2004-06-15 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 15, 2004 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 15, 5:30 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 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: One.
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory.
Employee Organization: Alameda City Employee Association
(ACEA) .
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly J
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 15, 2004 - - - 6:40 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 15, 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 - EXISTING LITIGATION [45 min]
Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of
Alameda
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue
and Encinal Terminals.
Negotiating Parties:
City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Alameda
Unified School District.
Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Clo ed Session, if any.
Adjournment
1
Beverly Job.' , !ayor
Chair, Alameda Reuse
Redevelopment Authority
and
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.
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 15, 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 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A. Minutes of the Joint City Council, Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Meeting of May 13, 2004; the Special Joint City Council,
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and CIC Meetings of
May 20, 2004 and May 27, 2004; and the Special CIC Meetings of
June 1, 2004.
1 -B. Adoption of Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to
Adoption of Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
REGULAR AGENDA
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment)
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Commissioners)
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 15,2004 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 15, 2004, 7:27 P.M.
Place: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Roll Call
Public Comment
Anyone wishing to address the Commission /Board on agenda items only
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
AGENDA ITEM
1 -A. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer
to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City
of Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda and Resources for Community Development
for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real
Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air
Station and the Fleet Industrial Site Center (FISC) [Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners]; and
• Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director
to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the
City of Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for
Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit
Project on Certain Real Property within the East Housing
Portion of the Naval Air Station and FISC and Approving the
Use of Catellus In -lieu Funds to be Used Solely for
Development of the 10 Unit Project. [Community Improvement
Commission]
Adjournment
Beverly Johns i, ha r, Community
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 391
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Meeting will begin at 7:29 p.m.
City Hall will open at 7:14 p.m.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on non - agenda items may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3 -A. Recommendation to approve Continuing Resolution authorizing payment of Alameda Point
obligations at existing levels until adoption of the FY 2004 -2005 Operating Budget.
4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, 2004.
Notes:
Please contact ARRA Secretary, Irma Frankel at 749 -5800 or 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting.
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Irma Frankel, ARRA
Secretary, or Development Services at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request
an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach
the 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
JUNE 15, 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 5:30 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
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:29 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation of the Government Finance Officers Association's
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting to Finance Director Zenda James for the City of
Alameda's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal
Year ending June 30, 2003.
3 -B. Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our Gay
and Lesbian Citizens and encourage the community to recognize
these contributions, particularly during the month of June,
Gay Pride Month.
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 City Council Meetings and the Special
Joint City Council, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
and Community Improvement Commission Meetings of May 20, 2004
and May 27, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings held on June 1, 2004; and the Special City Council
Meetings held on June 3, 2004 and June 8, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $298,565,
including contingencies, to Bosco Oil Inc., dba: Valley Oil
Company for Annual Fuel Delivery to various locations within
the City for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04.
4 -D. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for the Crosswalk In- pavement Lights to serve
Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood
Middle School and Chipman Middle School, No. P.W. 01- 04 -01.
4 -E. Recommendation to accept Residential Phase 2 Demolition
Improvements and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Catellus Residential
Group (Developer) for Tract 7511; and
• Adoption of Resolution Approving the Final Map and
Accepting Certain Dedications and Offers of Dedications and
Easement Vacations for Tract 7511 (Block D and E 155
Individual Lots).
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Final Map for Tract 7501,
Including Establishment and Acceptance of Certain Easements,
and to Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with
Resources for Community Development (Subdivider ") for Tract
7501 and Accept Relations Bonds.
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code
by Amending Paragraph Two of Resolution No. 9460 Relative to
Disclosure Positions and Disclosure Categories and Rescinding
Resolution No. 13597.
4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to
Adoption of Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Marc Lambert to the Bay
Area Library and Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board.
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County
of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in
the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election held
November 7, 2000.
4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the New Alameda Free Library
Project - Property Acquisition for Parking (State
Clearinghouse #2004- 022 -105).
4 -L. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution appointing Amanda Flores Witte as a
Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Recognizing and Expressing Appreciation
to Zenda James for Fifteen Years of Dedicated Service as the
City of Alameda Finance Director.
5 -C. Recommendation to appoint Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee
representatives.
5 -D. Adoption of Resolution Extending the Single - Family Residential
Rebate of the Solid Waste and Recycling Infrastructure Impact
Fee for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
5 -E. Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation
Limit) for Fiscal Year 2004 -05; and
• Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
5 -F. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01 -01 (Marina Cove)."
5 -G. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2.
5 -H. 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. [Continued from May 18, 2004]
5 -I. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by
Eminent Domain for Public Use (Library and Public Parking);
Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and
for Order of Possession; Finding and Determining that All
Requirements Have Been Met for Consideration of Adoption of
Resolution; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq.;
Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda).
[Requires four (4) affirmative votes]
5 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Lease for Real Property Located at 1435 Webster
Street (Parking Lot D).
5 -K. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 30 -16, (Inclusionary Housing Requirement for
Residential Projects) to Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) .
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 nomination for appointment to the
Library Board.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Planning Board.
7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Public Utilities Board.
7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (2) for appointment to
the Social Service Human Relations Board.
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
Memorandum
Date: June 3, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the Annual
Community Improvement Commission, the Special Joint Meeting of the
Community Improvement Commission and the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners, and the Special Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority of June 15, 2004
Transmitted herewith are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special
City Council Meetings, the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, the Annual Community Improvement Commission Meeting,
the Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, and the Special Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority of June 15, 2004.
ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A Minutes of the Joint City Council, Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Meeting of May 13, 2004 and the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meetings of June 1, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval, the Minutes of the Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting of May 13, 2004 and the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meetings of June 1, 2004.
REGULAR AGENDA
2 -A Adoption of Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to
Adoption of Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 3, 2004
This resolution will allow the CIC to pay routine expenses until the Commission
adopts the fiscal year budget for 2004 -05.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM
1 -A. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer
to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City
of Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda and Resources for Community Development
for the Development of 10 Unit Project on Certain Real
Property at the East Housing and Fleet Industrial Site Center
(FISC) [Housing Authority Board of Commissioners]; and
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to
Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City of
Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission of
the City of Alameda and Resources for Community Development
for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real
Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air
Station and FISC and Approving the Use of Catellus In -lieu
Funds to be used solely for Development of the 10 Unit
Project. [Community Improvement Commission]
These two resolutions authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive
Director of the Housing Authority and Community Improvement Commission,
respectively, to execute Owner Participation Agreements with each body and
Resources for Community Development to proceed with the development of 10 for -
sale units of affordable housing at the Bayport project. Construction will begin in
July, 2004 with home sales anticipated in the fall of 2005.
SPECIAL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
REGULAR AGENDA
4 -A Recommendation to approve Continuing Resolution authorizing
payment of Alameda Point obligations at existing levels until
adoption of the FY 2004 -2005 Operating Budget.
This resolution will allow the Executive Director to pay routine expenses until the
ARRA Board adopts the fiscal year budget for 2004 -05.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 3, 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation of the Government Finance Officers Association's
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting to Finance Director Zenda James for the City of
Alameda's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal
Year ending June 30 2003.
At this time, a Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting will be presented to
Zenda James for the CAFER for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
3 -B Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our Gay
and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to
recognize these contributions, particularly during the month
of June, Gay Pride Month.
At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation recognizing contributions to
Alameda by our Gay and Lesbian residents.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings and Special Joint
City Council, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission Meetings of May 20, 2004 and
May 27, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on June 1, 2004; and the Special City Council Meetings
held on June 3, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval Minutes of the Special City Council
Meetings and Special Joint City Council, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
and Community Improvement Commission Meetings of May 20, 2004 and May 27,
2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on June 1, 2004; and the
Special City Council Meetings held on June 3, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
The City Clerk recommends entering into a contract with the Alameda Journal for
the City's annual legal advertising requirements.
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $298,565,
including contingencies, to Bosco Oil. Inc., dba: Valley Oil
Company for Annual Fuel Delivery to various locations within
the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005, No. P.W. 03 -04-
04.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
June 3, 2004
It is recommended that Council award the contract for annual fuel delivery within the
City to Valley Oil Company, the only bidder.
4 -D. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Call for Bids for the Crosswalk In- pavement lights to serve
Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood
Middle School and Chipman Middle School, No. P.W. 01- 04 -01.
It is recommended that Council approve plans and specifications for crosswalk in-
pavement lights for Lum, Haight, Wood and Chipman Schools.
4 -E. Recommendation to accept residential Phase 2 Demolition
Improvements and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Catellus Residential
Group (Developer) for Tract 7511; and
• Adoption of Resolution Approving the Final Map and Accepting
Certain Dedications and Offers of Dedications and Easement
Vacations for Tract 7511 (Block D and E 155 Individual Lots).
In order to accomplish the next steps in the Bayport Project, it is recommended that
the Council accept the demolition work for Phase 2 residential; authorize the City
Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the
posted bonds; and adopt the resolution approving Final Map for Tract 7511 with
conditions.
4 -F Adoption of Resolution Approving the Final Map for Tract 7501,
Including Establishment and Acceptance of Certain Easements,
and to Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with
Resources for Community Development ( "Subdivider ") for Tract
7501 and Accept Relations Bonds.
This resolution approves Final Map for Tract 7501. The map divides a vacant
parcel into twelve lots, 10 for construction of for sale, affordable, single - family
homes within duplex structures, one lot for construction of 52 affordable rental
housing units, and one lot to be landscaped.
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code
by Amending Paragraph Two of Resolution No. 9460 Relative to
Disclosure Positions and Disclosure Categories and Rescinding
Resolution No. 13597 and Requesting that the City Council
Designate the City Attorney as the City's Reviewing Body of
the Conflict of Interest Codes of Other Local Agencies within
the City's Jurisdiction.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 5
June 3, 2004
This resolution amends the City's Conflict of Interest Code as reviewed and
recommended by the City Attorney.
4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to
Adoption of Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
This resolution authorizes expenditures for the City's day -to -day business, until the
budget is approved for fiscal year 2004 -05.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Marc Lambert as a member
of the Bay Area Library and Information System (BALIS)
Advisory Board.
This resolution reappoints Marc Lambert to the Bay Area Library and Information
System Advisory Board.
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County
of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in
the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General election held
November 17, 2000.
This resolution authorizes the levy of tax on real and personal property,
$9.80/$100,000 assessed valuation, in accordance with adoption of Measure 0 in
November, 2000.
4 -K Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the New Alameda Free Library
Project - Property Acquisition for Parking (State
Clearinghouse #2004 - 022 -105).
Adoption of this resolution certifies the Final EIR for the New Library Project
property acquisition in regard to 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue. As noted, removal
of the structures at these addresses would constitute a significant and unavoidable
impact and cumulative impact which are addressed in the Final EIR.
4 -L. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution appointing Amanda Flores Witte to the
Social Service Human Relations Board.
This resolution appoints Amanda Flores Witte to the Social Service Human
Relations Board.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
June 3, 2004
5 -B Adoption of Resolution Recognizing and Expressing Appreciation
to Zenda James for Fifteen Years of Dedicated Service as the
City of Alameda Finance Director.
This resolution recognizes Zenda James for her fifteen years of dedicated service to
the City of Alameda
5 -C. Recommendation to appoint Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee
representatives.
It is recommended that Council appoint two members and an alternate to the
Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee which will make recommendations to both
Alameda and Oakland's City Councils and Planning Boards.
5 -D. Adoption of Resolution Extending the Single- Family Residential
Rebate of the Solid Waste and Recycling Infrastructure Impact
Fee to Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
This resolution extends the rebate to single - family residences of the solid waste and
recycling infrastructure impact fees for fiscal year 2004 -05.
5 -E. Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation
Limit) for Fiscal Year 2004 -05; and
• Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed
resolution to set the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2004 -05. The resolution is
recommended for adoption.
5 -F. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01 -01 (Marina Cove)."
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed
resolution to approve the Engineer's Report for Assessment District 01 -01 for
Marina Cove. The resolution is recommended for approval.
5 -G. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2.
This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 7
Councilmembers June 3, 2004
resolution to approve the Engineer's Report for Landscape and Lighting District 84-
2. The resolution is recommended for approval.
5 -H. 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. (Continued from May 18, 2004)
This hearing was continued from the Council's agenda of May 18th and has been
rescheduled to this meeting to receive public comments on the appeals of a use
permit approved by the Planning Board to allow the creation of seven work/live units
within the premises at 2515 Blanding Avenue. It is recommended that the Council
conduct the public hearing, close the hearing and approve the proposed resolution
to uphold the Planning Board's decision to grant the use permit.
5 -I. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by
Eminent Domain for Public Use (Library and Public Parking);
Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and
for Order of Possession; Finding and Determining that All
Requirements Have Been Met for Consideration of Adoption of
Resolution; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq.;
Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda)
[Requires four (4) affirmative votes].
This resolution will authorize proceeding with eminent domain action to acquire the
property located at 2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue for construction of a parking lot for
the new main library.
5 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Lease for Real Property Located at 1435 Webster
Street (Parking Lot D).
Final passage of this ordinance will authorize the execution of a lease for continued
City use of Parking Lot D at Webster Street and Taylor Avenue.
5 -K. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for
Residential Projects.
Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to provide inclusionary
housing units thereby providing affordable housing units throughout the City.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 8
June 3, 2004
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Library Board.
At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the
Library Board.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Planning Board.
At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the
Planning Board.
7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Public Utilities Board.
At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the
Public Utilities Board.
7 -D. Consideration of Mayor's nominations (2) for appointment to
the Social Service Human Relations Board.
At this time the Mayor will make nominations to fill the current vacancies on the
Social Service Human Relations Board.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 13, 2004- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- 219CC/04- CIC) Study Session to consider the City's Two -
year Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal
Year 2004 -06.
The City Manager provided information on sales tax requested at the
May 6 budget study session.
The Finance Director gave an overview of the 2004 -06 Proposed
Budget /Financial Plan.
Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr requested the Finance Department
check the [State] allocation numbers that are based on the total
Vehicle License Fee (VLF), total property taxes, sales tax, etc.;
stated the City should ensure calculations are based on correct
information.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested the total cost for legal services in
the City; stated having a compilation of the legal services for all
departments would be helpful.
Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore requested the total cost for
services departments, such as Information Technology, City Attorney
and Finance, for the entire City.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Council /Commission would like to be
able to see the entire amounted budgeted for service departments,
which would include the department budget and any amount budgeted
to other departments; in the budget, the City Attorney and Finance
are scattered through other departments.
The City Manager stated staff would provide the Cost Allocation
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 13, 2004
1
Plan, which is how costs are assigned across the board.
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's question
regarding the Cost Allocation Plan, the Finance Director stated the
only departments that have cost allocation charges are those with
enterprise and special revenue funds; the City recovers $4.5
million for the General Fund from the enterprise and special
revenue funds for General Fund support services.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Council/
Commission should understand where the service groups' funding and
what proportions go to each department in hours or dollars.
The City Manager stated said information could be shown in terms of
cost recovery; staff would provide the latest update to show how
costs are developed and assigned.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Council /Commission is allocating
money to each department and wants to see how much goes to other
departments after it is allocated to one department.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog inquired interfund reflects
transfers to other departments, to which the Finance Director
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog stated more specific information on
said transfers is being requested.
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore's question
regarding departments with finance staff, the City Manager stated
non - General Fund departments have a finance and administration
component; Golf is the only non - General Fund department which does
not have finance; a finance team was created to review cross -
organization financing resources.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the total amount spent on attorney fees
should include outside Counsel; Code Enforcement attorneys should
also be included in the total for attorney costs.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the information provided on code
enforcement in redevelopment areas should have a greater breakdown
and should include code enforcement costs outside of redevelopment
areas.
Vice Mayor /Councilmember Daysog stated the budget document
indicates a -$4.6 fund balance, however, the presentation indicated
the shortfall is $7 million; said disparity should be reviewed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 13, 2004
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about
the $4.6 million gap, the Finance Director stated the budget plan
includes a 5% budget cut; the remaining $4.6 million gap needs to
be closed.
The City Manager stated staff is proposing to close the rest of the
gap with new fees and by drawing down on the General Fund reserve.
Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr stated a portion of the increase in
the bridge toll and Measure 2 funds were going to be allocated to
the City's ferry service; inquired whether cost overruns for the
new Benicia - Martinez Bridge which will use said funds would effect
the City.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested a list of un- funded
capital improvement projects by department.
* * *
Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess to hold a Special Joint City
Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting at
6:50 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:51 p.m.
* * *
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether organizational charts could
include salary ranges for positions.
The City Manager stated staff would provide information on salary
ranges and find a way to display the information in a useful way.
The Golf Complex General Manager gave a presentation on the Golf
Complex budget.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a chart of the number of Golf Complex
employees over the past several years, as other department
provided.
The Assistant City Manager gave a presentation the Development
Services Department budget.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a list of positions outside of
Development Services that are funded under the Development Services
Department.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested a breakout of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) budget, including
operation expenditures, revenues, and capital projects.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 13, 2004
3
The Assistant City Manager noted gross lease revenues are the only
revenue available to ARRA.
The City Manager stated the breakout could include debt services.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a breakdown of the different areas
for tax increment and lease revenues.
Councilmember /Commission Kerr stated the Chamber of Commerce rent
subsidy was in exchange for the Chamber handling business
retention; if the Chamber has opted not to take on the business
retention program, inquired whether the rent is still subsidized.
The City Manager stated staff would confirm that rent subsidy is
not provided to the Chamber; a report would be provided on the
matter.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested staff provide the sources
of revenue that pay for the $11.2 million operating budget for
Development Services and provide how much of the $2.4 million in
debt and interfund is debt and how much is interfund; stated in the
2003 -04 budget, $604,000 was allocated for salaries for 6.4
positions; in 2004 -05, the salaries increases by $400,000 for 6.4
positions; requested and explanation of the increase; further
stated that in the mid- to late- 1990's the Cooperative Service
Agreement with the Navy was winding down; the City, through the
General Fund, made a loan to ARRA; the issue was dealt with one
year ago; requested information on the amount of the loan, what the
loan was for, payback status and the timetable for repayment.
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry
regarding the recent bond issuance, the City Manager stated a
summary page on the projects would be provided.
The Assistant City Manager noted that the bond included $4 million
for other projects and was issued for $46.6 million.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a chart on the number of Development
Service Department employees over the past several years, as other
department provided.
Councilmember /Commission Kerr stated there are training costs under
each department; requested the complete cost for the training
program.
The City Manager stated each department has a travel and training
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 4
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 13, 2004
budget; in addition, the City training program is funded under
Human Resources.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a training be broken down between
required and optional training; requested travel expenses be
separated out from training.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested an explanation of the
method used to track employees' time, for example coding on
timesheets, to ensure projects are completed within budget.
The City Manager stated that staff could provide an explanation
after the departmental budgets are reviewed.
In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore's question
regarding how the 5% cut, the City Manager stated the issue would
be addressed after all the department presentations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 13, 2004
5
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 20, 2004- -6:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:21 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent: None.
(04- CC /04- CIC) Discussion of HUD Section 8 Program funding
shortfall and various remedies to address the shortfall.
The Housing Authority Executive Director provided information on
the shortfall.
Mayor /Chair Johnson suggested a letter be sent from the Council to
the Secretary of HUD.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog suggested a letter be sent to put
tenants at ease.
Council Action
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Council sending a letter
to the Secretary of HUD.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr requested that the Council be
provided information about when the reserves would be replenished.
Mayor Johnson requested the letter be both faxed and mailed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
The Housing Authority Executive Director gave an overview of the
special meetings to provide information to tenants and landlords.
Mayor Johnson requested that the letter address: 1) the
replenishment of reserves; 2) the retroactive adjustment of Section
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 20, 2004
8 funding; and 3) the 2004 -05 budget amounts, which are unknown.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 20, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 27, 2004- -6:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent: None.
(04- CC /04- CIC) Discussion and action on Housing Authority's
Section 8 Program funding shortfall.
The Housing Authority Executive Director provided an update.
The Council /Board /Commission discussed the HUD program.
The Executive Director stated staff recommends termination of the
Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts over the baseline
allocation of 1625 with Section 8 landlords effective July 1, 2004
and staff report Option 2, reduction of contract rents for Section
8 vouchers effective July 1, 2004 to meet the total amount of the
monthly HUD budget formula, which is currently $1,521,975; further
stated weekly reports would be provided.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Mayor /Chair Johnson clarified that the motion is to approve
termination of the HAP contract over the baseline and Option 2.
Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 6.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 27, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1, 2004- -7:00 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:30 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
Market Place, 1650 Park Street; Negotiating parties: HLM, Inc.,
City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission; Under
negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
(04- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property:
Launderland Leasehold Interest, 2523 Blanding Avenue; Negotiating
parties: Anita Ng and Wing Ng, dba AWNG, City of Alameda, Community
Improvement Commission; Under negotiation: Price and terms of
payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that regarding Alameda Market Place,
the Commission gave instruction to real property negotiators and
regarding Launderland Leasehold Interest, the Commission gave
instruction to real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - 7:27 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 Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner Kerr - 1.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04- ) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
of May 18, 2004.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 04 -127, "Establishing an Inclusionary
Housing Policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End
Community Improvement Projects." Adopted; and
( *04- A) Resolution No. 04 -128, "Establishing an Inclusionary
Housing Policy for the Alameda Point Improvement Project."
Adopted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special meeting at 7:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: June 2, 2004
Re: Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of Community Improvement
Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005
Background:
State law requires that the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) adopt an annual budget that
contains anticipated revenues, proposed expenditures, proposed indebtedness, a work program for
the coming year, and an examination of the previous year's achievements.
Discussion /Analysis:
Because the Citywide budget deliberation process is ongoing, the proposed Community
Improvement Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 will be submitted to the CIC at a Special
Meeting in July for final adoption. The proposed CIC budget will include the various funds for
redevelopment activities including the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP), West
End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP).
To pay routine expenses including payroll and vender expenses from the beginning of the fiscal year
to the date action is taken on the CIC budget, it is necessary for the CIC to approve an interim
budget. It is proposed that the current FY 2003 -04 budget be adopted as the interim budget for FY
2004 -05.
As required by State law, the proposed budget is consistent with the amended Implementation Plans
adopted by the CIC on January 7, 2003, and includes all indebtedness to be incurred by the CIC
during the interim period.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no impact to the City's General Fund .
Re: Resolutions #1 -B (CIC)
6 -15 -04
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Recommendation:
June 2, 2004
Page 2
The Executive Director recommends that the CIC approve the resolution approving interim expenditures
prior to adoption of Community Improvement Commission budget for fiscal year 2004 -05.
JMF /LAL/NB:sf
Res
y sub ; tted,
esl e A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks
Finance and Administration Division Manager
cc: Economic Development Commission
Nanette Banks
Zenda James
Sophie Young
G : \comdev \budget\2004- 06\Interim Expenditures
F:CID\Budget\2004 -05
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Community Improvement Commission adopt an
annual budget that contains anticipated revenues, proposed expenditures, proposed indebtedness,
a work program for the coming year, and an examination of the previous year's achievements;
and
WHEREAS, as required by State law, the proposed budget is consistent with the
amended Implementation Plans adopted by the Community Improvement Commission on
jJanuary 7, 2003 and includes all indebtedness to be incurred by the Community Improvement
Commission; and
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the Community Improvement Commission at a
special meeting in July the proposed Community Improvement Commission Budget for Fiscal
Year 2004 -05; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Community Improvement Commission Budget incorporates
several Economic Development priorities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Community Improvement Commission Budget includes
several principal funds for redevelopment activities including the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project (BWIP), the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and the
Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Improvement
Commission hereby approves interim expenditures of the Community Improvement Commission
prior to the approval of the Community Improvement Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-
05 at the levels set by the Community Improvement Commission Budget 2003 -04 to allow for
payment of routine expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior year's level.
Resolution #1 -B (CIC)
6 -15 -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
Inter - office Memorandum
June 2, 2004
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: James M. Flint
Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director
Subject: Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to Execute an
Owner Participation Agreement between the City of Alameda Housing Authority,
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for
Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain
Real Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station and the
FISC.
Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute an
Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the City of Alameda Housing
Authority, Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and
Resources for Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit
Project on Certain Real Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air
Station and the FISC and Approving the Use of Catellus In -Lieu Funds to Be
Used Solely for Development of the 10 Unit Project.
Background
On April 24, 2000, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc Ecology filed a lawsuit against
the City of Alameda, the Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC "), the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA ") and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
( "Housing Authority "), as well as Catellus Development Corporation. This lawsuit challenged
the adequacy, under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), of the Environmental
Impact Report for the reuse of the Naval Air Station and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. A
Settlement Agreement was reached in March 2001, which mitigated the petitioners' concerns by
providing for additional affordable housing within the East Housing/FISC area.
The affordable housing development, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, consists of a
minimum of 60 family units of two or more bedrooms on a three (3) acre parcel at FISC/East
Housing (now within the Catellus residential project known as Bayport). The Agreement
further defined the affordability of the units as follows: a minimum of 30% permanently
affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median; 30% of the units
permanently affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median; and no
more than 40% permanently affordable units to households with incomes between 60% and
100% of the area median. The Agreement also specified that up to 30 (50 %) of the units could
be homeownership units. Further, the Settlement Agreement links development of the residential
Re: Resolutions #1 -A
(CIC- Housing Authority Special
Meeting)
6 -15 -04
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 2, 2004
Page 2
component of the Catellus project to development of the affordable units by stating "Catellus
shall not close escrow on the 276`h residential unit of the Catellus Project, or any subsequent
residential unit of the Catellus Project, unless construction of the FISC/East Housing Affordable
Project has commenced."
In July 2002, the CIC and Housing Authority selected Resources for Community Development
( "RCD ") to design, build and market the units following a competitive process. In cooperation
with RCD, staff prepared and presented several development scenarios to the CIC and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners in December 2002. Direction was given to develop two
projects on the site: 52 rental units and 10 ownership units.
Discussion
RCD, as the City's non - profit development partner, has worked with staff on an on -going basis
to design the 10 -unit project, identify project costs and develop a funding strategy that provides
the best leveraging of local funding sources. The ten ownership townhomes, within duplex
structures, have been designed as 1,600 square foot, 3- bedroom/2.5 bath units. Each will have a
two -car garage, washer /dryer hookup and private outdoor space. Residents will also be able to
enjoy the adjacent community center, computer room and outdoor recreation area located within
the 52 -unit apartment complex. RCD has obtained most of the necessary entitlements for the
project, including Planned Development, Major Design Review, and Tentative Map approval.
The Final Map approval is expected in June.
Given the affordability parameters set by the Settlement Agreement and funding sources
available for building affordable single - family homes, a project financing structure has been
developed that anticipates selling the homes to families earning 100% of the Area Median
Income (AMI) (currently, $82,200 for a family of four). Affordability in this case means that
households may not pay more than 30% of their annual income for housing costs, which include
principal and interest on mortgage loans, property taxes and assessments, fire and casualty
insurance, property maintenance and repairs, utilities, Bayport Municipal Services District
special assessment, and any Easement and Maintenance Agreement assessment.
As of May 2004, total project costs are estimated to be $3.7 million. To fund the project for
families earning approximately 100% AMI, staff has identified two funding sources: a
construction loan from Wells Fargo Bank and the in -lieu funds paid by Catellus for each
residential lot developed at Bayport ( "Catellus In -Lieu Funds "). The short-term $2.4 million
construction loan will be repaid with $2 million in anticipated home sale proceeds and $400,000
in Catellus hi -Lieu Funds.
The construction budget includes a 10 % +/- contingency; however, it is proposed that an
additional contingency of $300,000 of Catellus In -Lieu Funds be obligated through the OPA.
The additional contingency would cover potential cost increases due to mortgage interest rate
increases; reductions in income limits per 2005 HUD guidelines resulting in lower home sales
proceeds than anticipated; liability insurance premium increases; construction material cost
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 2, 2004
Page 3
increases; etc. that can influence the feasibility of an affordable ownership project (i.e., if, for
example, interest rates increase 12 months from now, when the homes are sold, a deeper subsidy
will be required to qualify moderate - income families).
Therefore, the OPA includes a commitment of Catellus In -Lieu Funds not to exceed $2 million:
$1.7 million for predevelopment, construction and financing costs and $300,000 in overall
project contingency. Any unused funds will be returned to the Development Services budget for
use on future affordable housing projects.
The ten townhomes will remain affordable for a period of 59 years and the affordability
requirement will be enforced by deed restrictions.
In December 2003, the Housing Authority and CIC entered into an Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) with RCD for funding and developing the 52 -unit rental project on a
contiguous parcel. In order to begin development of the 10 -unit project in July 2004, the Board
of Commissioners must now consider authorizing the Chief Executive Office to enter into an
OPA for the 10 -unit project and the Community Improvement Commission must consider
authorizing the Executive Director to enter into an OPA and authorize funding for the 10 -unit
project.
The OPA (on file with the City Clerk) defines the roles and responsibilities of the Housing
Authority, CIC and RCD for funding, entitlement processing, construction, marketing and sale of
each home. The CIC shall provide project funding of up to $2,000,000 in Catellus In -Lieu Funds
generated by the Catellus residential development, RCD shall secure construction financing,
subdivide the property, and develop the project according to the schedule and development
program contained in the OPA, and the Housing Authority shall permit the property to be
subdivided and sold to each homebuyer.
Construction will begin in July 2004, with home sales anticipated in Fall 2005.
Fiscal Impact
As directed, no general fund monies or Housing Authority funds will be used for implementing
the project. The OPA commits up to $2 million in Catellus In -Lieu Funds in order to fund
anticipated development costs and create a project contingency fund for unanticipated cost
increases. The Settlement Agreement obligates the City and Catellus to fund and construct, or
cause to be constructed, the FISC/East Housing Affordable Project. Catellus and the CIC intend
to enter into a related Implementation Agreement in which Catellus will be obligated to provide
a shortfall loan to the CIC if sufficient funding for the project is not available when needed.
Recommendation
1. The Chief Executive Officer of the Alameda Housing Authority recommends that the Board
of Commissioners approve the attached Resolution Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 2, 2004
Page 4
to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City of Alameda Housing
Authority, Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for
Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real
Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station and the FISC.
2. The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission approve
the attached Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute an Owner
Participation Agreement (OPA) between the City of Alameda Housing Authority,
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for
Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real
Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station and the FISC and
Approving the Use of Catellus In -Lieu Funds to be Used Solely for the Development of the
10 -Unit Project.
JMF/LAL/DP/EC:dc
Leslie Little
Michael T. Pucci
Development Services Director Executive Director
By: - " zabeth Cook
Deve o . ment Manager, Housing
G: \BaseReuse\Elizabeth Cook \Staff Reportl
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE
AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND
RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 10 UNIT PROJECT ON CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE EAST HOUSING PORTION OF THE
NAVAL AIR STATION AND THE FISC.
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Project Site (defined below) is included in
the Alameda NAS Community Reuse Plan (the "Reuse Plan ") that was accepted by the
City of Alameda ( "City") on January 31, 1996 after several years of public input; and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
( "CIC ") and Catellus Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation ( "Catellus "),
entered into the Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of June 16, 2000, as
amended (collectively, the "Catellus DDA "), relating to the development of a mixed -use
residential and commercial project (the "Catellus Mixed Use Development ") on certain
real property (the "Property") commonly known as the East Housing Portion of the Naval
Air Station ( "East Housing ") and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") located in
the City, County of Alameda, State of California. The Catellus Mixed Use Development
and the Property are more particularly described in the Catellus DDA; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2000, the City certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report ( "Final EIR ") of the Catellus Mixed Use Development; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2000, the Navy conveyed East Housing to the ARRA by
quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, the City, the CIC, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (the "ARRA "), Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
( "Housing Authority"), Catellus, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, and Arc Ecology
entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement ") relating to the
settlement of the lawsuit that was filed by Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc
Ecology challenging the adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA ") of the Environmental
Impact Report for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station and the FISC; and
Resolution #1 -A (11ABoC)
6 -15 -04
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and subject to its terms and
conditions, the City, the CIC, the ARRA, the Housing Authority and Catellus agreed to
fund and construct, or cause to be constructed, an affordable housing development (the
" FISC/East Housing Affordable Housing Project ") on a three (3) acre parcel (the
"Affordable Housing Project Site ") within the Property. The FISC/East Housing
Affordable Housing Project, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, consists of
sixty (60) family units of two (2) or more bedrooms; and
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the Settlement Agreement requirements regarding
the construction of the FISC/East Housing Affordable Housing Project, the CIC and
Housing Authority intend Resources for Community Development ( "RCD ") to develop a
two -phase affordable project on the Affordable Housing Project Site consisting of a first
phase comprised of fifty -two (52) rental units (the "52 Unit Project "), and a second phase
comprised of ten (10) for -sale units (the "10 Unit Project "). The 52 Unit Project and the
10 Unit Project are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "62 Unit Project "; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2001, the ARRA conveyed East Housing to the CIC by
quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City approved an Addendum to the Final
EIR ( "Addendum ") for the Catellus DDA. The Final EIR and Addendum are referred to
collectively as the "EIR ". On December 18, 2001, the City also approved amendments to
the Catellus master plan and tentative map for the Project by Resolution No. 13423, to
allow the 62 Unit Project to be located on the Affordable Housing Project Site; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, the CIC and Housing Authority selected RCD as the
developer of the 62 Unit Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003, the CIC conveyed the Affordable Housing
Project Site to the Housing Authority by quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the Planning Board of the City approved the
Development Plan and Design Review for the 62 Unit Project by Resolution No. PB -03-
31. On April 26, 2004, by Resolution No. PB -04 -30 the Planning Board of the City
extended the foregoing approvals for one (1) year; and
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken, pursuant to CEQA, the required analysis of
the environmental impacts of the 10 Unit Project as a segment of the Catellus Mixed Use
Development, the "Project" analyzed by the EIR, and has determined those feasible
mitigation measures (collectively, the "Mitigation Measures "), which will eliminate, or
reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The City
completed and certified an EIR in connection with the Project. The City has also adopted
statements of fact and findings of overriding considerations for those adverse
environmental impacts of the Project that may not or cannot be mitigated to an acceptable
level. The EIR adequately describes the Project for purposes of CEQA, the 10 Unit
Project is a segment of the Project, and the Owner Participation Agreement ( "OPA ")
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 2
2
which is being entered into based on the CIC's and Housing Authority's determination
that there are no significant environmental impacts which have not been analyzed
pursuant to the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (the "MMRP "), a copy of which is attached to the OPA to ensure that those
applicable Mitigation Measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on the 10 Unit Project
are enforced and completed; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the OPA is to address the development of the second
phase of the development of the 62 Unit Project, which is the 10 Unit Project. The
development of the 10 Unit Project is in furtherance of and consistent with the Reuse
Plan, the City of Alameda General Plan, and the Community Improvement Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS does hereby
resolve, as follows:
Section 1. Finding: The Board of Commissioners fmds this action to be
consistent with the project evaluated in the EIR and that 1) there are no substantial
changes to the project which would result in the need for major revisions to that EIR, 2)
there are no substantial changes with regard to the circumstances surrounding the
proposed action which would require major revisions to that EIR, and 3) no substantial
new information exists which was not previously known which would show that the
project has new significant environmental impacts, the project's identified impacts are
substantially more severe than previously disclosed, or alternatives or mitigation
measures previously found to be infeasible are in fact feasible and/or would reduce
significant environmental impacts more than previously disclosed, which would require
that a new Subsequent or Supplemental EIR be prepared under section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Action: The Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the Chief
Executive Officer to enter into the OPA (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) between
the CIC, Housing Authority and RCD for the development of the 10 Unit Project on the
Affordable Housing Project Site, which is a portion of the Property, subject to any minor
conforming, technical or clarifying changes approved by Chief Executive Officer and
Housing Authority counsel. The Chief Executive Officer is hereby further authorized
and directed to take such further actions and execute such other documents as are
necessary to carry out the OPA.
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 2
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Alameda in a meeting assembled on the 15th day of June, 2004, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said Commission this 15th day of June, 2004.
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 2
Secretary
4
Chair
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND
RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 10 UNIT PROJECT ON CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE EAST HOUSING PORTION OF THE
NAVAL AIR STATION AND FISC AND APPROVING THE USE OF
CATELLUS IN-LIEU FUNDS TO BE USED SOLELY FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 10 UNIT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Project Site (defined below) is included in
the Alameda NAS Community Reuse Plan (the "Reuse Plan ") that was accepted by the
City of Alameda ( "City") on January 31, 1996 after several years of public input; and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
( "CIC ") and Catellus Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation ( "Catellus "),
entered into the Disposition and Development Agreement dated as of June 16, 2000, as
amended (collectively, the "Catellus DDA "), relating to the development of a mixed -use
residential and commercial project (the "Catellus Mixed Use Development ") on certain
real property (the "Property") commonly known as the East Housing Portion of the Naval
Air Station ( "East Housing ") and Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") located in the
City, County of Alameda, State of California. The Catellus Mixed Use Development and
the Property are more particularly described in the Catellus DDA; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2000, the City certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report ( "Final EIR ") of the Catellus Mixed Use Development; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2000, the Navy conveyed East Housing to the ARRA by
quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, the City, the CIC, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (the "ARRA "), Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
( "Housing Authority"), Catellus, Renewed.Hope Housing Advocates, and Arc Ecology
entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement ") relating to the
settlement of the lawsuit that was filed by Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc
Ecology challenging the adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA ") of the Environmental
Impact Report for the reuse of the Alameda Naval Air Station and the FISC; and
Resolution #1 -A (CIC
6 -15 -04
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and subject to its terms and
conditions, the City, the CIC, the ARRA, the Housing Authority and Catellus agreed to
fund and construct, or cause to be constructed, an affordable housing development (the
"FISC /East . Housing Affordable Housing Project ") on a three (3) acre parcel (the
"Affordable Housing Project Site ") within the Property. The FISC/East Housing
Affordable Housing Project, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, consists of
sixty (60) family units of two (2) or more bedrooms; and
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the Settlement Agreement requirements regarding
the construction of the FISC/East Housing Affordable Housing Project, the CIC and
Housing Authority intend Resources for Community Development ( "RCD ") to develop a
two -phase affordable project on the Affordable Housing Project Site consisting of a first
phase comprised of fifty -two (52) rental units (the "52 Unit Project "), and a second phase
comprised of ten (10) for -sale units (the "10 Unit Project "). The 52 Unit Project and the
10 Unit Project are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "62 Unit Project"; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2001, the ARRA conveyed East Housing to the CIC by
quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the City approved an Addendum to the Final
EIR ( "Addendum ") for the Catellus DDA. The Final EIR and Addendum are referred to
collectively as the "EIR ". On December 18, 2001, the City also approved amendments to
the Catellus master plan and tentative map for the Project by Resolution No. 13423, to
allow the 62 Unit Project to be located on the Affordable Housing Project Site; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2002, the CIC and the Housing Authority selected RCD as
the developer of the 62 Unit Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003, the CIC conveyed the Affordable Housing
Project Site to Housing Authority by quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the Planning Board of the City approved the
Development Plan and Design Review for the 62 Unit Project by Resolution No. PB -03-
31. On April 26, 2004, by Resolution No. PB -04 -30 the Planning Board of the City
extended the foregoing approvals for one (1) year.
