayport. The Map meets all requirements for review under the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance. Conditions of approval have been developed by staff which are contained in the draft Resolution relating to the Map. Staff is recommending that the Board recommend approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council. Once the City Council approves the Map, the applicant will need to comply with all conditions of approval. Once that is accomplished, the City Council can take action on the Final Map. No other action by the Planning Board is required. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 26 April 2004 3 B. Extension of the Planned Development The applicant has requested a one time, one -year extension of the Planned Development approval in order to complete the Tentative Map process and to secure building permits for the construction of the proposed development. The applicant estimates that construction should commence this summer. All conditions contained in the original approval will be incorporated in the approval of the extension. Final Design Review will be conducted as part of the building permit process for the construction of the development. C. Use Permit The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the installation of a construction trailer on lot 11 as shown on the Tentative Map (attachment #5) during the construction of the 62 unit affordable housing project which will begin in the summer of 2004 and will be removed at the end of the construction period which should be by Fall of 2005. In order to approve the requested use permit, the Planning Board shall make all of the following three findings and must determine that the proposed use favorably relates to the General Plan: 1. The location of the proposed is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area. Staff can make this finding. The location of the proposed temporary construction trailer is compatible with the lot configuration of the approved subdivision. The construction trailer is required to monitor the construction activity within the project area and is a typical component of major construction projects such as The Breakers at Bayport.. 2. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities. Staff can make this finding. Access to the site for construction vehicles and equipment would be via Atlantic Avenue and the greater Bayport site. Parking for personnel will be on the site. 3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. The construction trailer will not be visible to any surrounding residences and will be behind a construction fence surrounding the site. The construction trailer will be temporary and will be removed as soon as construction is complete. There will be no noise generation except for office equipment in the trailers. In general, the proposed use will not create additional impacts than those anticipated by the approved Bayport project. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 26 April 2004 4 4. The proposed use relates favorable to the General Plan. Staff can make this finding. The area is designated for residential use on the General Plan diagram, and a construction trailer is a necessary element in developing the site. Use Permit Conclusion: All required findings for the approval of the Use Permit can be made. V. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Building Director recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend approval of the Tentative Map, approve the extension of the Planned Development and approve the Use Permit, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolutions. G:\PLANNING\PB\ REPORTS \2004\h -April 26\tm7387report.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of 26 April 2004 5 E o , WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on 26 April 2004, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 7387 AT 2391 FIFTH STREET (THE BREAKERS AT BAYPORT) WHEREAS, an application was made on 12 December 2003 by Resources for Community Development for a one -time, one year extension of a Planned Development to construct 62 new duplex and multiple family residences, internal private street, on- street parking, landscaping and associated improvements on an approximately 3 acre site; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on 16 March 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a MX (Mixed Use - Planned Development) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Map with conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on 18 May 2004, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a Final Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Addendum to the EIR were previously prepared and approved for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves Tentative Map 7387 subject to the following conditions: 1. The island at the entrance on Neptune Gardens can be eliminated. If the developer wants to retain this island, then approval of the Fire Department that sufficient turning radii are provided for emergency vehicles. 2. The median island in the middle of the access street should be either eliminated or approval obtained from the Fire Department that there is sufficient travel lanes for emergency vehicle access. The tree should be eliminated from the island to assure roots are not a problem for the sanitary sewer below. 3. Provide stamped colored concrete at both entrances to distinguish the road as private. 4. Handicap ramps shall be provided as required. 1 Resolution #5 -B 5 -18 -04 5. The final map will provide all required public utility easements and an emergency vehicle access easement for all publicly owned facilities as required by the respective utility. 6. The ten ownership unit parcels will be required to participate in the Bayport Community Facilities District 03 -1. 7. The drive/back -out aisle for the parking areas is shown as 20 feet but typically 25 foot lane between 90- degree parking is desirable. Final site design should re- evaluate the feasibility of providing more aisle width. 8. The Planning Board Staff Report of May 27, 2003 referenced wheel stops. The cross sections show 6 -inch curb with allowance for 2.5 feet of bumper overhang. The curb shall be used for the wheel stops. No additional wheel stops are permitted. 9. Final plot and grading plans shall show drainage slopes between buildings and walkways. If the proposed elevations along side and rear yards are higher than adjacent property(s) grades, provide detail of retaining walls. The structural and drainage design shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Engineered retaining wall over three (3) feet in height and sound walls shall be constructed of approved durable material to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. 10. The proposed grades shall be coordinated with the adjacent Bayport Development. 11. The Roth Lane cross section (Section E) which shows the distance from the structure to the back of curb as varying from 3 to 20 feet shall be modified to be consistent with plans. The plans shall show a minimum of 3 feet from back of curb to the structure. 12. Section A on Sheet 5 shows a 5 -foot sidewalk sloping from left to right, which is not consistent with the plan and should be corrected. 13. The Final Map and the Project as constructed shall be in substantial compliance with the finally approved tentative map. 14. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. At the City Engineer's sole discretion grading permit may be issued after approval and prior to recordation of the Final Map. 16. All improvements shall reflect the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report. The report shall be filed with the City Engineer in conjunction with the Improvement Plans. The soils engineer will review all field work including, but not limited to, excavation, shoring and trenching. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the final improvement plans. 17. Prior to the approval of the Final Map a Flood Plain Study and delineation map shall be submitted for approval by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The studies shall be in conformance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and shall provide calculations to confirm that the finished floor elevations are a minimum of 1 foot above the 100 -year flood elevation. 18. Each parcel shall be numbered or lettered and shall be consecutive. 19. The Final Map shall include addressing, which shall be approved by the Building Official. 2 20. In accordance with Section 30 -85.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code, prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the Developer shall execute an agreement between the Developer and the City for approval by the City Council specifying the period within which the Developer shall complete all on -site improvement work. The improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved Final Map, the Improvement Plans and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Agreement shall provide that if the work is not completed within the specified period, the City may complete the work and recover all costs and expenses from the Developer or successor in interest. 21. The Developer shall provide as -built and reproducible Mylar copies and CD -ROM of the infrastructure improvement and landscaping plans to the City Engineer within 30 days of completion of construction. 22. The City will own and maintain only storm drains 12- inches and greater and the catch basins on those lines. All storm drain lines less than 12- inches in diameter and all catch basins on those lines shall be maintained by Developer or his designee. 23. Construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code which restricts construction to the hours of 7:OOam to 7:OOpm Monday through Friday and 8:OOam to 5:OOpm on Saturdays. 24. Trash enclosures shall be a minimum of 12X12 per 5 units for multi - family in accordance with Environmental Services Division requirements. The enclosures also they have to open onto alley /driveway. 25. All conditions conferred in the City of Alameda Planning Board and City Council resolutions approving the Tentative Map applicable to the Final Map shall be deemed satisfactory to the City Engineer and Planning Director. 26. Complete improvement plans, including profiles and sections, and specifications shall be prepared by the developer's engineer and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be provided on 22 "x30" sheets, drawn to a scale of 1 " =20' or 1 " =40'. 27. Complete landscape and irrigation plans and specifications for front yards, side yards of corner fronting lots, and common areas shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. Sheet size shall be 22 "x30" or to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2389 (Water Conservation). 28. Specifications shall incorporate waste management practices and use of recyclable materials to the extent possible and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 29. Improvement plans and specifications shall include erosion and sediment control plan incorporating best management practices. 30. Signatures of all utility companies shall be obtained on the improvement plans and specifications prior to the City Engineer's signature. 31. Sanitary sewer calculations shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 32. All storm drain inlets, including rear property inlets, shall have perm anent markings labeled "No Dumping - Drains to Bay" to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3 33. Whenever possible, utility mains, sewer and other conduits shall be parallel and have a minimum of 5 feet horizontal clearance between each other. Where they cross, they shall cross each other at right angles or as near to right angles as possible, and shall have a vertical clearance of at least 0.30 feet. 34. The joint trench width and depth shall meet the standards of the utility companies and the City Engineer. 35. All utility lines shall be shown on the improvement plans. 36. A grading plan will be required as part of the improvement plan submittal for all areas within the subdivision and street frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sufficient tests and analysis by an approved soils engineer shall be taken to determine the proper allowances if future subsidence is predicted. All swales shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 37. Surface drainage must slope away from all buildings. The minimum acceptable grade for surface flow and swales, except paved areas, after settlement, is 1 %. 38. Roof leader down spouts shall outfall to the ground and not be connected to pipes draining to curb face or storm drain. 39. All reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with checking the improvement plans and specifications and Final Map and doing all work associated with the construction and inspection of the improvements, shall be paid for by the subdivider. 40. The final map shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Alameda Municipal Code regarding Real Estate Subdivisions Regulations, Planning Board and City Council Tentative Map Resolutions applicable to the Final Map and shall be acceptable to the City Engineer and Planning Director. 41. Deeds, title report of property owner(s), adjoiner deeds and closure calculations shall be provided. 42. Public emergency vehicle access, public utility easements on the private street, private street ingress /egress access easements and surface drainage easements shall be shown on the fmal map. 43. All necessary City permits (i.e. building, grading, excavation, etc.) shall be obtained prior to construction. 44. Cut sheets for installation of storm drain and sanitary sewer pipes shall be prepared under the direction of and signed by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor and to the approval of the City Engineer. 45. Provide individual lot plot final grading plans showing building foundation foot print, lot boundary, offset dimensions of buildings to property lines, swales and drainage inlets, hi/low /spot/pad elevations necessary for final grading to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sheet size shall be 81/2"x11 ". 46. A traffic control plan shall be provide to City Engineer for approval prior to the start of construction.. The plan shall be maintained and adjusted accordingly as conditions warrant subject to approval of the City Engineer. 4 47. During construction the developer shall maintain construction noise, dust control and site cleanup to City acceptable levels; maintain urban runoff control measures; sweep public streets daily or as necessary; and construction materials, equipment and personnel vehicles shall be stored on site and not on public streets. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DAA04- 0001 FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OPEN SPACE, AND LIMITED RETAIL USES AS WELL AS SITES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND A SCHOOL, LOCATED WITHIN A PROJECT AREA ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 215 ACRES OF LAND AND WATER AT THE FORMER ALAMEDA FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER AND ANNEX AND NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) ALAMEDA EAST HOUSING TO RELEASE THE ACET PARECL FROM THE CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -91 of the Alameda Municipal Code, the Development Agreement, as Shown in "Exhibit "A" and amended by Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001, as shown on Exhibit `B ", is hereby adopted for all the real property within the 215 acre 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 Atlantic Avenue, and east of Main Street, exclusive of the Alameda Gateway Center, U.S. Coast Guard Housing, and Miller Elementary School. Section 2. The above Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 shall be known as and referenced to as the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Alameda and the Catellus Development Corporation. 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. Exhibit A — Catellus Development Agreement (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Exhibit B — Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -C 5 -18 -04 R I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA04 -0001 FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OPEN SPACE, AND LIMITED RETAIL USES AS WELL AS SITES FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND A SCHOOL, LOCATED WITHIN A PROJECT AREA ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 215 ACRES OF LAND AND WATER AT THE FORMER ALAMEDA FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER AND ANNEX AND NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) ALAMEDA EAST HOUSING THAT WOULD MODIFY CATELLUS' OBLIGATIONS TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN BY ALLOCATING THOSE OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN ACET AND CATELLUS. 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 MPA04 -0001, as shown on Exhibit GAO and amended by the amendments to the conditions of approval in Exhibit OBO is hereby adopted for all the real property within the 215 acre 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 Atlantic Avenue, and east of Main Street, exclusive of the Alameda Gateway Center, U.S. Coast Guard Housing, and Miller Elementary School. Section 2. The above Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 shall be known as and referenced to as Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (hereinafter Catellus Master Plan) dated October 2001, as amended. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage subject to the signature of the development Agreement. Exhibit A — Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Exhibit B — Conditions of Approval Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 1 Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA04 -0001 AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS 1. Master Plan condition #13(f) (Master Sign Program) shall be allocated as follows: ACET shall prepare a Master Sign Program for the ACET Project in conjunction with its submittal of the Development Plan for the ACET Project. Catellus will prepare a Master Sign Program for the balance of the entire Catellus Business Park in conjunction with the submittal of the first Development Plan for the balance of the Business Park. 2. Master Plan condition #18 (TSM Program) shall be allocated according to the size of the development shown in their respective Development Plans. ACET will prepare a TSM Program for the ACET Project in conjunction with submittal of its Development Plan. Catellus shall prepare a master TSM Program for the balance of the entire Catellus Business Park in conjunction with submittal of the first Development Plan within the Business Park. 3. The allocation is based on the following: Since the ACET Project will be approximately 30,000 square feet of floor area and will generate minimal peak hour impacts, the TSM Program submitted by ACET with its Development Plan shall be designed commensurate with its level of impact. Since the balance of the Business Park to be developed by Catellus may include up to 1.3 million square feet of floor area and may generate significant peak hour impacts, the TSM Program submitted by Catellus with the first Development Plan for the balance of the entire Business Park shall be comprehensive in scope and include a range of TSM measures and potential financial contributions to fund various trip reduction programs developed by the Catellus Transportation Systems Manager and approved by the City. CONDITIONS EFFECTIVE DATE 1. The Master Plan Amendment shall not be in force and effect unless and until the following conditions have been satisfied: a. The City Council first approves the Master Plan Amendment (MPA04 -0001) and it is in effect. RESPONSIBILITY 2. As among ACET, the CIC and CDC, ACET shall be responsible for the costs associated with the obtaining, implementing, and defending any necessary amendments of the Mitigation Measures and Project Approvals and any required environmental review related thereto. HOLD HARMLESS 3. The applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this project, which action is brought within the time period provide for in the Government Code. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. APPROVED PLANS 4. The Project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the document titled EJCatellus Alameda Project Master Plan,U prepared by Catellus Development Corporation, as amended on January 2, 2002 on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning Department, except as modified by the Master Plan conditions approved herein. VESTING 5. These conditions run with the land and shall apply to the life of the Project, except as satisfied pursuant to their express terms. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 6. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to MPA04 -0001 except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Master Plan approval or in any Development Agreement between the City and the applicant. 7. The Master Plan shall include the following specific limitations and exceptions to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): a. Within the business park, no outdoor storage of materials is approved as part of this Master Plan Amendment. Any such storage may be permitted subject to an approved Use Permit. CITY /APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITIES 8. The applicant shall not be held in default for non performance of any conditions required of the City of Alameda or its agents or other agencies for development of property, as specified in the Development Agreement. AMENDMENTS 9. Any amendments to this Master Plan Amendment shall be subject to the provisions established in the Master Plan (page I -10) and the Development Agreement (article 6.4) Major amendments to this Master Plan shall remain within the authority of the City Council. The determination of minor and major amendments shall be processed in accordance with the Development Agreement. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the permittee shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval of the Master Plan Amendment and must accept this Master Plan Amendment subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for the Master Plan, as approved herein and Design Review to be exercised. MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE MAP AND MMRP COMPLIANCE 11. The Master Plan Amendment shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (January 2, 2002), Amended Tentative Map (November 19, 2001), 3 Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, and other entitlements, as amended; City infrastructure design standards, as revised by the City Engineer; as well as the mitigations contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as amended, prepared for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project. G:\PIANNING \CC \ORDINANCES\2004 \CC MPA Ordinance2 5 -03 -04.doc 4 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CURRENT APPLICATIONS ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY PARATRANSIT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE (PAPCO) Marleen Cooney Robert Frazer Marjorie B. Lunceford Re: Council Communications #7 -A 5 -18 -04 PACIFIC SHOPS, INC. 1815 CLEMENT AVENUE ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 94501 -1376 (510) 521 -1133 April 23, 2004 CDM John Downs 2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95833 APR 2 6 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE R *4 APP 2 8 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Subject: Coast Guard I§.Jand,,Alameda, California FLOATING BARRIER PROJECT Dear Mr. Downs: We are in receipt of your correspondence of March 29, 2004 regarding the Floating Barrier Project proposed for Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California. Alameda Marina is located directly across the estuary from Coast Guard Island. We are opposed to the project for many reasons, with the following being our major concerns: > The Coast Guard High Endurance Cutters should not be located at Coast Guard Island, Alameda. They should be located at YBI or another open water port such as the former Coast Guard pier at Crissy Field, San Francisco or the former Naval Air Station, Alameda. Response time from open water locations would be much faster than from Coast Guard Island. If the notion was to cripple the cutters or prevent their use, all a terrorist group would have to do is block the estuary, thus precluding the cutters docked at Alameda from entering the open Bay waters. This could be done by attacking and sinking any of the many commercial vessels using Port of Oakland estuary facilities for discharging or loading cargo. It could also be done by strategically attacking and sinking any of the numbers of barges that navigate the Oakland /Alameda estuary. The attached photos indicate barge traffic between Alameda Marina and Coast Guard