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken, pursuant to CEQA, the required analysis of
the environmental impacts of the 10 Unit Project as a segment of the Catellus Mixed Use
Development, the "Project" analyzed by the EIR, and has determined those feasible
mitigation measures (collectively, the "Mitigation Measures "), which will eliminate, or
reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The City
completed and certified an EIR in connection with the Project. The City has also
adopted statements of fact and findings of overriding considerations for those adverse
environmental impacts of the Project that may not or cannot be mitigated to an acceptable
level. The EIR adequately describes the Project for purposes of CEQA, the 10 Unit
Project is a segment of the Project, and the Owner Participation Agreement ( "OPA ")
which is being entered into based on the CIC's and Housing Authority's determination
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \ Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 1
2
that there are no significant environmental impacts which have not been analyzed
pursuant to the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (the "MMRP "), a copy of which is attached to the OPA to ensure that those
applicable Mitigation Measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on the 10 Unit Project
are enforced and completed; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the OPA is to address the development of the second
phase of the development of the 62 Unit Project, which is the 10 Unit Project. The
development of the 10 Unit Project is in furtherance of and consistent with the Reuse
Plan, the City of Alameda General Plan, and the Community Improvement Plan.
WHEREAS, the CIC has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to
carry out in the City of Alameda the functions and requirement of the Community
Redevelopment Law of the State of Californian (Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq.) and to implement the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (`BWIP "); and
WHEREAS, Section 33071 of the Community Redevelopment Law declares that
a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low- and moderate -
income housing; and
WHEREAS, the CIC desires to provide for the construction of a 10 Unit Project
within the BWIP.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CIC does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. Finding: The CIC finds this action to be consistent with the project
evaluated in the EIR and that 1) there are no substantial changes to the project which
would result in the need for major revisions to that EIR, 2) there are no substantial
changes with regard to the circumstances surrounding the proposed action which would
require major revisions to that EIR, and 3) no substantial new information exists which
was not previously known which would show that the project has new significant
environmental impacts, the project's identified impacts are substantially more severe than
previously disclosed, or alternatives or mitigation measures previously found to be
infeasible are in fact feasible and/or would reduce significant environmental impacts
more than previously disclosed, which would require that a new Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR be prepared under section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Action: The CIC hereby authorizes the Executive Director to enter
into the OPA (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) between the CIC, Housing
Authority and RCD for the development of the 10 Unit Project on the Affordable
Housing Project Site, which is a portion of the Property, subject to any minor
conforming, technical or clarifying changes approved by the Executive Director and CIC
counsel. The Executive Director is hereby further authorized and directed to take such
further actions and execute such other documents as are necessary to carry out the OPA.
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 1
3
Section 3. Action: Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, the CIC
hereby authorizes the use of an amount not to exceed $2 million of Catellus in -lieu funds
to be used solely for development of the 10 Unit Project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the OPA and related development documents.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Alameda in a meeting assembled on the 15th day of June, 2004, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said Commission this 15th day of June, 2004.
G: \comdev \Base Reuse \Elizabeth Cook \Resolution 1
Secretary
4
Chair
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
June 4, 2004
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
3 -A
From: James M. Flint, Executive Director
Re: Recommendation to Approve Continuing Resolution Authorizing Payment of Alameda
Point Obligations at Existing Levels until Adoption of the FY 2004 -2005 Operating
Budget
Background
In June 2003, the ARRA Governing Body approved an operating budget for Alameda Point to cover
expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. Operating revenues include lease proceed
grants. It is estimated that the ARRA will carryover approximately $2,323,406 in lease proceeds in
the next fiscal year. Estimated Revenue for fiscal year 2004 -2005 is $12,472,374 and proposed
appropriations are $10,867,984.
Discussion
The Alameda Point budget will be considered at the same time the City Council reviews the City's
two -year financial plan. Budget workshops are scheduled through June 8, 2004 with deliberations
beginning June 10 and possibly extending through July 2004. Therefore, in order for operations to
continue at Alameda Point, it is necessary for the ARRA Governing Body to authorize expenditures
at the current level until the 2004 -2005 fiscal year appropriations are established.
Fiscal Impact
Revenue sources identified in the current fiscal year are adequate to fund interim expenditures at
Alameda Point for infrastructure maintenance, and administrative costs at present service levels until
the budget is passed. In addition, an unexpended federal EDA grant and local matching funds will
be available for reappropriation in this interim budget.
The interim proposed budget for Alameda Point has no impact on the City's general fund.
Recommendation
The Executive Director recommends that the proposed continuing resolution be adopted allowing
interim expenditures from July 1, 2004 until the ARRA budget is adopted, in order to pay Alameda
Point obligations.
LAL/NB/LA
she A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks
Finance and Administration Division Manager
Attachment: Resolution No. 34
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C:\DOCUME-1 \cm_user\LOCALS -1 \ Temp \ContinuingBudget.Report_061504. doc
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 34
AUTHORIZING INTERIM EXPENDITURES OF ALAMEDA POINT OBLIGATIONS IN THE
FIRST QUARTER OF 2004 -2005 FY
WHEREAS, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved a
budget for Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Alameda Point operations in June 2003; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that lease revenue for Fiscal year 2004 -2005 is
$12,472,374 with approximately $2,323,406 lease revenue carryover. In addition, there are
unexpended grant and local matching EDA grant monies to be carried over to FY 2004 -05.
Proposed appropriations for Alameda point operations are $10,867,984; and
WHEREAS, Alameda point appropriations include infrastructure, maintenance and
administration costs; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to authorize payment of Alameda Point obligations
until the ARRA budget is adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ARRA hereby approves interim
expenditures prior to the approval of the ARRA Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 at the levels set by
the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Budget for FY 2003 -04 in order to pay Alameda
point obligations until the City /ARRA budget is adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRA hereby appropriates and approves
expenditure of the remaining unexpended grant and local matching funds for the EDA grant
award.
* * * * * * **
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in its regular
meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Irma Frankel, Secretary
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority
Date: July , 2004
Proclamation
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
recognize June as their international month of pride and
celebration; and
Whereas, members of our gay and lesbian community contribute to
and participate in activities beneficial to the City of Alameda;
and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community share
in and contribute to our collective culture of strong, loving,
and enduring friendships and families; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
and continue to dedicate their lives to our country in every
capacity, including the military and military reserves, in times
of peace and war; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
made numerous material and financial contributions in
support of various city -wide activities and projects; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community serve
on various City boards, commissions, and committees, such
as the Social Service Human Relations Board, Cable
Television Oversight Committee, Restoration Advisory
Board, Police Department Community Advisory Committee,
and Library Board.
Now therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby
recognize the contributions to our city by our gay and lesbian citizens and
encourage the community to recognize these contributions, particularly
during the month of June; Gay Pride Month.
Beverly
Mayor
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 20, 2004- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06.
Griffin Neal, Alameda, submitted a handout to Council and discussed
Alameda Power and Telecom's finances and assets.
The City Manager provided a handout on response to Councilmembers'
questions at previous budget sessions.
Mayor Johnson requested that further information showing the entire
Code Enforcement budget be provided.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested that information on outstanding debt
include the original principal plus the outstanding amount, rather
the final amount of the debt plus principal should be provided
using the most conservative inflation rate.
Mayor Johnson clarified that her request for Code Enforcement
information should include Community Improvement Commission
funding, the entire funding amount and personnel information.
The City Manager stated outside legal costs would also be included.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like a breakdown of Code
Enforcement personnel explaining the duties of each employee.
Mayor Johnson requested organizational charts with salary ranges.
The City Manager stated a summary listing of salaries would be
provided.
Councilmember Kerr requested outstanding debt tables on sewer
bonds; stated the money borrowed was repaid on property taxes and
was a large amount on the property tax bill; originally, the bond
was intended to cover pay -as- you -go; then, a positive fund was to
be built to pay for future sewer services; requested staff to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
May 20, 2004
ensure that the property tax funds were used to pay the bond debt
and not used to replace the main sewer at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Kerr requested greater detail for the Development
Service Department budget; stated the department is not flat and is
now deeper; Development Services has a lot of debt funding which
uses the General Fund as collateral.
The Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) General Manager gave a Power
Point presentation on the AP &T budget.
Councilmember Kerr requested information on the amount of funds
AP &T pays in cost allocation, General Fund transfers, PILOT
(Payment in Lieu of Taxes), and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority leases.
Councilmember Gilmore requested said amounts be provided over the
past several years.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the history of AP &T drawing down
on reserve funding kept by the Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA) .
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the summary of positions and
associated salaries be provided only for filled positions.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry about whether the
Council has control over AP &T's budget, the City Attorney stated a
detailed memorandum would be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that non - General Fund department
provide scenarios of 5% cuts; stated Council will be looking for
increased transfers; requested that the Public Utilities Board
(PUB) review the NCPA reserve and staffing levels to find a way to
increase the General Fund transfer.
In response to Council's questions regarding the PUB's control over
AP &T's budget, the City Manager stated that he would meet with the
City Auditor, City Attorney and staff to provide a written
response; noted there is more than one way to interpret the
Charter.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a memo on AP &T's General Fund transfer
amount that would result from following the Charter versus other
methods of calculation; questioned if the transfer amount is above
Charter requirements and how the amount is determined.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that each department provide 5%
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
May 20, 2004
and loo cut scenarios.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council must know about Development
Service projects and programs in order to make funding decisions.
Councilmember Gilmore stated other department provided 5% budget
cut scenarios; all enterprise departments should have to provide
information on cuts.
The City Manager stated the information would be provided at the
end of all the presentations.
The Assistant to the City Manager gave Power Point presentations on
the City Council and City Manager budgets.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding association
membership, the City Manager stated a list would be provided.
The City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation on her
departmental budget.
The Finance Director discussed CalPERS cost increases.
Mayor Johnson requested information on the possible multi -year
phase in of the increases.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:20 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 20, 2004
3
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 20, 2004- -6:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:21 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent: None.
(04- CC /04- CIC) Discussion of HUD Section 8 Program funding
shortfall and various remedies to address the shortfall.
The Housing Authority Executive Director provided information on
the shortfall.
Mayor /Chair Johnson suggested a letter be sent from the Council to
the Secretary of HUD.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog suggested a letter be sent to put
tenants at ease.
Council Action
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Council sending a letter
to the Secretary of HUD.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr requested that the Council be
provided information about when the reserves would be replenished.
Mayor Johnson requested the letter be both faxed and mailed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
The Housing Authority Executive Director gave an overview of the
special meetings to provide information to tenants and landlords.
Mayor Johnson requested that the letter address: 1) the
replenishment of reserves; 2) the retroactive adjustment of Section
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 20, 2004
8 funding; and 3) the 2004 -05 budget amounts, which are unknown.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 20, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 27, 2004- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06.
The City Manager provided handouts in response
Councilmembers at previous budget sessions.
The City Clerk gave a Power Point presentation
budget.
to requests made by
on her departmental
The Information Technology (IT) Director gave a Power Point
presentation on the IT Department budget.
The Finance Director provided a handout exploring options for
restructuring the CalPERS contribution rate and reviewed each
scenario.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff review Option 2 [City request a
fresh start re- amortization of the unfunded liabilities over a term
of between five and thirty years].
Councilmember Gilmore requested the review include the best guess
of how much the plan would cost in three to seven years and the
worst -case scenario of another decline in the market.
The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation on the Finance
Department budget.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on how much money
would be saved by having a check run every other week instead of
weekly.
Mayor Johnson requested that information on the amount of money
which the State has grabbed from the City be posted on the City's
website.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
May 27, 2004
on her departmental budget.
Following Vice Mayor Daysog's comments, Mayor Johnson stated having
a staff person in each park should be a long -term goal of the
Recreation and Parks Department.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff continue to review seeking
revenue from private partnerships; for example, dedication of
benches and neighborhood and business contributions, such as
Franklin Park.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a plan of action for having a staff
member at each park; stated the plan should include costs with
options and should address how the gap can be closed for the five
parks that need staff in the next three years.
The Planning and Building Director gave an overview of Code
Enforcement; submitted pictures of cases.
Mayor Johnson requested the total cost of Code Enforcement.
The Planning and Building Director gave a Power Point presentation
on his departmental budget.
Mayor Johnson requested information on how much fees have increased
over the past several years.
Mayor Johnson requested information on how Alameda's fees compare
to other cities.
Mayor Johnson requested information on the number of permits for
improvements and the number for new construction.
Councilmember Matarrese stated longer plan review is not an
acceptable budget cut impact; requested staff to provide an option
to eliminate the possibility of longer plan review.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
May 27, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 27, 2004- -6:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent: None.
(04- CC /04- CIC) Discussion and action on Housing Authority's
Section 8 Program funding shortfall.
The Housing Authority Executive Director provided an update.
The Council /Board /Commission discussed the HUD program.
The Executive Director stated staff recommends termination of the
Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts over the baseline
allocation of 1625 with Section 8 landlords effective July 1, 2004
and staff report Option 2, reduction of contract rents for Section
8 vouchers effective July 1, 2004 to meet the total amount of the
monthly HUD budget formula, which is currently $1,521,975; further
stated weekly reports would be provided.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Mayor /Chair Johnson clarified that the motion is to approve
termination of the HAP contract over the baseline and Option 2.
Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 6.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and
Community Improvement Commission
May 27, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1, 2004- -6:15 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 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 of litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(04- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from staff and gave
directions and regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation,
the Council discussed the City Manager's performance.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
June 1, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:57 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04-
Week.
)Proclamation declaring June 5 -16 as Affordable Housing
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Michael
Yoshi, Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates.
(04- )Presentation on New Main Library Project.
The City Manager stated that the Library Project Manager would
provide a verbal update on the Project at the first City Council
Meeting of each month.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff is doing a great job keeping the
project on schedule.
The Library Project Manager stated that the Linoaks Motel has been
demolished; final survey is scheduled for June 2; the bid notice
will be advertised June 4 and will continue through the end of
June; negotiations are continuing on the Hom property; the
Resolution of Necessity and the final Environmental Impact Report
for the acquisition and demolition of the Hom property will be on
the June 15 City Council agenda; furnishings, equipment and the
Library move are in the early planning phases.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested clarification of the term, "Resolution
of Necessity ", to which the Library Project Manager responded the
term refers to determining that the acquisition of the property is
for the public benefit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
1
Mayor Johnson inquired when construction would end, to which the
Library Project Manager responded April, 2006 or earlier.
The Library Project Manager stated that comments received from new
library construction managers emphasized the need to start the
moving plans as soon as possible.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that Adoption of Resolution to Revise the
Citywide Development Impact Fee Schedule [paragraph no. ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Kerr 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 City Council Meeting of May 6,
2004; Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission
and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Special
Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
Meeting of May 13, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting, the
Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting, and the Regular City Council of May 18, 2004.
Approved.
( *04- )Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Alameda Free Library - New Main Library
Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. Approved.
( *04- )Resolution No. 13710, "Ordering Vacation of the Existing
Transmission Line Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43
and Recordation of Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and
Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 9]." Adopted.
( *04- )Resolution No. 13711, "Ordering Vacation of Unrecorded
Electrical Power Pole Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074-
0905-39; 074 - 0905 -42, and 074 - 0905 -43 and Recordation of Quitclaim
Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus /Bayport Residential
Projects) [ID No. 10]." Adopted.
( *04- A) Resolution No. 13712, "Ordering Vacation of an
Unrecorded Electrical Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 -
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22
and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential
Projects) [I.D. No. 11." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13713, "Ordering Vacation of Storm Drain
Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No.
21." Adopted.
( *04- A)Resolution No. 13714, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42 and
Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential
Projects) [I.D. No. 31" Adopted.
( *04- B) Resolution No. 13715, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P. N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects [I.D. No.
41." Adopted.
( *04- C) Resolution No. 13716, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No.
51." Adopted.
( *04- D) Resolution No. 13717, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No.
61." Adopted.
( *04- E) Resolution No. 13718, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 -1353- 5,6,7,15 and
Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential
Projects) [I.D. No. 7]." Adopted.
( *04- F) Resolution No. 13714, "Ordering Vacation of the Storm
Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No.
81." Adopted.
( *04- )Resolution No. 13720, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent
Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital
Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter Into
All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds." Adopted.
(04- )Resolution No. 13721, "Revising the Citywide Development
Impact Fee Schedule for the Construction of Capital Facilities
within the City of Alameda." Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
3
Vice Mayor Daysog stated money collected from residential or
commercial development goes to a variety of activities; that he
appreciates that inflation adjustments are made; requested an off
agenda report explaining why there are different fees in different
assessment districts.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13723, "Establishing Affordable Housing
Guidelines for Residential Developments in the City of Alameda."
Adopted.
( *04- )Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Lease for Real Property Located at 1435 Webster
Street (Parking Lot D). Introduced.
( *04- ) Ratified Bills in the amount of $2,407,738.13.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- )Recommendation to accept the Citywide Retail Policy Report.
The City Manager stated that the policy report created a vehicle to
engage the community; the report does not presume that there will
be new retail at Enterprise Landing, does not express a preference
about where new retail should be located, does not make any
decisions regarding tenant mix, does not define the retail capture
rate for new retail projects in respect to sales leakage, and does
not answer questions regarding the potential impact that specific
retail projects might have on existing businesses.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investment, stated that many high -end retail
merchants want to be in Alameda.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), urged
acceptance of the staff recommendation.
Joan Konrad, Alameda, urged acceptance of staff recommendation;
stated that she is concerned with only 130,000 square feet of
retail; the Del Monte building is deadly for pedestrian traffic; a
mixed -use policy for residential, retail, commercial and other
supporting uses at Alameda Point, might not be possible because of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
4
Measure A; requested that trees be planted with generous growth
area.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda Point is limited to 130,000
square feet of retail, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded
that the General Plan for Alameda Point provides for two 50,000
square -foot neighborhood shopping areas; staff is exploring the
viability of 130,000 square -foot retail.
Karen Bey, Alameda, urged acceptance of the report; stated
competition is good for the community.
Douglas deHaan, Economic Development Commission, provided a
handout; stated that many good things are happening in the City;
that he is concerned with the amount of proposed new retail; that
Alameda already has 1.5 million square feet of available space;
urged endorsement of Policy Report.
Mary Ellen Proctor, Alameda, stated that the Policy Report was a
good road map for the future.
Christine Firstenberg, Metrovation Brokerage, urged support of the
staff recommendation; stated that the trade area has opportunity
for small and large retailers in current and future shopping
centers; Alamedans spend an outrageous amount of money off the
Island.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a specific timeframe should
be met to ensure competition with other retail centers, to which
Ms. Firstenberg responded the sooner the better.
Helen Sause, Housing Options Makes Economic Sense (HOMES),
commended staff for conducting a thoughtful process; stated that
she is concerned with the impact of Measure A and the housing
density restraints; that Council should look carefully at any large
scale retail development impacts.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated that
WABA is in favor of the Policy Report; urged approval.
Deidre Dixon, Harbor Bay Realty, stated real estate agents support
the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked participants; stated approval of
the report is not approval of the recommended policies; there is a
window of opportunity; concerns raised when the Economic
Development Strategic Plan was accepted in 2000 are being
validated.
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
Councilmember Kerr stated that it is problematic to justify new
shopping centers when there is enough square footage in existing
buildings and proposed projects; that she does not want a high
density or transit - oriented City created to support stores;
transportation and retail should be for the residents; the Report
encourages and supports retail projects demonstrating high quality
design compatible with Alameda's historic character; when Strategic
Economics presented retail mix suggestions, Council wanted
assurance that there would be no harm to existing retail business;
Council was never satisfied with any of the proposed retail mix for
Enterprise Landing; the report should recognize that something
needs to be done about projects that are already planned; that she
is concerned that the policy report does not recognize the City as
it is and may not give the right direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should go forward with accepting
the Policy Report; that Council requested the Report in order to
review retail in the City as a whole.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Kerr regarding
Enterprise Landing; stated that most of the proposed policies can
be applied to existing or new locations; the report should be
viewed as project neutral; as entitlements and approvals are given,
the policy can be used as a standard for review.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the recommendation.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated Trader Joe's demonstrates that Alamedans
want quality shopping; Alameda is behind on value- oriented and
quality shopping; the report provides the springboard needed to
move forward to meet the needs of the residents.
Councilmember Kerr noted reports are quoted forever, and show up as
approved policy; accepting a document is not necessarily a safe.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
(04- )Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13723,
"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Reports for FY 2004 -05
and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05." Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
6
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(04- )Public Hearing to consider introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -16,
(Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects) to
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there would be inflation
adjustments, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that inclusionary housing drives up the
cost of the market rate housing in the same project; Alameda has
adopted strong inclusionary housing requirements; that introduction
of the Ordinance is being presented as a necessity to have the
Housing Element certified; that she does not like Alameda endorsing
what Sacramento wants the City to do.
Councilmember Gilmore moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
* **
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Council Meeting at 9:51 p.m.
* **
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(04- )Clyde Ryan, Alameda, submitted a letter regarding crossing
guards.
(04- )Leonora Sea, Advancing California's Emerging Technologies
(ACET), thanked Council and staff for their help and support;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
7
invited Council to the groundbreaking ceremony on Friday, June 4,
2004 at 10:00 a.m.
(04- )Robb Ratto, PSBA, and Sherri Stieg, WABA, thanked Council
for passing the Associations' budgets. [paragraph no.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- )Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit
Advisory Committee.
Mayor Johnson appointed Marlene Cooney to the Paratransit Advisory
Committee.
(04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Social Services Human Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Amanda Flores -Witte for appointment to the
Social Services Human Relations Board.
(04- )The Council discussed the timeline of the remaining budget
meeting dates; Mayor Johnson requested that the Council be polled
to check availability for a budget meeting on Tuesday, June 8th'
which would allow deliberations to commence on Thursday, June 10th
ADJOURNMENT
(04- ) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 10:09 p.m. in memory of Frank McCormick.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2004
8
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- -JUNE 3, 2004- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:17 p.m. Vice Mayor
Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06.
The City Manager provided handouts in response to requests made by
Councilmembers at previous budget sessions.
The Chief of Police gave a Power Point presentation on the Police
Department budget.
Mayor Johnson requested a list of the personnel assigned to each
significant program.
Mayor Johnson requested that due to the high number of calls, staff
review requiring the Harbor Isle Apartments to pay for a police
officer, as was done at South Shore Shopping Center.
Councilmember Kerr requested information on the number of calls at
the Alameda Point Collaborative; stated landlords should be
required to comply with State laws.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on whether personnel
cuts are at primary points of service, such as 911 or patrol;
inquired whether the three officers would be cut from patrol or
other programs.
The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation on his departmental
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide an analysis of
whether there is a savings in hiring additional staff, rather than
budgeting a large amount for overtime.
The City Manager stated staff would provide Council with a copy of
a memo on the $1 million in overtime costs.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested information on the duties of the nine
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
June 3, 2004
vacant firefighter positions; stated making up for vacant positions
with overtime is not sustainable.
Councilmember Gilmore requested information on the percent of calls
that involve Alameda Point.
The Library Director gave a Power Point presentation on the Library
Department budget.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired as to the number of staff that will
be needed to staff the new main library.
Following the presentations, Vice Mayor Daysog requested additional
information on the Ca1PERS fresh start scenario; noted the $1.7
million savings would have to be paid with interest plus principal.
In response to Council discussion, the City Manager stated an
actuarial analysis could be conducted to determine the cost of
CalPERS fresh start.
Councilmember Gilmore requested the analysis specifically address
any potential downsides.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to determine whether the
amount could be repaid sooner if the City's financial condition
improves.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:09 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
June 3, 2004
2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 8, 2004- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:23 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06.
The City Manager provided handouts in response to requests made by
Councilmembers at previous budget sessions.
The Human Resources Director gave a Power Point presentation on the
Human Resources Department budget.
In response to Council questions, the City Manager stated staff
would provide a list of all positions in the hiring freeze.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the
Public Works Department budget.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report describing which employees are
paid with Alameda Point bond money.
Councilmember Kerr requested information on the percent of Measure
B money used to fund the Transportation Master Plan, the
Transportation Commission and the Transportation Technical Team.
* * *
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:29 p.m. and reconvened the
special meeting at 7:43 p.m.
* * *
The Supervising Civil Engineer gave a Power Point presentation on
the Capital Improvement Program budget.
Mayor Johnson requested information on Measure B funds, including
fund balances and a breakdown of how funds are used.
Councilmember Kerr requested information on capital projects funded
through Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) lease
revenue.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
June 3, 2004
The City Manager stated staff would provide information on whether
projects are funded using ARRA lease revenues or ARRA bonds.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review putting language in
franchise agreements regarding the City's undergrounding program.
Mayor Johnson requested information on how much was spent on tree
removal and planting during the last fiscal year.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry about the
requested versus recommended amount for capital projects, the City
Manager stated staff would provide actual costs for annual
projects.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review extending the bike path
along the golf course south of Robert Davey Jr. Drive.
Mayor Johnson suggested a coordinated effort regarding West End
projects; stated the public should not have to attend multiple
meetings.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report on the overlapping West End
projects.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report on the process that has been
planned for the library branches needs assessment and improvements.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry regarding listing
ferry service expenses under capital improvements, the City Manager
stated staff would work on moving said item under operating
expenses.
Councilmember Kerr requested information on the cost involved with
moving the ferry dock.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested that staff review the landscaped areas
near the Posey Tube leaving Alameda; stated landscape maintenance
is important for businesses as well as residential areas.
Mayor Johnson requested that the landscape maintenance contract
require the contractor to be responsible for monitoring conditions
and include consequences for not keeping a desired maintenance
level.
Mayor Johnson requested that the drainage problem at Littlejohn
Park be considered as a future project.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 3, 2004
2
The Chief Building Official gave a Power Point presentation on the
One Stop Permit Center.
Following the presentation, the Council discussed budget concerns.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:07 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
June 3, 2004
3
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: June 1, 2004
To Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Re: Award of Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 2004 -05
Background
The City Charter requires the City Council to annually award a contract for publication of all legal
advertising of the City to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best bid. The
newspaper published by the successful bidder is known as the Official Newspaper of the City.
At the Regular Council Meeting held on May 4, 2004, Council authorized the City Clerk to advertise
for bids for legal advertising.
Discussion /Analysis
Bids were due in the Office of the City Clerk on May 26, 2004. No bids were received. Alameda
City Charter Section 3 -18 states: "The Council shall annually, after advertising in the manner
provided for the purchase of supplies, award the contract to the responsible bidder who submits the
lowest and best bid." Charter Section 3 -15 states: "In case no bids are received, the Council
may....purchase such materials or supplies in the open market." The Alameda Journal submitted a
request to be considered in the open market. The Journal's rate per column inch is $3.22 for the first
insertion and $3.08 for each subsequent insertion.
Budget Consideration
Budget appropriations for legal advertising are approved by the City Council during the budget
process. The City Clerk and Planning and Building Department spend approximately $9,000
annually for legal notices.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Legal Advertising Contract (attached) for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 be
awarded to the Alameda Journal.
Respectfully submitted,
e,C
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Attachment — 1 (Contract)
Report #4 -B CC
6 -15 -04
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June,
2004, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter called the City, and the ALAMEDA JOURNAL, a published
daily newspaper, hereinafter called Publisher,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Alameda Journal submitted its bid, in writing, for the
publication, of all legal advertising of the City for the period ending June 30, 2005,
whereupon the Council of said City, on the 15th day of June 2004, duly accepted said bid
and awarded the contract for such legal advertising to said Publisher;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the
undersigned parties as follows:
1. Publisher agrees that during that fiscal year the said Alameda Journal
shall be maintained as a newspaper of general circulation as that term is defined in Title
I, Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 1, of the Government Code of the State of California.
2. Publisher, hereby agrees to publish and advertise in said Alameda
Journal, for and during the period from July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005, such
legal advertisements and notices and such other matters as the Council and other officers
of the City deliver to Publisher for publication.
Said Publisher further agrees that it will make all of such publications in
the manner and form required by law and that on the completion of publication it will
promptly file with the City Clerk an affidavit of publication as required by law.
Said advertising shall be in accordance with the following specifications:
All advertisements shall be set in six -point capitals, except that by
request of the officer authorizing the same such advertisement may be set in such larger
type and with such spacing between lines as such officer may direct.
Title and sub - heading shall be set in six -point type or in such larger type
as may be specified by the officer authorizing the advertisement.
In consideration of the faithful performance by the Publisher of the
agreements hereinabove set forth, the City hereby agrees to pay for said advertising and
publication at the following rates, to wit:
1
Per column inch, 5.4 -point type
Price per column inch for 1st insertion $ 3.22
Price per column inch for 2nd insertion 3.08
Price per column inch for subsequent insertions 3.08
The submission deadline for ads shall not exceed 4 days from date of
publication (excluding holiday periods).
The withdrawal deadline for ads shall be up to 1 day from date of
publication (excluding holiday periods).
3. HOLD HARMLESS:
Publisher shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council,
boards, commissions, officials, and employees ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any
and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to
Publisher's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance
of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are
filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Publisher, Publisher
shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if
negligence is not found on the part of Publisher. However, Publisher shall not be
obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active
negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
For those advertisements printed in conformity with copy submitted by
City, the City agrees to protect and indemnify the publisher against all liability, losses
and expenses arising from claims of libel, unfair competition and trade practices,
infringement, property rights, and right of privacy and misrepresentation, except to the
extent of the cost of the advertisement.
4. COMPLIANCES:
Publisher shall comply with all State or federal laws and all ordinances,
rules and regulations enacted or issued by City.
5. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this
Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when
delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
2
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Publisher to City shall
be sent to the attention of the City Department requesting publication at the following
address:
City of Alameda
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Publisher shall
be addressed to Publisher at:
Alameda Journal
1516 Oak Street
Alameda, CA 94501
6. WAIVER:
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein
shall not be deemed to be a waiver or any subsequent breach of the same or any other
term, covenant, or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different
character.
7. TERMINATION:
In the event Publisher hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Publisher shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured
within a period of seven (7) days after receipt by Publisher from City of written notice of
default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such
default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Publisher written
notice thereof.
8. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every
kind of nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement
or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of
this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and
Publisher.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be
executed, the day and year first above written, the City by its City Manager under
3
authority heretofore given by its City Council.
Approved as to form
ity Attorney, O
CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal
corporation,
By
City Manager
ALAMEDA JOURNAL
By Orkeh Pgaddrk
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $298,565, including
contingencies, to Bosco Oil Inc., dba Valley Oil Company for Annual Fuel Delivery to
Various Locations Within the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2004/2005, No. P.W. 03-
04-04
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2004, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized call for bids
for Annual Fuel Delivery to Various Locations Within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2004, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were
provided to 13 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid
was published in the Alameda Times Star.
Bids were opened on Thursday, May 13, 2004. Only one bid was received from Valley Oil
Company in the amount of $271,423. Valley Oil Company has been the City's fuel provider
since 1991. The bid price received from Valley Oil is more competitive than currently paid by
the City. The Contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
The following table shows the differences in existing and bidded prices.
Location
Existing
New
Unleaded
Diesel
Unleaded
Diesel
Maintenance Service Center
6.3 Cents
11.9 Cents
2.9 Cents
7.5 Cents
Fire Station 1
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
Fire Station 4
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
17.9 Cents
17.9 Cents
Fire Station 5
--
11.9 Cents
--
9.5 Cents
Golf Course
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
11.9 Cents
12.9 Cents
Note: This pricing is the price added to the average cost per gallon as determined
each Thursday by the "OPIS 5" report per contract specifications.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofAlameda
uublicWorks
apartment
PubticWwi¢ wail Jar You!
Report #4 -C CC
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Page 2
June 2, 2004
Funds for annual fuel delivery are included in the Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 budget under Central
Stores Fund, Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (702 - 51100); under the Alameda Fire Department,
Emergency Services, Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (3210 - 51100); and under the Golf. Course Funds,
Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (601 - 51100).
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, award the contract in the
amount of 298,565, including contingencies, to Bosco Oil, Inc., dba Valley Oil Company for
Annual Fuel Delivery to Various Locations Within the City of Alameda, for Fiscal Year
2004/2005, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04.
MTN/PJC:dl
Respectfu ly submitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Wit4eamezt, 74.91
By: Pete J. Carrai
Public Works Superintendent
G:\PUB W ORKS\PW ADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \061504\Award Fuel Contract.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GlyotAlameda
PublicWor'ks
epartm nt
Public Works IYrk f You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call Bids for the
Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights (SR2S) to Serve Donald Lum Elementary School, Haight
Elementary School, Wood Middle School and Chipman Middle School No. P.W. 01 -04-
01
BACKGROUND:
On May 30, 2003, the City applied for a grant to improve pedestrian safety and access to Donald
Lum Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle School, and Chipman Middle
School under the Safe Routes to School Program Federal Grant administered by Caltrans.
Currently the pedestrian crossings at Otis Drive west of Sandcreek Way, Santa Clara Avenue
west of Willow Street and Pacific Avenue east of Fourth Street are not controlled crossings.
Installation of in- pavement crosswalk lighting will enhance safety at these pedestrian crossings
by providing traffic calming and enhanced warning Signs. An example of a similar installation is
the Eighth Street and Portola Avenue installation that was completed in 2003.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
The project consists of installation of in pavement lights, two wheelchair ramps, and new striping
at the Otis Drive cross walk west of Sandcreek Way, new in pavement lights and striping at the
Santa Clara Avenue crossing west of Willow Street and at the Pacific Avenue crossing east of
Fourth Street. As a pilot project, one location of the in pavement lighting will be powered by
solar batteries. The other two locations will be powered by a low voltage power supply
connected to the AP &T secondary power supply. The plans and specifications for this project
are complete and available for review at the City Clerk's office.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Section 15301 minor changes to existing facilities.
fnvof Alameda
bblicWorks
Department
Public Works Wmkvfor You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -D CC
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/ FINANCIL ANALYSIS
Page 2
June 1, 2004
The project is budgeted as a part of CIP #03 -69 with funds available from Safe Routes to School
funds and Measure B.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt plans and specifications
and authorize call for bids for the Cross Walk In- Pavement Lights to Serve Donald Lum
Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle School, and Chipman Middle
School, No. P.W. 01- 04 -01.
MTN /JVW:dl
cc: Alameda Unified School District
Measure B Watchdog Committee
G: \pubworks \pwadmin \cou nci l\2004 \061504\adoptSR2S
Respect y submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: 4ohn V. Wankum
Supervising Civil Engineer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Eublic Works
Department
Public Walm MAT for You!
City of Alameda
Inter - office Memorandum
May 24, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint, City Manager
Subject: Report Recommending Acceptance of Residential Phase 2 Demolition
Improvements and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Subdivision
Improvement Agreement with Catellus Residential Group ( "Developer ") for Tract
7511 and Resolution approving the Final Map and Accepting certain Dedications
and Offers of Dedications and Easement Vacations for Tract 7511 (Block D and E
155 Individual Lots)
Background
The CIC entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Catellus Residential
Group on June 16, 2000. That Agreement was subsequently amended by the First Amendment
to the Disposition and Development Agreement dated December 18, 2001, a Second Amendment
to the Disposition and Development Agreement dated April 2, 2003, and a Third Amendment to
the Disposition and Development Agreement dated November 19, 2003 (collectively, the
"DDA "), relating to approximately 215 acres of real property located at the former U.S. Navy
East Housing and Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") sites (the "Property "). Also on June
16, 2000, the City and Developer entered into the Development Agreement, as amended by the
First Amendment to Development Agreement dated December 18, 2001, and a Second
Amendment to the Development Agreement dated May 5, 2004 (collectively, the "DA ").
The DDA and DA relate to the development of a phased, mixed -use project on the Property
which includes the development of 485 single family homes, four mini - parks, 1.3 million square
feet of office and R &D space, and a waterfront park promenade (the "Project "). Under the terms
of the DDA, the CIC is responsible for delivering a developable site to the Developer and
funding, from project - generated revenues, the total cost required to demolish existing structures
and foundations, remediate any hazardous materials, mass grade the site, and construct public
backbone infrastructure. Pursuant to the DDA, and other related agreements approved by the
City and CIC, which also include a Joint Implementation Agreement ( "JIA "), a Construction
Reimbursement Agreement ( "CRA "), as amended, and a Residential Shortfall Loan Promissory
Note and Deed of Trust, the CIC has the obligation to undertake these activities in order to
advance the Project in a timely manner to support phased development of the approved Project
Master Plan, subject to constraints and opportunities in the market.
The Developer has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and
entitlements related to the Project. These include an approved Project Master Plan, General Plan
Amendment and Rezoning, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), an Amended Tentative
Map, and Site -wide Landscape Plan. In addition, specific Planning Board approvals for the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resolutions #4 -E CC
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2003
Page 2
Bayport project granted on March 10, 2003, include final design approval of the site plan,
construction phasing plan, final building elevations and floor plans for each of the proposed
residential product lines, final color, materials and design details, and conceptual landscape plans
for the four mini -parks and front -yard garden areas.
As presented to the CIC on March 18, 2003, the significant economic downtum in the
commercial office and research and development market has led to deferring development of the
office / R &D component of the Project indefinitely. As a result, both the CIC and Developer
have elected to pursue a residential -only development in order to take advantage of a strong
residential market.
The proposed residential development ( "Bayport") is being developed through a Limited Liability
Corporation by and between Catellus Residential Group, Inc. and Warmington Alameda Associates,
L.P. Bayport encompasses approximately 87 -acres at the former East Housing / FISC Annex
property which is bordered by Main Street to the west, Tinker Avenue to the north, the proposed
extension of Fifth Street to the east (adjacent to the College of Alameda), and Atlantic Avenue to the
south. Bayport is planned for 485 detached and attached single - family homes and four %2 -acre mini -
parks spread throughout the neighborhood. The new subdivision will also include the development
of a four -acre community park and a seven -acre K -8 school to be developed by the City's Recreation
and Parks Department and Alameda Unified School District through a proposed joint -use agreement.
In order to meet the desired Bayport building schedule, and as allowed for under the DDA, the CIC
has granted the Developer, the right to enter the property prior to the conveyance of Residential
Conveyance Parcel 2, through a Right of Entry Agreement, in order to begin grading for intract
infrastructure improvements sufficient to develop the next 155 residences.
As referenced in the DDA, the conveyance of Residential Conveyance Parcels is subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of the initial residential conveyance conditions precedent set forth in the DDA,
which include, but are not limited to the completion of demolition for the Residential Conveyance
Parcel; the Parties' agreement on the permitted title exceptions, the issuance of all building or other
appropriate permits, and agreements and approvals that are required for construction of the
Backbone Infrastructure necessary to serve each Residential Conveyance Parcel (the "Residential
Backbone Infrastructure "). The contractor selected to perform this work will secure permits for the
Backbone Infrastructure work. The conveyance of each Residential Conveyance Parcel also requires
City Council's acceptance of demolition for each Residential phase, approval of a Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, approval of the Final Map for the Subdivision including, as required, the
establishment and acceptance of easements, and related In -Tract and Backbone Infrastructure
Improvement Plans.
In order to convey the first 190 lots in Blocks A, B & C last June 2003, the City Council approved
the Demolition Work for Residential Phase I, which included East Housing, and authorized the City
Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "SIA ") and bonds connected with the
construction of the in -tract infrastructure improvements and landscaping. The Council also adopted
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \DougCole\2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract75l l_June2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2004
Page 3
the Resolution approving the Final Map in accordance with the easements and improvement plans as
part of the overall Phase I residential development for Tract 7387. In order to convey the next 155
lots in Blocks D & E, the City Council will have to take similar actions.
Discussion / Analysis
Acceptance of Residential Phase 2 Demolition
The Expenditure Authorization to prepare plans and specifications for demolition of the FISC Annex
was approved on August 27, 2003. The City's designated City Engineer (Harris Associates)
approved award of the demolition contract to FRMA on August 27, 2003, and the construction
contract was executed by and between Catellus and Ferma on August 27, 2003. The Notice to
Proceed was issued on September 8, 2003, and the demolition permit for East Housing was issued on
September 11, 2003. The scope of work related to demolition and mass grading of the East Housing
site included razing seven structures, which included the abatement of asbestos and lead based paint,
the removal of underground and above ground utilities and the removal of concrete and asphalt
pavement which was crushed for reuse on -site. In addition, an undocumented petroleum diesel spill
was discovered and has been remediated. The Department of Toxic Substance Control has issued a
letter of concurrence indicating that the activities described herein were conducted in accordance
with the Site Management Plan ( "SMP "). The remediation involved the removal and replacement of
approximately 3,300 tons of impacted soil, and mass grading.