Island. > The proposed barrier will substantially narrow the free navigation area between Alameda and Coast Guard Island. This will be a cause of substantial wake damage at various Alameda facilities. > The proposed barrier will be unsightly and threatening to the many boaters using this area of the estuary for recreational purposes. It would instill fear that they are in an area where terrorist activity could occur. Re: Council Communications 7 5 -18 -04 April 23, 2004 CDM /John Downs Page Two D The proposed barrier will cause visual blight as seen from the north shore of Alameda. D We have not seen any information with respects to the distance that recreational and commercial vessels, navigating the estuary adjacent to Coast Guard. Island, will have to maintain between their vessel and the barrier. This distance will further reduce navigable water and create additional hazards. D The proposed barrier will encroach on the Federal Navigation Channel and impede commercial traffic adjacent to the barrier. The foregoing is a list of our present, major concerns. We have not yet notified our tenants of the proposal nor do we feel that the United States Coast Guard has properly notified all of the individuals who would be affected by the barrier proposal. Please keep us advised of your Environmental Assessment meetings so we can, in turn, advise other marine operators in our area. We are strongly opposed to the barrier proposal and believe that there are other solutions available. Sincerely yours, ALAMEDA MA INA Wayne Mi ani Vice Preio - t WAM /cb cc: Beverley Johnson, Mayor Alameda City Council Members Alameda Police Department/Lt. Jim Brock James Flint, City Manager Matt Naclerio, Public Works Enclosures CDM John Downs 2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95833 City of Alameda • California May 6, 2004 Subj: COAST GUARD ISLAND,ALAMEDA, CA. FLOATING BARRIER PROJECT Dear M. Downs: The City of Alameda would like to thank you for issuing a scoping letter and requesting our comments on the proposed waterfront development at Integrated Support Command (ISC) Alameda, Coast Guard Island. We understand the importance of national security and the need for the U.S. Coast Guard to protect its assets so it can protect us in the event of terrorism. There are, however, local concerns about this project as it has potential impacts on Alameda businesses and the citizens of Alameda. Your proposal is to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project. We believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared due to the potential for significant impacts. These impacts are described below. Also, an EIS will allow you to fully analyze alternatives to the barrier system. Aesthetics The barrier is proposed to be 10' in height and lit with aids -to- navigation and warning lighting at 50' intervals potential for its 1500 liner length. Please provide in your EA visual simulations of this barrier from Alameda so that the impacts on views can adequately assessed. As an Island community, Alameda enjoys water views and views of the Oakland Hills, both of which may be obscured by this barrier. Please prepare a full lighting study describing potential glare and lighting impacts on Alameda. Some of the marinas in the vicinity contain live aboard (residential) uses that could be impacted by increased lighting and glare. Navigational Safety The barrier is proposed to encroach into the federal navigation channel. Alameda has numerous marinas along the Estuary. The marina users already share space in the Estuary with dredging scows and container ships. All of these vessels must be able to continue to coexist with this barrier and be able to traverse the channel going both directions at the same time. The environmental document must fully analyze the potential impacts to recreational and commercial navigation from the installation of this system. Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.6850 • Fax 510.747.6853 • TDD 510.522.7538 * Printed on Reryded Paper Letter to John Downs Page 2 • May 6, 2004 The narrowing of the federal channel, and the resultant narrower passage could increase the incidences of vessel impacts as vessels are forced into a narrower channel. Please analyze, the potential for increased collisions due to the installation of the barrier. The system also includes an underwater detection system. The operation of this system must be fully described, particularly its area of potential effect as it relates to passing vessels and its impact on navigation along the Estuary. Please describe and analyze the impacts of the anchoring system. It is unclear from the description provided how the barrier system will be anchored. What is the potential that the barrier system become untethered and floats free in the Estuary, causing it to run into existing improvements or become a navigational hazard to vessels in the Estuary? If this system includes driving piles into the Estuary, then there are additional impacts, such as noise, hazards materials disturbance from the sediment and biological impacts to pacific herring that will need to be fully and completely analyzed. Geological The narrower channel has the potential to cause vessels to have to travel closer to the Alameda shoreline in order to avoid the barrier system. The narrower channel, coupled with vessel traffic closer to Alameda's shoreline, cause additional wave wash action to cause wake damage to the shoreline and shoreline improvements. Please analyze the potential impacts of the additional wave wash action. Noise The underwater detection system includes an alert system. Is this system audible? If so, please analyze the noise impacts to Alameda related to this system. Some of the marinas in the vicinity contain live aboard (residential) uses that could be impacted by increased noise. Biological The Estuary provides foraging habitat for the California Least Tern, a federally listed endangered species. The proposed barrier will create a potential perching location for predators of the Least Tern. Please include in your environmental document how you intend to address the potential impacts to this species. Alternatives Please analyze alternatives to the proposed barrier system. These alternatives should include: 1. An electronic security system without the foam barriers. 2. The addition of on -shore monitoring systems and personnel. Letter to John Downs Page 3 May 6, 2004 3. The relocation of highly sensitive vessels to a more appropriate location outside of the constricted, multi- purpose channel of the Estuary. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide early comments on this proposal. We would like a copy of the Environmental Assessment when it is completed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (510) 747 -6800. Sincerely, Greg Fuz Planning and Building Director xc: City Manager Executive Director, BCDC Executive Director, Port of Oakland Dave Stalters, Chief, Environmental Division, U.S. Coast Guard UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - APRIL 6, 2004 - - 7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or approved are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- )Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings March 16, 2004. Approved. ( *04- )Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and between the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Approved. ( *04- )Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend the existing Master Consulting Agreement with Harris and Associates by extending the contract term to December 31, 2004, and adding authority of $825,000 for professional engineering and construction support services in connection with the Bayport Project. Approved. AGENDA ITEM (04- )Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to initiate preparation of a Webster Street Strategic Plan. Approved. Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents: Doug DeHaan, Economic Development Commission; Edward Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA); and, Sherri Sties, WABA. There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting April 6, 2004 portion of the meeting. Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Economic Development Strategic Plan included a downtown vision for Park Street; that the same needs to be done for Webster Street to make the Plan continue to work. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated that over the years many people have been working to promote Webster Street; requested that information on the progress of the project be sent to Mr. Richard Roth, former Vice Mayor. Commissioner Kerr stated that she supports the Plan; she was disappointed with the evaluation of the retail impacts for Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Chair Johnson thanked WABA for working so hard on the project. On call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting April 6, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 4, 2004- -6:40 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Theatre and Longs Drugs; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Cocores Development Company; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained a briefing from and gave instructions to Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission Mayor 4, 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: May 5, 2004 Subject: Recommendation to Consider Allocating Funds for the Potential Property Acquisition and Development for the Proposed Expansion of Ron Goode Toyota BACKGROUND On February 17, 2004, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) selected Ron Goode Toyota (RGT) as the master developer for the development of an expanded automobile dealership within a portion of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP). The proposed site is bounded by Park Street, Eagle Avenue, and Clement Avenue. The CIC also authorized the Executive Director to draft and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with RGT. Staff is negotiating with RGT on the terms of a DDA. The purpose of this report is to establish an allocation of $2,000,000 in funding for potential property acquisition and potential development costs for a proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. These funds would not be spent unless and until the CIC has approved an appropriate DDA and taken other steps necessary for a project approval. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Ron Goode has hired an architect to prepare site plan options for the expansion of its current Alameda facilities at Park and Clement. These expansion plans include: • Demolishing the current showroom and building a new showroom (approximately 6,480 square feet) at the rear of the property; and • Potentially acquiring additional property to increase the size and/or configuration of the sales lot. The goal of this expansion plan is to create a sales facility that will increase RGT's monthly auto sales and to assist with the development of a more modern sales facility capable of satisfying the auto dealer's growing needs and requirements of Toyota USA. Recently, RGT has added the Toyota Scion brand as part of its auto dealership, further increasing its sales presence in Alameda. The company has been located in Alameda for over 20 years. The allocation of $2,000,000 in funding for potential property acquisition and development is being requested in preparation of a finalized DDA for the proposed expansion of RGT. The CIC Report 1 -A CIC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Ser 5 -18 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 2 is not being requested to commit to any other action at this time, including the approval of any configuration of property, expansion plan or acquisition of any particular site or sites. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Ron Goode Toyota is one of the City's largest generators of sales tax revenue. The proposed expansion would increase revenues to the City's General Fund. The $2,000,000 in allocated funding is to be designated from the Merged Areas Bond Issuance proceeds. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the CIC allocate $2,000,000 in funding for potential property acquisition and development for the proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. JMF/LAL/MJF:ry Respect ly submitted, Les ie A. Little Development Services Director By: Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager cc: Leonard Goode, Ron Goode Toyota Economic Development Commission Park Street Business Association Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\Eric\Retail\Ron Goode Toyota\Staff Reports\staff report 5- 18 -04.DOC CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: May 5, 2004 Subject: A Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of the Rite -Aid Leasehold Interest by Eminent Domain for the Bridgeside Shopping Center Redevelopment Project BACKGROUND The Community Improvement Commission (the "CIC" or "Commission ") is being requested to authorize the acquisition by eminent domain of the leasehold interest located in the Bridgeside Center at 2531 Blanding Avenue (the "Leasehold Interest ") for redevelopment purposes. The Leasehold Interest is held by Thrifty Payless, Inc., Rite -Aid #5905 ( "Rite Aid "), under that certain lease dated September 29, 1972, by and between Sutter Hill Limited, the predecessor in interest to Regency Realty Group, Inc., and Pay Less Drug Stores, Inc., as amended. The condemnation of the Leasehold Interest will allow the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center (the "Project ") pursuant to the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement entered into by and between the CIC and Regency Realty Group, Inc. ( "Regency "). The resolution authorizing the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain includes the following findings: (a) the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) the interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; (d) the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code §7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; (e) the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and (f) the CIC has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. Re: Reso 1 -B CIC 5 -18 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 2 The resolution also authorizes the Commission Attorney and Special Counsel to commence an action in condemnation to acquire the Leasehold Interest and to obtain an order of possession for the Leasehold Interest in accordance with the Eminent Domain Law. The resolution is effective only if it is adopted by an affirmative vote of two - thirds or more of the CIC members. This means that approval requires a minimum of 4 affirmative votes. The issues of compensation to Rite Aid, relocation and the exact timing of the CIC's taking of possession are not issues for the CIC at this time. The CIC is negotiating with Rite Aid on those topics, and has retained the services of a qualified relocation expert to assist with those efforts. If compensation is not resolved by negotiations, the fair market value of Rite Aid's Leasehold Interest and any other compensation that Rite Aid may be entitled to would be deteimined through eminent domain proceedings in Superior Court. DISCUSSION The redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center has been a City and CIC priority for many years. On December 3, 2003, after many years of planning and negotiation, the CIC approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA ") with Regency Realty Group, Inc. providing for the redevelopment of the center pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Among other things, the DDA sets forth an obligation on the part of the Commission to obtain an appraisal of the Leasehold Interest and to attempt to negotiate in good faith in conformity with Government Code section 7267.2 the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest. If unsuccessful, the Commission is required to hold a public hearing and consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity. However, the Commission undertook no obligation to adopt any resolutions of necessity, which adoption is to be determined by the Commission in its sole and absolute discretion. On April 2, 2004, CIC staff sent via certified mail a Government Code Section 7267.2(a) offer to Rite Aid to purchase the Leasehold Interest for just compensation, $484,200.00. The offer was received by Chris Bernard of Rite Aid on April 3, 2004; Ray Payne of Rite Aid and Lee Rosenthal, Counsel for Rite Aid, on April 5, 2004; and Rite Aid Corporate Offices on April 6, 2004. The offer was accompanied by an appraisal summary that fully complied with Government Code Section 7267.2(a). Neither the CIC nor the CIC's acquisition consultant, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., have received any written or verbal response to the offer as of April 30, 2004. Since the CIC has not been able to successfully negotiate the purchase of the Leasehold Interest, on April 29, 2004, CIC staff sent a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain ( "Notice of Intent ") to Rite Aid, as the owner of the Leasehold Interest. Rite Aid was notified that it had fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Intent to file a written request to appear and be heard at the May 18, 2004, CIC meeting on the following matters: (a) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\IviARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 3 (b) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) whether the interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; (d) whether the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the leasehold interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code §7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; (e) whether the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and (f) whether the CIC has authority to acquire the leasehold interest by eminent domain. Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project in order to redevelop an existing blighted, functionally obsolete and underutilized shopping center located within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "BWIP ") area into a vital neighborhood community shopping center with access to the waterfront. A major goal of the Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP project area is the elimination of blighting influences. Bridgeside Shopping Center is an over 83,000- square foot community shopping center located along Tilden Way between Broadway and the Miller Sweeney Bridge on an 8.3 acre site and has been part of a blighted area as far back as 1991, when the BWIP project area was created. The Report to Council dated April 1991, for creation of the BWIP, documented that there was a low rate of investment in property and a lower rate of increase in the value of property within the BWIP project area as compared to the City as a whole. "Citywide average annual growth in assessed property value between fiscal year 1986 -87 and 1990 -91 has been 7.5 percent. Average annual growth in assessed value of property in the (BWIP) Area for the same period is 5.3 percent. Absolute growth during the period amounted to 50 percent in the City while only 30 percent growth in assessed property value occurred in the Project Area. The implication here is that resales, new development and rehabilitation activity in the proposed Project Area has not kept pace with such activity Citywide, exemplifying the lack of investment in the Project Area." (Report to City Council: Proposed Redevelopment for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, April 1991, Section IV, Page 42.) The experience of the Bridgeside Center and its prior owner, IRES California Inc., was consistent with this lack of investment in the BWIP project area. IRES defaulted on loans secured by the center, and the property was scheduled for a trustee sale on May 30, 1995, which, however, was averted. The adjacent property formerly owned by Southern Pacific, which has Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity \Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 4 been purchased by Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC to be incorporated into the Project, has also contributed to blight in the area. The property has been used to park used cars for sale and derelict cars have been left on the rail spur. On November 28, 1995, CIC staff spoke with and offered assistance to the new property managers, Northwest Asset Management, who took over management of the center on October 1, 1995. The CIC offered to provide the design services of a commercial architect to provide concept drawings to assist in marketing the undeveloped pad at the center. The property manager agreed to convey the offer of assistance to the property owner. The offer of assistance was never accepted. The property manager's concerns at the time of these discussions included: homeless people camping under the Miller Sweeney Bridge and in the bushes around the center; the constant loss of shopping carts; people who fish in the Estuary; the inability to keep the fence around the undeveloped pad in good repair; litter around the center; and the difficulty of balancing the cost of "sweeping services with the merchants' ability to pay." The picture painted by the property manager is one of a shopping center in need of refurbishment and assistance. In addition, in late 1996, the pier adjacent to the center was declared a health and safety hazard by the City of Alameda. The City requested that the pier, which according to the Army Corp of Engineers was the responsibility of the property owner, be removed. Unconfirmed rumors began in June of 1996 regarding the impending closure of Bridgeside Center's grocery anchor, Lucky. However, Lucky denied that it would be closing. CIC staff continued to contact the property owner to offer design and marketing assistance, especially in light of the closure rumors. In 1997, Lucky closed and relocated to the new Fruitvale Station retail center in Oakland, leaving a vacant building that would never again be occupied, in part due to a clause in Lucky's lease that prohibited a competing anchor business from moving into the vacant space. After that loss, the center saw an increased decline, as stores closed and vacancies increased. CIC staff offered to assist the prior owner in marketing the center to other retailers, such as Trader Joe's. Community concern about the vacant building grew and residents signed petitions supporting the lease of the former Lucky's space to tenants such as Trader Joe's, which never materialized. In early 1999, the prior owner decided to pursue an alternative residential development concept, which was incompatible with the General Plan and the community's desire for a replacement grocery store use. In 1999, the BWIP Five -Year Implementation Plan was amended to identify the Bridgeside Center as blighted; that Implementation Plan states that the center "is an aging and deteriorated shopping center experiencing in excess of a 40% vacancy rate for more than two and one -half years." A Report to Council dated January, 2003, adopted in connection with the recent community improvement plan amendments, included a survey of existing blight within the BWIP project area. The Report to Council indicates that Bridgeside Shopping Center has extensive physical dilapidation or deterioration and is underutilized. (Report to City Council, Alameda Merger Amendments, January 2003, Figures III -14, 28.) Currently, there are only five existing tenants in the over 83,000 square foot center: (1) Rite Aid; (2) Launderland, a laundromat; (3) Subway; (4) Round Table Pizza; and (5) Baskin- Robbins. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 5 The Project will alleviate existing blight within the center through the demolition of the existing blighted and functionally obsolete structures and the construction of a new, updated shopping center. A new high - quality grocery store will anchor the center and attract shoppers and tenants. Further, the Project is designed to reclaim access to the waterfront, which had not been a focus of the existing blighted center. Lastly, the Project is a catalyst project that will trigger additional private investment within the BWIP project area thereby helping to eliminate blight throughout the project area. The Proposed Project is Planned or Located in the Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury The proposed Project is planned in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury because no alternatives to the Project that allow all the existing tenants to remain in the center are feasible. As mentioned above, the Project includes a grocery store anchor to draw the nearby community to the center. It was the loss of a grocery anchor in the late 1990s that accelerated the deterioration and decline of the center. A community shopping center model with a grocery anchor is the industry standard, as it is the grocery traffic that brings the center to life. Therefore, a grocery store was always envisioned as the anchor by the master developer. In considering alternatives for the center, Foothill Partners, Regency's developer, and CIC staff looked at various alternatives that would work with the planned grocery anchor and allow existing tenants to remain in the center. Initially, Foothill/Regency and CIC staff considered planning the center in such a way to allow Launderland, a coin operated Laundromat, to remain in the center. However, as plans for the center and possible tenants materialized, it became clear that Launderland would not be able to remain in the type of neighborhood shopping center envisioned for the site. Coin operated laundromats do not typically attract shoppers who frequent other businesses in a shopping center, a necessity for a successful shopping center with neighborhood appeal. In addition, coin operated laundromats are not a compatible use with the types of uses and tenants Foothill/Regency plans to attract to the center, such as better food uses and waterfront restaurants. Rather, a laundromat's presence would make it more difficult to lease space to preferred businesses and would depress rents on the other spaces. Lastly, coin operated laundromats have significant requirements for water and sewer, especially when compared to the rent paid by most laundromats. Landlords, therefore, have a difficult time making the inclusion of a laundromat in a neighborhood shopping center economically feasible. Foothill/Regency also considered various alternatives for Rite Aid to remain in the center. First, Foothill/Regency and CIC staff considered leaving Rite Aid in its current location and locating the grocery store in the corner of the center near the Miller Sweeney Bridge. This was not a feasible option because the site plan would not provide enough parking for the center. The site plan would only yield 362 parking spaces, as compared to the 425 spaces currently envisioned for the Project. In addition, there would be no open access the waterfront. The grocery store loading dock would have had to be on the waterfront and the center would, in effect, turn its back on the water. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 6 Second, Foothill/Regency and CIC staff considered leaving Rite Aid in its current location and putting the grocery store in the old Lucky building. This was also not a feasible option. The Lucky space is 23,000 square feet, while the industry standard for a grocery store is 50,000 square feet. The existing Lucky location is too small to be economically feasible for the type grocery store use desired by the community. It had, therefore, become clear that the grocery store would need to be located on the site of the existing Rite Aid and Launderland building in order to have enough space to be economically feasible as an anchor tenant and for the center to open up the waterfront, which was a concern not only of the City, but of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Third, Foothill/Regency and CIC staff considered offering the old Lucky location to Rite Aid. This was a feasible alternative from Regency's perspective and was proposed to Rite Aid in late 2001. However, Rite Aid rejected the alternative, as they did not like the location and wanted to be located on the corner of Tilden and Blanding. Fourth, Foothill/Regency, CIC staff and Rite Aid discussed Rite Aid's possible relocation to the corner of Tilden and Blanding in the newly constructed center. The site plan for the proposal was potentially workable and, as set forth in more detail below, the parties extensively negotiated the plans and lease terms for such a move. However, Rite Aid ultimately rejected Foothill/Regency's final proposal in June of 2002 and Rite Aid requested concessions that were not economically feasible. After Rite Aid rejected Foothill/Regency's proposal, Foothill/Regency continued negotiations to secure its key grocery store anchor. Regency eventually negotiated a lease agreement with Raleys/Nob Hill Foods that included an exclusive right to operate a pharmacy in the center. This is consistent with the current industry standard, whereby grocery stores prefer to have a pharmacy in their stores, with no other pharmacy on -site. These are no feasible alternatives that allow Rite Aid and Launderland to remain in the center. The proposed Project, which requires the relocation of these two tenants, is planned in the manner that is the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. The Leasehold Interest is Necessary for the Proposed Project The Leasehold Interest is necessary for the proposed Project because, as discussed in detail above, there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would leave Rite Aid within the center. Rite Aid cannot remain in its current location, Rite Aid rejected a proposal to relocate to the Lucky location and negotiations with Rite Aid to relocate to the corner of Tilden and Blanding, as Rite Aid requested, failed. Further, after negotiations collapsed, Regency negotiated a lease with a grocery anchor that includes a pharmacy exclusive, consistent with current industry standards. The CIC has Complied with All Conditions and Statutory Requirements Necessary to Exercise the Power of Eminent Domain to Acquire the Leasehold Interest Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 7 The CIC has complied with all requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest. As set forth above, the CIC has made an offer to purchase the Leasehold Interest pursuant to Government Code section 7267.2. The offer was consistent with the requirements of section 7267.2 and included a written summary of the basis for the appraisal. Further, the holder of the Leasehold Interest, Rite Aid, was properly notified of this hearing pursuant to a Notice of Intent to Adopt Resolution of Necessity. In addition, the CIC has complied with its Owner Participation Rules. In 2000, the CIC solicited proposals from the property owners of the site for the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Center. Staff received a proposal from the then property owner, IRES, Inc., as well as two third -party developers. One of the third -party developers, Foothill/Regency, was chosen as the preferred master developer for the center. The CIC has also complied with business tenant preference requirements, having made extensive efforts to allow Rite Aid to remain in the center. As mentioned above, Foothill/Regency, CIC staff and Rite Aid extensively negotiated a proposal to relocate Rite Aid to an alternate location. On November 8, 2001, Foothill/Regency proposed a lease to Rite Aid that would have allowed Rite Aid to relocate to the old Lucky location. As noted above, Rite Aid rejected this proposal, as they wanted to be located on the corner of Tilden and Blanding. On December 6, 2001, Foothill/Regency proposed a site plan to Rite Aid that would allow them to move to a new prototype store on the corner of Tilden and Blanding, as requested. Following extensive discussions, on January 17, 2002, Foothill/Regency sent Rite Aid a revised lease proposal for the new prototype store. After additional discussions, Foothill/Regency sent another revised lease proposal to Rite Aid on March 19, 2002. Additional proposals and counter - proposals were exchanged between the two parties in April and May of 2002 regarding certain major deal points that the parties were not able to resolve. On June 7, 2002, representatives from Foothill/Regency and Rite Aid met to discuss the general status of the project and proposal and it was decided that the two parties could not come to terms on two major deal points. First, Rite Aid would not agree to immediately transfer the lease back to Foothill/Regency in the event that Rite Aid closed. This was a major deal point since, as the community experienced with the Lucky's closure, a closed and empty store could very well lead to the reemergence of blighting conditions within the center. Second Rite Aid's rent proposal was too low to make the project economically feasible. Thereafter, Foothill/Regency and the CIC moved forward with planning the center without Rite Aid. Lastly, the CIC has complied and is complying with relocation assistance requirements. As mentioned above, the CIC has hired a qualified relocation consultant, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., to assist Rite Aid in relocating. The CIC and its consultant have adequately informed Rite Aid of its relocation rights and will be making a fair and reasonable relocation payment to Rite Aid in accordance with the law. The CIC's relocation assistance program has been underway for a number of months and the CIC and its consultant have been making and are continuing to make efforts to relocate Rite Aid. The CIC has Fully Complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity'Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 8 The CIC fully complied with CEQA by certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a mitigation and monitoring program for the Project on December 3, 2003, in conjunction with approval of the DDA. The Project contemplates acquisition of the Leasehold Interest. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Further, no changes have occurred with respect to the Project that would trigger an obligation for subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code section 15162. The CIC has Statutory Authority to Acquire the Leasehold Interest by Eminent Domain The CIC is a redevelopment agency vested with the power of eminent domain pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 33391 and the Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP project area, as amended. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Regency has purchased the Bridgeside Center property for $6,250,000 and has an additional financial obligation to offset site acquisition costs in accordance with the DDA. At this point the costs associated with this immediate action will be funded by the developer's obligation. There is no impact to the General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted above, no changes have occurred with respect to the Project that would trigger an obligation for subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code section 15162. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the Board of the Community Improvement Commission open the hearing on the Resolution, take testimony, close the hearing and consider adoption of the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the Leasehold Interest. JMF/LAL/MJF:ry Respe tf submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director V By: Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Rite Aid.DOC UO /1J /LUV4 1L: V1 retA DIU DOD IVOD ,ULUrAI(U 6L L1rMAly The Law Offices of GOLDFARB & LIPMAN M David Kroot Lee C. Rosenthal John T. Nagle Polly V. Marshall Lynn Hutchins Richard A. Judd Karen M Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber John T. Haygood Dianne Jackson McLean Michelle D Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Carolyn A. Gold Robert C. Mille Isabel L. Brown Claudia J. Martin William F. DiCamillo Rafael Mandelrnan Margaret F. Jung Emily B. Longfellow Heather J Gould Retired Steven H. Goldfarb Barry R. Lipman Oakland 510 836 -6336 510 836 -1035 FAX San Francisco 415 788 -6336 Los Angeles 219 627 -6336 1300 Clay Street Ninth Floor City Center Plaza Oakland California 94612 04 KU' 1 h PH r� ._ IC (JUL May 13, 2004 FACSIMILE Lara. Weisiger Office of the City Clerk City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Rite Aid Store 5905 - Alameda Bridgesidc Dear Ms. Weisiger: On behalf of Rite Aid Corporation, we write to inform you that representatives of Rite Aid will attend the Community Improvement Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, to object to the Commission's adoption of a resolution of necessity to condemn the Rite Aid property in the Bridgeside Center, Thank you. LCR:jwr cc: Michael Stamp Jerry Ramiza Teresa Highsmith Larry Gelman Ray Payne 1337\02 \179146.1 Sincerely, Lee C. Rosenthal Re: Resolution 1 -B CIC 5 -18 -04 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, • Alameda, CA — Rite Aid) The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC" or "Community Improvement Commission "), by vote of two- thirds or more of its members, FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES, AND RESOLVES the following: 1. CIC intends to redevelop the Bridgeside Shopping Center, a public use, and in conjunction therewith, acquire certain leasehold interests in property. The project is for redevelopment purposes authorized by the Community Redevelopment Law, namely the elimination of blight within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area. 2. CIC is authorized by law to acquire the leasehold interest generally known as 2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA — Rite Aid Leasehold Interest (the "Leasehold Interest "), as shown on Exhibit A to this Resolution, by eminent domain, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.010, and Section 33391 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section D.1, ' 309 of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Project, as amended. 3. The Leasehold Interest to be acquired is part of the Bridgeside Shopping Center, Alameda, CA, as shown on Exhibit B to this Resolution. 4. On April 29, 2004, the NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA — Rite Aid) was mailed to the lessee at the address of the lessee and gave actual notice to the lessee of the hearing. The Notice advised the lessee of its rights to be heard on the matters referred to therein on the date and place stated therein. The Notice of Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The hearing referenced in the Notice of Hearing was held on May 18, 2004 at the time and place stated in the Notice of Hearing. All interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing then was closed. CIC Resolution #1 -B 5 -18 -04 6. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Community Improvement Commission FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES AND RESOLVES each of the following: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, . making the offer required by Govt. Code section 7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; a mitigated negative declaration has been adopted by the CIC for the proposed project, which project contemplates the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest, and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, (i) there have been no substantial project changes, (ii) there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and (iii) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time the mitigated negative declaration was adopted, that shows any significant environmental effects or other circumstances requiring a subsequent EIR; and F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. 7. Commission Attorney and Special Counsel are hereby authorized to acquire in the name of the CIC the Leasehold Interest described in this Resolution in accordance with the provisions of the California Eminent Domain Law and the Community Redevelopment Law, to commence an action in Eminent Domain, to deposit the probable amount of compensation, to apply to the Superior Court for an order permitting the CIC to take immediate possession and use of the property for redevelopment purposes, and to take all steps to acquire the property under the law. EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST Property to be Acquired within the Bridgeside Shopping Center The property to be acquired is the leasehold interest in the Bridgeside Center at 2531 Blanding Avenue (the "Leasehold Interest "). The Leasehold Interest is all rights deriving from the lease entered into by Thrifty Payless, Inc., Rite -Aid #5905 ( "Rite Aid "), under that certain lease dated September 29, 1972, by and between Sutter Hill Limited, the predecessor in interest to Regency Realty Group, Inc., and Pay Less Drug Stores, Inc., as amended. The property to be acquired is generally known as 2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA, and is further described as all right, title and interest of the Lessee in the leased premises in Bridgeside Shopping Center under said lease or any other right, title, or instrument. A map showing the general location of the Leasehold Interest being acquired is shown herein, and said depiction is for illustration only. EXHIBIT A — PAGE 1 OF 2 ale i` �r11��I',1111�JI„k? 1T1���1���: 1 1 9 41140 thaP 111111111111 ;111111111111 I MV (111 EXHIBIT B LOCATION OF SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF HEARING City of Alameda • California April 29, 2004 Re: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA — Rite Aid Leasehold Interest) Dear Property Owners: This letter is to advise you that the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC" or "Community Improvement Commission ") intends to adopt a resolution of necessity on May 18, 2004. If adopted, the resolution will authorize the CIC to acquire the property generally known as 2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, California (Rite Aid Leasehold Interest in Bridgeside Shopping Center) for redevelopment purposes. You have the right to appear and be heard on the resolution. The matter is to be heard on May 18, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City Council chambers, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California. At that time and place, the Community Improvement Commission will consider whether such a resolution of necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.220 for the commencement of an action in eminent domain to acquire the property. You have the right to present oral and written information to the Community Improvement Commission if you choose. The resolution to be considered by the Community Improvement Commission will include the following findings and determinations: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code ' 7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor Alameda, California 94501 -7552 510.749.5800 • Fax 510.749.5808 • TDD 510.522.7538 email dsd @ci alameda.ca.us • www.ci.alameda.ca.us CI Printed an Recycled Paper Notice to Rite Aid April 29, 2004 Page 2 F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.010, and Section 33391 of the California Health & Safety Code and Section D.1, § 309, of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended. If you desire to be heard or to present information to the CIC on this resolution, you are required by law to file a written request with the Clerk of the Community Improvement Commission no later than fifteen days from the date of this notice. You must file your request to be heard at the Office of the City Clerk, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501. You also should provide a copy to Marc Fontes, Business Development Manager, City of Alameda Development Services Department, City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA 94501. If you mail a request to be heard, please keep in mind that it must be actually received by the Clerk no later than fifteen days after the date this notice is mailed. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235(b)(3). If you elect not to appear and be heard at this hearing, your decision not to appear and be heard will constitute a waiver of your right to challenge the right of the Community Improvement Commission to acquire the property by eminent domain. Thus, the matters described in the resolution of necessity will be deemed to be established. The amount of compensation to be paid for the property will not be decided or heard at this hearing. Your nonappearance at this noticed hearing will not prevent you from claiming compensation in an amount to be determined by a court of law under the laws of the State of California. This Notice is not intended to foreclose future or ongoing negotiations between you and the representatives of the Community Improvement Commission on the amount of compensation to be paid to you for your property. At this hearing, the CIC will not make any determination about the amount of money to be paid for your property or to be offered to you. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Marc Fontes, Business Development Manager, City of Alameda Development Services, City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA 94501, (510) 749 -5831. Very truly yours, M Mc—/ Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager MJF:ry Notice to Rite Aid Distribution: Thrifty Payless, Inc. Rite Aid #5909 c/o Chris Bernard 56 Edith Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Store #5905 c/o Rite Aid Corporation Attention: Secretary P.O. Box 3165 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Ray Payne Rite Aid Corporation 125 E. Banker Street, Suite 155 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Lee Rosenthal Goldfarb & Lipman 1300 Clay Street, 9th Floor City Center Plaza Oakland, CA 94612 Rite Aid Attention: Manager 2531 Blanding Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 G:\econdev\Kathleen\Bridgeside \Tenants Relocation\Resolutions of Necessity\Notice to Rite Aid.DOC April 29, 2004 Page 3 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said Commission this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, Secretary 'Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: May 5, 2004 Subject: A Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of the Launderland Leasehold Interest by Eminent Domain for the Bridgeside Shopping Center Redevelopment Project BACKGROUND The Community Improvement Commission (the "CIC" or "Commission ") is being requested to authorize the acquisition by eminent domain of the leasehold interest located in the Bridgeside Center at 2523 Blanding Avenue (the "Leasehold Interest ") for redevelopment purposes. The Leasehold Interest is held by AWNG Inc., doing business as Launderland ( "Launderland "), under that certain lease dated December 14, 1992, by and between IRES California, Inc., the predecessor in interest to Regency Realty Group, Inc., and PWS, Inc., Launderland's predecessor. The condemnation of the Leasehold Interest will allow the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center (the "Project ") pursuant to the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement entered into by and between the CIC and Regency Realty Group, Inc. ( "Regency "). The resolution authorizing the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain includes the following findings: (a) the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) the interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; (d) the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code §7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; (e) the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and Re: Reso 1 -C CIC 5 -18 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Servic Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 2 (f) the CIC has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. The resolution also authorizes the Commission Attorney and Special Counsel to commence an action in condemnation to acquire the Leasehold Interest and to obtain an order of possession for the Leasehold Interest in accordance with the Eminent Domain Law. The resolution is effective only if it is adopted by an affirmative vote of two - thirds or more of the CIC members. This means that approval requires a minimum of 4 affirmative votes. The issues of compensation to Launderland, relocation and the exact timing of the CIC's taking of possession are not issues for the CIC at this time. The CIC is negotiating with Launderland on those topics, and has retained the services of a qualified relocation expert to assist with those efforts. If compensation is not resolved by negotiations, the fair market value of Launderland's Leasehold Interest and any other compensation that Launderland may be entitled to would be determined through eminent domain proceedings in Superior Court. DISCUSSION The redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center has been a City and CIC priority for many years. On December 3, 2003, after many years of planning and negotiation, the CIC approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA ") with Regency Realty Group, Inc. providing for the redevelopment of the center pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Among other things, the DDA sets forth an obligation on the part of the Commission to obtain an appraisal of the Leasehold Interest and to attempt to negotiate in good faith in conformity with Government Code section 7267.2 the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest. If unsuccessful, the Commission is required to hold a public hearing and consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity. However, the Commission undertook no obligation to adopt any resolutions of necessity, which adoption is to be determined by the Commission in its sole and absolute discretion. On April 5, 2004, the CIC's acquisition consultant, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., presented Launderland with a Government Code Section 7267.2(a) offer to purchase the Leasehold Interest for just compensation, $31,125.00. The offer was accompanied by an appraisal summary that fully complied with Government Code Section 7267.2(a). The parties discussed the offer and scheduled a follow -up meeting to discuss the acquisition, as well as relocation issues. Since the CIC has not been able to successfully negotiate the purchase of the Leasehold Interest, on April 29, 2004, CIC staff sent a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain ( "Notice of Intent ") to Launderland, as the owner of the Leasehold Interest. Launderland was notified that it had fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Intent to file a written request to appear and be heard at the May 18, 2004, CIC meeting on the following matters: (a) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Launderland.