Demolition activities were performed in accordance with the Site Management and Air Monitoring
Plan; Demolition Plan; Traffic Management Plan; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; Health
and Safety Plan; Construction Debris Management Plan; Utility Abandonment Plan; and Marsh
Crust Ordinance. Demolition of the former FISC Annex and remediation of the undocumented
petroleum diesel spill were completed in March 2004, in accordance with the contract documents
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and signed off on by the City's Building Department.
The initial estimated project budget for Phase 2 Demolition was $5,500,000, which included a 20
percent contingency. The approved expenditure authorization of $3,700,000 was based on a base
bid of $2,900,000 and contingency of approximately $800,000. Change orders associated with
demolition were attributable to the removal of undocumented hazardous and non - hazardous
underground utilities and the discovery and remediation of the undocumented petroleum diesel spill.
Cost recovery related to the petroleum diesel spill from the City's AIG insurance policy totals
approximately $270,000 in hard costs and approximately $130,000 in related soft costs.
Approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement
The Developer has requested that the City record the Final Map prior to completion of infrastructure
improvements and other Tentative Map conditions. The City, in accordance with Section 30 -85 of
the City's Subdivision Ordinance has developed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "SIA ")
that requires the Developer to construct all necessary in -tract improvements and to complete all
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \DougCole \2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract75l l_June2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2004
Page 4
outstanding Tentative Map conditions. A copy of the Agreement is available in the City Clerk's
office. The SIA includes bonding, insurance and warranty requirements for the in -tract
infrastructure. The key outstanding approvals include: payment of mitigation fees on a per unit basis
at time of building permit issuance; approval of revised Conditional Letter of Map Revision from
FEMA and certification of pads prior to issuance of occupancy permit, completion of Phase 2
Backbone Infrastructure, and requirement to mitigate impacts at the 4 -acre Neighborhood Park Site
associated with grade differentials between approved Tentative Map and infrastructure. Exhibit B of
the SIA contains a list of all outstanding Tentative Map Conditions.
Bonding Requirement
The Subdivision Improvement Agreement requires the posting of labor, material and performance
bonds for the proposed improvements. The Engineer's estimate for the required in -tract grading,
erosion protection, and construction of the Stormwater Retention Basin and restoration of the park
site to the pre - existing grade is $725,000 (these bonds were previously submitted). In addition, the
Engineer's estimate for in -tract infrastructure improvements is $7,835,000 and $1,329,000 for in-
tract landscape improvements. In -tract infrastructure improvements include storm drains, sanitary
sewers, pavement, sidewalks, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, grading, joint utility trench, traffic
signing and striping, and streetlights. Bonds in these amounts have been submitted to the City and
have been deemed acceptable by the Risk Manager.
Final Map
The Final Map for Tract 7511 (on file with the City Clerk) provides for the development of
Residential Phase 2 of the Amended Tentative Map. The Final Tract Map 7511 creates 155 legal
lots, private and public streets, lanes and common areas within Blocks D and E. Blocks D and E will
be conveyed from the CIC to Catellus for the construction of 155 single - family homes in accordance
with the DDA.
Pursuant to the DDA, the CIC has agreed to convey to Developer, and Developer has agreed to
acquire from the CIC, Residential Project Land, based on terms and conditions set forth in the DDA.
As referenced in the DDA, as amended, the CIC will convey property in phases consisting of three
(3) parcels of Residential Project Land ( "Residential Conveyance Parcels "). As shown in Table 1
below, Residential Conveyance Parcel 1 includes Blocks A, B & C (197 lots). Residential
Conveyance Parcel 2 includes Block D & E (155 lots). Residential Conveyance Parcel 3 include
Block F & G (133 lots).
The mechanism for subdividing each of the Residential Conveyance Parcel Blocks into legal lots for
construction, a precondition for conveying the property and issuing building permits, is the approval
and recordation of phased Final Maps. Three (3) Final Maps are required to convey the residential
property. The first Final Map, Tract 7387 was created to convey Blocks A, B & C for construction of
the first 197 lots; the second Final Map, Tract 7511 will be used to convey Blocks D & E for
construction of the second 155 lots; and the third Final Map will be used to convey Blocks F and G
for construction of the last 133 lots. As referenced in the Table 1 below, the Amended Tentative
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \DougCole\2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract7511 June2004.doe
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2004
Page 5
Map 7179 Conditions of Approval will remain on each Residential Conveyance Parcel and will be
removed with the filing of each Final Map. For the area encompassed by Final Maps No. 7387 and
7511, all applicable conditions of approval contained in Amended Tentative Map No. 7179 have
been found to be in conformance, as revised and amended. The Final Map for Tract 7387 was
recorded on June 24, 2003. The recordation of the Final Map for Tract 7511 will not occur until all
conditions precedent to recordation identified in the SIA are satisfied.
Table 1: Residential Conveyance Parcels ( "RCP ")
RCP
Block(s)
Lots
Amended Tentative Map
( "ATM') 7179
Conditions of Approval
Final Map
1
A, B & C
197
Completed with Final Map
except as noted in SIA
1St Final Map Tract No.7387
(Recorded June 24, 2003)
2
D & E
155
Completed with Final Map
except as noted in SIA
2 "d Final Map Tract No.7511
3
F & G
133
ATM 7179 Still Applies
3rd Final Map Tract No.7512 (Future)
Establishment and Acceptance of Easements
Easements within the Final Map property that are required to serve the residential lots include
emergency vehicle, public access and public utility easements. At the time Development Plans are
submitted, the easements may be refined. All existing easements are referenced in the Amended
Tentative Map 7179 and Tract No. 7387. All proposed easements are offered for dedication on the
Final Map for Tract No. 7511. These include pedestrian access easements, public utility easements
(AP &T, City, PG &E, EBMUD, AT &T), and emergency vehicle access easements. Other easements
required to serve the project that are outside of the Final Map area that still need to be acted upon
include the vacation and relocation of existing storm water easements and the granting of a public
access easement by the Peralta Community College District. No certificates of occupancy will be
issued until all easements have been secured.
Approval of the In -Tract and Backbone Infrastructure Improvement Plans
In -tract Improvement Plans for grading, storm drain, sewer, water, electrical, gas and streets have
been submitted to the City, reviewed by the Departments of Development Services, Planning, Public
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \DougCole \2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract75I I_June2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2004
Page 6
Works, Recreation and Parks, Police, Fire, and AP &T and have been found to be consistent with the
DDA, City standards, the Master Plan and the Master Demolition, Infrastructure and Grading Plan,
unless specifically denoted on Improvement Plan documents as design exceptions which were
approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has found the in -tract infrastructure improvement
plans to be substantially complete. Excavation permits will not be issued until all outstanding in-
tract improvement conditions listed in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement are incorporated to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Building Official. Final Improvement Plans for the
School Site, Park Site and Housing Authority Site are not required as part of this Final Map and SIA.
Schedule
Approval of the requested City Council actions on June 15th will satisfy major remaining conditions
required for the conveyance of Residential Phase 2 Property (Blocks D & E) prior to June 30, 2004
date requested by the CIC at the March 18, 2003 meeting. In the interim, staff will continue to work
cooperatively with the Developer to complete other pre- conveyance conditions, which include
approval of the Phase 2 Backbone Improvement Plans and the execution of the implementation
agreement for the 62 -unit affordable housing development. The following production schedule is
based on May 20, 2003 and June 15, 2004 City Council approvals:
• Residential Phase 1 Backbone Infrastructure Improvement Start — May /June 2003
• First Conveyance 197 lots — June 2003
• Second Conveyance 155 lots — June 2004
• Third Conveyance 133 lots — June 2005
• Model Home Production Start — August 2003
• Model Opening (10 homes) — June / July 2004
• Residential Phased Production (475 homes) — October 2004 to September 2007
Fiscal Impact
As directed, no general fund monies will be used for implementation of the project. All project costs
related to demolition and the construction of public backbone infrastructure including applicable
citywide development fees and traffic mitigation costs will be funded from revenues generated from
the project. Project revenues consist of land sale proceeds, profit participation and tax increment
revenues. All in -tract improvements, including in -tract public streets, sidewalks, landscaping and
homes will be constructed by and are the responsibility of the Developer.
Recommendation
In order to advance conveyance of Residential Conveyance Parcel 2 and construction of Residential
Phase 2 of the Bayport Project, the City Manager recommends that the City Council take the
following actions:
1. Accepts the Demolition Work for Phase 2 Residential, and direct the City Clerk to file a
Notice of Completion for the same;
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\DougCole\2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract7511 June2004.doc
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 24, 2004
Page 7
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept
Bonds in the amount of $7,835,000 for in -tract infrastructure improvements and $2,312,199
for in -tract landscape improvements; and
3. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Final Map and accepting certain dedications and
offers of dedication and easement vacations for Tract 7511, with the condition that the Final
Map not be signed nor recorded until all conditions precedent to recordation of Final Map
identified in the SIA are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that building
permits shall not be issued for In Tract Improvement Plans until all issues identified in the
Conditional Letter of Approval or in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement are completed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
JF /PB /DC
Respectfully ub
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: oug Cole
Redevelopment Manager
Documents on file with City Clerk:
1. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
2. Final Map
3. Improvement Plans
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp \DougCole \2nd Conveyance \CC Staff Report FM Tract7511_June2004.doc
(ZP)
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING FINAL MAP AND
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEDICATIONS AND OFFERS OF DEDICATION AND
EASEMENT VACATIONS FOR TRACT 7511
(BLOCK D AND E 155 INDIVIDUAL LOTS)
WHEREAS, an application was made on October 26, 1999 by the Catellus Development
Corporation requesting approval for a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Rezoning,
Development Agreement and Tentative Map relating to the development of a residential area,
including sites for parks, public open space, a school, and a commercial/business park area on a 215 -
acre site encompassing the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS) East Housing, the Alameda Fleet and
Industrial Supply Center and Annex. The project would be completed in phases over a multi -year
period, depending on market conditions. The project would include associated parking, landscaping
and public shoreline access; and
WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution 13216
(certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) and City Council Resolution
13217 (making findings concerning mitigation measures and alternatives, and adoption a Statement
of Overriding Considerations and a MMRP) were approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000;
and
Et
0
n �-- WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 13423, the City Council approved Tentative Map
Amendment TMA01 -002 to Tentative Map, TM -7179 on December 18, 2001; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 30, Article VI, Title 30 -81, Final Map, of the Alameda
Municipal Code ( "AMC "), the City of Alameda, CIC (Owner) and Developer (Subdivider), have
prepared and presented to this Council the Final Map of the Subdivision known as Tract 7511; and
WHEREAS, Tract 7511 establishes 155 legal lots, private and public streets, lanes and
common areas; and
WHEREAS, said Final Map delineates thereon for dedication to the City of Alameda public
streets, a park, easements for public utilities and rights for public safety vehicles and emergency
equipment easements for private facilities, utilities and access; and
WHEREAS, said Final Map delineates thereon vacation and abandonment of appropriate
existing public easements; and
_ WHEREAS, subdivider desires to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement
( "Agreement ") to construct and complete the improvements in said subdivision, has submitted the
Final Map therefore for approval at this time, and has posted its bond guaranteeing full and faithful
performance of said work which has been approved by City, all in accordance with AMC Section 30-
85; and
WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage and benefit of the City to have said work performed
in accordance with said Agreement.
Resolution #4 -E CC
6 -15 -04
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Final Map of Tract 7511 be, and hereby
is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certain easements dedicated to the public and rights of
access are hereby accepted, on behalf of the public and the City, for use in conformity with the terms
of the dedication.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said public easements designated for abandonment are
hereby vacated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that other said easements offered for dedication but for which
improvements have not yet been constructed will be accepted at a later date upon completion of
those improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agreement for construction and completion of the
public improvements in said subdivision pursuant to the Agreement, and all its terms and conditions
be, and hereby are, approved and the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to
execute and attest to, respectively, said Agreement on behalf of the City of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bonds in the total sum of $9,164,000 guaranteeing
full and faithful performance of said public improvements, labor and materials are hereby approved
as sufficient in amount.
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
Inter - office Memorandum
June 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: James M. Flint, City Manager
Subject: Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Approve the Final
Map for Tract 7501 Including Establishment and Acceptance of Certain
Easements and to Execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with
Resources for Community Development ( "Subdivider ") for Tract 7501 and
Accept Related Bonds.
Background
The Bayport residential community is the first new development to be built in Alameda on land
formerly owned by the U.S. Navy. The Bayport site consists of approximately 87 -acres previously
occupied by the Navy's East Housing and Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Annex facilities. In
2000, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc Ecology filed a lawsuit against the City of
Alameda, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC), the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) and the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), as well as Catellus Development
Corporation. This lawsuit challenged the adequacy, under the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA "), of the Environmental Impact Report for the reuse of the Naval Air Station and the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center. A Settlement Agreement was reached in March 2001, which mitigated the
petitioners concerns by providing for additional affordable housing within the East Housing/FISC
area.
Affordable housing development, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, consists of at least 60
family units of two or more bedrooms on a three (3) acre parcel at FISC/East Housing (now within
the Catellus residential project known as Bayport). In July 2002, the CIC and Board of
Commissioners selected Resources for Community Development (RCD) to design, build and lease
and/or sell the housing units following a competitive process. In cooperation with RCD, staff
prepared and presented several development scenarios to the CIC and Board of Commissioners in
December 2002. Direction was given to develop two projects on the site: 52 rental units and 10
ownership units (The Breakers at Bayport).
The Breakers at Bayport development (Tract 7501) is located at 2391 Fifth Street, north of Ralph
Appezzato Memorial Parkway (formerly Atlantic Avenue). The tentative map was approved by the
City Council on May 18, 2004, per Resolution #13709. A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Findings of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and
Addendum to the EIR were previously prepared and approved for the Project.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resolution #4 -F CC
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 2
The Final Map (on file with the City Clerk) provides for the subdivision of a vacant site into twelve
lots: ten for the construction of for -sale affordable, single - family homes within duplex structures,
one lot for construction of 52 affordable rental housing units, and one lot to be landscaped.
Discussion
Approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement
The Subdivider has requested that the City record the Final Map prior to completion of infrastructure
improvements and other tentative map conditions. The City, in accordance with Section 30 -85 of
the Alameda Municipal Code, has entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "Subdivision
Improvement Agreement ") that requires the Subdivider to construct, or cause to be constructed, all
necessary public improvements, and complete all outstanding tentative map conditions. The
Subdivision Improvement Agreement also obligates the Subdivider to obtain insurance, warranties
and labor, material and performance bonds for the public improvements in accordance with the
minimum requirement of the Alameda Municipal Code. Exhibit B of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement contains a list of all outstanding conditions. A copy of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreement is available in the City Clerk's office.
Bonding Requirement
The Subdivision Improvement Agreement requires the posting of labor, materials and performance
bonds for the proposed public improvements. These public improvements include storm drains,
sanitary sewers, pavement, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, grading, and joint utility trench. The
Engineer's estimate for the required infrastructure improvements is $783,000 and $125,000 for
landscape improvements. The Subdivider has posted bonds in amounts consistent with the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The forms of the bonds have been submitted to the City and
have been deemed acceptable by the Risk Manager.
Final Map
The Final Map for Tract 7501 has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct and in
substantial conformance with the approved tentative map, conditions of approval, and mitigation
measures. The Final Map includes easements for public utilities, public access and emergency
vehicles. At the time development plans are submitted the easements may be refined.
Approval of On -Site Improvement Plans
On -Site Improvement Plans, including landscaping and signage plans, have been submitted to the
City and the preliminary review by the Department of Development Services, Planning, Public
Works, Recreation and Parks, Police, Fire, and AP &T is completed. The City Engineer has found
the plans to be in general conformity with City standards and substantially complete. Subdivider
will complete requested modifications and resubmit plans to the City no later than June 18 for final
review and permitting. Excavation, grading and building permits will not be issued until all
outstanding on -site improvement conditions are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and City Building Official.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 3
Tract 7501 On -Site Improvement Plans have been developed in coordination with Catellus
Backbone and In -Tract Infrastructure Improvement Plans.
The infrastructure, including sanitary sewer laterals and storm drain pipes less than 12- inches (12 ")
in diameter, sidewalk, curb, gutter, street pavement, landscaping, and streetlights, will be maintained
by the property owners. The City will maintain the sanitary sewer mains and storm drain main pipes
(12- inches or larger including the catch basin inlet and manhole structures connecting to the city
main) with funding from the Bayport Municipal Services District and/or applicable City taxes and
fees.
Fiscal Impact
As directed, no general fund monies will be used to implement the project.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the Resolution Approving the Final
Map for Tract 7501 Including Establishment and Acceptance of Certain Easements and to Execute
the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Resources for Community Development.
( "Subdivider ") for Tract 7501 and Accept Related Bonds.
Resp ° ctfu submitted,
she Little'
Development Services Director
By: Eliza
Development Manager, Housing
Documents on file with City Clerk:
1. Final Map
2. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
3. Improvement Plans
ook
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 7501 INCLUDING
ESTABLISHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS
AND TO EXECUTE THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ( "SUBDIVIDER ") FOR TRACT 7501 AND ACCEPT
RELATED BONDS.
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003, the Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC ")
conveyed the Affordable Housing Project Site to Housing Authority by quitclaim deed; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda ( "City")
approved the Development Plan and Design Review for the 62 Unit Project by Resolution
No. PB- 03 -31; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, by Resolution No. PB -04 -30 the Planning Board of
the City extended the foregoing approvals for one (1) year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 13709, the City Council approved Tentative
Map 7387 for twelve lots: ten for single- family homes within duplex structures, one lot for
52 affordable housing units, and one lot to be landscaped on May 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority, CIC and Resources for Community
Development ( "Subdivider ") have or shall enter into Owner Participation Agreements
(OPAs) to address the development of the 52 rental units and 10 ownership units which is
in furtherance of and consistent with the Settlement Agreement, Reuse Plan, the City of
Alameda General Plan, and the Community Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 30, Article VI, Title 30 -81, Final Map, of the
Alameda Municipal Code ( "AMC "), the City of Alameda and Alameda Housing Authority
( "Owner ") and Subdivider have prepared and presented to this Council the Final Map of
the Subdivision known as Tract 7501; and
WHEREAS, said Final Map delineates thereon for dedication to the City of Alameda
easements for public utilities and public safety vehicles and emergency equipment and
rights for access, utilities and public safety vehicles and emergency equipment; and
WHEREAS, Subdivider desires to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement
( "Agreement ") to construct and complete the improvements in said subdivision, and has
filed the Final Map therefore for approval at this time, and has posted its bond guaranteeing
full and faithful performance of said work which has been approved by City, all in
accordance with AMC Section 30 -85; and
WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage and benefit of the City to have said work
performed in accordance with said Agreement.
Resolution #4 -F CC
6 -15 -04
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that the Final Map of Tract 7501 be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said easements offered for dedication to the
public and rights of access dedicated to the City of Alameda, but for which improvements
have not yet been constructed, will be accepted at a later date upon completion of those
improvements, on behalf of the public and the City, for use in conformity with the terms of
the offers of dedication.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agreement for construction and completion
of the public improvements in said subdivision pursuant to the Agreement and all its terms
and conditions be, and hereby are, approved and the City Manager and the City Clerk are
authorized and directed to execute and attest to, respectively, said Agreement on behalf of
the City of Alameda; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bonds guaranteeing full and faithful
performance of said public improvements, labor and materials are hereby approved as
sufficient in amount.
* * * * * * * * * * * * **
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that
adopted, and passed by the Council
assembled on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ANSETENTIONS:
the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
IN WITNESS, WHEROF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
said City this day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
G:\comdev\Base Reuse\Elizabeth Cook\Reso Tract 7501
City of Alameda
Memorandum
June 1, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Re: Amending Conflict of Interest Code by Amending Paragraph Two of Resolution
No. 9460 Relative to Disclosure Positions and Disclosure Categories and
Rescinding Resolution No. 13597 and Requesting that the City Council
Designate the City Attorney as the City's Reviewing Body of the Conflict of
Interest Codes of Other Local Agencies Within the City's Jurisdiction.
Background:
The City of Alameda is required to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and to make
amendments when new positions are added or duties changed. The last amendments to the
Conflict of Interest Code were adopted June 17, 2003, Resolution No. 13597. In addition,
every local government agency which has a Conflict of Interest Code within its authority has
been directed to review its Conflict of Interest Code and to either amend the code if necessary
or report to their respective code reviewing body, (City Council) that no amendment is
necessary.
Discussion:
The Political Reform Act requires that every city adopt a Conflict of Interest Code
and amend it whenever new positions are designated or duties changed. Employees are to be
included when they may be involved in the making or participate in the making of decisions
which may foreseeably have a material fmancial effect on any financial interest. Boards,
commissions and committees are to be included when they have decision making authority.
Each employee position has been reviewed to determine which employees are
involved in the making of decisions potentially having a material effect on any financial
interest. Each employee who either has been added to the Conflict of Interest Code or has a
change in the reporting requirements was given a copy of the proposed Conflict of Interest
Code. Each employee was requested to advise of any recommendations or objections. There
have been no objections made by any employees to the changes. Attached hereto is a draft
resolution which reflects the most recent changes in the City organization. The proposed
deletions and additions to the Conflict Interest Code have been highlighted for identification.
Re: Resolution #4 -G CC
6 -15 -04
Mayor and Councilmembers
June 1, 2004
Page 2
The Fair Political Practices Commissions ( "FPPC ") implements and interprets the
Conflict of Interest provisions of the Political Reform Act. FPPC regulation C.C.R. Section
18700 provides guidance in determining whether a board or commission is solely advisory or
has decision making authority. It states:
(A) "Public Official at any level of state of local government" means every natural
person who is a member, officer, employee or consultant of a state or local
government agency.
"Member" should include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of
boards or commissions with decision making authority.
A board or commission has decision making authority whenever:
(A) It may make a final governmental decision;
(B) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental
decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or
by reason of a veto which may not be overridden; or
(C) It makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended
period of time have been, regularly approved without a significant
amendment or modification by another public official or governmental
agency.
Each committee, board, and commission has been reviewed. This review included
the existing committees, boards, and commissions and those created since adoption of Resolution
No. 12073, adopted February 20, 1991. The staff liaison to each of the committees, boards and
commissions reviewed the recommendations of that entity to the City Council. The record of each
entity was reviewed to determine whether the City Council regularly approved their substantive
recommendations without significant amendment or modification. It concludes that all of the
current disclosure categories for all existing committees, boards and commissions were correct.
Addressing Section 87306.5 of the Political Reform Act, requiring the City Council
to act as a reviewing body, I am requesting that the City Council, by motion delegate the
responsibility of being the reviewing body to the City Attorney. A copy of each local agency's
Conflict of Interest Code and bi- annual reports will be kept on file in the City Clerk's office.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact:
There will be no impact on the General Fund.
Mayor and Councilmembers
June 1, 2004
Page 3
Recommendation:
• The proposed resolution amending the City's Conflict of Interest be adopted; and
• That the City Council, by motion, delegate to the City Attorney, the responsibility
of being the reviewing body for local government agencies' Conflict of Interest
Codes.
pectfully su . miffed,
Carol A. Koran e
City Attorney
lk-
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH TWO OF
RESOLUTION NO. 9460 RELATIVE TO DISCLOSURE POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 13470 13597
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that City of Alameda
Resolution No. 13470 is hereby rescinded; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that Paragraph
2 of the Conflict of Interest Code set forth in Resolution No. 9460 be amended thereof to read:
2. The terms of 2 Cal. Adm. Code Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly
adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission along with the attached Appendices in which
officials and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, are hereby
incorporated by reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the following departments
and agencies:
Alameda Power & Telecom
Building Services Division
City Attorney's Office
City Clerk's Department
City Council
City Manager's Department
Civil Service Board
Claims Board
Development Services Department
Economic Development Commission
Finance Department
Fire Department
Golf Commission
Golf Complex
Historical Advisory Board
Housing and Building Code Hearing
And Appeals Board
Housing Authority
Housing Commission
Human Resources Department
Information Technology
Library Board
Library Department
Pension Board
Planning Department
Police Department
Public Utilities Board
Public Works Department
Recreation and Park Commission
Recreation and Park Department
Social Service Human Relations Board
Transportation Commission
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
AND
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Alameda Power & Telecom
General Manager
Competitive Strategies Administration Manager
Operations Manager
Administrative Services Manager
Marketing Manager
Utility Service Manager
Utility Planning Supervisor
Engineering Supervisor
Financial Analyst
Support Services Supervisor
Telecom Technical Supervisor
Technical Operations Superintendent
Telecom Operations Supervisor
Marketing Coordinator
Marketing Specialist
Customer Service Supervisor
Building Services Division
Building Official
Building Services Manager
Supervising Building Inspector
Structural Plan Check Engineer
Senior Combination Inspector
Combination Inspectors
Plans Examiner
Permit Examiner /Expediters
Permit Technician
Code Compliance Officer
City Attorney's Office
City Attorney*
Assistant City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Risk Manager
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 1 of 7
City Clerk's Department
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
City Council
City Council Members*
City Manager's Department
City Manager*
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
Alameda Point Project Manager
Civil Service Board
Board Members
Claims Board
Board Members
Development Services Department
Development Services Director
Community Development Manager
Community Development Program Manager
Redevelopment Manager
Property Development Manager
Housing Facilities Manager
Development Manager
Development Manager, Housing
Development Project Manager
Planner III
Management Analyst
Reconstruction Specialist I
Reconstruction Specialist II
Administrative Services Coordinator
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 2 of 7
Economic Development Commission
Commission Members
Finance Department
A through F
Auditor A through F
Treasurer*
Finance Director A through F
Supervising Accountants A through F
Admin. Management Analyst (Budget Analyst) A through F
Admin. Services Coordinator A through F
Financial Services Manager A through F
Fire Department
Fire Chief
Deputy Chief
Division Chiefs
Assistant Fire Marshal — Captain
Training Director
Assistant Training Director
E.M.S. Director
E.M.S. Education Coordinator
Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
Firefighter Inspector
Golf Commission
Commission Members
Golf Complex
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
None
General Manager A through F
Golf Professional A through F
Assistant Golf Professional A through F
Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent A through F
Historical Advisory Board
Board Members A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 3 of 7
Housing Authority
Executive Director
Finance Manager
Housing Authority Manager
Housing Programs Manager
Housing Facilities Manager
Maintenance Services Coordinator
Senior Management Analyst
Housing and Building Code Hearing
and Appeals Board
Board Members
Housing Commission
Commission Members
Human Resources Department
Human Resources Director
Employee & Organizational Development
Manager
Information Technology Department
Information Technology Director
Information Technology Operations Supervisor
Library Board
Board Members
Library Department
Library Director
Supervising Librarian
Library Technician (Order Clerk)
Pension Board
Board Members
Planning Board
Board Members*
*Reporting requirements covered by other law.
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Appendix A - Page 4 of 7
Planning Department
Planning Director
Planning Manager
Development Review Manager
Supervising Planner
Planner III
Planner II
Planner I
Administrative Services Coordinator
Police Department
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Chief of Police A through F
Police Captains A through F
Police Lieutenants A through F
Public Utilities Board
Board Members
Public Works
Public Works Director
Deputy Public Works Director /City Engineer
Public Works Coordinator
Public Works Superintendent
Public Works Supervisor
Public Works Supervisor — Ferry Manager
Senior Civil Engineer
Supervising Civil Engineer
Associate Civil Engineers
Traffic Engineer
Survey & Construction Inspector Supervisor
Survey Party Chief
Senior Construction Inspector
Construction Inspector
Administrative Management Analyst
Administrative Management Analyst
Environmental Services
Administrative Services Coordinator
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Recreation and Park Commission
Commission Members A through F
Appendix A - Page 5 of 7
Recreation and Parks Department
Recreation and Parks Director
Recreation Services Manager
Senior Services Manager
Recreation Supervisors
Park Manager
Social Service Human Relations Board
Board Members
Transportation Commission
Committee Members
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Appendix A - Page 6 of 7
Consultants*
* Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant
to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation:
The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a
"designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is
not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written
determination shall include a description of the consultants's duties and, based upon that
description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager
determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same
manner and location as this conflict of interest code.
Appendix A - Page 7 of 7
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
An investment, interest in real property, or income is reportable if the business entity in
which the investment is held, the interest in real property, or the income or source of income may
foreseeably be affected materially by any decision made or participated in by the designated
employee by virtue of the employee's position.
An investment, interest in real property, or source of income or gift does not have a
foreseeable material effect on an economic interest of the designated employee unless the business,
real property or source of income or gift may foreseeably require legislative action or permits from
the City of Alameda or may foreseeably enter into contracts or leases with or make sales of real
property or goods or services to or be sold to the City of Alameda, a department thereof or the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.
In general, that which a reasonable person would predict, anticipate, or expect beforehand,
can be said to be "foreseeable ". The term requires the application of reasonable judgment to assess
the degree of likelihood that a decision made or participated in will as financial interest. Where the
likelihood is sufficiently great that a reasonable person would predict or anticipate an effect on a
financial interest, the effect of the decision is foreseeable. Clearly, in the context of designating
positions within a Conflict of Interest Code, "foreseeable" means greater probability than
"conceivable ", yet less probability than "certainly ".
CATEGORY A - INVESTMENTS
All direct or indirect investments of the designated employee valued over $2,000 in a
business entity, including any parent, subsidiary or related business, either (1) located in Alameda or
(2) doing business in Alameda.
CATEGORY B - INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY
All direct or indirect interests over $2,000 of the designated employee in real property located
in Alameda.
CATEGORY C - INCOME (OTHER THAN GIFTS AND LOANS)
All direct or indirect income of the designated employee aggregating $500 or more from any
one source, during the reporting period.
Appendix B - Page 1 of 2
CATEGORY D - LOANS
Outstanding loans and loans received by the designated employee from one source,
aggregating $500.00 or more during the reporting period.
CATEGORY E - GIFTS
Gifts to the designated employee from one source, which total $50 or more during the
reporting period.
CATEGORY F - TRAVEL PAYMENTS, ADVANCES AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Travel payments to the designated employee from one source, which total $320 or more
during the reporting period. Reportable travel payments include advances and reimbursements for
travel and related lodging and subsistence.
Appendix B - Page 2 of 2
INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES
(A) No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise for
compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his/her duties as an
officer or employee or with the duties, functions or responsibilities of his/her appointing power or the
agency. No officer or employee shall perform any work, service or counsel for compensation outside
of his /her employment where any part of his/her efforts will be subject to approval by any other
officer, employee, board of commission of his/her employing body.
(B) An employee or officer's outside employment, activity or enterprise is prohibited if
that:
(1) Involves the use for private gain or advantage of his/her departmental time, facilities,
equipment and supplies; the badge, uniform, prestige or influence of the departmental office or
employment;
(2) Involves receipt or acceptance by the officer or employee of any money or other
consideration from anyone other than the City for the performance of an act which the officer or
employee, if not performing such act, would be required or expected to render in the regular course
or hours of his/her employment as a part of his/her duties as a local agency officer or employee;
(3) Involves the performance of an act in other than his/her capacity as an officer or
employee which act may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit
or enforcement of any other officer or employee of the department by which he /she is employed;
(4) Involves such time demands as would render performance of his her duties as an
officer or employee less efficient.
This Appendix C shall apply to all employees, officers and agents within the agencies
covered by the Code.
(This Appendix does not incorporate by reference the definitions of the Political Reform Act
and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Interpretations of Government Code Section 1126 are
applicable and interpretations of the Political Reform Act may apply.)
Appendix C - Page of 1 of 1
Revised 5/6/04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH TWO OF
RESOLUTION NO. 9460 RELATIVE TO DISCLOSURE POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 13597
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that City of Alameda
Resolution No. 13470 is hereby rescinded; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that Paragraph
2 of the Conflict of Interest Code set forth in Resolution No. 9460 be amended thereof to read:
2. The terms of 2 Cal. Adm. Code Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly
adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission along with the attached Appendices in which
officials and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, are hereby
incorporated by reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the following departments
and agencies:
Alameda Power & Telecom
Building Services Division
City Attorney's Office
City Clerk's Department
City Council
City Manager's Department
Civil Service Board
Claims Board
Development Services Department
Economic Development Commission
Finance Department
Fire Department
Golf Commission
Golf Complex
Historical Advisory Board
Housing and Building Code Hearing
And Appeals Board
Housing Authority
Housing Commission
Human Resources Department
Information Technology
Library Board
Library Department
Pension Board
Planning Department
Police Department
Public Utilities Board
Public Works Department
Recreation and Park Commission
Recreation and Park Department
Social Service Human Relations Board
Transportation Commission
Resolution #4 -G CC
6 -15 -04
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
AND
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Alameda Power & Telecom
General Manager
Operations Manager
Administrative Services Manager
Marketing Manager
Utility Service Manager
Utility Planning Supervisor
Engineering Supervisor
Financial Analyst
Support Services Supervisor
Technical Operations Superintendent
Telecom Operations Supervisor
Marketing Coordinator
Marketing Specialist
Customer Service Supervisor
Building Services Division
Building Official
Building Services Manager
Supervising Building Inspector
Structural Plan Check Engineer
Senior Combination Inspector
Combination Inspectors
Plans Examiner
Permit Examiner/Expediters
Permit Technician
Code Compliance Officer
City Attorney's Office
City Attorney*
Assistant City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Risk Manager
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 1 of 7
City Clerk's Department
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
City Council
City Council Members*
City Manager's Department
City Manager*
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
Alameda Point Project Manager
Civil Service Board
Board Members
Claims Board
Board Members
Development Services Department
Development Services Director
Community Development Manager
Community Development Program Manager
Redevelopment Manager
Development Manager
Development Manager, Housing
Development Project Manager
Planner III
Management Analyst
Reconstruction Specialist I
Reconstruction Specialist II
Administrative Services Coordinator
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 2 of 7
Economic Development Commission
Commission Members
Finance Department
A through F
Auditor A through F
Treasurer*
Finance Director A through F
Supervising Accountants A through F
Admin. Management Analyst (Budget Analyst) A through F
Admin. Services Coordinator A through F
Financial Services Manager A through F
Fire Department
Fire Chief
Deputy Chief
Division Chiefs
Assistant Fire Marshal — Captain
Training Director
Assistant Training Director
E.M.S. Director
E.M.S. Education Coordinator
Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
Firefighter Inspector
Golf Commission
Commission Members
Golf Complex
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
None
General Manager A through F
Golf Professional A through F
Assistant Golf Professional A through F
Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent A through F
Historical Advisory Board
Board Members A through F
*Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 3 of 7
Housing Authority
Executive Director
Finance Manager
Housing Authority Manager
Housing Facilities Manager
Maintenance Services Coordinator
Housing and Building Code Hearing
and Appeals Board
Board Members
Housing Commission
Commission Members
Human Resources Department
Human Resources Director
Employee & Organizational Development
Manager
Information Technology Department
Information Technology Director
Information Technology Operations Supervisor
Library Board
Board Members
Library Department
Library Director
Supervising Librarian
Library Technician (Order Clerk)
Pension Board
Board Members
Planning Board
Board Members*
*Reporting requirements covered by other law.
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Appendix A - Page 4 of 7
Planning Department
Planning Director
Planning Manager
Development Review Manager
Supervising Planner
Planner III
Planner II
Planner I
Administrative Services Coordinator
Police Department
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Chief of Police A through F
Police Captains A through F
Police Lieutenants A through F
Public Utilities Board
Board Members
Public Works
Public Works Director
Deputy Public Works Director /City Engineer
Public Works Coordinator
Public Works Superintendent
Public Works Supervisor
Public Works Supervisor — Ferry Manager
Senior Civil Engineer
Supervising Civil Engineer
Associate Civil Engineers
Traffic Engineer
Survey & Construction Inspector Supervisor
Survey Party Chief
Senior Construction Inspector
Construction Inspector
Administrative Management Analyst
Administrative Management Analyst
Environmental Services
Administrative Services Coordinator
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Recreation and Park Commission
Commission Members A through F
Appendix A - Page 5 of 7
Recreation and Parks Department
Recreation and Parks Director
Recreation Services Manager
Senior Services Manager
Recreation Supervisors
Park Manager
Social Service Human Relations Board
Board Members
Transportation Commission
Committee Members
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
A through F
Appendix A - Page 6 of 7
Consultants*
* Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant
to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation:
The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a
"designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is
not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written
determination shall include a description of the consultants's duties and, based upon that
description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager
determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same
manner and location as this conflict of interest code.
Appendix A - Page 7 of 7
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
An investment, interest in real property, or income is reportable if the business entity in
which the investment is held, the interest in real property, or the income or source of income may
foreseeably be affected materially by any decision made or participated in by the designated
employee by virtue of the employee's position.
An investment, interest in real property, or source of income or gift does not have a
foreseeable material effect on an economic interest of the designated employee unless the business,
real property or source of income or gift may foreseeably require legislative action or permits from
the City of Alameda or may foreseeably enter into contracts or leases with or make sales of real
property or goods or services to or be sold to the City of Alameda, a department thereof or the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.
In general, that which a reasonable person would predict, anticipate, or expect beforehand,
can be said to be "foreseeable ". The term requires the application of reasonable judgment to assess
the degree of likelihood that a decision made or participated in will as financial interest. Where the
likelihood is sufficiently great that a reasonable person would predict or anticipate an effect on a
financial interest, the effect of the decision is foreseeable. Clearly, in the context of designating
positions within a Conflict of Interest Code, "foreseeable" means greater probability than
"conceivable ", yet less probability than "certainly".
CATEGORY A - INVESTMENTS
All direct or indirect investments of the designated employee valued over $2,000 in a
business entity, including any parent, subsidiary or related business, either (1) located in Alameda or
(2) doing business in Alameda.
CATEGORY B - INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY
All direct or indirect interests over $2,000 of the designated employee in real property located
in Alameda.
CATEGORY C - INCOME (OTHER THAN GIFTS AND LOANS)
All direct or indirect income of the designated employee aggregating $500 or more from any
one source, during the reporting period.
Appendix B - Page 1 of 2
CATEGORY D - LOANS
Outstanding loans and loans received by the designated employee from one source,
aggregating $500.00 or more during the reporting period.
CATEGORY E - GIFTS
Gifts to the designated employee from one source, which total $50 or more during the
reporting period.
CATEGORY F - TRAVEL PAYMENTS, ADVANCES AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Travel payments to the designated employee from one source, which total $320 or more
during the reporting period. Reportable travel payments include advances and reimbursements for
travel and related lodging and subsistence.
Appendix B - Page 2 of 2
INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES
(A) No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise for
compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his/her duties as an
officer or employee or with the duties, functions or responsibilities of his/her appointing power or the
agency. No officer or employee shall perform any work, service or counsel for compensation outside
of his/her employment where any part of his/her efforts will be subject to approval by any other
officer, employee, board of commission of his/her employing body.
(B) An employee or officer's outside employment, activity or enterprise is prohibited if
that:
(1) Involves the use for private gain or advantage of his/her departmental time, facilities,
equipment and supplies; the badge, uniform, prestige or influence of the departmental office or
employment;
(2) Involves receipt or acceptance by the officer or employee of any money or other
consideration from anyone other than the City for the performance of an act which the officer or
employee, if not performing such act, would be required or expected to render in the regular course
or hours of his/her employment as a part of his/her duties as a local agency officer or employee;
(3) Involves the performance of an act in other than his/her capacity as an officer or
employee which act may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit
or enforcement of any other officer or employee of the department by which he /she is employed;
(4) Involves such time demands as would render performance of his her duties as an
officer or employee less efficient.
This Appendix C shall apply to all employees, officers and agents within the agencies
covered by the Code.
(This Appendix does not incorporate by reference the definitions of the Political Reform Act
and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Interpretations of Government Code Section 1126 are
applicable and interpretations of the Political Reform Act may apply.)
Appendix C - Page of 1 of 1
Revised 5/6/04
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE: Resolution Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of
the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Zenda James
Finance Director
May 18, 2004
BACKGROUND
State law requires the adoption of an annual budget.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City Council received the 2 -year financial plan and has scheduled several work
sessions on the plan.
The City Council is scheduled to act on the resolution appropriating funds for 2004 -05 after
June 30, 2004.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed resolution would authorize payment of city obligations prior to the adoption
of the 2004 -05 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
The resolution is recommended for adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
JR/nAl-t)
Zenda James
Finance Director
"Dedicated to Ece1Tence, Committed to Service"
Re: Resolution #4 -H CC
6 -15 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE
OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004 -2005
WHEREAS, State law requires that the City of Alameda adopt an annual budget
representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the City of Alameda for the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the City Council at the meeting of July 6,
2004, the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for fiscal year 2004 -05; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal.
Year 2004 -05 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of the City of Alameda
Operating Budget and Capital Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby approves interim expenditures of the City of Alameda prior to the
approval of the City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal
Year 2004 -05 at the levels set by the City Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for
2003 -2004 to allow payment of routine expenses including payroll and vendor expenses
at prior year's level.
Resolution #4 -H CC
6 -15 -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
MEMORANDUM
City of Alameda
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
DATE: June 3, 2004
RE: Recommendation to Reappoint Marc A. Lambert to the Bay Area
Library and Information Systems (BALIS) Advisory Board
BACKGROUND
BALIS is a regional organization of public libraries; members include the libraries of the cities
of Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Pleasanton and San Francisco, as well as
the Alameda and Contra Costa Library systems. The California Library Services Act of 1977
requires that each cooperative library system establish a lay advisory board with a representative
from each jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Since 2002 Marc Lambert has served as Alameda's representative to the BALIS System
Advisory Board. Mr. Lambert attends all meetings of the Library Board to report on BALIS
activities and to seek Board input. In addition, Mr. Lambert is an active member of several
library support groups, serves as a volunteer adult literacy tutor, he volunteers as an Internet
trainer at the West End Library, and is presently a student in the School of Library and
Information Sciences at San Jose State University.
For your information, a copy of Mr. Lambert's resume is included with this report.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the proposed Resolution be approved reappointing Marc A.
Lambert to the BALIS System Advisory Board.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint, City Manager
B
attachment
1
Susan H. Hardie
Library Director
Re: Resolution #4 -I CC
6 -15 -04
RESUME
Marc A. Lambert
752 Haight Ave.
Alameda CA, 94501
(510) 521 -7896
marcalli(4ahoo.com
Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, US.
Department of Labor —San Francisco
Senior Manpower Development Specialist Review and analyze permanent and
temporary foreign labor certification petitions for compliance with Federal regulations.
- - Assess availability of qualified U.S. workers and payment of prevailing wages using
current labor market information.
- -Grant certification to compliant applications or write determinations for deficient ones.
- - Review rebuttal responses from employers or their legal representatives to determine
compliance or the need to issue a denial of certification.
- - Negotiate and administer $5 million annual Federal grant to California Employment
Development Department for initial case review services.
Lead specialist for processing temporary agriculture (H -2A visa) petitions within
extremely fast turn- around time frames...Maintain very close liaison with employers,
their agents, front -line State staff and enforcement agencies to assure regulatory
compliance and that employers get the workers they need to get the job done.
Accomplishments: - -Five outstanding annual ratings plus numerous cash awards.
- - Represent entire eight -state West Coast region (largest in the nation) on the national
team developing design for automated H -2A case management system.
- - Initiated proposal and got grant funding for a successful region -wide mentoring pilot
project matching 15 mentor /protege pairs.
Education: AB, UC Berkeley 1970
MLIS, San Jose' State University in progress
Presently Vice -Chair of the System Advisory Board to the Bay Area Library and
Information System
Adult Literacy Tutor, Alameda Public Library, 2001 -2
Languages: Portuguese, Spanish and American Sign Language
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REAPPOINTING MARC A. LAMBERT AS A MEMBER OF
BAY AREA LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (BALIS)
ADVISORY BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the
requirements of the California Library Services Act of 1977, and upon nomination of the
Library Board of the City of Alameda, Marc A. Lambert is hereby reappointed a member
of the Bay Area Library and Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board for a two -year
term ending June 30, 2006.
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 15th day of June, 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 16th day of June, 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #4 -I CC
6 -15 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: May 18, 2004
Re: Resolution of the City Council Requesting and Authorizing the County
of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City
of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation
Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election held November 7, 2000
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, the voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed Measure "0".
Measure "0" authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount of not to exceed
$10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a
new Main Library facility and improvements to two branch library facilities in the City of
Alameda (the "Project ").
The City received the final grant award in December 2002 in the amount of
$15,487,952. In March, 2003 the City sold $10,600,000 in general obligation bonds.'
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15/$100,000 of assessed valuation over 30
years. The required tax rate for 04 -05 is $9.80/$100,000 of assessed valuation down
from the $14.26/$100,000 levied for the 03 -04FY.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to general fund. Debt service for the $10,600,000 general
obligation bonds will be paid from a tax levy on all real and personal property in
Alameda of $9.80/$100,000 of assessed value.
"Dedicated to Edccellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Resolution #4 -J CC
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the resolution be adopted.
Respectfully submitted
James M. Flint
City Manager
;Aso, J,,,,,„i
By: Zenda James
Finance Director
ZJ /fl
Attachment: Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation
May 18, 2004
Page 2of2
ni
O
Delinquency
Plus 4% Growth Assessed Valuation
O
0) 0
(0 0 N
N 03 0)
E9 E9 E9 E9
O I,. O (n
0 (O 0 N
O N O 0)
0 V 0 0
O O 00
0000
O 0 0
O O O O
N- CO V
N O 0)
.-000
0 00 0
0 LC) O
E9 (9 69 E9
(A) 0
0)- 10
E9 Eli 49 E9
("- 00
N 0 0
O 0)
05 c.5
LO
000 (LO O CO
E9 69 E9 E9 E9 E9 EA E9
0) N CO
LO 0 0
N in
O NI'-
OD N 0
O0 O O
N CO
CO N N
E9 E9 E9 E9
0 N CO a 11) CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O. 01010101010101
O M
0) O O O O
0) 0 0 0 0
N N N N
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AS A VOTER APPROVED LEVY FOR
THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A
GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2000
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed
Measure "0", authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount not to exceed $10,600,000
(the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a new Main
Library facility and improvements to two branch facilities in the City of Alameda (the
"project "; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda received a final grant award in December, 2002
in the amount of $15,487,952; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13563, adopted by the City Council on March 4,
2003, authorized and directed the sale of not to exceed $10,600,000 aggregate principal
amount of City of Alameda, California General Obligation Bonds; and levying an ad
valorem tax; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the
Bonds, the City of Alameda must authorize the County of Alameda to levy and collect
annually each year an ad valorem tax in an amount sufficient to pay principal and
interest on the bonds; and
WHEREAS, Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15 /$100,000 of assessed
valuation over 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the required tax rate for 04 -05 is $9.80/$100,000 of assessed
valuation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby authorizes the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal
property in the County of Alameda as a voter approved levy for the General Obligation
Bonds issued pursuant to the General Election held November 7, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that
the debt service for the $10,600,000 general obligation bonds will be paid from a tax levy
on all real and personal property in Alameda of $9.80 per $100,000 of assessed value for
2004/2005.
Resolution #4 -J CC
6 -15 -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
Date:
Memorandum
June 7, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
From:
Re:
James M. Flint,
City Manager
Certification of the Final Focused Environmental Impact Report for the New
Alameda Free Library Project - Property Acquisition for Parking (State
Clearinghouse #2004 - 022 -105)
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda issued a Notice of Preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on February 17, 2004. The Focused EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed acquisition of
the property at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue and the demolition of the buildings on the property
for the purpose of providing surface parking for the new Alameda Free Library. The EIR tiers from
previous environmental analysis that has been done for the New Alameda Free Library in the 1990
EIR and 2002 Addendum/Initial Study.
These environmental documents will be used in conjunction with several potential City actions
related to the library project including, but not limited to:
1. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity
2. Use Permit
3. Variances
4. Demolition Permits
5. Design Review
The Focused EIR identifies the following potential significant impacts: cultural resources, hazardous
materials, air quality, and utilities. All impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant
with the adoption of the proposed mitigations except for impacts to cultural resources. The Focused
EIR concludes that removal of the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue would constitute a
significant and unavoidable impact and a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Draft Focused EIR was circulated for public comment from March 30, 2004 to May 14, 2004.
Seven comments were received and responded to in the Final EIR. Comments were received from:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resolution #4 -K
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
1. City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
2. California Department of Toxic Substances Control
3. Platt & Platt Law Firm
4. Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
5. City of Alameda Library Building Team
6. Governor's Office of Planning and Research
7. East Bay Municipal Utility District
June 7, 2004
Page 2
The Final Focused EIR addresses the comments received during the comment period. The Final
Focused EIR was made available for public review on May 28, 2004.
Chris Buckley, Chair of the Preservation Action Committee of the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society, has expressed concern that the Final Focused EIR has not correctly
characterized their letter. Mr. Buckley has stated that the intent of the alternatives provided in his
May 14, 2004 letter was not to replace the entire 66 -space parking lot for the library, but to provide
alternative locations for the 17 spaces that would be provided on the property proposed for
acquisition.
It should be noted that any off -site alternative, such as City Hall parking lot, the Elks parking lot or
the service station would not meet the State grant application requirements and the project objectives
of providing a 66 -space on -site parking lot for the library. The alternative proposed for the Times
Star site could be considered part of the library site if Times Way were abandoned; however, this
location would continue to require the construction of a parking deck for the additional spaces and
would have the same impacts as stated in the Final Focused EIR making it an infeasible location. A
parking deck would also still be required for the City Hall parking lot in order to continue to provide
necessary parking for City and Police vehicles.
All of these alternative locations would significantly slow down the completion and construction of
the library. Except for the City Hall parking lot, negotiations and a new planning process would
need to be instituted, including a Phase 1 and possibly Phase 2 reports, particularly for the former gas
station site (presently a smog check station) where hazards are likely to be present.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
None
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
RECOMMENDATION
June 7, 2004
Page 3
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the Final Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the New Alameda Free Library Project - Property Acquisition for
Parking.
Respectfully su� ,
Gregory L. Fuz
Planning and Building Director
G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004\1 -June 15\Library FEIR certification.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEW
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY PROJECT- PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR PARKING (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2004 -022 -105)
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Focused Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the New Alameda Free Library Project - Property Acquisition for
Parking on February 17, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Focused EIR for the New Alameda Free Library Project - Property
Acquisition for Parking was tiered from previous environmental reviews for the Alameda Free
Library, in accordance with Section 15152 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Focused EIR (March 2004) was circulated for public comment
between March 30, 2004 and May 14, 2004; and written comments were received; and
WHEREAS, all public notices have been given in the manner and at such times as
0 required by applicable laws; and
1
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant environmental
issues raised by commentors during the public review period and published in the Final Focused
i-- EIR (May 2004), incorporated by reference into this document; and
WHEREAS, the Final Focused EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, was made
available to the public on May 28, 2004 for a fifteen -day public review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final Focused EIR on June 15, 2004,
examined pertinent maps and documents, and considered the testimony and written comments
received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The Final Focused Environmental Impact Report has been independently reviewed and
considered by the City Council,
2. The Final Focused Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Alameda and has been circulated for public review, and
3. The Final Focused Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines.
Resolution #4 -K CC
6 -15 -04
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda
hereby certifies the Final Focused Environmental Impact Report for the New Alameda Free
Library Project — Property Acquisition for Parking
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
June 10, 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
124519 - 124937
E12297 - E12399
EFT 088
Void Checks:
Amount
2,997,701.24
57,374.51
35,000.00
114762 (70.00)
122397 (1,594.67)
124199 (47, 537.88)
124379 (445.00)
124537 (85.18)
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
City Clerk
Approved for payment:
Date:
Finance Director
Council Warrants 06/15/04
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
3,040,343.02
BILLS #4 -L
06/15/04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING AMANDA E. FLORES - WITTE AS A MEMBER OF THE
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of
Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination by the Mayor, AMANDA E.
FLORES -WITTE is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Social Service Human
Relations Board of the City of Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Theresa Thomas for the term
commencing June 15, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2007, and to serve until her successor is
appointed and is qualified.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
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
Resolution #5 -A
6 -15 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RECOGNIZING AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ZENDA JAMES FOR FIFTEEN
YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE AS THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FINANCE DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, Zenda James has been a Finance Director for 38 years; 23 years in
Union City and her most recent 15 years for the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Zenda James has been responsible for the overall management of
municipal finance activities for the City of Alameda which include the Operating and Capital
Improvement Budget of approximately $260 million in addition to the preparation of the City's
2 -year financial plan; and
WHEREAS, Zenda James has been a valuable member of the City's labor
negotiating team which has successfully negotiated numerous challenging labor agreements for
City employees; and
E
} WHEREAS, Zenda James has been responsible for analyzing policies and
▪ w programs for fiscal impact and formulating recommended management practices consistent with
zgovernment's local govement's fiscal and policy objectives; and
0
WHEREAS, during Zenda's tenure as Finance Director, the City of Alameda
_' a received numerous "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" Awards
from California Society of Municipal Officers (CSMFO) and Government Finance Officers
- Associations (GFOA); and
WHEREAS, Zenda has been a member of and served as President of the
California Finance Officers Association, the California Municipal Treasurers Association and
Fiscal Officers Department of the League of Cities. She has served as Chair of the Professional
& Tech Standards, and was a member of the Government Finance Officers Association.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that Zenda James is hereby recognized and commended for her 15 years of dedicated
service as the City of Alameda Finance Director.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on behalf of the community of Alameda,
congratulations and gratitude are extended to Zenda James for her outstanding achievements in
her service to our citizens and the City in general; Zenda is recognized for her professionalism
and making a difference.
Resolution #5 -B
6 -15 -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:
To:
From:
May 13, 2004
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
James M. Flint,
City Manager
Re: Request for Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives
Background:
On May 21, 2003, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the
Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ( "GPA "). Shortly thereafter, the City of Oakland, the
Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services filed notices with the City of
Alameda indicating their intension to challenge the adequacy of the GPA EIR. After several months
of discussions, the City of Oakland filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory
and injunctive relief in December 2003. Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and Asian Health
Services filed their writ in January 2004.
After several more months of negotiations, the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown
Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services executed a four party settlement agreement on
April 19, 2004. A copy of the Agreement is attached. The key terms of the agreement are
summarized below:
➢ Oakland agrees to drop its challenge to the GPA EIR, agrees to not challenge any future EIR for
projects at Alameda Point or FISC, agrees to fund at least $462,000 for improvements in
Chinatown, and agrees to participate in and help staff a new committee called the Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC).
➢ The Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and Asian Health Services agree to drop their challenge
to the GPA EIR, agree to not challenge any future EIR for a "phase 1 " project at Alameda Point
(the first 1,100 new housing units and 100,000 square feet of new neighborhood commercial
development), and participate in the OCAC.
➢ Alameda agrees to prepare environmental documents for future developments at Alameda Point,
conduct certain transportation feasibility studies, participate in and help staff the OCAC, fund up
to $75,000 for technical consultants and staff in support of the OCAC's work, and provide
$500,000 for improvements in Chinatown subject to specific conditions through future impact
fees on the new, market rate housing constructed at Alameda Point.
Discussion:
Per the agreement, the OCAC will "serve as an advisory committee to the Alameda City Council and
Planning Board and the Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of
providing ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues related to the future
development and environmental review (CEQA) process for projects within Alameda Point and
Downtown Oakland."
Report #5 -C
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
Page 2
May 13, 2004
The OCAC will be comprised of four representatives and one- alternate representative from the
Oakland Chinatown community, two representatives and one alternate selected by the Oakland City
Council, and two representatives and one alternate representative selected by the Alameda City
Council. The OCAC will meet as necessary until all project level CEQA documents for build -out of
Alameda Point are completed or until the OCAC votes to dissolve itself. Meetings of the OCAC will
be public and will alternate between locations in Oakland and Alameda.
Neither the Alameda City Council nor the Oakland City Council will be bound by, or required to
follow, the recommendations this new advisory body. However, the OCAC should provide an
important new venue for airing issues of mutual concern early in the development process,
developing mutually beneficial transportation alternatives, solutions and projects, and avoiding
future litigation on projects in both Oakland and Alameda.
Fiscal Impact
The settlement agreement includes a commitment by Alameda to fund up to $75,000 to support
Chinatown staff support or technical consultants. The Council appropriated the funds for this
purpose from the General Fund Reserve when approving the settlement agreement in Closed Session.
The funds will likely be paid out in monthly increments over a two -year period.
Recommendation:
The City Manager recommends that the Mayor nominate two representatives and one alternate to
serve on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee for City Council consideration and
appointment.
Attachment: Settlement Agreement.
By:
Andrew Thomas
Supervising Planner
Respectfull
Gregory F
Planning and Building Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, THE CITY OF
OAKLAND, THE .OAKLAND CHINATOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES REGARDING
COOPERATION TO STUDY AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC AND RELATED
IMPACTS IN ALAMEDA, OAKLAND, AND SPECIFICALLY IN OAKLAND
CHINATOWN
• THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of April 17, 2004 is by and between, the
Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, ( "O CC "), a California non -profit
corporation, Asian Health Services ( "AHS'), a California non-profit corporation, the City
of Oakland ( "Oakland "), a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council,
and the City of Alameda ( "Alameda "), a municipal corporation, acting by and through its
City Council.
RECITALS
A. Residents and businesses in Oakland Chinatown and Alameda depend upon a
common network of regional roadways and local streets. Access to the regional traffic
network for trips beginning or ending in Alameda requires the use of certain local streets
in Oakland Chinatown and therefore adds to the traffic volumes of those local streets.
13. The Oakland Chinatown community is located at the entrances and exits to the 1-880
freeway and Webster and Posey Tubes. OCCC and AHS contend that existing traffic
levels within Oakland Chinatown and other associated impacts are negatively affecting
the quality of life within the community and impacting the health, safety and welfare of
its residents. Traffic from Alameda that exits and enters the 1-880 freeway and Webster
and Posey Tubes currently travels through Chinatown and adds to the traffic volumes in
that district.
C. Alameda needs and desires Oakland's cooperation in planning, funding, and
implementing transportation improvements to be constructed in Oakland in order to
mitigate future traffic impacts anticipated to occur as a result of possible future
development at "Alameda Point".
D. Oakland, OCCC and AHS recognize the long term importance of the redevelopment
and reuse of Alameda Point to the City of Alameda, the region's economy and jobs for
Alameda and Oakland residents, the regional supply of market rate and affordable
housing, and the regional supply of public waterfront open space and recreational
opportunities.
E. The Oakland Chinatown community, Oakland, and Alameda must work together
more effectively to identify appropriate transportation improvements to benefit both
communities and funding sources to fund those improvements.
F. On May 20, 2003, Alameda certified the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment
EIR, which found that future development at Alameda Point will significantly impact
322440 Page 1 Attachment #1
7
levels of service in Oakland at: the 12th/Brush exit from I -980, the 6th/Jackson entrance
to I -880, the Posey Tube and the High Street entrance to 1-880.
G. Oakland similarly has identified potential adverse environmental impacts at
intersections identified in Recital F, above.
H. Alameda has adopted a Citywide Development Impact Fee, which includes
assessments on all development in Alameda to collect a fair share of the costs for certain
improvements in Oakland including $275,000 for improvements at 5th and Broadway,
$4.9 million of improvements at the 7th and.Harrison/6th and Jackson/6th and Harrison
• intersections, and $1.7 million for the I -880 interchange at High Street.
I. Alameda has prepared a Transportation Demand Management program for Alameda
Point to reduce residential vehicle trips by 10% and non - residential vehicle trips by 30%
for future development in this area.
J. The General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point includes policies encouraging
transit- oriented development at Alameda Point.
K. On December 24, 2003, the City of Oakland filed suit challenging the City of
Alameda's EIR for the General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point in City of Oakland
v. City of Alameda, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. (RG03133599) (the
"Oakland suit").
L..On January 9, 2004, Asian Health Services and Oakland Chinatown Chamber of
Commerce filed suit challenging the City of Alameda's EIR for the General Plan
Amendment for Alameda Point in Asian Health Services et al. v. City of Alameda,
Alameda. County Superior Court Case.No. (RG04135696) (the "AHS and OCCC suit").
0. Alameda maintains that the EIR for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment
. fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq.
M. Alameda wishes to work collaboratively with the Oakland Chinatown community for
the planning, redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point to the benefit of Alameda and
the region, and to minimize impacts of that development on Chinatown and adjacent
communities..
• THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the provisions of this
Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby conclusively acknowledged, OCCC, AHS, Oakland and Alameda agree
as follows:
322440 Page 2
1. Collaboration and Communication
1.1. Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Within sixty (60) days of the
effective date, , Alameda and Oakland shall establish and provide staff support
(which shall be limited to scheduling and noticing meetings, publishing agendas
and providing information, reports and recommendations) for an Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee ( "OCAC "). The OCAC shall serve as an
advisory committee to the Alameda City Council and Planning Board and the
Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of providing
ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues related.to ,
the future development and environmental review (CEQA) process for projects
within Alameda Point and Downtdkvn Oakland. The OCAC shall continue to
meet as often as it determines necessary until all project level CEQA documents
for build -out of development at Alameda Point under the Alameda Point General -
Plan Amendment have been certified or approved by the lead agency, until it
votes to dissolve itself; or until this agreement is terminated by one of the parties
under section 12 of this Agreement. Meetings of the OCAC will alternate
between locations in Oakland and Alameda. All meetings of the OCAC shall be
subject to open meeting laws applicable to Oakland Boards and Commissions.
1.2. OCAC Participation. The OCAC shall be made up of four (4) representatives and
one alternate representative from the Oakland Chinatown community to be
selected by OCCC and AHS to represent the broad interests of the community,
two (2) representatives and one alternate selected by the Oakland City Council, -
and two (2) representatives and one alternate representative selected by the
Alameda City Council. Each representative will have equal voting rights. The
OCAC shall, by vote of a plurality of all OCAC representatives, elect a
chairperson from among the representatives selected by OCCC and MIS. The
OCAC shall reach all other decisions by vote of a majority of all OCAC
representatives. In case of a deadlock, the chairperson shall be entitled to cast an
additional tie- breaking vote.
1.3. OCAC Role and Responsibilities. The OCAC will meet to review and make
recommendations to the Alameda Planning Board and City Council and the
Oakland Planning Commission and City Council regarding potentially significant
environmental effects related to the potential implementation of Alameda Point
and Downtown Oakland development projects on the Oakland Chinatown
community. These recommendations may encompass cumulative impacts, and
project impacts specifically including, but not limited to, transportation, air
quality, and pedestrian safety planning models, assumptions, projections,
standards, improvements, appropriate contributions toward the implementation of
mitigation measures for cumulative impacts, thresholds of significance, and
methodologies: Specific issues for OCAC consideration and recommendation
may include: 1) Scope of studies necessary to evaluate the potential traffic
impacts of development at Alameda Point and Downtown Oakland, 2)
Alternatives to be considered in the environmental analysis, 3) Intersections-to be
322440 Page 3
analyzed. in Alameda and Oakland including but not limited to the intersections
within and adjoining Oakland Chinatown, 4) Both short term and long term
mitigation measures to be considered to reduce or eliminate any significant
impacts identified, including methods to re -route Webster/Posey Tube traffic
around the Oakland Chinatown Community, 5) Mitigations to reduce or
eliminate cumulative impacts on the Oakland Chinatown community from
development in Oakland and Alameda, 6) Implementation of TSM/TDM
programs in either Downtown Oakland or Alameda Point, and 7) any other issue
related to the impacts of Alameda Point or Downtown Oakland development on
Oakland Chinatown The OCAC may recommend and request that Alameda and
Oakland staff conduct studies OCAC deems necessary in the performance of its
responsibilities. However, neither Alameda nor Oakland shall be obligated to
undertake such studies. Alameda and Oakland agree that they will give
consideration to any written recommendations of the OCAC received before or at
a public hearing conducted by Oakland or Alameda on the matter that is the
subject of the recommendation, and will provide a written explanation for any
recommendation they reject.
1.3.1. OCAC Recommendations. OCAC recommendations shall be in writing,
shall include recordation of the vote of the OCAC on the recommendation,
and may include minority opinion reports if desired by any OCAC
representative. '
1.4. Information and Funding: In order to allow sufficient time for review, comment,
and possible revisions Oakland and Alameda staff shall provide copies of all
project-related documentation or documentation related to other matters
specifically within the purview of the OCAC as stated in section 1.3 above, that
is anticipated to be provided to the final decision making body, to the OCAC
members at the same time such information is provided to the decision making
body and not less than two weeks prior to any public hearing at which any
decision related to the substance of the material would be made by the decision
making body. Any additional studies recommended by the OCAC and agreed
upon by Alameda or Oakland may be funded by Alameda or Oakland subject to
their sole absolute discretion. Each City shall have the sole right to select
consultants for studies funded entirely by such City. Consultants involved in
preparing OCAC - recommended studies funded jointly by any combination of
Alameda, Oakland, and Caltrans (through its Revive Chinatown study) shall be
selected by agreement of all jurisdictions participating in the funding, after
Alameda and Oakland have considered any timely recommendations of the
OCAC. In addition, Alameda agrees that it shall provide $75,000 to OCCC and
AHS solely for the purpose of funding OCCC and MIS 'staff support for their
representatives on the OCAC and funding technical consultant services to OCCC
and AHS representatives on the OCAC Alameda's $75,000 contribution
towards approved OCCC and AHS costs shall be subject to the terms as set forth
in the memorandum attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. Under no
circumstances shall any funding provided by Alameda be used for attorney's fees
322440 Page 4
or to otherwise support litigation against a party to this agreement except as
specifically provided in this Agreement. Neither Alameda nor Oakland shall be
obligated under any circumstances to provide any additional funds to OCAC or
to any party to this Agreement
1.4.1 Verification of Expenditure. OCCC and AHS shall provide written
verification that expenditure of funds provided by Alameda pursuant to
section 1.4 above has been made subject to the limitations set forth in that
section and the terms set forth in Exhibit A.
1.4.2 Right to Challenge or Oppose. Except as set forth in section 2.5.3 below,
participation on the OCAC shall not in any way prejudice OCCC or ARS's right
to commence, prosecute, fund or otherwise support legal or administrative
proceeding to challenge ot oppose any plan or project located in Oakland or at
Alameda Point, including any Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental
Impact Report, relating to any project or plan in Oakland or at Alameda Point.
However, except as otherwise expressly specified in this Agreement, nothing
herein shall be deemed to establish any legal or administrative claim or right to
challenge or oppose any such plan or project, nor to permit the OCCC or the AHS
to file any lawsuit or challenge related to the obligations set forth in this
Agreement in a manner that is inconsistent with section 7.2, 7.3 or 8.1 below.
1.5. Discretion as Gdvemmental Agency. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require
Alameda and Oakland as lead agencies to make certain CEQA decisions and
determinations for projects within each city's jurisdiction. Consistent with
CEQA, Alameda and Oakland reserve the discretion to make these
determinations for projects within downtown Oakland and within Alameda Point
and FISC following such consultation with the OCAC as is required by this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a delegation of
police power by Alameda or Oakland nor shall this Agreement be construed to
limit the discretion of Alameda or Oakland in any way, including without
limitation, to make determinations regarding environmental impacts or the
feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives to projects under CEQA, to
approve or deny any development application and/or adopt a statement of
overriding considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the State Guidelines for
the Implementation of CEQA (the CEQA Guidelines), or decide what actions are
in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of each
jurisdiction.
2_ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2.1. Alameda Point Project Specific EIR. Alameda shall prepare at least one Project
level EIR (`Project Specific FM ") in compliance with CEQA for the Master Plan
or any project to implement the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point prior to the construction of any new permanent
occupied buildings at Alameda Point. However, nothing in this Agreement shall '
322440 Page 5
be construed to limit or restrict the leasing of property at Alameda Point that is
otherwise permitted by the Interim Lease Program in place prior to the
preparation of the programmatic EIR already certified for the Alameda. Point
General Plan Amendment (` pE1R'), or to prohibit Alameda from adopting
zoning necessary to bring the zoning ordinance and zoning map into
conformance with the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment, and/or other
applicable provisions of the General Plan (e.g. Housing Element) without
preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR. unless Alameda determines that a
subsequent or supplemental EIR or some other documentation under CEQA is
required pursuant to the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, including but not limited to Public Resources Code §21166 and
Guidelines Sections 15162 ( "Subsequent E1Rs and Negative Declarations "),
. 15163 ( "Supplement to an EIR ") and 15164 ( "Addendum to an EIR or Negative
Declaration "). Alameda relinquishes any authority it might otherwise have
under section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines to rely on the pEIR or any
associated findings during the project -level environmental review of Alameda
Point projects, except the Phase One Project (as defined in Section 2.5.3, below)
and the Alameda Point Golf Course / Conference Hotel project, regarding their
project level or cumulative traffic, pedestrian safety, or air quality impacts on
Oakland Chinatown ( "Chinatown Impacts "). Any Project Specific EIR for
Alameda Point, except the Phase One Project EIR and the Alameda Point Golf
Course /Conference Hotel EIR, ball include an updated and revised analysis of
Chinatown Impacts. The data, analysis, conclusions, and any associated findings
for Alameda Point projects (other than the Phase One Project, the Alameda Point
Golf Course/Conference Hotel project, the rezoning or leasing activity referred to
above) with respect to these issues will be prepared de novo, and any
incorporation of or reference to prior analyses, recommendations, findings,
conclusions, or determinations regarding Chinatown Impacts in connection with
the approval of the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment or its pEIR, shall be
considered as new information and shall not be given any deference based on its
source. This analysis, and any associated conclusions or findings for project -
level CEQA review for Alameda Point projects, shall be consistent with the
following requirements:
2.1.1. Chinatown Setting. The analysis of Chinatown Impacts in the Alameda
Point Master Plan EIR or any Project Specific environmental review for
Alameda Point projects shall acknowledge and take into account the setting
of the Chinatown District as an intensive pedestrian oriented
retail/commercial area with a large populations of children and seniors;
2.1.2. Utilization of Studies. Alameda shall use its best efforts to ensure that the
Project Specific environmental review utilize the information and consider •
the conclusions, and to the extent Alameda determines each is feasible,
applicable to Alameda projects and either necessary to mitigate a significant
impact or the most appropriate method of mitigating a significant impact,
322440 Page 6
incorporate the mitigation measures contained within any studies conducted
. pursuant to this Agreement;
2.1.3. Mitigation Measures. The Project Specific environmental review will
examine and discuss specific measures to mitigate Chinatown Impacts (to
the extent they are determined by Alameda to be significant). The Project
Specific environmental review will identify Alameda's determination
regarding the feasibility or infeasibility of each measure as well as any
significant secondary impacts resulting from each measure;
2.1.4. Range of Mitigation Measures Considered. The mitigation measures to be
discussed in the Project Specific environmental review will include, at a
minimum, all measures that are identified in the studies conducted pursuant
to this Agreement and all measures that are suggested in the scoping process
for the EIR (including those recommended in the scoping process by the
OCAC), to the extent Alameda determines each such measure has a nexus
with the project under review and is feasible. Such measures may include,
so long as Alameda determines that such measures have a nexus and are
feasible, measures to improve effectiveness of public transit connections to
Alameda (e.g., queue - jumping for public transit/HOV at the Webster and
Posey tubes during peak commute hours); any mitigation measures or
improvements identified in the Caltrans "Revive Chinatown" study,
measures designed to route through traffic (i.e., traffic that does not have
Oakland Chinatown as its destination) around Oakland Chinatown, measures
to encourage transit use at Alameda Point, (e.g., free and frequent intra
project shuttle service to /from AC Transit stops within commercial areas of
project, promoting visibility of AC Transit stops and routes through signage,
bus shelters, etc.), and measures to divert traffic from Alameda Point from
the Webster and Posey tubes.
2.1.5. Mitigation Monitoring Program. To the extent Alameda adopts mitigation
measures identified in the Project Specific environmental review, the
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program prepared.by Alameda pursuant
to Public Resource Code section 21081.6 shall identify how each adopted
mitigation measure shall be implemented, what entityis responsible for
implementation, and how implementation will be funded, if funding is
required
2.1.6. Project Alternatives. All Alameda Point Project Specific EIRs will
include a detailed discussion of a transit - oriented Project Alternative, if
recommended by the OCAC, which maintains the number of jobs and
housing units includedin the project but proposes a higher density, more
clustered, transit- oriented site plan than the proposed project. The EIR will
also include a reduced intensity project alternative. The fact that an
. Alternative would require an amendment to the City of Alameda's Charter,
zoning ordinance or general plan shall not be deemed grounds for screening
322440 Page 7
out that Alternative from detailed discussion or analysis, but Charter
inconsistency may be grounds for finally determining that an Alternative is
infeasible.
2.2. Definition of "Feasible." The word "feasible" or "feasibility" as used in this
agreement shall have the definition set forth in Public Resources Code section
21061.1 as that section has been interpreted through published case law and the
CEQA Guidelines.
2.3. Conditions of Approval. For development plans and projects within Alameda
Point and Downtown Oakland, Alameda and Oakland respectively agree to
commit to the following:
2.3.1. Each jurisdiction will ensure that all mitigation measures that it determines
are both feasible and effective, that are within that jurisdiction's sole control,
and are found pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and/or
section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, to be necessary to avoid or
substantially lessen the severity of a significant project - specific
environmental impact, are incorporated into the project or adopted as
mandatory conditions of approval as appropriate.
2.3.2. Each jurisdiction will ensure that those mitigation measures which it
determines are feasible and effective and are found, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and/or section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines, to be necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the project's
contribution to an anticipated significant cumulative impact, and are only
partial contributions to larger programs or improvements that require
contributions from other projected development projects, shall be included in
the Mitigation Monitoring Programs as required by Public Resource Code
section 21081.6 and section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigation
Monitoring Programs shall include mechanisms to ensure that all required
contributions from the project, or from each project phase if the project is
constructed or developed in phases; are collected no later than the time of
issuance of any building permit for any project or-project phase and are
made available to fund the larger program or improvement prior to
commencement of said program or improvement.
2.3.3. When either Oakland or Alameda is responsible for the implementation of
an identified feasible mitigation measure and has determined that it has
received all funding required for the implementation of that mitigation
measure, that jurisdiction shall undertake all activities it determines are
• required to commence the implementation of that mitigation measure in a
timely fashion. Such measures shall include performing all required
planning and environmental review, seeking all necessary governmental
approvals and, if applicable, the acquisition of any required right of way.
All funding required, as used in this section, shall refer to all funds that •
322440 Page 8
jurisdiction determines are required to complete all planning, environmental
review, engineering, site acquisition, permit issuance, contract approval and
performance and construction or implementation of the improvement or
mitigation measure.
2.3.4. Alameda shall not make a finding pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21081(a)(2) that Oakland "can and should" implement any
mitigation measure identified in any future CEQA document for Alameda
Point or FISC projects, if the implementation of that mitigation measure is
within the sole jurisdiction of Oakland and Oakland enters a comment into
the record that such measure has been considered and rejected by Oakland
Oakland shall not make a finding pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21081(a)(2) that Alameda "can and should" implement a mitigation
measure identified in a future CEQA document for any Downtown Oakland
project, if the implementation of that mitigation measure is within the sole
jurisdiction of Alameda and Alameda enters a comment into the record that
such measure has been considered and rejected by Alameda.
• 2.4. "Fair Share" Contribution Towards Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts.
Oakland and Alameda agree that they will work cooperatively to agree, after
considering any timely recommendations from the OCAC, upon a methodology
or formula for determining each jurisdiction's and project proponent's fair share
contributions toward mitigation measures or improvements in Alameda and
Oakland to mitigate impacts from those projects upon Oakland and Alameda.
Oakland and Alameda further agree that they will consider the methodologies
used by Caltrans, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, or any
other State or regional agency with appropriate jurisdiction, to calculate the
appropriate contributions for improvements within those agencies' control or
jurisdiction. Oakland and Alameda further agree to consider in determining the
appropriate methodology or formula, after considering any timely
recommendations from the OCAC: 1) whether new and anticipated development
should fund the total cost of the mitigation measure/improvement or only a share
of the cost, 2) whether the mitigation measure/improvement improves service or
the condition over existing conditions or simply maintains existing conditions
and 3) whether the impact is being caused primarily by Oakland and Alameda
projects or a whether a significant portion of the impact is being generated by
projects outside the jurisdiction of either Alameda or Oakland.
2.5. Mutual Covenants not to Challenge.
2.5.1. Alameda. Alameda agrees not to commence, prosecute, fund or
otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or oppose the
redevelopment projects listed in Exhibit B, including but not limited to any
entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, Environmental Impact Statements,
Environmental Impact Reports, or other environmental and/or regulatory
documentation or determination made relating to these projects.
322440 Page 9
3 22440
2.5.2. Oakland. Within seven (7) days after the effective date of this
Agreement, Oakland shall dismiss with prejudice all existing legal
proceedings challenging the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment,
including the Oakland suit and any and all existing legal challenges to
Alameda's compliance with CEQA with regard to said General Plan
Amendment. Further, Oakland agrees not to commence, prosecute, fund or
otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or oppose the reuse and
redevelopment of Alameda Point and/or the former Fleet and Industrial
Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility ( "FISC") including but not
limited to any entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, Environmental
Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports or any other
environmental and/or regulatory documentation or determination made
relating to these projects.
2.5.3. OCCC and MIS. Within seven (7) days after the effective date of this
Agreement, OCCC and AHS shall dismiss with prejudice all existing legal
proceedings challenging the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment,
including the AHS and OCCC suit and any and all existing legal challenges
to Alameda's compliance with CEQA with regard to said General Plan
Amendment. Further, ther, the OCCC and AHS agree not to commence,
prosecute, fund or otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or •
oppose (i) the Alameda Point Golf Course project; (ii) any zoning
amendment to bring the zoning ordinance and zoning map into conformance
with the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment and/or other applicable
provisions of the General Plan (e.g. Housing .Element); (iii) any new or on-
going building leasing activity in conformance with the regulatory program
adopted prior to the adoption of the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment (Interim Lease Program); (iv) any procedure, determination,
interim leasing entitlement or other regulatory action undertaken as part of
the approval process for the above listed projects or activities; or (v) the
Oakland redevelopment projects listed in Exhibit B, including but not
limited to any entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, Environmental
Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports, or other environmental
and/or regulatory documentation or determination made relating to these
projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing in this section 2.5.3, OCCC's and
AHS's obligations under this section 2.5.3 do not apply to any project or
activity that Alameda cannot lawfully find is consistent with the adopted
Alameda Point General Plan Amendment and/or the Interim Lease Program.
In addition, OCCC and MIS agree not to commence, prosecute, fund, or
otherwise support any legal or administrative proceeding to challenge or
oppose any development entitlements for the Phase One Project at Alameda.
Point, as defined in this section 2.5.3 below, including, but not limited to,
any development plan, subdivision, CEQA documentation, Development
Agreement or other development entitlement necessary for construction of
an initial first phase development project. As defined herein, the Phase One
Page 10
Project may include up to 1,000 single family /duplex units, 100 low and/or
very low income multifamily units and 100,000 square feet of neighborhood
commercial construction. Nothing in this covenant not to challenge shall be
deemed to bar the OCCC or AHS or any of its members from (1) making
written or oral comments regarding any of the projects described in this
Agreement to the Alameda Planning Board, the Alameda City Council, the.
Oakland Planning Commission or the Oakland City Council; or (ii)
appealing any decision of the Alameda Planning Board or the Oakland
Planning Commission to such City's respective City Council.
2.6 Alameda Contribution to Chinatown Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements.
2.6.1 Chinatown Improvements. The OCCC and AHS have identified certain
physical traffic and/or transportation improvements ( "Oakland
Chinatown Improvements "), an interim list of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit E, that they believe will improve pedestrian safety and
circulation in the Chinatown community following development at
Alameda Point. The Oakland Chinatown Improvements are estimated to
cost approximately $962,000.
2.6.2 Alameda Funding of Improvements. As a condition of approval of the
Phase One Project, Alameda shall impose on all market rate Phase One
Project units a per residential unit development impact fee sufficient to
generate $500,000 ( "Impact Fee "). The per unit Impact Fee shall be
collected at the time of issuance of each of the Phase One Project
building permits for the market rate residential units. Oakland, OCCC
and AHS agree that the imposition and payment of such Impact Fee shall
fully and finally mitigate .all impacts of the Phase One Project on the
Oakland Chinatown Community,
2.6.3 Oakland Administers Impact Fee Funds. Alameda shall transmit the
Impact Fee proceeds to Oakland on a monthly basis as the proceeds
accrue. Oakland and Alameda agree that the collection and expenditure
of the Impact Fee is subject to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act
(Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.) and that Oakland shall
comply with the provisions of that statute. The Impact Fee proceeds
shall be applied to construct the Oakland Chinatown Improvements, or
other improvements ( "Substitute Improvements ") that the Oakland City
Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, improve
pedestrian safety and circulation in Oakland Chinatown. Substitute
Improvements located more than four blocks from the intersections of 7th
Street and Webster Street or 7th Street and Harrison Street shall be
ineligible to be considered as Substitute Improvements for purposes of
this Agreement.
322440. Page 11
2.6.4 Oakland Funding Match. Oakland shall contribute $462,000 ( "Oakland
Contribution ") towards the Oakland Chinatown Improvements or to the
Substitute Improvements. Any funds that Oakland has secured, provided
or expended or will secure, provide or expend for Oakland Chinatown
Improvements or Substitute Improvements will be credited toward the
Oakland Contribution, and the balance of the Oakland Contribution
payable hereunder shall be correspondingly reduced. For example (and
not in limitation of the foregoing), currently pending before the Oakland
City Council is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a
funding agreement and to appropriate funds in the amount of
$246,176.00 for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 7s'
Street and Franklin Street and for other pedestrian safety improvements
in the Chinatown area; provided that this item is approved and the subject
funds are expended, then the outstanding balance of the Oakland
Contribution shall be reduced by the amount of such expenditure.
Oakland shall pay out any balance of the Oakland Contribution (as such
balance may have been reduced by credits described in this section 2.6.4)
promptly upon its receipt of Alameda's dollar - for - dollar matching Impact
Fee contribution.
2.6.5 Use of Funds. All parties to this agreement shall use their best efforts to
ensure that the Oakland Chinatown Improvements, or, if applicable,
Substitute Improvements, are fully implemented within three (3) years of
the date when the full Impact Fee and Oakland Contribution have been
. deposited with Oakland. If Oakland has not expended all of the Impact
Fee within this time, then, if requested by Alameda, Oakland shall remit
to Alameda any unexpended portion of the Impact Fee. Alameda shall
segregate any such remitted funds and shall use such remitted funds to
fund mitigation measures adopted to mitigate impacts upon the Oakland
Chinatown community caused by future phases of development at
Alameda Point, if any such measures are adopted through the CEQA
process. Any remitted Impact Fee funds that remain unexpended ten (10)
years after the full Impact Fee has been deposited with Oakland shall
revert to the Alameda General Fund. Nothing in this section 2.6.5 shall
be deemed to bar Alameda from (i) making written or oral comments
regarding any of the Oakland Chinatown Improvements or, if applicable,
Substitute Improvements to the Oakland Planning Commission or the
Oakland City Council; or (ii) appealing any decision of the Oakland
Planning Commission to the Oakland City Council; however, Alameda
shall not commence, prosecute, fund or otherwise support any legal
proceeding to challenge or oppose any action by the City of Oakland to
fund, approve or implement any of the Oakland Chinatown
Improvements or the Substitute Improvements.
2.6.6 Alameda Over - Payment. If the fair share of the cost of measures to
mitigate the impacts of the Phase One Project's pedestrian safety and
322440 Page 12
traffic impacts in Chinatown is less than $250,000, then Alameda shall
receive a credit for the additional $250,000 of Impact Fee ( "Impact Fee
Credit"), which Impact Fee Credit shall be applied against Alameda's
other obligations to fund traffic improvements in Oakland Chinatown or
other parts of Oakland due to environmental impacts from future phases
of development at Alameda Point.
2.6.6.1 Determination of Impact Fee Credit. In conjunction with the
environmental review of the next phase of development at
Alameda Point following the Phase One Project, Alameda shall
determine Oakland's and Alameda's fair shares of the cost of
measures implemented by Oakland pursuant to this Section 2.6 to
mitigate the Phase One Project's impacts in Oakland Chinatown.
The analysis will use the fair share methodology developed
pursuant to Section 2.4 of this Agreement. If Alameda determines,
pursuant to Section 2.6.5 that the Impact Fee Credit should be
applied to future phases, that determination and supporting
analysis shall be documented during the environmental review for
such future phases.
2.6.7 Letter of Acknowledgement. Within thirty(30) days after the effective
date of this Agreement, the OCCC and AHS agree to execute the letters -
attached as Exhibit C, acknowledging that the Impact Fee is sufficient to
mitigate the impacts of the Phase One Project on the Chinatown
Community.
2.6.8 Oakland Acknowledgement of Full Mitigation. Oakland acknowledges.
and agrees that Alameda's performance under -this Agreement will fully
mitigate any and all traffic, pedestrian safety, and localized air quality
impacts upon Oakland Chinatown generated by the Alameda Point Golf
Course/Hotel project and Alameda Point Phase One Project.
3. Planning Studies. Alameda and the OCCC/AHS shall endeavor to complete the
studies set forth in this section after considering timely recommendations from the •
OCAC and prior to publication of the Project Specific EIR for Alameda Point
contemplated in Section 2.2.Oakland and Alameda shalt consider any available
• findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the studies set forth in this section, •
and other studies which may be prepared pursuant to section 1.3 (so long as those
studies are completed prior to the preparation of the applicable Project Specific EIR
for Alameda Point or Downtown Oakland project) when preparing draft
environmental documents for projects in Downtown Oakland, Alameda Point and
FISC and as required by CEQA. The Planning Studies identified in paragraphs 3.1
through 3.5 shall include identification of specific improvement projects and the
relative feasibility of those improvement projects, costs, funding strategies, and
methods to collect fairshare contribution from all parties.
322440 Page 13
3.1. Broadway /Jackson Phase II Study. Alameda and Oakland shall establish a joint
management team for completion of the Broadway /Jackson Phase II Study in a
timely manner. Alameda shall use its best efforts to complete the technical
portion of the Broadway /Jackson Phase II Study wit hin one year of the date of
this Agreement.
3.2. Alameda to Oakland Alternative Transportation Corridor Feasibility Study.
Alameda shall complete an Alameda to Oakland Alternative Transportation
Corridor Feasibility Study prior to the Alameda Point Master Plan or project
specific EIR approvals. The Study will include the approximate costs of each
alternative Alameda determines may be appropriate to consider evaluating in a
potential Major Investment Study or other similar study and the necessary impact
fees or exactions to cover Alameda's local share of those costs. Alameda and
Oakland agree to work cooperatively to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative
estuary crossing that will reduce the projected future traffic volumes in the
Webster/Posey Tubes.
3.3. Transportation Alternatives for Alameda Point Alameda shall complete a
comprehensive study of the feasible transportation alternatives for Alameda Point
prior to approval of the Alameda Point Master Plan or certification for any
project specific EIR for an Alameda Point project ("Transportation Study"). The
Transportation Study shall be conducted in collaboration with potential service
providers and shall include costs and mode -shift benefits of suppiemental.ferry,
shuttle, and transit connections from Alameda Point to Oakland. The intent of
this work is to identify specifically the type and scale of alternative transportation
services that will be required to support the Alameda Point development and
reduce or offset automobile traffic volumes resulting from Alameda Point
development through the Webster and Posey tubes near Chinatown. The
Transportation Study will include the costs of each alternative and level of
development impact fees, or exactions from development projects necessary to
cover those costs.
3.4. Revive Chinatown Study. Oakland, OCCC and MIS shall use their best efforts to
complete the Revive Chinatown Study within one year of the date of this
Agreement The completed study shall include a final list of specific physical
improvements to be constructed by Oakland in Chinatown and partially funded
by the Alameda funds described in section 2.6.2. However, no aspect of the
processing of any project shall be contingent upon the progress or completion of
the Revive Chinatown Study.
4. Development and Implementation of TSM/TDM Measures. Alameda shall continue
to develop and implement Transportation System Management and Transportation
Demand Management (TSM/TDM) measures to reduce the trips generated by new
development at Alameda Point to a level less than significant if feasible.
322440 Page 14
4.1. TSM/TDM Targets. Alameda shall require all. new development at Alameda
Point to fund and/or implement TSM/TDM measures designed to achieve a target
reduction, below standard ITE trip generation rates, for each applicable land use
of 30% in non - residential peak period vehicle traffic and 10% in residential
peak. The Alameda Point Master Developer (or Alameda, if there is no Master
Developer) shall conduct an annual commute mode survey at Alameda Point to
determine the success of the TSM/TDM program in achieving these targets and if
such reductions in trips generated are reflected in proportionate reductions in
peak period vehicle trips utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes. Surveys shall
be conducted during a period of normal traffic generation; i.e., surveys periods
will not include vacation, weekend, or holiday periods. If Alameda Point is
approved in phases, and to the extent that Alameda determines that additional,
feasible TSM/TDM measures exist that 1) have not already been implemented
and/or imposed upon Alameda Point development and 2) will reduce significant
impacts of Alameda Point development, Alameda will require implementation of
additional TSM/TDM measures on subsequent phases of Alameda Point
development if Alameda determines through the monitoring program, that
TSM/TDM targets, including proportionate reductions in peak period vehicle
trips utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes, are not achieved in the first phase.
To the extent that Alameda determines that reducing residential and non-
residential peak hour vehicle traffic is not necessary to mitigate a significant
environmental impact, Alameda shall not be required to impose TSM/TDM
measures to achieve a level of trip reduction that Alameda determines exceeds
the level required to mitigate a significant environmental impact.
5. Collaboration: Oakland and Alameda agree to collaborate to efficiently utilize the
existing regional transportation system and to facilitate improvements to that system.
5.1. Joint advocacy. Alameda and Oakland shall coordinate advocacy efforts for
regional transportation funds for design, development and construction of
improvements to the regional roadway system used by, and of mutual benefit to,
both cities..
5.2. Intergovernmental communications. Alameda and Oakland shall establish a
Transportation Improvement Team involving staff from both cities to meet
regularly to coordinate and address joint transportation issues. The
Transportation Improvement Team will establish a process for ongoing
communication and feedback on transportation issues in addition to the
environmental review (CEQA) process.
6. Dispute Resolution Process. If there is a disagreement between the parties relating to
this Agreement, the parties agree to attempt to resolve such disagreement as follows:
6.1 Notice by OCCC and/or AI-IS Prior to Litigation Challenging Project. Prior to
taking any action to commence, prosecute, fund or otherwise support any legal or
322440 Page 15
administrative proceeding to challenge or oppose any project at Alameda Point or
Oakland on grounds other than grounds arising out of or relating to this
Agreement, OCCC and AHS shall provide the City of Alameda, or City of
Oakland as applicable, advance written notice of their intent to commence such
action either ten (10) days' or 1/2 the period provided by statute, or regulation as
applicable, to file an action to challenge an approval of an Alameda Point project,
whichever is less, before commencing such legal action. Within the advance
notice period, OCCC and AHS shall meet with the City of Alameda, or the City
of Oakland if applicable, along with any real party in interest involved in the
project to be challenged to attempt to settle any disputes raised by OCCC
and/AHS. If the dispute cannot be resolved within the advance notice period,
OCCC and AHS shall, if requested by Alameda or Oakland, as applicable, and all
real parties in interest involved in the project to be challenged, agree to a tolling
agreement to allow time to resolve the dispute without initiating the proposed
legal proceeding.
6.2 Dispute Resolution over Terms of this Agreement. Any party seeking to
resolve a disagreement over the interpretation or the alleged non - compliance or
breach of the terms of this Agreement shall serve notice on the alleged offending
party in writing (by mail, fax, or personal delivery) not later than fifteen business
days after receiving notice of the decision or action that the party intends to
challenge. Failure to provide written notice as required under.this subsection
shall preclude the complaining party from bringing any legal action based upon
that alleged non - compliance or breach.
6.3 Dispute Resolution over Terms of this Agreement between City of Oakland
and City of Alameda. For five business days after the notification has been
served, or ten days if service is by mail, implementation of the decision that is
being disputed shall be stayed, unless earlier action is required by order of a
regulatory agency or by a threat to the public's health and safety. Within five
business days of the above notification, the party whose decision is being
challenged may request that the disputing party meet and confer with it and
attempt to resolve the dispute. Such meetings shall continue during a period of at
:least five business days following the request unless either party determines that
further continuation would be futile. Any such settlement efforts shall not prevent
the disputing party from undertaking legal or administrative action to challenge
the disputed decision if necessary to satisfy any applicable time limitation.
7. Enforceability. The parties agree that the following remedies shall be the sole and
absolute remedies available to enforce, interpret, or seek remedies for claimed .
breaches of the terms of this Agreement
7.1. Any claim in which a party alleges that OCCC or AHS has failed to fulfill fully
its obligations under this Agreement shall be filed and served within 30 days of
the date the cause of action arises. The obligations of OCCC and/or AHS may be
3 22A40 Page 16
enforced solely through the remedies of Specific Performance, preliminary
injunction and/or permanent injunction.
7.2. Except for a dispute alleging a breach of Alameda's obligation to provide .
funding to the OCCC and/or the AHS under section 1.4, which shall be resolved
through binding arbitration, any claim in which a party alleges that Alameda or
Oakland has failed to fulfill fully its obligations under this Agreement shall be
brought solely as a writ petition challenging the agency's decision that it
complied with this Agreement. Any such writ action shall be filed and served
within the statutory period otherwise applicable to, and in conjunction with any
challenge to a land use approval of any future Alameda Point or Oakland project
which shall be evidenced by a Notice of Determination (NOD) filed with the
County Clerk (or other applicable public notification if an NOD is not filed), and
shall be subject only to the rules applicable to a mandate proceeding (including
without limitation deference to the local agency's decision, rules regarding
exclusion of evidence outside the record, and rules regarding the substantial
evidence and arbitrary and capricious standard of review, as applicable). In the
event that more than one statute of limitations may apply to any such challenge,
the action shall be filed within the earlier of such limitations periods. The
remedies in such action shall be limited to those available in a writ of mandate
proceeding except that, to the extent that the remedy sought relates solely to the
breach of an express term of this Agreement that is not subject to judicial review
under the standards and procedures for writ of mandate under Code of Civil
Procedure §§ 1085 or 1094.5 (as those sections maybe amended), then the
remedy shall be limited to an order of specific performance and/or an injunction,
which the parties agree shall operate in the same manner as a writ. Further,
except as to enforcement of section 2.6, as between Oakland and the OCCC and
the AHS, the OCCC and the AHS shall have no cause of action for breach of this
Agreement under any circumstance.
7.3. Monetary damages shall not be available as a remedy in any action relating to or
arising out of this Agreement. Further, in no case shall any action relating to or
arising out of this Agreement be deemed to bar, suspend, enjoin, or otherwise
preclude any governmental entity from undertaking any action or decision in
processing or approving a project.
8. Attorneys Fees.
8.1 In any action or proceeding at law or in equity between the parties to enforce or
interpret ay provision of this Agreement, each party shall bear all of its own costs,
including attorneys fees and experts fees.
8.2 Notwithstanding subsection 8.1 above, within thirty (30) days after the effective
date of this Agreement,. Alameda shall pay to OCCC and AHS their combined
attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $3,000. Payment by Alameda of the
amount specified in this subsection 8.2 constitutes a full and final compromise,
322440 Page 17
release and settlement of any and all claims for attorneys fees and costs from all
petitioners and each of them against Alameda through and including the litigation
and settlement activities culminating in execution of this Agreement. Payment of
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the
$75,000 payable to the OCCC and AHS by Alameda for the reimbursement of
certain future OCCC and AHS expenses set forth in section 1.4 above. The
$75,000 available for such future reimbursement of OCCC and AHS expenses
shall accordingly be reduced to $72,000 following the'payment by Alameda for
OCCC and AHS attomey's fees and costs.
. 9. Partial Execution. If this Agreement is executed by Alameda and Oakland, but not
executed by both OCCC and AHS within ninety (90) days of execution by Alameda
and Oakland, then this Agreement shall be binding between Alameda and Oakland,
but neither OCCC nor AHS shall be considered a party to this Agreement, In such
event, Sections 1 and 2.6 shall have no force and effect, and neither Alameda nor
Oakland shall have any duty to OCCC or AHS regarding any aspect of this
Agreement. Furthermore, neither OCCC nor AHS nor any other person or entity
shall be deemed to be an incidental or intended third party beneficiary of this
Agreement.
10. No Admissions Made. This is an agreement of compromise. Accordingly, the parties
• agree that none of its provisions constitute, or shall be construed as, an admission or
as evidence concerning the validity or adequacy of the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment or its EIR.
11. Effective Date of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date
upon which all of the signatories have signed the agreement (the "effective date ").
12. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by any party, for any or no reason,
ten (10) years after the Effective date of the Agreement Notice of termination must
be made in writing and delivered to each of the other parties by U.S. Mail or personal
service.
13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The mutual promises in this Agreement are intended
only for the benefit of the parties. The parties agree that there are no intended or
incidental third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
14. Notices. Any notice that maybe required under this Agreement shall be in writing,.
shall be effective as of the date of service as indicated in a return receipt or statement
from the U.S. Post Office, statement from a commercial delivery service, or
'messenger's signed proof of service, and shall be given by personal service or by
certified or registered mail, to the addresses set for the below:
If to Alameda: Planning Director
City of Alameda
City Hall
322440 Page 18
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
If to Oakland: Planning Director
City of Oakland
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
If to OCCC: Executive Director
Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Renaissance Plaza
388 Ninth Street, Suite 258
Oakland, CA 94607
If to AHS: Chief Executive Officer
Asian Health Services
Asian Medical Center
818 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94607 -4220
15. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be
performed in California. All references to California Code sections and CEQA
Guidelines shall be construed to refer to the law or Guideline as it exists on the date
the action subject to that law or Guideline occurred.
16. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement executed
by all of the parties.
17. Integration. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between Alameda,
Oakland, the OCCC, and the AHS with respect to its subject matter. No
representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any
party with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement.
18. Authority to Bind the Parties. The parties to this Agreement represent that the
signatories below have the actual authority to bind their respective parties to the terms
of this Agreement and acknowledge that each party to this Agreement has relied upon
that apparent authority in entering into this Agreement.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
executed on the signature dates below.
Effective Date:
3 22440- Page 19
CHINATOWN
ALAMEDA
Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, City of Alameda,
a California non-profit corporation a municipal corpo on
Acting through its Executive Director Acting through ty Co
Manager
Asian Health Services
A California non -profit corporation,
Acting through its Chief Executive Officer
Title:E✓ O - A ffS
Signature Date: Alpq m 7
322440 Page 20
ture Date: if 119 /01
APPROVED AS-TO FORM
2 j City Attorney
OAKLAND
City of Oakland,
a municipal corporation
Acting through its City Council
By
City Mana,
Signature Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
322440 Page 21
Exhibit A:
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
AND OAKLAND CHINATOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ASIAN
HEALTH' SERVICES REGARDING FINANCIAL
ASISSTANCE FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN CHINATOWN
IMPACT MITIGATION PLANNING
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of March_, 2004 is by and between, the Oakland
Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, ( "OCCC "), a California nonprofit corporation, Asian
Health Services ( "AHS"), a California nonprofit corporation and the City of Alameda
( "Alameda "), a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council.
• RECITALS
A. The Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce ( "OCCC ") and the Asian Health
Services Inc. ( "AHS') have agreed with the City of Alameda to settle their dispute
with the City of Alameda over the adequacy of the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment EIR, and the parties have entered into an agreement between the City of
Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and
Asian Health Services regarding cooperation to study and mitigate traffic and related
impacts in Alameda, Oakland, and specifically in Oakland Chinatown (referred
herein as the "Chinatown Agreement") .
B. As part of that settlement, the OCCC and the AHS have agreed with the City of
Alameda and the City of Oakland to form and participate in an advisory committee
'("OCAC ") to the Alameda Planning Board and City Council and the Oakland
Planning Commission and City Council to advise those bodies in particular and the
Cities of Alameda and Oakland in general regarding impacts within the greater
Chinatown neighborhood of Oakland from proposed projects in Oakland and/or
Alameda Point, and their mitigation.
C. As a further part of that settlement, the City of Alameda has agreed to provide
funding, in an amount no less and no more than $75,000, to OCCC and AHS solely
for the purpose of funding OCCC and AHS staff in support of OCCC and AHS
representation on the OCAC and funding professional consultant services to OCCC
and AHS representatives on the OCAC.
THEREFORE, for the purpose of efficiently and effectively implementing the
Chinatown Agreement, OCC, AHS and Alameda agree as follows:
1. Single Point of Contact. The OCCC and the AHS shall appoint a single individual to
act as the Single Point of Contact between the City of Alameda and the OCCC and
AHS for the purposes of providing funding and the accounting of expenditures under
this Agreement and the Chinatown Agreement. The OCCC. and the AHS agree that
Single Point of Contact shall represent both entities and shall have fiduciary .
322440 Page 22
responsibilities to both entities. The OCCC and AHS further agree that they shall
hold the City of Alameda, its City Council and officers and employees harmless for
any acts or omissions of the Single Point of Contact. The OCCC and AHS shall
jointly notify the City of Alameda in writing of any change in the single point of
contact at least five business days prior to the effective date of the change.
2. Disbursement of Funds. Alameda shall disburse funds to the Single Point of Contact
as set forth below.
2.1. Pre - approval of Recipients Prior to any request for disbursement of funds, the
Single Point of Contact shall provide the City of Alameda with: a) the names and
billing rates for the OCCC and the AHS staff who will be billing for their time
spent attending or preparing for attendance at OCAC meetings, and/or
performing other OCAC related activities, and b) a copy of the consultant
contract and associated scope of service for any professional consultant for which
the Single Point of Contact will be requesting funds, prior to any request for
disbursement of funds.
2.1.1. The City of Alameda shall review and approve the OCCC or AHS staff
members being funded by Alameda. Said staff members will be deemed
approved if no objection is communicated in writing to the single point of
contact within 10 business days of receipt of the submittal.
2.1.2. The City of Alameda reserves the right to review and approve or reject
any professional consultant or professional consultant scope of work based
on its determination that the consultant and the scope of work are in
substantial compliance with the specifications attached hereto as Attachment
1. Said consultant/scope of work will be deemed approved if no objection is
communicated in writing to the single point of contact within ten business
days of receipt of the submittal.
2.2. Means of Requesting Funding Disbursements. The Single Point of Contact shall
request a disbursement in writing to the City of Alameda. The request will
document the number of hours worked by each OCCC/AHS staff member
approved pursuant to Section 2.1.1 requesting disbursements. Requests for staff
disbursement shall take into account any funds not spent from previous
disbursements. Requests for disbursements for consultant services shall be
accompanied by the pre- approved scope of services authorized pursuant to 2.1.2.
Along with the request for disbursement the Single Point of Contact shall provide
an accounting of the expenditure of the previous disbursement. The request for
funding disbursements will be made on a monthly basis and will be paid to AHS
and OCCC within 15 businesses days of receipt by the City of Alameda.
2.3. Grounds for denying all or part of a Disbursement Request. The City of
Alameda shall grant the full amount of the Request for Disbursement unless any
of the following circumstances exists: a) the request for disbursement is not
322440 Page 23
consistent with the list of Pre - approved Recipients or b) the request for
disbursement does not meet the requirements of Sections 2.2 above; or c) the
accounting of the expenditure of the previous disbursement indicates that funds
were spent for a purpose which is not permitted under the Chinatown Agreement
or funds were received by a person who has not been approved by the City of
Alameda. The Disbursement Request will be deemed approved if no objection is
communicated in writing to the single point of contact within ten business days
of receipt of the submittal. Any disputes regarding performance of this
agreement will be resolved through binding arbitration:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed
on the signature dates below.
Effective Date:
CHINATOWN
Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce,
a California nonprofit corporation
Acting through its Executive Director •
ALAMEDA
City of Alameda,
a municipal co . s ration
Acting throu a City • ouncil
B
Asian Health Services
A California nonprofit corporation,
Acting through its Chief Executive Officer
Title:
Signature Date: `/ /l 9/d
322440
Page 24
Si
ages.
tare Date: 1 ( 9 ( cti
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Attachment 1:
Specifications for Consultant Service Scope of Work
Prior to submittal of any request for disbursement of funds for consultant services, the
OCCC /AHS Point of Contact shall submit a proposed consultant scope of work to be
funded. The proposed consultant scope .of work shall include adequate detail and
information to enable the City of Alameda to determine that the scope of work is
consistent with the following specifications and criteria:
1. The consultant must be a professional with relevant experience for the work being
completed. The following consultants are pre - approved: •
1.1. Dowling Associates (Transportation)
1.2. DKS Associates (Transportation)
1.3. CHS Consulting (Transportation)
1.4. Fehr and Peers Associates (Transportation)
1.5. OMNI Means (Transportation)
1.6. Lamphier- Gregory (General Environmental Services)
1.7. ESA Associates (General Environmental Services)
1.8. Baseline Environmental Consulting (General Environmental Services)
1.9. Borchard & Associates (General Environmental Services)
1.10. Jones and Stokes (General Environmental Services)
2. The consultant scope of work meets the following criteria:
2.1. The scope is well defined and specific.
2.2. The scope is consistent with the consultant's area(s) of expertise and with the
scope of issues for the OCAC, as set forth in the. Chinatown Agreement.
• 322440 • Page 25
Exhibit B: Oakland Projects.
Jack London Square Redevelopment: up to 1.5 million net new square feet
(mixture of entertainment, retail and offices) within the Jack London
District as geographically delineated by the estuary, Clay, 2nd Street and
Alice Street.
Uptown Mixed Use Project: 1,300 residential units, (including 1,000 student beds), and
50,000 square feet of retail in the central downtown area bounded by 20th Street
(Thomas Berkeley Way), San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue and 18th Street.
Central Station: 25 acre site bounded by the-frontage road, Wood Street,
14th Street and Grand Avenue, which includes the historic Union Pacific West
Oakland Rail Station. Development may include up to 1,200 residential
units, up to 200,000 square feet of office and retail space and the
restoration and reuse of the historic rail station.
Broadway -Grand Residential Development: up to 500
residential units in the 2 block area bounded roughly by West Grand,
Broadway, Valley and 24th Street.
322440 - . Page 26
Chinatown Transportation /Pedestrlan Safety Protects
WITHIN CORE OF CHINATOWN ESTIMATED COST
Bulbouts and curb ramps on 8th and Webster $100,000.00
Bulbouts and curb ramps on 9th and Webster $100,000.00
Bulbouts and curb ramps on 10th and Webster $75,000.00
Bulbouts and curb ramps on 11th and Webster $100,000.00
Bulbouts and curb ramps on 12 and Webster $100,000.00
Convert 10th Street to Two Way Webster to Madison $100,000.00
Bulbouts 8th and Harrison $100,000.00
Bulbouts 9th and Harrison $100,000.00
Bulbouts 10th and Harrison $100,000.00
Countdown Pedestrian Signals for all of the above intersections on $24,000.00
Harrison and Webster at $3,000 each
Countdown Ped Signal and 8th and Franklin $3,000.00
Signal Mast Heads on 8th and Webster and 9th and Webster . $60,000.00
Total Chinatown Core $962,000.00
Dear Mayor Johnson and Mayor Brown,
We are writing this letter on behalf of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce
(OCCC) and Asian Health Services (AHS) to express the position of the Boards of
Directors of both organizations concerning resolution of transportation - related issues
concerning the future development at Alameda Point. Both of our respective Boards
considered this matter on . Both Boards agree that the terms of the
settlement agreement between OCCC, AHS, City of Oakland and the City of Alameda
ensure that sufficient funding for future transportation improvements in Oakland
Chinatown will be provided with the development of Phase I of the Alameda Point
project to adequately mitigate for any potential transportation - related impact that m ay
occur in connection with Phase I (Phase I contemplates up to 1100 dwelling units and
100,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development).
As we understand the Agreement, it will:
Commit Alameda to providing a $500,000.00 of funding toward transportation
improvements in Chinatown pursuant to the specific terms of the Agreement;
Commit Alameda and Oakland to a process that will provide for a final determination
regarding Oaldand and Alameda's "fair share" contribution toward funding such
improvements in Oakland Chinatown while guaranteeing that $500,000.00 will be made
available by Alameda and $462,000.00 from Oakland to fund transportation
improvements if the initial phase of the Alameda Point project is approved for
construction. Taken together with Alameda's funding commitments, we understand that
this will result in $962,000.00 in funding for transportation improvements in Oakland
Chinatown pursuant to the specific terms/limitations of the Agreement;
Commit Alameda and Oakland to further study of transportation issues affecting Oakland
Chinatown to identify mutually acceptable solutions to common transportation issues;
Commit Alameda to preparing a new project level Environmental Impact Report to
evaluate the phase following the initial phase of any proposed development at Alameda
Point;
We understand that Alameda and Oakland have also agreed to establish an advisory
committee to ensure that input from Oakland Chinatown representatives is received
throughout the planning process for Alameda Point, and that Alameda will be providing
OCCC and AHS with $75,000 for reimbursement of its prior legal fees and of its costs
for participating in the advisory committee and funding technical assistance for the
advisory committee pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Both Boards have reviewed and accepted the settlement agreement, including in
particular, the key terms noted above. Pursuant to both Boards believe that the
settlement agreement ensures that transportation - related concerns from future
development of Phase I of Alameda Point will be satisfactorily addressed and any
impacts adequately mitigated. On behalf of both Boards, we appreciate the cooperation
that has been extended by both Cities and look forward to working closely together in the
future to implement necessary transportation improvements in our communities.
Sincerely,
Jennie Ong
Executive Director
OCCC
AHS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Extending the Single - Family Residential Rebate of the Solid
Waste and Recycling Infrastructure Impact Fee for Fiscal Year 2004/2005
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2002, the City Council awarded the franchise agreement for solid waste, recyclable
and organic materials collection to Alameda County Industries (ACI) and the disposal contract to
Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC). The franchise agreement with ACI defines a
fee structure that includes an Infrastructure Impact Mitigation Fee, whose intent is to mitigate
impacts from ACI's vehicles to the City's infrastructure.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
On July 3, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13482 rebating the Infrastructure
Impact Mitigation Fee to only single - family residences (SFRs) in the amount of $586,260 for
fiscal year 2002 -2003 only. The resolution states, "It shall be of no further force and effect as of
July 1, 2003, unless this City Council adopts a further resolution prior to that time reinstating or
extending the fee reduction effected thereby." In May 2003, the City Council adopted a
resolution extending the rebate in recognition of the cooperation and patience residents had
demonstrated with the transition to the new franchisee and the many new programs offered
through the franchise. The current rebate structure is as follows:
Solid Waste
Cart Volume
SFRs Rebate
10 -gal
$7.05 /quarter
20 -gal
$7.56 /quarter
32 -gal
$8.16 /quarter
64 -gal
$9.81 /quarter
96 -gal
$11.43 /quarter
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
atroakda
ubiicWorks
Department
Public Works Nbrkvf Yore
Re: Resolution #5 -D
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Page 2
June 2, 2004
The current amount rebated to SFR is approximately $586,260. Continuing this rebate will result
in the City not receiving money for the Infrastructure Impact Mitigation Fee.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that Council adopt a resolution implementing the provisions of
Article 7 of that certain agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries
AR, Inc. for solid waste, recyclable materials and organic materials services entered into as of
July 3, 2002, and rebating a portion of the infrastructure impacts mitigation fee for the 2004 -05
fiscal year.
Respec
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN /dl
G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIU 2004\ 061504\ExtendResidRebate. doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofNamed
tublicWorks
Uep rtrnent
Public Wales Workfw You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
EXTENDING THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REBATE
OF THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPACT FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2002, the City Council awarded a franchise agreement
(Agreement) for solid waste, recyclable and organic materials collection to Alameda
County Industries AR. Inc. (ACI) and the disposal contract to Waste Management of
Alameda County (WMAC); and
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Agreement authorizes the City to impose fees on
ACI to mitigate the impacts on the City's streets and other infrastructure of the
Contractor's activities in the City; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13482,
implementing provisions of Article 7 of that certain Agreement between the City of
Alameda and ACI for solid waste, recyclable materials and organic materials services and
rebating a portion of the Infrastructure Impacts Mitigation Fee for the 2002 -03 fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13587,
extending the rebate for the single - family premises portion of this fee for 2003 -04 fiscal
year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend said rebate to the 2004 -05 fiscal
year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda as follows:
1.
Contractor need not pay, and City staff shall take no effort to
collect, the portion of the Infrastructure Impacts Mitigation Fee
attributable to the Collection of Solid Waste, Source Separated
Recyclable Materials, and Source Separated Organic Materials
from Single Family Premises (as those terms are defined in the
Agreement) during the 2004 -05 fiscal year; and
2. Paragraph 1 of this Resolution shall be of no further force and
effect as of July 1, 2005 unless this City Council adopts a further
resolution prior to that time reinstating or extending the fee
reduction effected thereby.
Resolution #5 -D
6 -15 -04
3. Other than is provided in this resolution, the provisions of
Resolution No. 13482 are unaffected hereby and remain in full
force.
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 , by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 4, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE: APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05
BACKGROUND
Proposition 4 commonly known as the Gann Initiative was approved by the California
electorate in November, 1979. Fundamentally, the purpose of the constitutional
provisions and the implementing legislation is to restrict growth of tax - funded programs
and services by limiting the appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the 1978 -79
base year limit, adjusted annually for changes in the population and inflation.
Proceeds of taxes in excess of the limit, with limited exceptions, must be returned to
the taxpayers within two years by refund or reduction in tax rates unless extension of
the limit is approved by majority popular vote.
Proceeds of taxes include (1) all tax revenues, (2) proceeds from licenses and user
fees to the extent that such fees exceed costs of providing services, (3) interest
earnings from investment of tax revenues, and (4) discretionary state subventions. All
other revenues, i.e. federal funds, enterprise fund revenues, and user fees that do not
exceed the cost of providing services are excluded from the limit.
The voters approved Proposition 111 in June, 1990. This proposition allows for new
adjustment formulas for the required appropriations limit that are more responsive to
local growth issues. The proposition also now requires an annual review of the limit
calculations, i.e. reviewed by the independent auditor in conjunction with the annual
financial audit.
The significant changes to the original Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and its implementing
legislation Chapter 1205/80 as modified by Proposition 111 and SB 88 (Chapter60 /90)
are as follows:
A. Beginning with the 1990 -91 Appropriations Limit, the annual adjustment factors
changed. Instead of using the lesser of the California Per Capita Income or
U.S. CPI to measure inflation, each city may choose:
a. The growth in the California Per Capita Personal Income
or
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Hearing /Resolution #5 -E
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 4, 2004
Page 2of2
b. The growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new
construction within the city.
B. Additionally, instead of using only the population growth of the city, each city
may choose to use the population growth within its county. These changes in
population and inflation are both annual elections.
The revised annual adjustment factors have been applied to arrive at our 2004 -05
Limit.
Attached are the following:
a. Chart that displays the various adjustment factors for calculation of our
Annual Appropriations Limit
b. Revenue list of Estimated Proceeds of Taxes - 2004 -054
c. Department of Finance January 1, 2004 Population Estimates for Alameda
County and the various cities
Budget/Fiscal Impact
Our estimated proceeds of taxes constitute approximately 61.03% of the limit, see
attachment to the resolution. Our City population posted a growth of 0.48% over the prior
year while the County posted a growth of 0.72 %. Personal per capita income percentage
change over last year was 3.28 %. These factors (County population change and personal
per capita income change) were used to compute the Appropriations Limit for 2004 -05.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution which:
a. Establishes the 2004 -05 Appropriations Limit in the amount of $67,104,930.
Respectfully submitted,
ZJ:f1
Attachments
G: finance \cou nci I \061504\prop4.03.doc
James M. Flint
City Manager
By: Zenda James
Finance Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS
Fiscal
Year
Original
Appropriations
Limit
Adjusted
Appropriations
Limit
Population
Increase
Within City
Population
Increase
Within County
Per Capita
Income
Increase
1985 -86
1986 -87
1987 -88
1988 -89
1989 -90
1990 -91
1991 -92
1992 -93
1993 -94
1994 -95
1995 -96
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
$25,964,962
27,125,274
28,380,866
29,843,020
31,960,066
33,658,624
36,804,086
$27,125,274
28,442,612
30,217,535
32,361,149
34,182,194
36,804,086
37,307,224
39,111,414
39,798,751
42,206,554
44,553,109
47,445,167
50,476,545
53,501,816
56,734,946
62,254,356
62,459,439
64,509,323
67,104,930
2.12%
1.12%
0.47%
1.81%
1.06%
3.39%
2.02%
2.06%
1.04%
0.14%
0.34%
1.74%
-1.32%
0.60%
0.12%
1.77%
1.26%
0.95%
0.48%
2.26%
1.34%
1.51%
1.35%
1.36%
1.48%
1.58%
1.55%
0.97%
1.27%
0.85%
1.74%
2.15%
1.40%
1.08%
1.62%
1.62%
0.82%
0.72%
2.30%
3.47%
4.66%
5.19%
4.21%
4.14%
-0.64%
2.72%
0.71%
4.72%
4.67%
4.67%
4.15%
4.53%
4.91%
7.82%
-1.27%
2.31%
3.28%
Fiscal
Year
Adjusted
Appropriations
Limit
Estimated
Proceeds
of Taxes
Taxes as a
Percentage
of Limit
1986 -87
1987 -88
1988 -89
1989 -90
1990 -91
1991 -92
1992 -93
1993 -94
1994 -95
1995 -96
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
$27,125,274
28,442,612
30,275,280
32,422,989
34,247,514
36,874,417
37,307,224
39,111,414
39,798,751
42,206,554
44,553,109
47,445,167
50,476,545
53,501,816
56,734,946
62,254,356
62,459,439
64,509,323
67,104,930
$19,150,006
21,171,824
22,237,185
23,980,762
26,248,017
28,129,049
29,585,533
29,674,315
29,692,284
31,586,117
32,343,115
32,390,148
34,936,993
37,799,889
40,451,148
42,282,136
44,457,196
42,485,083
40,953,416
70.60%
74.44%
73.45%
73.96%
76.64%
76.28%
79.30%
75.87%
74.61%
74.84%
72.59%
68.27%
69.21%
70.65%
71.30%
67.92%
71.18%
65.86%
61.03%
PROP 4 CALCULATION - CITY OF ALAMEDA - FISCAL 2004 -05
REVENUE SOURCES
PROCEEDS
FROM
TAXES
NON
PROCEEDS
OF TAXES
PROPERTY TAXES
GENERAL
FRANCHISES
ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM
CABLE
PG &E
GARBAGE
TAXI
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
SALES TAX
Triple Flip Subsidy
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
UTILITY USERS TAX
LICENSES
BICYCLE
BUSINESS
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT TAX
PERMITS
FIRE CODE
BUILDING
PLUMBING
ELECTRICAL
CONCRETE
ENCROACHMENT
TAXI PERMITS
PERMIT TRACKING
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
FINES & FORFEITURES
TRAFFIC SCHOOL FEES
GOLF SURCHARGE
MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU
ALLOCATION - ABANDONED VEHICLE SURCHARGE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER FUNDS
COUNTY ALS REIMBURSEMENT
POST
BOOKING FEES
STATE /LOCAL GRANTS
STATE HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
TRANSFERS IN
REVENUE FROM CURRENT SERVICES
MANDATED COSTS REIMBURSEMENTS
RENTS
CONCESSIONS
HOUSING AUTHORITY IN LIEU FEES
AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL
INVESTMENT INCOME
*Special Fund
$14,864,000
3,600,000
5,100,000
660,000
7,900,000
1,465,300
500,000 *
350,000
4,000,000
1,270,000
190,000
$39,899,300
500,000
453,634
200,000
1,580,993
15,000
550,000
1,500,000
500
75,000 *
1,050,000
165,000
160,000
5,000
16,090
3,000
90,000
3,362
881,500
100,000
80,000 *
5,060,258
265,000
80,000
200,000
124,500
49,200
5,000,000
6,141,107
0
97,200
1,000
0
$24,447,344
62.01%
$1,054,116
$40.953.416
37.99%
$645,884
$25,093,228
$64,346,644
$1,700,000
$66,046,644
Enclosure II
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions ( *)
January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2004 and Total Population, January 1, 2004
Total
County Percent Change - -- Population Minus Exclusions - -- Population
City 2003 -2004 1 -1 -03 1 -1 -04 1 -1 -2004
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA 0.48 72,664 73,014 74,409
ALBANY 0.22 16,685 16,722 16,722
BERKELEY 0.31 103,954 104,279 104,279
DUBLIN 6.75 33,910 36,198 38,330
EMERYVILLE 2.32 7,492 7,666 7,666
FREMONT 0.14 208,784 209,080 209,080
HAYWARD 0.54 143,854 144,633 144,633
LIVERMORE 1.30 77,564 78,571 78,571
NEWARK 0.14 43,691 43,753 43,753
OAKLAND 0.76 408,513 411,609 411,609
PIEDMONT 0.06 11,060 11,067 11,067
PLEASANTON 0.79 66,627 67,153 67,153
SAN LEANDRO 0.75 80,879 81,489 81,489
UNION CITY 0.39 69,913 70,189 70,189
UNINCORPORATED 0.62 138,219 139,070 139,070
COUNTY TOTAL 0.72 1,483,809 1,494,493 1,498,020
( *) Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions and state and federal
correctional institutions.
Page 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the
City Council of the City of Alameda is required to establish an "Appropriations Limit" for fiscal
year 2004 -05; and
WHEREAS, the Appropriations Limit has been determined in accordance with uniform
guidelines for Article XIIIB of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the voters approved Proposition 111 in June, 1990, which allows for new
adjustment formulas for the appropriations limit calculation that is responsive to local growth
issues.
The adjustment factors used to arrive at the 2003 -04 limit are as follows:
1990 -91 County Population increase of 1.36 %; CPI of 4.21 %
1991 -92 City Population increase of 3.39 %; CPI 4.14%
1992 -93 City Population increase of 2.02 %; CPI of - 0.64%
1993 -94 City Population increase of 2.06 %; CPI of 2.72%
1994 -95 City Population increase of 1.04 %; CPI of 0.71%
1995 -96 County Population increase of 1.27 %; CPI of 4.72%
1996 -97 County Population increase of 0.85 %; CPI of 4.67%
1997 -98 City Population increase of 1.74 %; Per Capita Personal Income
4.67%
1998 -99 County Population increase of 2.15 %; Per Capita Personal
Income 4.15%
1999 -00 County Population increase of 1.40 %, Per Capita Personal
Income 4.53%
2000 -01 County Population increase of 1.08 %, Per Capital Personal
Income 4.91%
2001 -02 City Population increase of 1.77 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of 7.82%
2002 -03 County Population increase of 1.62 %, Per Capita Personal
Income change of — 1.27%
Resolution #5 -E
2003 -04 City Population increase of 0.95 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of 2.31%
2004 -05 County Population increase of 0.72 %, Per Capita Personal
Income change of 3.28%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said
Council hereby establishes the Appropriations Limit in the amount of $67,104,930 for fiscal year
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
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01
(Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council appointed the engineer and
attorney for the annual proceedings. Council has also preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report,
declared an intention to order levy and collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 15, 2004
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Alameda City Hall. The District was formed as a
condition for development of Tract 7170 that required the developer to have a funding mechanism
for maintaining the required public improvements.
DISCUSSION
This district budget covers the maintenance costs for the all improvements within the public right of
way. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's office. The maintenance costs
for the improvements were initially determined in conjunction with the developer, utilizing standard
costs for work. Costs are spread to the parcels by a per square foot basis.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. Any costs associated with the annual proceedings will be
reimbursed by the District.
GlyafAlallwda
uubiicWorks
Department
Public Works W kafo, Y d
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Hearing /Resolution #5 -F
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
June 1, 2004
The City Manager recommends that the Council hold the Public Hearing. It is also recommended
that the City Council, by resolution, approve the Engineer's Report confirming diagram and
assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for the Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01
(Marina Cove)
MTN/MM:dl
Respecjfully submitted
W
co
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Mar . et • McLean
Acti ' P ibic Works Director
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \061504\Final LTC MAD for 05.doc
Dedicated to Excellence Committed to Service
Gtyonlameda
impartment
PublicWak Wok for You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS,
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 13684 a resolution directing preparation of
Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01, this Council designated the City
Engineer, as Engineer of Work and ordered said Engineer of Work to make and file a report in
writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and duly
considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was
determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings
under and pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at the hour of
7:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers, Alameda City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the time and place for a
hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment, notice of which
hearing was duly and regularly published; and
WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place the hearing was duly and regularly
held, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard, were given an opportunity to be heard, and
all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and considered by this Council, and
all oral statements and all written protests or communications were duly heard, considered and
overruled, and this Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation
of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the
costs and expenses thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. No vote of the property owners is required because proposed increases are
allowed based on previous approval of the property owners owning more than fifty percent
(50 %) of the area of assessable lands within the District.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements are to be assessed to pay the costs and
expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a map thereof filed in the
office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith;
Resolution #5 -F
6 -15 -04
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and specification for
the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective
lots and parcels of land within the District; and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the
proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land in
the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels,
respectively, from the maintenance, and of the expenses incidental thereto; is finally
approve and confirmed.
5. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and
specifications, the estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as
contained in the report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, shall refer and apply to the
report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this
Council.
6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance of the improvements
is hereby levied. For further particulars pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, reference is hereby made to the Resolution directing preparation of Annual
Report.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report, offered
and received at he hearing, this Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of the
several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the maintenance of the
improvements at least in the amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned
against the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to
support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid findings and
determination as to special benefits.
8. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the third
Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of the
diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of
Alameda. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll
opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the
assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown
in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner
as County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of
County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection
by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any
compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the Director of Finance of this City.
9. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the County, the
Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in the City Treasury to the
credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund the Director of Finance of this City is
hereby directed to establish under the distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the
improvement fund shall be expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
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
15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram
and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping & Lighting
District 84 -2
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council appointed the engineer and
attorney for the annual proceedings. Council has also preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report,
declared an intention to order levy and collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 15, 2004
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Alameda City Hall.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report provides an estimate of cost by each of the seven Zones to be addressed for
fiscal year 2004 -05. The Zones are as follows:
Zone 1:
Zone 2:
Zone 3:
Zone 4:
Zone 5:
Zone 6:
Zone 7:
Lincoln Avenue between Sherman and St. Charles Streets.
Webster Street between Central and Lincoln Avenues.
Webster Street between Lincoln and Atlantic Avenues.
Park Street from the Bridge to San Jose Avenue, including areas of Webb,
Santa Clara and Central Avenues.
Harbor Bay Business Park.
Alameda Marina Village commercial areas.
Bay Street: 1100 and 1200 blocks.
The purpose of the assessment district is to provide for enhanced maintenance not regularly
performed by the City. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file in the City Clerk's Office and at all
Public Library branches.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GlyofAlameda
Ppubl(Works
apartment
Public Work Waksfw You!
Re: Hearing /Resolution #5 -G
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Enhanced maintenance or special projects contained in this budget are:
Page 2
June 2, 2004
Zone 1: Maintenance of landscaped median in the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Lincoln Avenue; Utilities
for operating the irrigation. No increase in assessment is proposed for this Zone.
Zones 2 & 3: These two zones work together on their projects. Together they pay for pressure
washing of sidewalks and litter control. The Business District has been working to save funds for
use in implementing the streetscape improvements of the Webster St. Renaissance project. No
increase in assessment is proposed for these Zones.
Zone 4: Staff met with the Park Street Business Association to develop the proposed budget. The
budget for this Zone covers the cost to water and care for the planters, and clean the sidewalks. This
zone will be utilizing budget savings to assist with purchasing stylized street furniture for the
upcoming Park Street Streetscape Project. The monthly sidewalk cleaning, as well as daily litter
control managed by the Association, will continue in the present budget. No increase in assessment
is proposed for this Zone.
Zone 5: The budget for this Zone is developed in conjunction with the Harbor Bay Business Park
Association. The budget covers all irrigation costs and landscape maintenance costs. All tree
trimming, sidewalk and pathway repairs, and streetlight repairs are also included. There is a CPI
adjustment in the budget as allowed by previous vote of the property owners.
Zone 6: The budget for this Zone is developed in conjunction with the Marina Village Management
group. Budget for this district covers all irrigation costs and landscape maintenance costs. It also
covers all street lighting maintenance and energy costs. All tree trimming, sidewalk repair and
pathway repair are included. No increase is proposed for this budget year.
Zone 7: The property owners have cooperatively developed a maintenance schedule for the elm trees
that allows for a $350, per year, per property assessment. The maintenance work began in Spring
2000 and continues. No increase in assessment is proposed for this Zone.
Balloting: For the 2004/05 tax year, there is no requirement for a Proposition 218 ballot.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The maintenance costs for the various zones are described in the Engineer's Report, which is also on
file with the City Clerk. Costs incurred by the City for the Engineer of Work and Attorney of Record
are paid by the Districts under the budget item incidental expense.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GLyofAlmeda
ubIicWorks
apartment
Public Works Weif,,ru!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 2, 2004
Maintenance costs for landscaping along Harbor Bay Parkway, from Doolittle Drive to Maitland
Drive, are shared between the City and the property owners within the business park, via the
assessment district. The split is one third City, two- thirds assessment district. The City's one -third
share is split between the Public Works Department and the Golf Course. The total cost for off -site
maintenance for fiscal year 2004 -05 is $151,560 requiring a payment of $50,520 from the City.
Funds for the City's share have been budgeted evenly in the Public Works Department and Golf
Course FY 04 -05 Budgets.
Additionally, the costs to maintain Shoreline Park are shared equally between Zone 5 and the City, as
provided for in a settlement agreement. The City's share has been estimated at $15,000, which is
included in the Recreation and Park Department budget for FY 2004 -05.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the Council hold the Public Hearing. It is also recommended
that the City Council, by resolution, approve the Engineer's Report (as may be amended by the public
hearing) confirming diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for the Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
MTN/MM:dl
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
PLiblic Works Director
., 1k ((
A. McLean
blic Works Coordinator
By: Mar
Acti
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004\061504\Final LTC for 05 AD.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyof Alameda
PUbliCW01ks
epartment
poi. o4 ;finks/ You!
E
0
o iZ
CC WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place the hearing was duly and regularly
® held, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard, were given an opportunity to be heard, and
- all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and considered by this Council, and
all oral statements and all written protests or communications were duly heard, considered and
overruled, and this Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation
of the diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the
costs and expenses thereof.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS, ISLAND
CITY LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 13683 a resolution directing preparation of
Annual Report for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, this Council designated
the City Engineer, as Engineer of Work and ordered said Engineer of Work to make and file a
report in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
and
WHEREAS, the report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk and duly
considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular, whereupon it was
determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings
under and pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at the hour of
7:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers, Alameda City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the time and place for a
hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment, notice of which
hearing was duly and regularly published; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that:
1. No vote of the property owners is required because proposed increases are
allowed based on previous approval of the property owners owning more than fifty percent
(50%) of the area of assessable lands within the District.
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements are to be assessed to pay the costs and
expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a map thereof filed in the
office of the City Clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof to whit:
(a) the Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith;
Resolution #5 -G
6 -15 -04
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans and specification for
the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and dimensions of the respective
lots and parcels of land within the District; and
(c) the assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the
proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land in
the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels,
respectively, from the maintenance, and of the expenses incidental thereto; is finally
approve and confirmed.
5. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and
specifications, the estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as
contained in the report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, shall refer and apply to the
report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this
Council.
6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance of the improvements
is hereby levied. For further particulars pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, reference is hereby made to the Resolution directing preparation of Annual
Report.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report, offered
and received at he hearing, this Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of the
several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the maintenance of the
improvements at least in the amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned
against the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to
support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid findings and
determination as to special benefits.
8. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than the third
Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of the
diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of
Alameda. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll
opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the
assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown
in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same mariner
as County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of
County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection
by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any
compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the Director of Finance of this City.
9. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the County, the
Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in the City Treasury to the
credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund the Director of Finance of this City is
hereby directed to establish under the distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the
improvement fund shall be expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
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
l5th day of June, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
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: Hearing /Resolution #5 -H
6 -15 -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- 511(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.
By:
Attachments:
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
Ju
Sipe
chuler
ing 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
Cc:
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
TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA. •
.PETITION FOR APPEAL
C;4-;1 CookG
City Hall ( Planning Board or City Council)
2 ?63 Santa Clara .Avenue #190
Alameda CA 94501
,
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the.
PL A Ni vi C BAR .D
(Planning Director /Zoning. Administrator /Planning Board /Historical
Advisory Board) y�
which �MU1 CD
(Denied/Granted/Established Conditions)
UP03 001 at a51 5 BLambittk AvEANE
(Application Number) (Street Address)
Design Review . X Use Permit
Subdivision Map. • Rezoning
Development
Planned Development /Amendment
on t2."O14`
(Specify Date)
for
for a
Variance
Plannned
Other
(Specify)
•
The basis of the appeal is:
pp Th* VP; . t;Rmt'1" •V`1oLA?'ES
AiZ t (!,04 24, /4 t'hg A LAM lepA Ci 414 (agAlr .
G.
(If more space is needed,, continue
additional sheets.)
Eboilgb a. MORpII
(Name) • Y
,g6 t S iANts CIl4Ct,
(Address)
ALA Mt✓ , /1/50/ (City /State)
*
on the reverse side or attach
(Telephone - Work) 51 D 5z 1 1'/izs7
(Telephone - Home) J • r
*
to 521 7
(For Office Use Only) Date Received Stamp
Received By:
Receipt No.: • 01L5</5
G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEAL0I.WPD
APR 1 5 r(;
City Clerk's Office
Attachment # 1
Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue MAT 13 2004
MliEEEIWED
Re: Use Permit (UP03 -0019) Appeal
PERM IT 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
1
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.
U.(4,21.(.209_
Edward J. Murphy
2618 Janis Circle
r
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 Administrator /Planning Board /Historical Advisory
Board)
which Gra:Nte for
(Denied Granted Establishe
/ / d Conditions)
(0o3.. OOP, at a25(5 ` 1A 114t,.. for a
(Application Numbr) (Street Address)
Design Review X Use Permit Variance
Subdivision Map ' Rezoning Plannned Development
Planned Development /Amendment Other
(Specify)
on
(Specify Date)
The basis of the appeal •is: �I )'es Uhe �
e --Ft) 'T� -Does oe . CCprn
%e A.
0 IN*k.45 — S �, 'r� --� A- I low- Lb 4r.. '--
t b
w� U � � �e lc� � rr, �1 �
., h, `. .c CL Cap nod', Oracri it 40 Sa.fahcc4e_ Mejgee
(I it) W rK � A 1.1(e `� 1
( more ace is neeaed, continue on the reverde side or attach additional
sheets.)
(Name) I`LC I Z {
Ca; M2. -0 .
dress)
t14 - 54l
(City /State) .
****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
(For Office Use Only)
Received By:
Receipt No.:
G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEALO1.WPD
C:1 fE in
LLI wl
uJ gele Me CNA Wd
mleg4
e l i4c
ce
ce , a <
Q
- Work) cam, �y
�iz - Home)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * **
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
be developed on site; 9 surface parking spaces in the existing parking lot; units #2, #3, #4, #5,
and #7 would have integrated garage spaces for one car; and unit $6 would have an integrated
garage space for two cars. A six -foot fence would surround the parking area with a gate across
the entry off Everett Street. Landscaped area would be installed adjacent to the fence. New roll -
up doors, person doors and some new windows would be installed in the existing building. The
roll -up doors in those spaces without garages would allow access for larger materials likely to be
used by artists and craftspersons (canvases, stone, looms, pianos, etc.) All new windows would
be industrial sash windows . to match existing. Some existing openings would be filled in with
brick to match existing. Marquee -style awnings would be installed above each of the entries to
the work/live studios.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Existing Site Conditions
The existing two -story red brick industrial building was constructed in 1931. The building is L-
shaped with a small parking lot at the corner of the parcel adjacent to Blanding Avenue and
Everett Street.
B. Surrounding Land Use
North — Industrial
West- Commercial
South- ResidentiaUlndustrial
East- Stone Boat Yard
C. Work/Live Ordinance
In 1998 the City Council adopted the Work/Live Ordinance implementing a policy in the
General Plan which promotes work/live uses as part of the redevelopment of the Northern
Waterfront area. Work/live studios are conditionally permitted commercial/industrial facilities
with a strictly regulated incidental residential component that meets basic habitability
requirements. 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.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This proposal is Categorically Exempt from the CEQA Guidelines because the proposal involves
the conversion of an existing structure with minimal exterior and interior modification. The
project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and Zoning; the project is
within the City limits on a site less than five acres and is surrounded by urban uses; the project
site has no value as habitat as it is in a developed area; the project will have no significant effects
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of 12 April 2004
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
and the "live" area of units #3, #4 and #5 are less than 30% of the total square footage of the
units.
Unit #
Unit area
"Live " area
% of total
1
1,857
346
18.6
2
1,436
346
18.6
3
1,273
452
25.7
4
1,273
452
25.7
5
1,299
452
25.7
6
2,384
325
10.3
7
1,393
351
20.0
Each "live" area consists of a bedroom, a bathroom and a small kitchen area on the second floor
which also contains some "work" square footage, except unit #6 which has its "live" portion on
the first floor.
Separation Required. Each work/live studio shall be separated from other work/live studios or
other uses in the building. Access to each work/live studio shall be provided from common
access areas, common halls or corridors, or directly from the exterior of the building.
The proposal complies with this requirement. Each work/ive studio is a separate entity with access
from the exterior of the building; two -story units have interior stairways to provide access to the second
floor. The common area can be accessed via a staircase in the lobby which also contains two disabled
accessible toilet rooms.
Parking. Each work/live studio shall have at least one and one -half (1 1/2) parking spaces for
up to one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area plus one -half (1/2) additional spaces for
every additional five hundred (500) square feet of floor area above the first one thousand (1,000)
square feet subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements. The provided parking
shall comply with the requirements of Section 30 -7. This parking requirement may be waived or
modified if the following findings can be made in addition to any other findings required by the
ordinance codified in this section 30 -15.
1. That the proposed parking will be adequate to meet the demand created by the
project given the character of the proposed uses; and
2. That a waiver or modification of parking requirements will not, under the
circumstances of the particular project, either conflict with nor adversely affect
commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially -zoned uses in the area where
the project is proposed
The proposal complies with this requirement. Please see the table below. The project requires a
total of 13 on -site parking spaces and a total of 16 are proposed: 11 ground level spaces; 9
surface parking spaces in the existing parking lot; units #2, #3, #4, #5,. and #7 would have
integrated garage spaces for one car; and unit $6 would have an integrated two -car garage.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of 12 April 2004
4
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
Design of Work/Live Studios. Subject to all applicable building and fire code requirements.
1. Work/live studios shall be designed to accommodate commercial or industrial uses as
evidenced by the provision of ventilation, interior storage, flooring, and other physical
improvements of the type commonly found in exclusively commercial or industrial
facilities used for the same work activity;
This is a condition contained in the draft resolution. The working drawings submitted for the
building permit phase of this project will be reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau, the
Building Official and the Planning and Building Director for conformance with this requirement.
2. 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 work space.
Please note that each studio as proposed meets these requirements: there are no walls or doors in
any studio except those for sleeping and sanitary facilities; there is only one single entry into
each studio; there are no walls separating any food preparation area from other parts of the
studio; the only walls proposed are those separating sanitary and sleeping facilities.
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 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.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of 12 April 2004
6
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 (T0%) 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
V. REQUIRED FINDINGS
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.
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 includes 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 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.
4. The proposed use relates favorable to the General Plan.
This finding can be made. Work/live studios are specifically mentioned as a use in the northern
waterfront area in the General Plan.
In addition to any other findings required by Section 30 -21.3, (fmdings 5, 6, 7, & 8) the approval
of any use permit required under this Chapter shall require a fording that the proposed use is
consistent with the purposes for work/live studios set forth in Section 30 -15.1 with respect to the
circumstances and conditions of the subject property. The following additional findings must
also be made:
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);
This finding can be made. Any uses proposed will need to secure a Work/live Permit as well as
a business license. Thus, the Staff 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;
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of 12 April 2004
8
This finding can be made.. 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 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 : ,,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
Workllive 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:\ PLANNINGIPB \REPORTS1200412515blandingl.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 craftsperson 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 •
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.
4. The proposed use relates favorable to the General Plan.
This finding can be made. Work/live studios are specifically mentioned as a use in the northern
waterfront area in the General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board 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);
This finding can be made. Any uses proposed will need to secure a Work/live Permit as well as a
business license. Thus, the Staff 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; -
This finding can be made. 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 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 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 residential area.
This fording 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
2
of the building. The building will continue to essentially appear as it looks today.
THEREFORE BE IT 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 "N', ', 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
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 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.
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.
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.
4
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
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. 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:
21. 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.
22. 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.
G:\ PLANNING ■PB\RESO\2004\2515b1anding2.doc
6
I.JY,01#1....4TPC.}1QLE19 - 2512 Blanding Ave l Page 1 I.
From: Michael Schiess <ujuju @comcast.net>
To: <jaltschu @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. l 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, 0 vviti local
artists.
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
<httpJ /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.neb, <rhythmix @earthlink.net>
Attachment #2
Jud'ith ALTSCHULER workMive alamedtt -
From: ed cassel <edzkastle @alamedanet.net>
To: <jaltschu@ci.alameda.ca.us>
Date: 3/2/2004 4:52:45 PM
Subject: work/live aameda
To whom this may concem,
as a twenty year resident of Alameda, as well as a professional artist, I'm
delighted to team that you're contemplating developing 2512 Blanding into
work/live space.I 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,(ali 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
Page 1 1
Attachment #3
Judith ALTSCHULER - Development‘of ?Silo-Blanding in Alameda
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. l 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.
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
•
Page 1
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-
lions and standards for establishing and operating
work/live studios • as a primary commer-
cialrndustrial 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 bw'ldings 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 -.
news, business owners, artists, artisans, and
other individuals to continue to work in Alameda
and contribute to the City's economy;
c. To reduce traffic andassociatedadverseim-
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 tenon is
defined in Sections 30-2 and 30 -5L1;
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 shall 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 Moe 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 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. 1/99
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 otherimpacts, 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 stopsfrepair.
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.
£ 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
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 Cede.
i. 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),ar 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 Budding 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. 1/99
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, budding being
converted more compatible with the adjacent resi-
dential area. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6)
3072.4 Rev. Ord. Supp. 3/99
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
Work/Live Permit (draft)
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 1/ or 1/4 scale.
GA PLANNINGWORMSAworklivepermitdraft .doc
Attachment #6
!b
a
C{-
N 34-° 24-1
tts
k'Ve46 Tr s% (60 i,..6; -)
100,00 3,os
Z5/5
3.05
N 34° Z4' - 100.00
0
ND IZEPhl oD
HVO w,r'
CO PPE: X MCC.
N
TN
/zRta/IR
&OVNv42r
5, 1toks
4 L.44 7
ovrz✓ 7 O/= LOTS !D if // $6.04.14.
4 Mtr'aD koMt;5TE4p/ ALa,1Ep.4
Ga vN TY G4. G /r- ia-ri
DATE 6- 8 -z.ve3
SCALE
to'
CLIENT: J A 1.1 t 1<0 1 Ice 2237 P/L/N(E $T, gE7LK.ELEY
SURVEY DL✓,t;k
ANDREAS DE J<
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR
2.114 6ViNA. VISTA AvHWE AL.A 1SDA C.4 444.501
PHONE: 665_ 4209
PLAT "ipEl
4Pk1 70 -F16 -ZZ
__ Attachment �f7
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,
GO' /4
Ed Murphy
City of Alameda
Interdepartment Memorandum
Date: 23 February 2004
To: Greg Fuz
Planning and Building Director
From: Judith Altschuler
Supervising Planner
RE: 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(f) 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 commerciaiindustrial 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\muiphyliveworkresponse.doc
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 ari 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, Marian 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 regiilations• for
the conversion of conunercial or industrial buildings,. or • orlon- 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
conunercial 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 aecom-
•modatee 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. life 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 froni 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 pen
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-:bed for commercial or industrial pur- --
• poses.: ••
(Added. by Stats.1979, c. 434, p. 15.57, § $.51)
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
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry on the General Plan
Diagram; and
I WHEREAS, the subject property is in the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District; and
�W �w
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from review
• cc under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 — In -fill Development
sn 2 Projects; and
cc�
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12, 2004 and acted to
approve Use Permit, UP04 -0019; and
0
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
finds 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 -H
6 -15 -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 in 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 accommodations 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 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.
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 maybe 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 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 n 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
04
1 7i
June 3, 2004
2618 Janis Circle
Alameda City Council -
2263 Santa Clara Avenue _
Re: Use Permit (UP03 -0019) Appeal
Please make the following comments part of the written
record of my appeal.
On page one of the City Manager's memorandum dated
11 May 2004, under a heading of Discussion /Analysis
there appears the following statement:
"As explained in greater detail below, work/live studios are
not regulated under Measure A because they are not `dwelling
units'." (Emphasis added.)
Please allow me to substitute the word `banned' for the word
`regulated'. In all the years that I have studied Measure A, I
have neither seen nor heard the word `regulated' used in
connection with it. I am unsure as to what the word
means in relation to 26 -1. I am not convinced that the City
Manager is clear about its meaning either. We all have heard
the word `banned' used in relation to 26 -1, and there is no
confusion as to its meaning.
It is obvious that the City Manager believes that work/live units
are not dwelling units. I believe, on the other hand, that
work/live units are dwelling units. We both should agree that
more important than what we believe is what a court determines
work/live units to be. I am on record as having asked members
of the planning board on several occasions by what reasoning
they come to views about what work/live units are and are not.
Re: Agenda Item# 5 -H
6 -15 -04
The only response I received was one of stony silence.
Furthermore, no planning board member has ever asked me to
explain why I think such units are dwelling units. There is
apparent indifference as to what an ordinary citizen thinks
on the subject much less how he justifies his thoughts to others.
I assume that if we go to court, the judge will be interested to
hear reasons why both the plaintiff and defendant believe as
they do.
Immediately after the above quotation there begins a sentence
about Section 26 -2. I request that 26 -2 be cited in its entirety
because that section is central to the work/live issue, and the
City Manager's description is misleading and shockingly
incomplete. The City Manager mentions two exceptions and I
suppose he thought the public would know, without being told,
that they were exceptions to the ban on multiple dwelling units
imposed by 26 -1. Then he mentions one exception as being for
the replacement of Alameda Housing Authority units. Before
going further allow me to cite 26 -2 in its entirety for the
reader's convenience:
"Exception being the Alameda Housing Authority replacement
of existing low cost housing units and the proposed Senior
Citizens low cost housing complex, pursuant to Article XXV
Charter of the City of Alameda." (Emphasis Added)
Why did the City Manager omit the word `existing' and
the phrase low cost' which appears twice? Does he not
understand the importance of each word in a charter provision?
Was 26 -2 of such length that it could not be presented in its
entirety? I don't think so. Article 26 -2 is only 31 words and
three Roman numerals long. I believe that the City Manager
did not and does not want people to be inquisitive about 26 -2.
I believe that that is the case for the following reason.
Independence Plaza was built in multiple dwelling unit form
2
If the units in Independence Plaza were all low cost units that
replaced low cost units which existed on March 13, 1973, then
the Independence Plaza units would be covered by Article 26 -2
and, therefore, would be exceptions to the 26 -1 ban. However,
since more than 50 Independence Plaza units were of the
market rate variety, the 26 -1 ban was applicable to them and
forbid their being built. The City Manager does not want
citizens asking for him to explain why.
Before leaving the City Manager's words about 26 -2, it should
be noted that he infers the senior complex referred to in
26 -2 is Independence Plaza. That's an error. The complex
referred to is the Anne Diament Senior Complex on the
northeast corner of Park Street and Otis Drive. It opened for
use in 1975 and had been in the planning /building stage when
Measure A became part of the charter in May of 1973.
The construction of Independence Plaza did not begin until
October of 1989.
I would now like to present a description of events that will
provide background for my appeal to be heard on 6/15/04. I
wish to take you back to the fall of 1972 because that is when it
became clear that a density control charter amendment might
gain the necessary signatures to qualify for the March 1973
ballot. The then constituted City Council, to a man thought
that the charter amendment was flawed. However, the
amendment had met all the requirements of the Constitution of
the State of California. Each council member had no choice but
to support that constitution. They had taken individual oaths to
do so as a prerequisite for holding office. The council included
Mayor Terry La Croix, councilmen James Fore, Gustave Levy,
Malcolm Longaker, and Bill McCall.
The charter amendment was identified on the ballot as Measure
A. Also on the ballot, in accordance with state law, was one
3
argument for Measure A, written by Inez Kapellas, Chairman of
the Committee of Concerned Citizens, a leading force in getting
the charter amendment on the ballot, and one argument against
Measure A, written by Mayor La Croix. The Mayor's argument
was presented, by unanimous vote of the council, to reflect the
views of the entire council.
Fore, Longaker, and Levy were all at the end of their respective
terms of office. All three sought another term and entered the
race to be decided by the March 13, 1973 election, the same
election that would decide the fate of Measure A. La Croix and
McCall would be on the new council, but they needed one more
opponent of Measure A with them to control the council. In
toto, there were 13 candidates running for three council seats.
When the votes were counted, Measure A had won by a wide
margin, along with three brand new councilmen, one was
passionately in favor of Measure A, Chuck Corica, and two,
George Beckam and Lloyd Hurwitz, were in favor, but more
calmly so.
The Council would change from one with 5 council members
opposed to Measure A to one with 3 in favor and 2 opposed.
But the power shift would have to wait until April 17, 1973, the
date for the newly elected councilmen to be sworn into office.
"There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City
of Alameda."
Those 13 words would become Section 26 -1 of the Alameda
City Charter. The Mayor's ballot argument against Measure A
had warned, in part, that:
"No one knows what is intended by the term "multiple
dwelling units."
4
I believe that most people understood the term to mean
buildings that contained two or more living units. That
interpretation rests on the common meaning of the word,
"multiple ".
That same ballot argument against Measure A had also
warned:
"By prohibiting new and replacement construction, it would
raise taxes on all existing properties."
The prohibition of replacement construction was to prove an
extremely important factor in the Measure A story. The
widespread effect of that prohibition came to be understood as
the Tahoe Apartments became the focus of our community's
attention.
My description of events continues with the destruction of the
Tahoe Apartments, located on the south side of Central
Avenue between Union and Lafayette Streets, located, that is,
until 8:13 PM on Wednesday, February 7, 1973. The 27 unit
Tahoe Apartments had the address 1814 Central Avenue. You
will not find that address there today. The Tahoe Apartments
were destroyed by the crash of a naval aircraft. (The Alameda
Library has a separate file on the Tahoe destruction for those
who are interested.) The destruction was a horrendous event
which included great loss of life. One house adjacent to Tahoe
toward the west was destroyed. Another adjacent to the east
had its interior destroyed.
The ballot for the election of March 13 was already in final
form on the night of the crash and could not be changed.
Measure A, containing its sweeping ban that there shall be no
multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda, meant
5
that replacement of the Tahoe was forbidden. Perhaps, if
the Tahoe owners had gotten a building permit approved before
the March 13 vote, had spent some money, and had put a shovel
in the ground, they could have continued their replacement
effort after the vote, as a matter of law. But because they did not
immediately focus on the legal niceties in time, the opportunity
to avoid the ban imposed by charter section 26 -1 was lost.
Between March 13 and April 17 of 1973, there were several
council meetings. (A record of those meeting is available at the
City Clerk's Office.)
The old council was still in power, but the people had just
spoken. The people had denied three council members their
request for another term. The people had passed a charter
change in spite of the current council's advice. Should the
lame duck council do little but wait for the next city council
to be constituted? It was not easy to do little when other
property owners heard that the Tahoe owners could not rebuild.
The 26 -1 ban extended to multiple dwelling units not only
destroyed by crashing planes but also by earthquakes, fires,
floods, civil insurrection, and the like. It was difficult for the
lame duck council to do little when townhouse, apartment
house, duplex, and condominium owners found out that they,
too, could not rebuild their homes because each home was a
multiple dwelling unit. It is important to note that Measure A
contains no exception for duplexes and, before May 29, 1973,
there was nothing in writing that excluded duplexes from the set
of all multiple dwelling units.
It must also be noted that the lame duck council could well have
acted in a manner that was less forgiving than the manner in
which it did act. The council could have argued that "We told
you not to vote for Measure A! You dug your own hole. Now
get yourself out of it."
6
Instead, the council committed itself to finding a remedy for the
problems it considered Measure A to be causing. Then the
council was faced with an insurance issue. Whether true or not,
apartment house owners, townhouse owners, condominium
owners, and duplex owners heard stories that insurance
companies were notifying owners that they would not insure
buildings that could not be replaced and that policies would be
cancelled. Citizens were understandably worried, and they
looked to the council for help. They found Mayor La Croix with
Bill McCall, both with two years to serve, and three council
members who had been rejected by the voters, Jim Fore, Gus
Levy, and Malcom Longaker. That existing council passed
ordinance 1689 which prohibited and suspended building
permits for the construction of multiple dwelling units.
Ordinance 1689 was emergency legislation effective
immediately. The council passed it even though the Mayor had
acknowledged "that Measure A would not become law until
such time as the State Legislature, both Assembly and Senate,
had ratified the action and returned it to the City as the law of
the community. Without 1689 the Tahoe owners would
have had time to get a permit, start work, spend money, and
thereby be under construction before the 26 -1 ban became
effective law? The Mayor voted for 1689. Only Jim Fore
opposed it. The Mayor "said it was his feeling the Council
had a moral obligation to the electorate to not allow any
building permits in the interim" presumably referring to the
days between March 13 and the day Measure A came back from
the state all approved.
The Mayor surely did not want to appear as an obstacle in the
path of what the voters had approved. Surely, he did not wish
to be confrontational with the Measure A supporters who would
be sworn in within 2 weeks and would have the votes to control
the council. In addition, however, the Mayor had a plan to
change Measure A in a manner that would allow the Tahoe
replacement and deal with other features of Measure A as well,
features that he, considered draconian. He was aware that he
might need one more vote to win council support for the plan.
His support and vote in favor of ordinance 1689 was an attempt
to ingratiate himself to the Measure A proponents on the
council in order to get needed support for his own plan to
substantially change Measure A. Once Measure A was changed
to the extent the Mayor had planned, the need for 1689's freeze
on building permits would be obviated. As it turned out, the
Mayor ended up having a unanimous council in support of his
change to Measure A, a change that can be fairly described as
sweeping.
The plan was to have Measure A mean what ever the council
said it meant. The plan involved passing an ordinance to
inform the electorate what the electorate had intended when it
passed Measure A.
Terry La Croix was the only member of the council with
leadership qualities up to the task of facing the perceived
threat to public peace, health, or safety allegedly caused by
the passage of Measure A. Mayor La Croix was the only
member of council so widely respected that he could
convince even the supporters of Measure A both to believe
that, in fact, there was an emergency and also to trust that
he would take Alameda through it properly. La Croix cited
Section 3 -12 of the city charter to demonstrate that his
planned action was in accordance with Alameda law. The
planned action was to pass ordinance 1693. That was
accomplished by a unanimous vote of the council on May
29, 1973.
Section 3 -12 requires that there be a statement constituting
the necessity and urgency of the ordinance. That statement
8
is included in 1693 and deserves careful study by anyone
attempting to understand the history of Measure A. I will
return to that statement shortly. Section 3 -12 also
authorizes that ordinances, like 1693, which deal with
great emergencies, urgencies, and /or necessities may be
introduced and passed at one and the same meeting.
And although not directly stated, section 3 -12 infers that
such ordinances may become effective immediately.
To recapitulate in ordinary language, within 90 days of Measure
A being approved by the voters, an emergency was declared by
a council led by a person who opposed Measure A from the
start. That person, the Mayor, and four council members
introduced and passed an ordinance concerning Measure A in
one evening. Furthermore, the ordinance becomes effective
immediately. Where were the bold defenders of Measure A?
Wasn't Chuck Corica there at the meeting? He, reputably the
greatest defender of Measure A our city has ever known, voted
for ordinance 1693. Inez Kapellas, the Chairman of the
Committee of Concerned Citizens, the driving force responsible
for getting Measure A on the ballot and author of the Argument
For Measure A that appeared on the ballot, who had run for
council and lost in the March 13 vote, expressed her support for
1693, but it is important to note that she did make an interesting
suggestion. "She suggested, because of the many concerns
with underlying problems, that the City Attorney be
requested to draft a Charter amendment to amend Article
XXVI to clear up existing ambiguities." This suggestion
may indicate some awareness, on her part, of state law.
Regardless, she did not elaborate, and the council did not
respond to her remarks.
Below are the words of Mayor La Croix, words that do not
9
reveal, in a forthright manner, what he intended to do as a
remedy for the problems he attributed to the passage of
Measure A:
"...by clarifying existing uncertainties and ambiguities as to
the meaning of the phrase, `multiple dwelling units' and the
permit requirements on existing or pending structures or
projects."
As to Mayor La Croix's words concerning the definition of
the phrase , `multiple dwelling units', one must say he made the
same point in his ballot argument, where he wrote that no one
knows what is intended by the term "multiple dwelling units ".
It should be assumed that the voters read the Mayor's ballot
argument. Judging from the results, the majority simply did not
agree with their Mayor. That majority was made up of voters
who thought they knew what the term, `multiple dwelling units'
meant. It meant, they argued, a building containing two or more
units. That meant that 26 -1 allowed only single family
detached dwellings. Is not that what most Alamedans want to
be the law in 2004? Is it beyond reason that the voters had the
same view in 1973?
All words mean what people agree they mean. How many
Alamedans would agree with Mayor La Croix that the week
after Measure A passed was a time of great `necessity' and
`urgency. There are many people who would question the
Mayor's use of the words `urgency' and `necessity' in
describing that period. People were not rioting in the streets.
No one was being beaten. People, in general, were getting
enough to eat. Mayor La Croix could have asked the council to
put a new Charter amendment on the ballot to accomplish all
that was accomplished by 1693, but he did not want to risk the
amendment being rejected by the electorate. Duplexes may
have remained as multiple dwelling units. The replacement
10
of destroyed multiple dwelling units would have been
forbidden. Quasi apartment houses of the Extended Stay
America variety would not have been constructed.
As to using ordinance 1693 to clarify existing uncertainties
and ambiguities about permit requirements effected by the
the passage of Measure A, my first words must be "What
uncertainties and what ambiguities? The Mayor argued
vociferously in March and April of 1973 that is was
perfectly clear that the Tahoe Apartment could not be
rebuilt because Measure A clearly forbid multiple dwelling
unit replacement construction. The Mayor's own argument
- was presented with conviction, and it was not ambiguous.
The verbatim transcripts of council meetings from
February 1972 through May 1973 will show that the Mayor
was adamant in his view that the Tahoe Apartments could
not be replaced. Furthermore, the Mayor's ballot argument
contained the following sentence:
"By prohibiting new and replacement construction, it would
raise taxes on all existing properties." (Emphasis Added)
The people knew about the charter amendment's effect of
prohibiting replacement construction, and they voted for the
charter amendment anyway. They approved Measure A
as it was presented. The Mayor's declaration of a state of
emergency was a smokescreen to conceal his attempt to
substitute his own Measure A in place of the one that had been
approved by the people, to substitute a different Measure A that
was passed by the City Council for what was passed by the
voters in the March 13, 1973 election.
Those who had collected signatures for Measure A, those who
got the vote out for Measure A, and those who campaigned for
11
Chuck Corica to put a Measure A supporter on the council
simply let down their guard. Mayor La Croix supported
councilman Corica's desire to have townhouses considered
multiple dwelling units. He supported Corica's desire that
planned development projects not be exempt from 26 -1, a
proposal by George Beckam which indicated that the three new
council members had differences, one with another. Corica
surely recognized that if Beckam allied himself with the
Mayor and McCall, his own view of Measure A would be
less likely to prevail. The entire new council wanted to get on
the same page and present a united front. Compromises were
made. There was give and take, and there was much discussion.
But there was nothing in the record that the council discussed
the California Constitution which provides no city council,
even a council that votes unanimously, has the power to
change a charter provision.
My view is that, at the very least, La Croix knew. McCall
knew. And the City Attorney, Fred Cunningham, knew.
The latter was always on the lookout for lawsuits. That
included lawsuits from apartment house, townhouse, duplex,
and condominium owners. Those people had to be
accommodated. Both the Mayor and the City Attorney counted
on Alamedans being Alamedans first and Californians second.
I believe that the supporters of Measure A would have been
better off if they had been Californians first. Had that been the
case, Alamedans would have been more inclined to use the
strong legal argument, namely, councils can not change
charters, to keep the Measure A that had been approved by the
voters. That constitutional argument, in abbreviated form,
follows:
All members of the council are required by Article XX,
Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of California to
support that constitution. Each member of the Alameda
12
City Council as constituted on May 29, 1973 had taken an
oath to do so. The California constitution requires that our
city charter be changed only by a court or by a vote of the
Alameda electorate. As said earlier, the council, in 1973,
did not have the legal power to change what the voters had
approved. Furthermore, each council member violated
his oath of office in attempting to change a charter by
a council vote.
With the able assistance of City Attorney, Fred Cunningham,
and others, the Mayor and council members conspired to violate
the California Constitution, and fashion a Measure A that was
much closer to what they wanted than it was to what the voters
had approved.
Once a decision is made to violate the law, whether in a
Watergate burglary, an Enron boardroom, or a closed session
of a City Council, impulses to cover -up, to deceive, to
obfuscate, and to stonewall are given full rein. In 1973
councilmen joined in a conspiracy. One person, alone, could not
pull off such a feat. Success required that participants not break
ranks. They had to keep secrets. They had to be beware of
whistleblowers. In addition, a strong leader was required. Terry
La Croix was a fine figure of a man, an eloquent speaker, and
an experienced political negotiator. He was well suited to the
task he had set for himself.
Allow me to return, at this point, to a portion of City Manager
Flint's memorandum.
"Immediately following the adoption of Article XXVI, on
May 29, 1973, the City Council adopted ordinance 1693 for the
purpose of interpreting and implementing section 26 -1 of the
Charter." (Emphasis added)
13
The courts do not allow unreasonable interpretations of a
charter. The courts do not allow the improper implementation
of charter provisions. An implementation which provides for
the selective enforcement of 26 -1 is improper on its face. The
courts are well aware that the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States guarantees all citizens the
equal protection of the laws. I believe that the city council has,
in the past, enforced 26 -1 selectively. I believe that if the city
council allows more than two units in the 2515 Blanding
project, it will once again be failing to enforce 26 -1.
My family was not allowed to build a triplex on Santa Clara
Avenue because the council enforced 26 -1. By what reasoning
is the council justified in allowing the Janet Koike family to
build a sevenplex on Blanding Avenue?
I turn now to a later portion of the City Manager's
memorandum. That portion follows:
"With this amendment, the City 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... "" (Emphasis Added)
The previous portion of the memorandum pertained to
Ordinance 1693. This portion begins with the words `With
this amendment'. What is being referred to as this amendment?
Let us be clear. We are talking about Ordinance 1693 which
changed the Alameda Municipal Code and changed Measure
A as well. The courts will decide whether or not the changes
are legal. Let them also decide if the words `changed' and
`clarified' are synonymous.
14
Please think about what former city councils have not done.
They have not enforced 26 -1 with regard to duplexes.
They have not enforced 26 -1 with regard to destroyed
buildings. They have not enforced 26 -1 with regard to hotels,
motels, and hybrids like Stay America. They have not enforced
26 -1 with regard to senior citizen market rate units, such as
those at Independence Plaza. Yet they have enforced 26 -1 with
regard to my petition to build a triplex on the same land they
had approved my building two duplexes. If you are happy with
that, God help us all.
I do agree that there are `in extremis' situations when elected
officials should protect the people rather than protect the law,
but this is no such situation. If work/live projects are essential
to Alameda's welfare, the council should ask the people to add
an exception for work/live units to the charter. The council
does not have the power to add an exception itself.
What illegal acts, by past councils, are protected by statutes of
limitation has to be investigated. Perhaps "what is done is done
and can not be undone." But if the current council violates the
state constitution on this occasion concerning work/live units on
Blanding, I will litigate. I would much prefer the council elect
to follow the proper procedure. Grant my appeal. Rescind
Ordinance 2784. Put a charter amendment on the ballot to
change 26 -2 by adding a work/live exception.
Respectfully submitted,
d,(47--ot-co0 MLert&
Edward J. Murphy
15
Law Offices of
Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618 -1533
(510) 652 -5373 (voice & FAX)
e -mail: stuflash @aol.com
DELIVERY BY MAIL, E -MAIL, AND FAX
June 4, 2004
Mayor and City Council Members
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Appeals of Use Permit UP03 -0019 for 2515 Blanding Avenue Work -Live Studio
Project.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of my client, Ms. Janet Koike, the applicant for the above -
referenced project, to support the project and oppose the above - referenced appeals.
The use permit for Ms. Koike's project has been appealed on the basis that it is
inconsistent with Measure A, Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter. These appeals are
without merit. Ms. Koike's project fully complies with Measure A and the City's Work -
Live Ordinance. Consequently, the appeals should be denied and the use permit for
Ms. Koike's project should be allowed to stand.
Mr. Murphy and Ms. Bail, the appellants, have not challenged the Project's
compliance with the provisions of the City's Work -Live Ordinance. That is not
surprising, because this project fully complies with all of the ordinance's requirements.
Indeed, it goes well beyond the ordinance's minimum requirements in sizing the units,
providing street trees and amenities and preserving the historic aspects of the
building 'Z. What the appellants clearly object to is the Work -Live Ordinance itself. The
validity of the Work -Live Ordinance, however, is no longer subject to challenge.
The Work -Live Ordinance was enacted by the City in 1998. The Work -Live
Ordinance includes requirements that work/live studies be used primarily for
commercial /industrial uses, with residential accommodations allowed only incidentally.
( §30- 15.6(c).) Indeed residential uses are strictly limited to no more than 400 sq. ft. or
30% of the floor area of each studio. ( §30- 15.4(b); §30- 15.5(j).) Further, while the
Work -Live Ordinance does, as required by state law, provide for cooking areas and
sanitary facilities, those also are strictly limited to assure that the commercial /industrial
uses will be primary. ( §30- 15.5(c).) Indeed, in order to assure compliance with Measure
A, the Work -Live Ordinance specifically prohibits converting any more than two units
within a live -work structure to exclusive residential use. ( §30- 15.5(i).) Based on these
requirements, the work -Live Ordinance determined that work -live units would not be
considered "dwellings ". ( §30.15.1(f).) Mr. Murphy's and Ms. Bail's appeals are
apparently challenges to this provision.
1 Ms. Koike will be applying to the City for a permit to allow her to preserve the historic signs on the side
of the building. A permit is required because the signs, despite their historic significance, do not comply
with the City's sign ordinance.
2 As noted by the Planning Department, the Project is exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline
§15332, In -Fill Development Projects.
Re: Agenda Item# 5-11
6 -15 -04
Mayor and City Council Members
Appeal of UP03 -0019
6/4/2004
Page 2
By state law, any challenge to the Work -Live Ordinance had to be filed within the
applicable statute of limitations. It is now 2004, not 1998, and the statute of limitations
for challenging the validity of the Work -Live Ordinance has long since expired. Yet Mr.
Murphy's and Ms. Bail's appeals are no more and no less than a challenge to the
validity of the Work -Live Ordinance. As such, they are improper and the appeals should
be denied on that basis alone.
To the extent that the appeals challenge the project itself as being inconsistent
with Measure A, consistency must be measured using the benchmarks of the Work -Live
Ordinance and its provisions. Under the Work -Live Ordinance, work -live uses are only
allowed in commercial /industrial zoned areas of the City. Further, as noted, the Work -
Live Ordinance requires that any residential accommodations within a work -live project
be only incidental to the primary commercial /industrial use. As such, a compliant work -
live project is, under the Work -Live Ordinance, not considered a dwelling. Since
Measure A only regulates residential dwellings, this project is, by definition, compliant
and consistent with Measure A.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Koike has met all the standards for approval under the City's work -live
ordinance and the time for challenging that ordinance is long past. There is no basis for
not approving her use permit. If the City now has second thoughts about its work -live
ordinance, it may wish to address them by amending the ordinance, but that .cannot
affect the validity of Ms. Koike's permit. The appeals must therefore be denied.
Most sincerely,
Stuart M. Flashman
Attorney for Applicant Janet Koike
3 The statute of limitations on adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance is 90 days, and runs from the
date the ordinance or amendment is adopted. (Government Code §65009(c).) The Work -Live Ordinance
is part of Section 30, Article I of the Alameda Municipal Code, the City's zoning ordinance.
PATRICIA H. BAIL
825 Paru Street
Alameda, Ca. 94501
Mayor Johnson
City Council Members
RE: 2515 Blanding project
RECEIVED
JUN - a 2004
CITY OF / ZAMEDA
MAYOR'S OFFICE
I would like to bring to your attention the enclosed letters from Allied Engineering concerning the
2515 Blanding project. Not only does this project not qualify under Measure A, it does not
qualify under California Environmental Quality Act. Based on these two facts the Use Permit
should be denied.
jectfuHv,
Patricia H. Bail
Re: Agenda Item# 5 -H
6 -15 -04
w• a.v cw� xu. c I
ROOCRT E. LANG•OT
LAWRENCE R. LANCTOT
NICNAEL J 9TCCNCR
1 WARO J. WATSON
TMOFtAS a REED JR.
JON JANCS
.4"11 -x-81 • L.PuR.IN1 L.Lr -T 1J.1 MJINf4E3VJ7
WATSON & LANCTOT LLP
ATTOnNEYS wr LAW
M MO•TaOMERT STREET. SUIT 35a9
SAN FRANCISCO. cALIrOIIMIA 54104
FACSIMILE: 14(s) 762 -27A4
E -MAIL_ infolbwattantaw.coL1
TELCRNONC: (415? 3432.O9ao
May 13, 2004
VIA FA<CS1M1LE &
CERTI D MAXI E'TURN RECEIPT RFOU SIiSTTED
City Clerk's Office, City of Alameda, City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380
Alameda, California 94501
Re: Conversion of 2515 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, California
Comment on Application for Use Permit by Cal Vita LLC
Pub&c Nearing: Tuesday, May 10, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Dear Sir/Madam:
NU. ell
EUOEME GARFINKLE
CARL d. NO61.Rc
OF COUNSEL
This film represents Allied Engineering & Production Corp. ( "Allied') located at 2421
Blanding Avenue, Alameda, California. Allied is located in close proximity to 2515 Blanding
Avenue, the site of the planned conversion of a industrial building to seven workflive studios.
As set forth in the letter of Robert E. Miller, President of Allied, dated March 1, 2004, a copy of
which is enclosed, Allied has concerns regarding the impact the planned conversion of 2515
Blanding Avenue will have on its surrounding environment. Allied respectfully requests that its
concerns be made part of the record of the public hearing scheduled for May 18, 2004 at 7:30
p.rn.
Allied's concerns are (I) whether the area is suitable for residences due to the high level
of noise in the area and (2) whether the area is suitable for the increased traffic and whether it has
suitable parking to accommodate the residents of work/live lofts and their guests and
customers. As explained below in more detail, Allied believes the proposed conversion will
have a negative impact on the surrounding environment.
The area of Blanding Avenue surrounding the cite of the proposed conversion is an
industrial area with a high noise volume. Allied is a machine shop with a number of large
machines running from 5 a.m. to midnight, and often lamer, Monday through Friday. On
Saturdays, Allied's machines are operating from 5 a.m. to 1 p.m., and when needed, the same
time on Sundays. In addition to the large machines, Allied has heavy trucks coming and going
from its facilities at various times throughout the day and night.
In addition to the noise generated by Allied's regular and customary operations, Allied's
V:\ Casesk SLN1ALLtEO \ClerksOffice-Coment.Ltr.wpd
Re: Agenda Item #5-A
05-18-04
WP71 Jl. 1 • t..f71Il. 1 t.1 LLf "' L J1V f Y 1 •fOYJJ
City 'Clerk's Office, City of Alameda, City Hall
May 13, 2004
Page 2
Nu. col Irma
neighbors also generate noise. A large boat anchored just off the shore in the Estuary, which is
not associated with Allied, operates a generator throughout the day. The noise from the generator
has aheady lead to complaints from residents of new housing totaled across the Estuary from the
boat.
Allied believes that because of the noise level in the surrounding environment of the
proposed conversion the area is not suitable for residential living. The noise will have a negative
impact on the tenants of the work/live studios and will interfere with their enjoyment of their
property. This has in fact already occurred ed in a neighboring housing arca located farther away
from Allied and its neighbors than the proposed conversion.
• Allied's second concerns is the impact on the proposed conversion wt71 have on the traffic
and parking on Blanding Avenue. As noted above, Allied has heavy truck deliveries to its
facilities throughout the day and night. The nearby nursing home also has frequent visitors
traveling down Blanding Avenue through out the day. Finally, there is the traffic from the
employees and patrons of the other business located on Blanding Avenue. Allied is concerned
that the increase in traffic caused by the residents of the worktivc lofts and their guests ann�ion.
customers will have a negative impact on the environment surrounding the proposed
Parlcing on Blanding Avenue is also in short supply. Allied has a private parking lot for
its employes, and not the public, located at the corner of Evert Street and Blanding Avenue.
Allied already has frequent problems with visitors of the nearby nursing home, the two
automotive body shops and other nearby business parking in its lot. Allied is concerned that the
proposed conversion does not have sufficient parking to accommodate its residents of the
work/live lofts and their guests and customers, and that the overflow parking will have negative
impact on the environment storinutcling the proposed conversion
Allied proposes that the Planning Board undertake an initial study to determine the
impacts the proposed conversion will have on the surrounding environment. The Planning
Board's determination that the proposed conversion is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA") under section 15303 is in error. Section 15303 exempts
from CEQA regulations the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another
where only minor modifications are made to she exterior of the structure. The number of
structures converted is limited to the maximum number allowable on any legal parcel.
Section 15303 sets out examples oldie exemption, two of which the Planning Board has
appeared to rely upon. Those examples are (1) 15303(b), which allows du conversion of an
existing structure to six apartment units, or similar anucture, in urbanized areas and (2) 15303(e),
:\ Cases \SLIAAL LIED \CietkSOtfitk- comment.etr. pa
W. 1 J• %CRJ!
1u. L.
w, 'am' • ...no .v. ..L-. • 1.s1 a,r •,. •tNJFJ
City Clerk's Office, City of Alameda, City Hall
May 13, 2004
Page 3
nu. cos tivuq
which allows the conversion of an existing structure into 10,000 square feet of store, motel
office, restaurant or similar structure space in urbanized areas.
Section 15303(b) is inapplicable here as the proposed conversion will have seven units
and not six as set forth in the example_ Section i 5303(c) is inapplicable because (1) the
proposed conversion does not appear to be for stores, motel, office space, but rather studios and
(2) the proposed conversion is 15,480 square feet, which greatly exceeds the 10,000 square foot
maximum set forth in the section. The purpose of Section 15303 is to provide an objective
standard for determining what structures qualify as small (Pairbank v. City of Mill Vatlev, 75
Cal. App. 4"` 1243,1254 (1" Dist. 1999). The number of units and the size of the proposed
conversion exceeds this objective standard and is not categorically exempt from CEQA
regulations and requirements.
Furthermore, the Planning Board cannot separate the square footage of the work space in
the units from the live space so that the work space falls under the 10,000 square foot maximum
set forth in Section 15303. Section 15303 makes clear that the exemption applies to the
conversion fl m one use to a new use. Here. 2515 Blanding Avenue is being converted from its
former use as an industrial building housing a label manufacturer to its new use as work/live
studios and not two separate uses. The work portion of the studios cannot be apportioned from
the live portion. The studios must be considered as whole, and as such they exceed the 10,000
square foot maximum set forth in Section 15303.
Finally, for the reasons explained above, there is a reasonable possibility that the
proposed conversion will have a significant effect on the surrounding environment due to the
particular circumstances associated with this area of Blanding Avenue.
Based on the foregoing, Allied respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the
Planning Board's determination that proposed conversion is exempt from CEQA under Section
15303 and require that an initial study be done by the Planning Board to determine the impacts
which the proposed conversion will have on its surrounding enviroirneft.
Very truly yours,
WATSON & LANCTOT 1.LP
LAWRENC LANCTOT
ends.
NAC8Ses\SLm\ ACCT£ nAElerksoff1CO-COOPent_Ltr_wpd
March 1, 2004
2421 BLANDING AVE. (P.O. BOX 1230), ALAMEDA, CA 94501 • (510) 522 -1500, FAX (510) 522 -2868
Planning Division, City of Alameda, City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Street, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
Reference: Conversion of 2515 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
As the owner of Allied Engineering I would like to address my concerns in regard to the above noted address
being converted to "work/live studios and retail/commercial spaces ". Allied Engineering is located just across
Everett Street from the project location.
Following are some drawbacks associated with placing a living and retail project in an industrial area that I
would like to point out:
1. Noise
• Monday through Friday we operate a day shift (5 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) and a night shift (3:30 p.m.
to midnight, frequently later).
• Saturday shift (5 a.m. to 1 p.m.), and when needed, a Sunday shift.
• As a machine shop we have large machines running at all times during our work shifts.
• Heavy truck deliveries and shipping out at various times throughout the day and night.
• New housing across the Estuary complain of noise level (a generator) from the boat that is
anchored just off the shore. This is not a situation we have any control over as this person is not
on Allied Engineering property or associated with our business.
2. Parking
• Parking — the lot on the comer of Everett Street and Blanding Avenue is private parking for the
employees of Allied Engineering and is not available for public parking however we frequently
have problems with visitors of the nursing home, the two body shops, and other nearby
businesses parking in our lot. Concem that the project location would not be able to provide an
adequate amount of parking, which would result in parking in the Allied Engineering lot.
I ask that you consider long and hard before granting a Use Permit allowing the conversion of the property. This
is an industrial zone and not best suited to living and retail space.
With Regards,
Robert E. Miller
President
CAY AJ� GGt7"T A.U• . 1
writ-awn • Lr t..It17 LLf / LJ1VP`P1.11U J
City Cleric's Office, City of Alameda, City Hall
May 13, 2004
Page 4
Bcc: Mr. Robert E. Miller, President
Mr. Michael Kahn
AIiied Engineering dt Production Corp.
! 1:\ Ca3 tb\ SLW\ ALLUD \C101k10:13.ca- COmmenC- Ltr.upd
111J.401
From: Thomas Dolan <td.arch @live- woric.conn
Sub ect: Cal -Vita Studios
Date: June 9, 2004 11 38:50 AM PDT
To: Judith ALTSCHULER <JALTSCHU@ci.alameda.ca.us>
Cc: janet Koike <rhythmix@earthhnknets
I am writing to express my continuing support for the above-referenced project as it undergoes its appeal hearing at City Council on 15
June. I will not, unfortunately, be able to be present,
Cal Vita studios, as you know, has been designed to be entirely in compliance with Alameda's Work/Live Ordinance. Twenty four years
ago, the State of California's legislature, in response to a) the existence of a large number of vacant and under utilized buildings in urban
areas in the state, and 2) strong lobbying efforts by artists groups whose occupancy of such buildings was the only viable use for such
buildings at the time (still true), adopted legislation enabling the conversion of such existing commercial and industrial buildings to
Joint living and Working Quarters," a newly - created commercial use to which residential is accessory.
Cal -Vita Studios will embody the ideals, the intent and the goals of the state legislation and the city ordinance, while enabling the the re-
use of a vacant industrial building for Work/Live. Every effort will be made to the building with working artists, not imlilze the owner
who is an artist herself and who will be occupying a portion of the building. Cal -Vita Studios will help to add energy to a relatively
disinvested area of Alameda. Conversely, the working artists who occupy the building, being makers of objects and small business
people themselves, will be sensitive to the nature of the industrial district in which they are locating. While "Imported NIMBIES' —those
who immediately begin to complain about the longstanding and bonafide business and industrial activities of their neighbors —have
been a problem is some cities such as San Francisco, our experience has been that real working people in real Work/Live spaces rarely if
ever complain, because they identify closely with the commercial nature of their neighbors work.
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions, and I invite you to visit our website listed below, which includes a primer on
Work/Live.
Sincerely,
Thomas Dolan,
President & CEO
Thomas Dolan Architecture
Embarcadero West
173 Filbert Street
Oakland, CA 94607
tel. (51o) 839 7200
fax (51o) 839 7208
td.arch @lave- work.com
http: / /www.live- work.com
A California Corporation
Re: Agenda Item# 5 -H
6 -15 -04
Subject: Here's the Letter- Good Luck
From: KC. Rosenberg
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 1939:14 -0700
To: rhythmix@earthlinLnet
CC: ajletters@cctimes.com
To the Alameda Journal,
And To whom it May concern,
please print this in the Opinions section
Thank You.
K.C. Rosenberg
510 -864 -0854
Sunday, June 6, 2004
We write this letter in support of art, artists and the 2515 Blanding studio project; the renovation and reuse of
the Clamp Building. It is necessary for people to come down and walk through, stand and experience how
depleted of human warmth the North Fast region of Blanding Ave is. It's dirty and neglected and the few who
are here, know seedier illegal activities occur often. Is this what we want to continue? It will take more than the
Bridge Side Center project to turn this side of town aromd. Stone Boat Yard's leaving, Allied engineer is
downsizing, so if businesses aren't interested, this is a group of people who are.
Here is an Artist and a community ready to do as the chain of survival in the arts has repeatedly done over and
over. If you let artists flourish in down trodden areas the rest of the city will benefit through beautification and
cultural enrichment, some would argue gentrification, (we'll save this debate for those who aren't trying to
recover economically.) There is a small spattering of artists in this mixed -use region. Some are in the
warehouses and some occupy the Victorians. All have an interest in cohabitating with their work that most in
the depth of our bedroom community couldn't tolerate, due to possible noises that push residential decibels.
Janet Koike is here to put her money and sweat equity into her building and into the City of Alameda. I know
from experience, being an artist who has spent 3 years to get my own studio afloat here, this community needs
to welcome artists not find more reasons why they shouldn't occupy places where other's have depleted the
resources. This project not only will support the artists in the work hive space, making it unnecessary for them
to commute to their workspaces. Further, as all building projects must when above the table in this city, it will
have perking, will contribute to city taxes and to the public art fund.
Those who feel they must be litigious and cost the city further monies over this issue in interpretation of
measure A, you could find better uses for your watchdog committee , (like reporting people who do illegal
building.) Lay off people who are trying their best to work within the printed ordinance Mastic clauses exist in
many parts of our lives as Americans. Interpret as you will, but I say support the beneficial. The Planning
Board has shown positive actions in their approval of this project. This is a restoration and re-use project and
an additive element to the North East side. Janet, good luck and welcome to the neighborhood.
Arturo Ramos- R Studio
and I.C. Rosenberg
Member of the City of Alameda's Public Ads Advisory Committee
M c G r a t h 's Irish Pub,
1539 Lincoln Avenue,
Alameda, CA 94501
510-522-6263. 510- 915 -0654 (Ce11)
flyinhigkileardslinknet
June 8th, 2004.
Mayor Johnson and Members of The Alameda City Council,
1 rite this letter in support of the proposed development at 2515 Blanding
Avenue in Alameda;
As 1 am sure you are aware, McGrath's Pub has become a primary source
of acoustic music promotions and presentations in Northern California
and as a business owner, an active member of Alameda Rotary and a
staunch supporter of the Arts, 1 consider this proposed development to be
an essential and very welcome addition to The Alameda Community.
Additionally, my onvt residence on Clement Avenue is within one block of
the noted property and I welcome the opportunity to begin revitalization of
this neighborhood in a positive fashion!
Sincerely,
Peter M. Barnato
mailbox:llfMacinto b% 20HDJDocumeut EJMozillajproftles1Janet%2OK..
Subject: Janet Koike developinent at 2515 Blanding Avenue
From: Charlene Milgrim <chailiemilgrim@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:41:57 -0800 T)
To: jaltschu @ri.alarnedaea.us
Dear Ms Altschuler,
I am writing this Letter in high support of Janet Koike's plan to develop the industrial building at
2515 Blanding Avenue into an artist work/live space.
I have been teaching in Alameda for the past 28 years and have taught Art at Alameda High School for the
past eleven years. I an an artist myself and understand the needfor artists to have decent spaces to work
and live. I also welcome the good, creative energy that is-fbstered by having a place like this in our
community.
I have a lot of respect for a community that values the ar :hitectutal integrity of their neighborhoods.
There have been many unsightly apartment buildings and retail developments that have slipped into
Alameda over the years. After knowing Janet Koike for the past 25 years and seeing the care and
dedication to which she approaches everything, including her own beautiful home renovations and clothing
design business, I know this project will reflect those same meticulous standards.
I feel Alameda is very lucky that Janet Koike is developing this property in our town rather than some
large corporate developer. Janet is respectful of the values of our community, and her project will reflect
those values and be a cultural asset.
Thank you,
Charlene Milgrim
Art. Instructor
Alameda High School
1 of 1 3115/04 10:57 AN
Re: Blanding Street Work/Live file: /1/ Macintosh% 20HD/ CaI% 20V ita %20change%20of%20nse%2Oper...
Subject: Re: Blanding Street Work/Live
From: Russ & Barb <krummelbC alamedanet_net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 200419:14:2'7 -0800
To: <rhythmixaPearthlink.nett
The work/live spaces proposed by Janet Koike for the building at. 2512 Blanding Ave. will be a
welcome addition to Alameda. I know Janet has the inspiration and commitment to transform
this empty and nun down industrial site into a vibrant new part of our city.
As the parent of two school -age children, I am excited about the potential growth in our arts
community that this work/live space will allow. My children attend Edison Elementary (just a
few blocks from the Blanding Ave. building) and Lincoln Middle School. They benefit on a
regular basis from artists who contribute time in individual classroom instruction as well as
performances before the entire school. I feel strongly that development which provides a place
for artists to create, is a good growth direction for Alameda.
Sincerely, Barbara Krummel 3258 Liberty Ave. , Alameda
1 of 1 6/2104 10:57 AM
68 Parkman St., #3
Brookline, MA 02446
March 20, 2004
The City of Alameda Planning Department
Re: Change of use permit for 2512 Blanding Avenue
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to enthusiastically support and endorse Ms. Janet Koike's request to you for a
change of use permit for 2512 Blanding Avenue. I am an artist and administrator currently
living in Boston. My husband who is a lawyer and 1 intend to move into this space should this
plan materialize.
I believe her interest in developing this space into a work /live space will benefit Alameda and
its residents for a variety of reasons:
• It offers a space for the arts to flourish, which can bring more financial resources into
Alameda In the New England region, it has been demonstrated that the arts bring in more
economic dollars than the resident sports team. It has been shown that the arts are a
critical component in the revitalization of a community.
• It is an excellent way to refurbish, recycle and extend the useful life of old industrial
buildings.
I hope you will approve this change of use permit.
Sincerely,
Elaine Fong
Artistic Director
Odaiko New England
file:lllMacintos<h %20HDICaI 2t 1Vita %20change %20o( %2Uusse %20per.
Subject: Development of 2512 Blanding in Alameda
From: Melissa Harmon <melharmlessa@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:44:02 -0800 (PST)
To: jaltschu @ci.alameda.ca.us
Dear Ms. Altschuler,
1'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 an 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 youa@rre looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
Judith ALTSCHULER - 2512 Blanding Avenue Page 1
From: Michael Schiess <ujuju @comcast.net>
To: <jaltschu @ ci.alameda.ca. us>
Date: 3/1/2004 8:37:19 PM
Subject: 2512 Blanding Avenue
To:
Judith Aftschuler
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 here with 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>
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.I 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
'Alameda Stu
*ite updated Thu Apr 15 16:11
Locally Cnoeri, Caswwuuly Oai«Msd
4I l6iO4 A:41 Y
Thursday, April 15, 2004 :, Fa =Se ,a,Arm for Sirens
>Island Architecture. Past and
Present
> Preware .....Far Bike to Work
120
>.,,reww Briefs
>The Sun Shines Everywhere
Board Endorses Retail Policy, Work /Live Units
By Ed Moser
The Alameda Planning Board, at their regular meeting last Monday, made small
steps towards new business in Alameda, approving the construction of seven
work/live units and giving their endorsement to the Citywide Retail Policy,
intended to provide a framework for the future of business on the Island.
The Board unanimously approved an endorsement of the retail policy, which
attempts to modernize the city's General Plan in light of several new
developments taking place in Alameda. The 89 -page document was put together
by the city's Economic Development Commission (EDC) after conducting a series
of four community engagement forums to gauge the public's stance on new
projects.
Doug DeHaan, chairman for the EDC, said at Monday's meeting, The blessing
we have with this is that we've had time to work on it and projects have
started while we've been working on it. The Citywide Retail Pollky is a good
example of taking everything and looking at it as a whole?
The city hopes to 'strengthen retail recruitment efforts" and lure new
businesses to the city. Marc Fontes, business development division manager for
the city's Development Services Department said some of the issues in the
policy should have been dealt with earlier.
One of the different types of retailers that the policy describes is one -stop, or
big-box, retailers like Target. The Board seemed to generally agree with the idea
of big -box, if it were built tastefully into the character of the neighborhood.
Board member Anne Cook said she would be relieved not to have to drive to
Walnut Creek to shop at Target.
Though Board President John Piztati sail, "We have to be careful what we wish
for. If you bring (big -box retail) into Alameda then we will have more traffic, and
we all know how we feel about traffic."
The city approved for the first time work/live studios to be built on the Island.
The plan presented at Monday's meeting calls for the studios to be built into the
existing Clamp Swing building on Blanding Avenue, built in 1931 along the
Northern Waterfront. The board hopes the studios will help foster the artistic
community in Alameda, while at the same time preventing the destruction of
buildings with historic ties.
The City Council approved an ordinance in 1998 that allows work/live units, with
conditions. Work/live units must have at least 1,000 square feet of working
space of which just 30 percent can be dedicated living space, and be placed in
manufacturing zoning districts.
Contact Ed Moser at edmoser (aalamedasun. ciom.
ri, ^egE?'i >
2004, Alameda Sun. AU rights reserved.
halrat..rv.aiamea anal ,cemnocal/04504feem/llam
False Alarm for Sirens
>'•J g Left My Head in
�ilL�diS
0. Say. Can You Sep.?
:.,.:.,.,.. Housing
Cor rnis on Seeks AQniicants
Delicious
Ch gsseraice in a New York
Minute
How to
M. Virginia
Meetar1 C..unningtiam
The Magic
of the Modulator
Tediers Forecast
61°F
Partly Cloudy
Feels Like: 81°F
Humidity: 48%
Wirid: W at f6 mph.
Enter cityiaip t �
csleader of Events This Week
News Briefs
City Meeting
CeJnder
Local
Happenings
•chook Briefs
Atemeda Lint
City of Alameda,
AC Transit
Niar eda /Oakland Ferry
More Alan etle links
Page ja
NERAL. MANAGER • SflAREEF DAJANI
EDITOR • 'LUCINDA RYAN
e Mame
LETTE.R5.. THE EDITOR..
On the other hand
yarding BaiT`statement about
property value, any real .estate. agent •
tell you; that all;property cs net, by any •
measure, ec ►aEi in vaiute But let 'S sup -
se that intrinsically, all pinpertY uses
equal value. Woil dive is as valuable
a use residential single • fandly occu
paney l seems to be implying a lesser
value to industrial property it' the same
sentence she claims adproperty to have
the same vairie. •
ail also
coMplaina about negative
tramca density ifrom. work/iire.
When man and Broad proposed the
Marina Cove development, the city of-
e iy re forted there would be no need
for traffic Mitigations, The decision Was
eased on the traffic generated by the for-
met commercial use byVi Weyerhaeuserat
the site.` I'm suspicious of that particular
declaration but regarding work/live at
Clarmp swing, I think the same principle
applies. Without i.doing a study,; 1. will
guess that the employee and drayage km
pact from Clannp. Swing to be at least a
wash, measured against seven work/live
irlit$. '
in fact, by definition work/[ive. should
eht nallt to the imn ctof commuting, and
W bl r� truce Regarding
density, Iwould.venture to say: that there
would again be no negative ,impact Mea
sured against the previous employees at,
the-Site; 2..khour residents are likely' i
spend more tax :dollars in Alameda, and .
te do SO after 6 P.M. in areas such as Park
Street, which desperately needs the busi
ness
From 1979 -88, I lived in a work/live
space across the: estuary on the Oakland
waterfront. ..I hada small living loft .over
a wood shop, which" is the only way 1
could afford bah living and work spaces
1 spent many enjoyablle hours working
on creative project, including building a
boat, as well as using the shop for busi-
ness.
Some folks prefer a workbench in .'
their living room to a couch Why should::
they be,oppressed by narrow •definitions?
As four lawsuits, the current owner of the
p g building recently purchased
with the clear, that
Alameda's work/live ordinance would el-
low for her proposal. Regardless of the
outcome of lawsuits by Bail and Ed Mur-
phy, if the owner is denied, :it seems the
city could be sued, as happened with the
check cashing and cigarette store leases
on Park Street.
Mark' roils
dameda Journal
Jo. 33 • Newsstand 25 cents TheAlamedaJournal.com • Friday, April 23, 206
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Thank heaven for Helen
In her weekly Alameda Journal col-
umn, "Senior Solutions," Helen Moyes
covers a wide range of elderly experiences.
The questions and answers in her
columns are a sample of the queries that
she gets each day at her office at the Ma-
stick Senior Center in Alameda. To count-
less Alameda seniors, Moyes is the helping
hand they need. The word has gotten around
that there is a lady at the senior center who
will listen to you and help if she can.
Among the most frequently asked
questions she gets are those on our health
care system, and in particular, prescrip-
tion drugs.
Elders require more prescription drugs
per person than do any other age group.
At the same time, because they are on a
fixed income, they are the hardest hit by
the high cost of prescription drugs. In their
search for affordable drugs, the elderly,
especially those with chronic illnesses, try
many sources: local pharmacies, discount
cards, other providers, and then hear
about an unexpected source, Canada.
To critics of Americans who buy their
medications from there, the reason could
be a revelation. In Canada the govern-
ment buys bulk supplies of drugs from
American pharmaceutical companies at
a reduced cost. The Canadian govern-
ment passes on the savings to its citizens
by reducing the drug prices accordingly.
Maybe we can learn something from
our Canadian neighbors. Someday we
might say, as Canada's Prime Minister
Paul Martin said, "Our national health
plan which cares for our citizens from
birth to death is one of Canada's great-
est accomplishments."
Will Lahaie
Dry docked
I was very disappointed to read the ar-
ticle about the dry docking of the water
tavi Mu' family anti T haara haan avast anti
You can participate in Alameda's Re-
lay by forming a team, becoming a mem-
ber of a team or donating to a friend or
relative who is a member of a team. We
always need volunteers before and dur-
ing the relay and encourage cancer sur-
vivors to join us on this special day.
Also, to help sponsor our event, do.
nate a. prize, help publicize or assist ip
any other way, we would love to have you
get in touch with us.
An enthusiastic group of volunteers
has come together to create a magical,
fun- filled day of entertainment, food,
friendship, and hope. We hope you will
support this effort and join the fun on
June 26 and 27. Details: 510- 452 -5229,
Ext. 313 or coryreding @cancer.org
Jennifer Clark, 'volunteer chair
Moveable feast
In response to Rod Luna's letter regard-
ing a replacement restaurant for the defunct
Playa Pkante, Mike Lano suggested a Fresh
Choice franchise. l would like to offer my
own suggestion of encouraging one of the
local establishments to move up into a set-
ting befitting their excellent cuisine.
The Alameda Taqueria has been pro-
viding the best Mexican food in the East
Bay for years. Perhaps with encourage-
ment from fellow Alamedans, we could
get them to consider moving or expand -,
ing. i can think of nothing better than en-
joying some of their chile verde and rel-
lenos while the sun sets over the Bay.
This also keeps in tune with the phi-
losophy of keeping Alameda a unique
town with local businesses instead of
faceless corporate franchises. How about
it, Minnie?
Michael Schiess
Needled by story
The April 13 Page 1 article featuring
Tuscany Yarns was a pleasant surprise.
As one of Alameda's many knitters, it is
own way to any yarn store in the area, fo-
cusing on one to the exclusion of the other
may deprive a new or budding knitter of
the opportunity for choice and diversity.
Hopefully, what seemed to be an unfortu-
nate snub was not deliberately intended.
Patricia J. Blair
It's legal, let her be
Imagine if each time you went to buy
food at the market, you were challenged
as to the legality of such a simple busi-
ness activity.
Why would the apparently conforming
and legal application by Janet Koike to
build a project within the work -live ordi-
nance merit a front -page lead article in the
Journal? Why should such a law-abiding
act be subject to challenge? If this is the
business she chooses to enter, what would
possess any of us to take it upon ourselves
to harass her? Does she have any legal
protections against such harassment?
It seems only fitting when one seeks
to make another's life miserable that
something be risked in return.
May I suggest that when Murphy loses
his challenge, he gallantly pays Koike triple
her costs and for her time at an agreed -upon
hourly rate? I've never met Ms. Koike, I'm
just concerned when innocent people get
dragged over chips on shoulders.
Darrel DeBoer
What a town
Recently, our 8-year -old daughter An-
nie faced a life - threatening illness. We
are blessed that she survived and is al-
most fully recovered. Annie's miraculous
recovery is due, in large part, to the out-
standing medical care that she received
at the Alameda Hospital Emergency
Room and at UCSF Children's Hospital.
We are very fortunate to have a hos-
pital on the Island, and we are thankful
to all of you who voted to keep it open.
The tremendnns nntnnurina of sun-
n,... J„W v!•►u a �ptw uu�
p ►posal is ika ord It ttte spir�
Ito( the charter: f believe that is
why t of thie true Measure :A
supporters attended th eating;' i
implore other Aianiedanis to sup
park thls'prap s 1,
FACSIMILE
(415) 421 -1815
HENNEFER & WOOD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
425 CALIFORNIA STREET
NINETEENTH FLoon et IT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
June 10, 2004
DELIVERED BY HAND
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Alameda
City Hall, Room 120
2263 Santa Clara
Alameda, CA 94501
.45 IA
TELEPHONE
(415) 421 -6100
Re: Public hearing to consider appeals of a Planing Board approval of a Use Permit
to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building at 2525
Blanding Avenue into seven work/live studios with associated parking and
landscaping.
Use Permit No. UP03 -0019; Hearing Date June 15, 2004
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted by Matthew Murphy, a resident of the city of Alameda, in
support of the appeal of Patricia H. Bail from the April 12, 2004 decision of the Planning
Board granting the application of Janet Koike for the above - referenced use permit.
Ms. Bail points out, in her appeal, that the use permit would allow construction of
multiple dwelling units and would thus create a violation of Measure A of the City
Charter. Ms. Bail also points out that the work -live ordinance under which the use permit
has been granted is illegal.
In considering those points, the Council should take into account the following
information:
1. The City of Alameda (the "City ") is, and at all times relevant to this
complaint has been, a duly authorized municipal corporation existing under the
constitution and laws of the State of California and under the Charter of the City of
Alameda, California (the "Charter "). The Charter was adopted on or about April 29,
1937 and was approved on or about May 5, 1937.
Re: Agenda Item# 5 -H
6 -15 -04
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 10, 2004
Page 2
2. On or about March 13, 1973, a ballot initiative entitled "Measure A"
( "Measure A ") was duly voted upon and adopted by the electorate of and for the City. On
its effective date, Measure A was added as Article XXVI to the Charter. Measure A
provided: "Sec. 26 -1. There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of
Alameda. [J] Sec. 26 -2. Exception being the Alameda Housing Authority replacement
of existing low cost housing units and the proposed Senior Citizens low cost housing
complex, pursuant to Article XXV of the Charter of the City of Alameda."
3. On or about March 5, 1991, the electorate of the City, by ballot initiative,
added the following provision to Measure A: Sec. 26 -3. The maximum density for any
residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2000
square feet of land. This limitation shall not apply to the repair or replacement of existing
residential units, whether single- family or multiple -unit, which are damaged or destroyed
by fire or other disaster; provided that the total number of residential units on any lot may
not be increased. This limitation shall also apply to replacement units under Section 26-
2."
4. In or about June, 1973, the Council of the City of Alameda (the "Council ")
passed an ordinance (originally denominated Alameda Municipal Code Section 11.421
and presently denominated Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -51.1) setting forth the
following definitions which, pursuant to the ordinance, were and are intended by the
Council and the City to apply to the interpretation of Measure A:
"Dwelling shall mean a building or a portion thereof designed exclusively
for residential occupancy, but not including hotels, motels, boarding
houses, lodging houses, or house trailers, if the latter five (5) entities are
located in approved districts or zones."
"Dwelling unit shall mean a group of rooms, including one (1) kitchen, a
bath and sleeping quarters designed for and not occupied by more than one
(1) family."
"Multiple dwelling units shall mean a residential building, whether a single
structure or consisting of attached or semiattached structures, designed,
intended or used to house, or for occupancy by, three (3) or more families,
or living groups, living independently of each other, located in districts or
zones authorized therefor. Each such family or group is deemed to occupy
one (1) dwelling unit."
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 10, 2004
Page 3
5. From and after March 13, 1973, and continuing through November 17,
1998, the City consistently took the position, in dealing with residents, taxpayers, and
property owners in the City of Alameda, that Measure A precluded the construction of
multiple units in which persons or families resided, even if portions of those units were
used for business, artistic, or other non - residential purposes.
6. On or about November 17, 1998, the Council heard the application of the
City to amend the Alameda Municipal Code, by amending section 30 -2.b. thereof and by
adding new section 30 -15 thereto, in order to allow for construction in the City of
Alameda of so- called "work/live studios." Pursuant to the proposed amendments and
additions to the Alameda Municipal Code, those units, although required to have a
"portion" thereof reserved and used exclusively for "residential purposes ", and although
required to have a "food preparation area ", a "sleeping area ", and a "full bathroom ",
would nevertheless be deemed outside the definition of "dwelling units" and thus exempt
from the "There shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda"
requirement of Measure A.
7. Two persons similarly situated with Matthew Murphy and sharing a
community of interest with Matthew Murphy submitted to the Council, prior to the
November 17, 1998 hearing, written objections to the abovementioned application by the
City to amend the Alameda Municipal Code. Those written objections included the
following language:
Article XXVI of the Alameda City Charter, passed by a vote of the
electorate in 1973, expressly precludes construction of "multiple
dwelling units" in the City. Article XXVI contains no language
suggesting that its reach and effect are limited only to some dwelling
units and, in particular, contains no language suggesting that its
reach and effect do not extend to dwelling units that are also being
used for purposes other than dwelling, e.g., for certain business or
artistic activities. The proposed amendment would therefore alter or
contravene Article XXVI of the Alameda City Charter without a vote
of the electorate providing for, or sanctioning, such alteration or
contravention. [J] California Constitution, Article XI, § 3, provides,
in pertinent part: [¶] "(a) For its own government, a county or city
may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the
question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of
State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 10, 2004
Page 4
manner." [J] California Constitution, Article XI, § 5, provides, in
pertinent part: [] "(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to
provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all
ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject
only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters .
" [¶] Citizens for Responsible Behavior v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.
App. 4th 1013, 1034 (1991), holds: [J] "The City of Riverside is a
charter city, and a charter bears the same relationship to ordinances
that the state Constitution does to statute. [Citation omitted.] While
a city charter may be amended by a majority vote of the electorate
(Cal. Const., art. XI, § 3), an ordinance cannot alter or limit a
provision of a city charter. [Citation omitted.]" [J] Brown v. City
of Berkeley, 57 Cal App. 3d 223, 230 -231 (1976), holds: [J]
"Ordinances are invalid if they conflict with the charter. [Citation
omitted.] ... [J] ... An ordinance can no more change or limit the
effect of the charter than a statute can modify or supersede a
provision of the state Constitution. [Citation omitted.]" Balff v.
Civil Service Commission of the City of Oakland, 43 Cal. App. 2d
211, 215 (1941), holds: []] "[I]t is a fundamental principle of
municipal law that the rule making power vested by a city charter in
a municipal agency must be exercised in conformity with all charter
provisions, and that any rule adopted by such agency which has the
effect of opening the way to circumvent or nullify charter provisions
is, to that extent, inoperative and void." [J] The constitutional and
judicial authorities cited above make plain that a charter provision
cannot legally be alters or contravened absent a vote of the
electorate expressly providing for, or sanctioning, such alteration or
contravention. The proposed amendment to the Alameda Municipal
Code is for this reason illegal on its face and should be rejected by
the Council.
8. The objections set forth above were also presented orally to the Council by
a representative of two persons similarly situated with Matthew Murphy and sharing a
community of interest with Matthew Murphy, and were discussed by the Council, at the
November 17, 1998 hearing. Following that presentation and discussion, the Council
approved the application of the City to amend section 30 -2.b. of the Alameda Municipal
Code and to add new section 30 -15 to the Alameda Municipal Code, as set forth above.
On or about December 1, 1998, the abovementioned amendments and additions were
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 10, 2004
Page 5
enacted by the Council as City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2784, pursuant to which the
presently contested use permit was granted.
9. The abovementioned actions, prior to and at the November 17, 1998
hearing, of persons similarly situated with Matthew Murphy and sharing a community of
interest with Matthew Murphy, satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of administrative
remedies in connection with the abovementioned amendments and additions to the
Alameda Municipal Code.
10. In a series of written agreements, the City agreed to toll and waive the 90-
day statute of limitations set forth in Government Code § 65009, or other statute of
limitations set forth in any other applicable statutes, as to any petition for writ of mandate,
action for declaratory relief, or other request for judicial review, that Matthew Murphy
might wish to file in connection with the November 17, 1998 decision of the Council
approving the application of the City to amend section 30 -2.b. of the Alameda Municipal
Code and to add new section 30 -15 to the Alameda Municipal Code, as set forth above,
and further agreed that any such petition for writ of mandate, action for declaratory relief,
or other request for judicial review would be timely if filed with the court and served on
the City within ninety days of a written request, by FAX transmission from the City to
Matthew Murphy's counsel, that the abovementioned tolling and waiver be terminated.
No such written request has been made by the City. On June 10, 2004, Matthew Murphy
filed an action in the Alameda County Superior Court seeking a judicial declaration that
the November 17, 1998 decision of the Council approving the application of the City to
amend section 30 -2.b. of the Alameda Municipal Code and to add new section 30 -15 to
the Alameda Municipal Code (now Ordinance No. 2784), as set forth above, constituted
an unconstitutional and illegal modification, amendment, circumvention, and /or
nullification of Measure A and was to that extent facially inoperative and void. Because
of the operation of the abovementioned tolling and waiver agreements by the City, that
action is timely.
11. The City does not contest the fact that the so- called "work- live" units
proposed by Ms. Koike will meet all the requirements for a legal residence in California
and will be the sole and /or primary residences of their occupants. Whether or not work
activities may also take place at those units, the units will plainly serve as the dwelling
units of the occupants and must be deemed within the scope of Measure A. The multiple
units contemplated by Ms. Koike would thus violate Measure A. Further, the City cannot
justify approval of the presently contested use permit on the basis of Ordinance No. 2784,
since that ordinance is the subject of a pending action to determine its validity.
The Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 10, 2004
Page 6
For all of the reasons stated herein, Matthew Murphy respectfully requests that the
appeal of Patricia H. Bail be granted and that the proposed construction of multiple
"work/live" dwelling units not be allowed to proceed.
Very truly yours,
HENNEFER & WOOD
A).___ _____-)\
Joseph Wood
Attorneys for Matthew Murphy
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From:
James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: June 3, 2004
Subject: Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property for Library Parking at 2320 -2322
Lincoln Avenue
BACKGROUND
The City Council is asked to authorize the acquisition by eminent domain of the property at
2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda, for public library and public parking purposes. The
property is intended to be used as part of the public parking lot for the Main Library project.
The resolution includes findings that:
(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) that the property generally known as 2320 — 2322 Lincoln Avenue is necessary for the
proposed project;
(d) that the offer required by Government Code section 7267.2, together with the required
disclosures, were made to the owners of record in accordance with law;
(e) that all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of
eminent domain to acquire the property have been complied with by the City of Alameda,
including, but not limited to, relocation assistance requirements;
(f) that the City of Alameda has fully complied with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. in regard to the proposed
acquisition of the property, and has prepared an environmental impact report and will
take all steps necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act necessary to
adopt the resolution;
(f) in addition to meeting all other requirements for the acquisition of this property for
public use, the property is necessary to carry out and make effective the principal public
purposes of the Main Library, and will protect and preserve the attractiveness, safety and
usefulness of the Main Library project; and
(g) that the City has authority under California law to acquire the property by eminent
domain.
The resolution also authorizes the City Attorney and Special Counsel to commence an action in
I Re: Resolution #5 -I
6 -15 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 1, 2004
condemnation to acquire the property and to obtain an order of possession of the property in
accordance with the Eminent Domain Law. The anticipated date of possession (the date the City
would take possession of the property) would be approximately 90 to 120 days after the Eminent
Domain action is filed.
The resolution is effective only if it is adopted by an affirmative vote of two- thirds or more of the
Council members. This means that approval requires a minimum of 4 affirmative votes.
The issues of compensation for the property owners, relocation, and the exact timing of the
City's taking of possession are not issues for the City Council at this time. The City is
continuing to negotiate with the property owners 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 Superior Court ultimately would be asked to determine the fair market value for
the claims of the property owners.
DISCUSSION
The construction of the new Main Library has been a City priority for many years. In December
2002, the City was awarded a $15.5 million grant from the California Reading Improvement and
Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 for the construction of the Main
Library. Those funds, together with a portion of the $10.6 million Measure 0 Bond approved by
the voters of Alameda, will be used to construct the new library and the parking for the library.
The library is to be constructed at the corner of Lincoln Ave. and Oak St., the former site of the
Linoaks Motel. The City purchased the Linoaks several years ago for the Library project.
Construction is to begin in Summer 2004.
The Library project is required to include at least 66 parking spaces on the site, both under the
1990 Environmental Impact Report on the project and under the 2002 Addendum to the Final
EIR. Nearby parking and street parking do not satisfy this mandatory requirement for on -site
parking.
The Main Library building will contain 47,470 square feet on two floors. The building footprint
is approximately 24,340 square feet. The Linoaks site is approximately 40,186 square feet,
which is inadequate to support the building footprint and the required parking spaces without
building a costly and less efficient parking garage. The site is so small that the parking garage
becomes awkward and difficult to use; one floor of the structure would be accessed only from
Lincoln Avenue, the other floor only from Times Way. Traffic flow into and out of the structure,
and use by persons with disabilities would be inconvenient and likely would discourage many
persons from using the on -site parking. The parking structure presents visual and aesthetic
problems as well; it would be unsightly, it would lack City- required landscaping, and would
detract from the appearance, aesthetics, and enjoyment of the Main Library itself.
City staff and the Library Building Team have carefully considered the options for the project,
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 1, 2004
and have agreed that the appearance and utility of the parking would be greatly improved if
additional property could be acquired so that an at -grade (flat) parking lot could be constructed.
A flat parking lot also would be more compatible with the Main Library building, and would
remain in character with the surrounding properties and uses. The only property that is
physically suitable for this use is the adjacent property at 2320 - 2322 Lincoln Avenue. That
property is approximately 4,281 square feet, and adding it to the Main Library site would allow
the City to meet its parking requirements in the most effective and efficient manner, and would
assist in carrying out and making effective the Main Library project. It would protect and
preserve the attractiveness, safety, and usefulness of the Main Library project by improving the
traffic flow, improving the pedestrian access from the parking areas, and improving the
attractiveness of the Main Library building.
The property is currently being used for a take -out restaurant. It also includes a vacant
residential structure that does not meet basic code requirements for occupancy and is in a
deteriorated physical state.
In August 2003, the City obtained an appraisal for the property. On September 30, 2003, the
City made the required offer of just compensation for the full appraisal value, including
equipment and fixtures. The offer met all legal conditions for such offers, and advised the
property owners of their rights under the Eminent Domain Law, including rights of relocation
assistance and goodwill. The property owners were given a full thirty days to respond to the
offer. The offer was neither accepted nor rejected by the property owners. Over the past several
months, the City has provided relocation information and has identified potential sites for
relocation, and advised the owners and their representatives of such information. The City has
offered to provide full relocation benefits as provided by law and regulation. These relocation
efforts by the City have met or exceeded every applicable standard.
Attached to the proposed Resolution of Necessity are maps showing the Main Library project
and the location of the property proposed for acquisition.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Constructing a flat lot rather than a parking structure would require the State Library to approve
the change. It would be necessary for the City to provide the same number of spaces (66) on a
flat lot as are proposed for the parking structure so that the project does not lost onsite parking
spaces. The cost analysis by the Project Manager showed that the construction of the flat lot is
anticipated to be less costly than building the structures. There should be no General Fund
impact. Funds for this property, like other project expenses, would be taken from the Library
Construction Fund. Contingency funds are available to acquire the property, as well as to
provide for other contingencies not associated with the acquisition of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The vacant residence on the property is on the City's Historic Study List. The City
commissioned a report by architectural historian Naomi Miroglio of Architectural Resources
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
June 1, 2004
Group to evaluate historic significance of the structures on the property. The report submitted by
Ms. Miroglio found that "the structures appear to be potentially eligible on a local level for
inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources."
Because of the potential historic significance of the buildings, in March 2004, the City retained
the consulting firm of Lamphier- Gregory to prepare a Draft Focused Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). The EIR acknowledged the potential historic significance of the buildings,
proposed mitigations for the proposed demolition, assessed alternatives and ultimately found that
impact from the demolition of the structures would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
The public comment period on this EIR closed on May 14, 2004. Six comment letters were
received and the comments were addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
At the City Council meeting on June 15, 2004, the City Council will consider certifying the FEIR
and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the demolition of the historic
structures. The information provided to the City Council in regard to the CEQA issues is not
repeated here, but is incorporated by reference into this Staff report for the proposed Resolution
of Necessity.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Necessity to
acquire property for Library parking at 2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie
Library Director
cc: Deputy City Attorney, Harryman
Supervising Planning, Altschuler
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT
DOMAIN FOR PUBLIC USE (LIBRARY AND PUBLIC PARKING);
AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY
AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT
ALL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET FOR CONSIDERATION OF
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
1245.235 et seq.; ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (2320 — 2322 LINCOLN AVENUE,
ALAMEDA)
The City Council of the City of Alameda, by vote of two- thirds or more of its
members, FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES, AND RESOLVES the following:
1. The City intends to construct a new Main Library, a public use, and in
E connection therewith, acquire interests in certain real property for use in the public
p �, library project, including public parking uses. The parking uses will carry out and make
u- effective the principal purposes of the Main Library and will also provide public benefits
o Z in and of themselves by providing on -site parking for the public. The Main Library is a
o public use that will provide improved library services to the general public.
2. The City of Alameda is authorized to acquire the property described in
>.. Appendix A herein and exercise the power of eminent domain for the public use set
forth herein in accordance with the California Constitution and the California Eminent
Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010 et seq. and pursuant to the
California Government Code, including sections 37350.5 and 54031.
3. The property to be acquired is generally located at 2320 - 2322 Lincoln,
Alameda. The property to, be acquired is more particularly described in Appendix A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Maps depicting the location
of the public project and the location of the property are attached as Appendix B and
incorporated herein by this reference.
4. On or before May 27, 2004, the City mailed a Notice of Hearing on the intent
of the City Council to adopt a resolution of necessity for acquisition by eminent domain
of the property described in this Resolution. The notice was provided to the owners of
record of the subject property, along with all persons whose names appear on the last
equalized County Assessment Roll as having an interest in the property described in
Appendix A, and to the address appearing on said Roll. The Notice of Hearing advised
such persons of their right to be heard on the matters referred to therein on the date and
time and place stated therein.
Resolution #5 -I
6 -15 -04
5. The hearing described in the Notice of Hearing was held on June 15, 2004 at
the time and place stated therein, and all interested parties were given the opportunity
to be heard and to present information and testimony. The hearing was closed, and the
matter fully considered by the City Council in public session. Based upon the evidence
presented, the City Council by vote of two- thirds or more of its members, further 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 property described in the Resolution (and generally known as
2320 — 2322 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda, California) is necessary for the proposed
project;
D. The offer required by Government Code section 7267.2, together
with the accompanying statement of and summary of the basis for the amount
established as just compensation, was made to the owners of record, and the
offer and accompanying statement and summary were in a form and contained
all of the factual disclosures required by Government Code section 7267.2;
E. All conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the
power of eminent domain to acquire the property have been complied with by the
City of Alameda, including but not limited to relocation assistance requirements;
F. The City of Alameda has fully complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., in
regard to the proposed acquisition of the property; has prepared and certified the
Final Focused Environmental Impact Report ( "Final Focused EIR ") for the New
Alameda Free Library Project Property Acquisition for Parking (the "Project "),
State Clearinghouse No. 2004 - 022 -105; and has take all steps necessary under
the California Environmental Quality Act necessary to authorize the resolution;
G. In addition to meeting all other requirements for the acquisition of
this property for public use, the property is necessary to carry out and make
effective the public purpose of the Main Library, and will protect and preserve the
attractiveness, safety, and usefulness of the Main Library project;
H. The City of Alameda has authority under California law to acquire
the property by eminent domain;
I. The City of Alameda, having independently considered the
environmental effects of the project as shown in the certified Final Focused EIR:
a. Adopts the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit "C," for the Project;
b. Adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation
measures that are identified in the Findings; and
c. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto
as Exhibit "D."
J.
The City Attorney and Special Counsel are authorized and
directed to acquire in the name of the City of Alameda the
property described in this Resolution in accordance with the
provisions of the California Eminent Domain 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 City to take immediate
possession of the property for public use, and to take all
steps to acquire the property under the law.
L0. LEGAL.0
Order No. 804 -13337
Guarantee No. 2226 -13430
EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF BLOCK 48, MAP OF LANDS ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF ENCINAL, FILED MAY
28, 1867, MAP BOOK 19, PAGE 53, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN LINE OF LINCOLN (FORMERLY RAILROAD)
AVENUE AS SAID AVENUE IS SHOWN ON. THE MAP, DISTANT THEREON 150 FEET WESTERLY
FROM THE WESTERN LINE OF PARK STREET, AS SAID PARK STREET NOW EXISTS: THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF LINCOLN AVENUE 55 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES
SOUTHERLY 90 FEET, 11 INCHES; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 55 FEET; THENCE
AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY 90 FEET, 11 INCHES TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTNG THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF ALAMEDA BY DEED FROM
THERESA VOGT, RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1912, LIBER 2054 OF DEEDS, PAGE 43,
ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, FOR WIDENING LINCOLN AVENUE.
APN: 071- 0202 -005
Pacific Ave.
Service
Station
Lincoln Ave.
Alameda
Police
Dept.
Alameda
City Hall
td
0
Santa Clara Ave.
7-1 1
Store
Regional Location
. San F anclsco
2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue
LIBRARY
PROJECT
SITE
Times Way
Office
Building
Service
Station
Wiener -
schnitzel
REFERENCE
1401/71-
• 75 ] 60
FEET
Exhibit B (Page 1 of 2)
Sat .
sp
l
. 220
to
N
2/9
0
60
- ••/ 3.+ 1 r Code AreaN1 �I 0012
/Yoe efthe 73w /7 Of54C /Meileid74heLand
(Surveyed 6y Hor oceAyi9 /e,) (R6cAy ),
moo? of7'he sued/ ✓isiorr o {6 /o cfrr .¢e orl// /eye• /110/o •
{/a e/cc °c /829 fhe 75.14'/7 o7c,Ei,c no/ rar,. 3 p9 z)
5co/e /%n +.612,54 61,7.0,1
IMPORTANT: Thl$ plat la not a au
It la merely furnished as a conventen
to locate the land In relation to ad-
nlnp streets z o/ tiusrentee any d ... .
bearings
. - ma. na, distances,
L_in c o/n
/IvenLie
/V.
07.10
•
1
o
•
1636
r8T3
0
8
4'4.3re 4 •
/70.7,
O
f:4C.a 01
1 I�
w+s.1•e
WO: 0-01) . 414 ( ..60
�! 4 ♦ G • .34 . 3
cS oentt C /ore
'S 071 *_ 0
M,0
55
1yw LyIT
0•
lEtE
•
1613
n1�
84 I
.,..4.41 (an 11, 67)
K ail l r 34.86 14 • • % 1486 ••
ffv+nue
a n"
«i «I NINIiI
2 03
Exhibit B (Page 2 of 2)
I
•0•
60
NPN -/
i
3
EXHIBIT "C"
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE NEW ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY PROJECT
PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR PARKING
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.1 and California Code of
Regulations, title 14, section 15090, on June 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of
Alameda ( "City Council ") certified that the Final Focused Environmental Impact Report
(May 2004) (State Clearinghouse No. 2004 - 022 -105) ( "Final Focused EIR" or "EIR ") for the
New Alameda Free Library Project - Property Acquisition for Parking ( "Project ") was
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq. The City Council further certified that the Final
Focused EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final Focused EIR, and that the Final Focused
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Alameda ( "City").
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Project analyzed in the Final Focused EIR consists of the acquisition of
approximately .083 acres of property at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue, the demolition of
two structures and associated improvements, and the construction of a landscaped surface
parking lot to serve the New Alameda Free Library Project ( "Library Project "). The City
approved the Library Project on February 11, 1991, following certification of the Final EIR
for the New Alameda Free Library (December 1990) (State Clearinghouse No. 90030601)
( "Library Project EIR "). The Library Project as originally approved included a two -level
parking structure with one level of below -grade parking. In an April 2002 Addendum/Initial
Study to the Library Project EIR, the City evaluated a one -story parking structure. The
Project analyzed in the Final Focused EIR would be constructed in lieu of a parking
structure. The new surface parking lot would have 66 parking spaces (17 spaces on the 2320
and 2322 Lincoln Avenue properties, and 49 spaces on the adjacent Library Project site),
landscaping and overhead lighting.
C. PREPARATION OF THE EIR
On February 17, 2004, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") indicating
that a Focused EIR would be prepared pursuant to CEQA. The NOP was circulated for
public comment for 30 days, from February 17, 2004 to March 19, 2004. The City received
two comment letters during that period. A Draft Focused EIR was published in March 2004,
and made available to government agencies, interested individuals and organizations, and
members of the public. The 45 -day period for public comment on the Draft Focused EIR
1
began on March 30, 2004 and ended on May 14, 2004. Seven comment letters were received
during that period.
The Final Focused EIR was made available to the public on May 28, 2004. The Final
Focused EIR includes, among other components, the Draft Focused EIR, supplemental
materials that amplify and clarify the analyses in the Draft Focused EIR, the City's responses
to comments, and the Findings set forth herein. The analysis and conclusions contained in
the Final Focused EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City. The Final Focused EIR
was certified by the City Council on June 15, 2004. The City hereby finds that it has
considered the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the Final Focused EIR.
II. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final Focused EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse
impacts associated with the approval of the Project and identifies related mitigation
measures. It is hereby determined that each of the following significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts is deemed acceptable for the reasons specified below in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Part VI, below).
The impacts and mitigation measures identified below are presented in summary
form. For a detailed description of these impacts and mitigation measures, please see the
appropriate text in the Draft Focused EIR, as amended by the Final Focused EIR.
A. Removal of Buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue
As more fully described on pages 4 -10 to 4 -11 of the Draft Focused EIR, the Project
will involve removal, either by demolition or relocation, of two buildings that appear to be
locally eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. The
buildings are described in detail on pages 4 -2 to 4 -10 of the Draft Focused EIR. Mitigation
Measure 4 -la (building documentation and memorialization), which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will not reduce the impact of demolition of the structures.
Mitigation Measure 4 -lb (sale of buildings and relocation), which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, may save the buildings from demolition, but they would lose
their context as examples of early railroad development, and there is no guarantee that a
buyer could be found or that relocation would be successful because of the state of
deterioration and instability of the structure at 2320 Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, impacts to
the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
B. Cumulative Demolition
As more fully described on pages 4 -12 to 4 -13 of the Draft Focused EIR,
demolition of the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue will result in demolition of the
last vestiges of Alameda's "China Town" and railroad era development along this portion of
Lincoln Avenue. Mitigation Measure 4 -3 (building relocation), which is hereby adopted and
2
incorporated into the Project, will not preserve the buildings in their original setting.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to the existing collection of Pioneer buildings in Alameda
would be considered significant and unavoidable.
III. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AND MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final Focused EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with
the Project. These impacts are reduced to a "less- than- significant" (or "not significant ") level
by mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. It is hereby
determined that the significant environmental impacts which these mitigation measures
address will be mitigated to a less - than- significant level or avoided by incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the Project. To the extent these mitigation measures will not
mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, it is hereby determined that any
remaining significant and adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Part VI,
below.
The impacts and mitigation measures identified below are presented in summary
form. For a detailed description of these impacts and mitigation measures, please see the
appropriate text in the Draft Focused EIR, as amended by the Final Focused EIR.
A. Archeological Artifacts
As more fully described on page 4 -12 of the Draft Focused EIR, prehistoric, historic
or cultural artifacts may be discovered on the Project site during demolition. Mitigation
Measure 4 -2 (evaluation of any artifacts found during site preparation, grading, excavation
construction or other development activities by a qualified archeologist and treatment of
human remains in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and Public
Resources Code section 5097.98), which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project,
will reduce the impact to a less- than- significant level by treating any artifacts or remains
discovered in the manner required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.2 and
California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15064.5.
B. Soil and Groundwater Contamination
As more fully described on page 5 -3 of the Draft Focused EIR, activities associated
with demolition of the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue, as well as excavation and
grading of the Project site, may result in exposure of construction workers or the surrounding
community to hazardous materials currently present in the soil. Mitigation Measure 5 -1
(conduct a Phase 2 Study, remove /remediate contamination as required, and implement
worker health and safety measures), which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, will reduce the impact to a less - than- significant level by performing site testing prior
to beginning site work and taking appropriate precautions to protect human health and the
environment.
3
C. Presence of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint
As more fully described on page 5 -4 of the Draft Focused EIR, activities associated
with demolition of the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue could present a health
risk associated with possible asbestos containing materials and lead based paint existing on
and within the buildings. Mitigation Measure 5 -2 (use of a licensed asbestos contractor,
perform lead paint and asbestos surveys, preparation of a Demolition Plan, compliances with
California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 1532.1 and compliance with BAAQMD Rule
11 -2), which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will reduce the impact to a
less- than - significant level by requiring asbestos containing materials and lead based paint to
be handled and disposed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.
D. Construction Activities (Air Quality)
As more fully described on page 7 -10 of the Draft Focused EIR, construction
activities such as site clearance, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle
traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate emissions of exhaust and
fugitive particulate matter that would temporarily affect local air quality for adjacent land
uses. Mitigation Measures 7 -la (implement dust abatement program), 7 -lb (implement
Mitigation Measure 5 -1 regarding hazardous materials testing, remediation/removal of
contamination, and implement worker health and safety measures) and 7 -1c (consultation
with BAAQMD prior to commencing building demolition, use of site watering, and
compliance with previously adopted mitigation measures related to hazardous materials and
asbestos containing materials), which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project,
will reduce the impact to a less- than- significant level by substantially reducing the level of
construction related air emissions.
IV. LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR WHICH MITIGATION
MEASURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT TO FURTHER
REDUCE THE IDENTIFIED IMPACTS
The Final Focused EIR identifies the following less- than- significant impact for which
a mitigation measure has been identified. This mitigation measure is not required by CEQA
to reduce the identified impact to a less- than- significant level, but has been included in the
Project to further reduce the effect of this less- than- significant impact.
The impact and mitigation measure identified below is presented in summary form.
For a detailed description of this impact and mitigation measures please see the appropriate
text in the Draft Focused EIR, as amended by the Final Focused EIR.
A. Solid Waste
As more fully described on page 8 -5 of the Draft Focused EIR, the Project will
produce a relatively small amount of solid waste as a consequence of demolishing the
buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue. This impact is less- than- significant.
4
Nevertheless, to further reduce this less -than- significant impact, Mitigation Measure 8 -3
(preparation of Waste Management Plan in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code
section 24 -24) is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project.
V. ALTERNATIVES
The Final Focused EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project. The feasibility of
each is determined below.
A. No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft Focused
EIR on page 9 -2 and in the Final Focused EIR on page 2 -3, the Library Project would be
implemented with a parking structure component instead of a surface parking lot partially
located on 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue. The Project site would remain as it is today, with
the buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue remaining in place.
This alternative is considered infeasible because it would not achieve the beneficial
parking configuration for the Library Project that would be provided by the Project's surface
parking lot. Due to space constraints, library patrons would need to exit the parking structure
on to Lincoln Avenue if the first floor were full, and reenter on Times Way. The No Project
Alternative also would provide far less landscaping due to space constraints, and the structure
would reduce the amount of natural light within the Library building compared to the Project
by casting a large shadow on the Library building. The No Project Alternative would not
achieve the Project objective, nor would it help achieve the objectives of the Library Project
as set forth in the Library Project EIR and listed again on page 3 -4 of the Draft Focused EIR.
Accordingly, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
B. 2320 AND 2322 LINCOLN AVENUE RELOCATION ALTERNATIVE
Under the 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue Relocation Alternative, which is more
fully described in the Draft Focused EIR on pages 9 -2 to 9 -3, the property at 2320 and 2322
Lincoln Avenue would be acquired by the City and the City would move the buildings to
another location. While this alternative would avoid demolition of the buildings, this
alternative is considered infeasible because it is uncertain whether the buildings are
physically capable of being moved due to their poor physical condition. If the buildings are
capable of being moved, however, it would not be feasible for the City to relocate the
buildings to City -owned property as no suitable parcels are available. In addition, the
significant and unavoidable impact of the Project on historical resources would not be
eliminated by this alternative because of the loss of context and historical integrity created by
relocation of the structures on 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue. Accordingly, this alternative
is rejected as infeasible.
C. PARTIAL ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVE
5
Under the Partial Acquisition Alternative, which is more fully described in the
Draft Focused EIR on page 9 -3 and in the Final Focused EIR on page 2 -3, the Project would
involve acquisition of vacant yard area fronting Lincoln Avenue located between the
unoccupied building at 2320 Lincoln Avenue and the LinOaks Motel building instead of
removing the buildings on 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue. This alternative is considered
infeasible because use of this yard alone under this alternative would not permit an optimum
parking configuration and vehicular circulation pattern, would not permit construction of 66
parking spaces in a surface parking lot, and would not overcome the circulation issues
associated with the parking structure. Accordingly, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
D. PARK STREET ALTERNATIVE
Under the Park Street Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft Focused
EIR on pages 9 -3 to 9 -4, the Project would be implemented without acquiring and using the
2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue properties. Instead, the City would acquire a portion of the
Wienerschnitzel restaurant parking lot and, if necessary, the parking lot at the service station
on the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Park Street for a portion of the Library Project parking.
This alternative is considered infeasible because it would hinder either or both of the
commercial establishments' ability to provide sufficient customer parking, would be contrary
to General Plan policies to support and revitalize Park Street, and would increase the Park
Street parking deficit identified in the General Plan. Accordingly, this alternative is rejected
as infeasible.
VI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its potential unavoidable
adverse environmental effects in determining whether to approve the Project, and has
determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse
environmental effects. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final Focused EIR and
other information in the record, including, but not limited to, the Library Project EIR and the
Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the Library Project (Exhibit I to City
of Alameda Resolution No. 12070, approved February 11, 1991). In the event that the
Project may have a significant effect on the environment that is not reduced to a level of less -
than- significant, the City makes the following Findings supporting approval of the Project
despite the significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects that may occur:
A. The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City in connection
with its 1991 approval of the Library Project is equally relevant to, and is adopted, as updated
below, as part of this Project:
1. The Library Project will adequately provide library services and
programs for the Alameda community.
2. The Library Project will enhance the visual and functional character of
the Alameda Civic Center by introducing a building that is consistent
with the area's urban design and compatible with other land uses in the
6
area. The Library Project will also result in beneficial land use and
visual quality impacts in the Civic Center associated with the
demolition of the LinOaks Motel.
3. The Library Project represents infill development located in an urban
area where adequate facilities and services exist.
4. The intensity of use of the Library Project is appropriate for the site
and other properties located in the vicinity of the Civic Center.
5. The Library Project represents an invaluable public resource that will
serve a broad cross section of the community for many years to come.
The design and location are essential for the facility to function in a
manner that will satisfy the needs of the community. In addition to
providing space and opportunities for research, study and recreational
reading, for which vocal demands have been expressed in the Alameda
community, the facility will provide critically needed public space for
meetings and events in a convenient Civic Center location.
B. Additional reasons for the approval of the Project despite the occurrence of
significant unavoidable adverse impacts are as follows:
1. The grant from the State Library Board requires creation of 66 parking
spaces. Acquisition of 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue will allow the full
66 parking spaces required for the Library Project to be created adjacent to
the Library building.
2. Acquisition of 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue and constructing surface
parking on the Project site will be less expensive than building a parking
structure. Steel prices have increased dramatically making construction
costs for a structure very expensive compared to a surface lot.
3. Money saved on the cost of providing parking can be on other aspects of
construction of the Library.
4. Surface parking on the Project site will provide more convenient access to
the Library for all library patrons and for disabled persons in particular.
5. The parking structure would involve separate parking levels that are not
interconnected, thus creating confusing traffic patterns and requiring travel
on City streets to change parking levels. Surface parking on the Project
site would eliminate these inefficient circulation patterns.
6. A landscaped surface parking lot will increase natural light and air to the
Library building, thereby enhancing the usability of the Library building.
7. A surface parking lot will not obstruct views of the Library building and,
along with the landscaping, will enhance the appearance of the Library
rather than competing with it visually.
VII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The Final Focused EIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety.
Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of the
mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative
analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for
associated significant unavoidable impacts.
VIII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City bases its findings and decisions herein. The record of proceedings is located
at the Planning and Building Department, City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room
190, Alameda, California 94501. The custodian for the record of proceedings is the Planning
and Building Department of the City of Alameda.
IX. SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record,
the City has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each
of the significant effects of the Project:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or should be,
adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record,
it is determined that:
1. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations in Part VI, above.
EXHIBIT D
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
�.�1
Y Y .Y Y
Mitigation Measure 4 -la: Building Documentation
and Memorialization. Prior to demolition of the
buildings, City of Alameda shall implement a
�� t3 P
mitigation process that documents the buildings in a
manner similar to that required by the Historic American
Buildings Survey (NABS). This documentation shall
indude written and photographic documentation that
ordinarily goes beyond a historical evaluation survey
such as the one that was completed by Architectural
Resources Group for this Project. This mitigation
process shall be undertaken by qualified professionals in
the field of historic resources documentation. The
documentation shall be filed in the City's Main Library
and shall also be provided to the Alameda Historical
Museum.
The existing buildings at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln Avenue
would be memorialized after demolition through
inclusion of a monument or plaque on the library
grounds that explains the historical significance of these
buildings.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
The documentation shall
be filed in the City's Main
Library and shall also be
provided to the Alameda
Historical Museum and a
plaque or monument
shall be placed on the
library grounds.
Mitigation Measure 4-1b: Sale of Buildings. If the
City purchased the property at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln
ty P p PAY
Avenue, the buildings would be offered for sale to a
private party for a limited amount of time at a nominal
price, provided that the buyer pays for relocation costs.
The City