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 3 (b) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) whether the interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; (d) whether the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the leasehold interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code §7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; (e) whether the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and (f) whether the CIC has authority to acquire the leasehold interest by eminent domain. Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project in order to redevelop an existing blighted, functionally obsolete and underutilized shopping center located within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "BWIP ") area into a vital neighborhood community shopping center with access to the waterfront. A major goal of the Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP project area is the elimination of blighting influences. Bridgeside Shopping Center is an over 83,000 - square foot community shopping center located along Tilden Way between Broadway and the Miller Sweeney Bridge on an 8.3 acre site and has been part of a blighted area as far back as 1991, when the BWIP project area was created. The Report to Council dated April 1991, for creation of the BWIP, documented that there was a low rate of investment in property and a lower rate of increase in the value of property within the BWIP project area as compared to the City as a whole. "Citywide average annual growth in assessed property value between fiscal year 1986 -87 and 1990 -91 has been 7.5 percent. Average annual growth in assessed value of property in the (BWIP) Area for the same period is 5.3 percent. Absolute growth during the period amounted to 50 percent in the City while only 30 percent growth in assessed property value occurred in the Project Area. The implication here is that resales, new development and rehabilitation activity in the proposed Project Area has not kept pace with such activity Citywide, exemplifying the lack of investment in the Project Area." (Report to City Council: Proposed Redevelopment for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, April 1991, Section IV, Page 42.) The experience of the Bridgeside Center and its prior owner, IRES California Inc., was consistent with this lack of investment in the BWIP project area. IRES defaulted on loans secured by the center, and the property was scheduled for a trustee sale on May 30, 1995, which, however, was averted. The adjacent property formerly owned by Southern Pacific, which has Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports \Launderland.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 4 been purchased by Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC to be incorporated into the Project, has also contributed to blight in the area. The property has been used to park used cars for sale and derelict cars have been left on the rail spur. On November 28, 1995, CIC staff spoke with and offered assistance to the new property managers, Northwest Asset Management, who took over management of the center on October 1, 1995. The CIC offered to provide the design services of a commercial architect to provide concept drawings to assist in marketing the undeveloped pad at the center. The property manager agreed to convey the offer of assistance to the property owner. The offer of assistance was never accepted. The property manager's concerns at the time of these discussions included: homeless people camping under the Miller Sweeney Bridge and in the bushes around the center; the constant loss of shopping carts; people who fish in the Estuary; the inability to keep the fence around the undeveloped pad in good repair; litter around the center; and the difficulty of balancing the cost of "sweeping services with the merchants' ability to pay." The picture painted by the property manager is one of a shopping center in need of refurbishment and assistance. In addition, in late 1996, the pier adjacent to the center was declared a health and safety hazard by the City of Alameda. The City requested that the pier, which according to the Army Corp of Engineers was the responsibility of the property owner, be removed. Unconfirmed rumors began in June of 1996 regarding the impending closure of Bridgeside Center's grocery anchor, Lucky. However, Lucky denied that it would be closing. CIC staff continued to contact the property owner to offer design and marketing assistance, especially in light of the closure rumors. In 1997, Lucky closed and relocated to the new Fruitvale Station retail center in Oakland, leaving a vacant building that would never again be occupied, in part due to a clause in Lucky's lease that prohibited a competing anchor business from moving into the vacant space. After that loss, the center saw an increased decline, as stores closed and vacancies increased. CIC staff offered to assist the prior owner in marketing the center to other retailers, such as Trader Joe's. Community concern about the vacant building grew and residents signed petitions supporting the lease of the former Lucky's space to tenants such as Trader Joe's, which never materialized. In early 1999, the prior owner decided to pursue an alternative residential development concept, which was incompatible with the General Plan and the community's desire for a replacement grocery store use. In 1999, the BWIP Five -Year Implementation Plan was amended to identify the Bridgeside Center as blighted; that Implementation Plan states that the center "is an aging and deteriorated shopping center experiencing in excess of a 40% vacancy rate for more than two and one -half years." A Report to Council dated January, 2003, adopted in connection with the recent community improvement plan amendments, included a survey of existing blight within the BWIP project area. The Report to Council indicates that Bridgeside Shopping Center has extensive physical dilapidation or deterioration and is underutilized. (Report to City Council, Alameda Merger Amendments, January 2003, Figures III -14, 28.) Currently, there are only five existing tenants in the over 83,000 square foot center: (1) Rite Aid; (2) Launderland, a laundromat; (3) Subway; (4) Round Table Pizza; and (5) Baskin- Robbins. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Launderland.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 5 The Project will alleviate existing blight within the center through the demolition of the existing blighted and functionally obsolete structures and the construction of a new, updated shopping center. A new high - quality grocery store will anchor the center and attract shoppers and tenants. Further, the Project is designed to reclaim access to the waterfront, which had not been a focus of the existing blighted center. Lastly, the Project is a catalyst project that will trigger additional private investment within the BWIP project area thereby helping to eliminate blight throughout the project area. The Proposed Project is Planned or Located in the Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury The proposed Project is planned in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury because no alternatives to the Project that allow all the existing tenants to remain in the center are feasible. As mentioned above, the Project includes a grocery store anchor to draw the nearby community to the center. It was the loss of a grocery anchor in the late 1990s that accelerated the deterioration and decline of the center. A community shopping center model with a grocery anchor is the industry standard, as it is the grocery traffic that brings the center to life. Therefore, a grocery store was always envisioned as the anchor by the master developer. In considering alternatives for the center, Foothill Partners, Regency's developer, and CIC staff looked at various alternatives that would work with the planned grocery anchor and allow existing tenants to remain in the center. Initially, Foothill/Regency and CIC staff considered planning the center in such a way to allow Launderland, a coin operated Laundromat, to remain in the center. However, as plans for the center and possible tenants materialized, it became clear that Launderland would not be able to remain in the type of neighborhood shopping center envisioned for the site. Coin operated laundromats do not typically attract shoppers who frequent other businesses in a shopping center, a necessity for a successful shopping center with neighborhood appeal. In addition, coin operated laundromats are not a compatible use with the types of uses and tenants Foothill/Regency plans to attract to the center, such as better food uses and waterfront restaurants. Rather, a laundromat's presence would make it more difficult to lease space to preferred businesses and would depress rents on the other spaces. Lastly, coin operated laundromats have significant requirements for water and sewer, especially when compared to the rent paid by most laundromats. Landlords, therefore, have a difficult time making the inclusion of a laundromat in a neighborhood shopping center economically feasible. Foothill/Regency also considered various alternatives for Rite Aid to remain in the center, including: (1) leaving Rite Aid in its current location and locating the grocery store in the corner of the center near the Miller Sweeney Bridge; (2) leaving Rite Aid in its current location and putting the grocery store in the old Lucky building; (3) offering the old Lucky location to Rite Aid; and (4) relocating Rite Aid to the corner of Tilden and Blanding in the newly constructed center. None of these alternatives was feasible. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Launderland.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 6 There are no feasible alternatives that allow Rite Aid and Launderland to remain in the center. The proposed Project, which requires the relocation of these two tenants, is planned in the manner that is the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. The Leasehold Interest is Necessary for the Proposed Project The Leasehold Interest is necessary for the proposed Project because, as discussed in detail above, leaving Launderland in the center is not feasible. Leaving Launderland in the center would have a detrimental impact on the Project, as it would not attract the types of shoppers and tenants necessary to create the successful neighborhood shopping center envisioned for the site. In addition, leaving Launderland in the center would not be economically feasible for the proposed Project. The CIC has Complied with All Conditions and Statutory Requirements Necessary to Exercise the Power of Eminent Domain to Acquire the Leasehold Interest The CIC has complied with all requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest. As set forth above, the CIC has made an offer to purchase the Leasehold Interest pursuant to Government Code section 7267.2. The offer was consistent with the requirements of section 7267.2 and included a written summary of the basis for the appraisal. Further, the holder of the Leasehold Interest, Launderland, was properly notified of this hearing pursuant to a Notice of Intent to Adopt Resolution of Necessity. In addition, the CIC has complied with its Owner Participation Rules. In 2000, the CIC solicited proposals from the property owners of the site for the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Center. Staff received a proposal from the then property owner, IRES California, Inc., as well as two third -party developers. One of the third -party developers, Foothill/Regency, was chosen as the preferred master developer for the center. Lastly, the CIC has complied and is complying with relocation assistance requirements and business tenant preference requirements that require the CIC to extend reasonable preference to existing businesses to enable them to renter business in the project area. As mentioned above, the CIC has hired a qualified relocation consultant, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., to assist Launderland in relocating. The CIC and its consultant have adequately informed Launderland of its relocation rights and will be making a fair and reasonable relocation payment to Launderland in accordance with the law. The CIC's relocation assistance program has been underway for a number of months and the CIC and its consultant have been making and are continuing to make efforts to relocate Launderland. The CIC has Fully Complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The CIC fully complied with CEQA by certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a mitigation and monitoring program for the Project on December 3, 2003, in conjunction with approval of the DDA. The Project contemplates acquisition of the Leasehold Interest. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Further, no changes have Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC\BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity \Agenda Reports\Iaunderland.DOC Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 5, 2004 Page 7 occurred with respect to the Project that would trigger an obligation for subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code section 15162. The CIC has Statutory Authority to Acquire the Leasehold Interest by Eminent Domain The CIC is a redevelopment agency vested with the power of eminent domain pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 33391 and the Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP project area, as amended. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Regency has purchased the Bridgeside Center property for $6,250,000 and has an additional financial obligation to offset site acquisition costs in accordance with the DDA. At this point, the costs associated with this immediate action will be funded by the developer's obligation. There is no impact to the General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted above, no changes have occurred with respect to the Project that would trigger an obligation for subsequent environmental review under Public Resources Code section 15162. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the Board of the Community Improvement Commission open the hearing on the Resolution, take testimony, close the hearing and consider adoption of the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the Leasehold Interest. JMF/LAL/MJF:ry Resp ct s lfy submitte 5 /` a7 Leslie A. Little Development Services Director V\A By: Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ econdev \MARC \BRDGSIDE\Resolutions of Necessity\Agenda Reports\Launderland.DOC COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Launderland) The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC" or "Community Improvement Commission "), by vote of two- thirds or more of its members, FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES, AND RESOLVES the following; 1. CIC intends to redevelop the Bridgeside Shopping Center, a public use, and in conjunction therewith, acquire certain leasehold interests in property. The project is for redevelopment purposes authorized by the Community Redevelopment Law, namely the elimination of blight within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area. J 2. CIC is authorized by law to acquire the leasehold interest generally known as 2523 ll.l Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA — Launderland Leasehold Interest (the "Leasehold CO Interest "), as shown on Exhibit A to this Resolution, by eminent domain, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.010, and Section 33391 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section D.1, § 309 of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Project, as amended. 3. The leasehold Interest to be acquired is part of the Bridgeside Shopping Center, Alameda, CA, as shown on Exhibit B to this Resolution. 4. On April 29, 2004, the NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Launderland) was mailed to the lessee at the address of the lessee and gave actual notice to the lessee of the hearing. The Notice advised the lessee of her rights to be heard on the matters referred to therein on the date and place stated therein. The Notice of Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The hearing referenced in the Notice of Hearing was held on May 18, 2004 at the time and place stated in the Notice of Hearing. All interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing then was closed. CIC Resolution #1 -C 5 -18 -04 6. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Community Improvement Commission FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES AND RESOLVES each of the following: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed project; D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code § 7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; a mitigated negative declaration has been adopted by the CIC for the proposed project, which project contemplates the acquisition of the Leasehold Interest, and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, (i) there have been no substantial project changes, (ii) there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and (iii) there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time the mitigated negative declaration was adopted, that shows any significant environmental effects or other circumstances requiring a subsequent EIR; and F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. 7. Commission Attorney and Special Counsel are hereby authorized to acquire in the name of the CIC the Leasehold Interest described in this Resolution in accordance with the provisions of the California Eminent Domain Law and the Community Redevelopment Law, to commence an action in Eminent Domain, to deposit the probable amount of compensation, to apply to the Superior Court for an order permitting the CIC to take immediate possession and use of the property for redevelopment purposes, and to take all steps to acquire the property under the law. EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST Property to be Acquired within the Bridgeside Shopping Center The property to be acquired is the leasehold interest in the Bridgeside Center at 2523 Blanding Avenue (the "Leasehold Interest "). The Leasehold Interest is all rights deriving from the lease entered into by AWNG Inc., doing business as Launderland ( "Launderland "), under that certain lease dated December 14, 1992, by and between IRES California, Inc., the predecessor in interest to Regency Realty Group, Inc., and PWS, Inc., Launderland's predecessor. The property to be acquired is generally known as 2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA, and is further described as all right, title and interest of the Lessee in the leased premises in Bridgeside Shopping Center under said lease or any other right, title, or instrument. A map showing the general location of the Leasehold Interest being acquired is shown herein, and said depiction is for illustration only. EXHIBIT A — PAGE 1 OF 2 ''nh l 11111111[ 'T A ili d I z w 111111111111 911 MV(I }I EXHIBIT B LOCATION OF SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF HEARING City of Alameda • California April 29, 2004 Re: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA — Launderland Leasehold Interest) Dear Property Owners: This letter is to advise you that the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC" or "Community Improvement Commission ") intends to adopt a resolution of necessity on May 18, 2004. If adopted, the resolution will authorize the CIC to acquire the property generally known as 2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, California (Launderland Leasehold Interest in Bridgeside Shopping Center) for redevelopment purposes. You have the right to appear and be heard on the resolution. The matter is to be heard on May 18, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City Council chambers, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California. At that time and place, the Community Improvement Commission will consider whether such a resolution of necessity should be adopted, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.220 for the commencement of an action in eminent domain to acquire the property. You have the right to present oral and written information to the Community Improvement Commission if you choose. The resolution to be considered by the Community Improvement Commission will include the following findings and determinations: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for the proposed D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Leasehold Interest, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Govt. Code ' 7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements; E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor Alameda, California 94501 -7552 510.749.5800 • Fax 510.749.5808 • TDD 510.522.7538 email dsd@ci.alameda.ca.us • www.ci.alameda.ca.us project; rp Printed on Recycled Paper Notice to Launderland April 29, 2004 Page 2 F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the Leasehold Interest by eminent domain. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.010, and Section 33391 of the California Health & Safety Code and Section D.1, § 309, of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended. If you desire to be heard or to present information to the CIC on this resolution, you are required by law to file a written request with the Clerk of the Community Improvement Commission no later than fifteen days from the date of this notice. You must file your request to be heard at the Office of the City Clerk, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501. You also should provide a copy to Marc Fontes, Business Development Manager, City of Alameda Development Services Department, City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA 94501.. If you mail a request to be heard, please keep in mind that it must be actually received by the Clerk no later than fifteen days after the date this notice is mailed. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1245 .235(b)(3 ). If you elect not to appear and be heard at this hearing, your decision not to appear and be heard will constitute a waiver of your right to challenge the right of the Community Improvement Commission to acquire the property by eminent domain. Thus, the matters described in the resolution of necessity will be deemed to be established. The amount of compensation to be paid for the property will not be decided or heard at this hearing. Your nonappearance at this noticed hearing will not prevent you from claiming compensation in an amount to be determined by a court of law under the laws of the State of California. This Notice is not intended to foreclose future or ongoing negotiations between you and the representatives of the Community Improvement Commission on the amount of compensation to be paid to you for your property. At this hearing, the CIC will not make any determination about the amount of money to be paid for your property or to be offered to you. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Marc Fontes, Business Development Manager, City of Alameda Development Services Department, City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA 94501, (510) 749 -5831. MJF:ry Very truly yours, \A„,, Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager Notice to Launderland Distribution: Anita Ng AWNG, Inc. 1529 Webster Street Alameda, CA 94501 Anita Ng Launderland 2523 Blanding Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 G:\econdev\ICathleen\Bridgeside \Tenants Relocation\Resolutions of Necessity \Notice to LaunderLand.DOC April 29, 2004 Page 3 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said Commission this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission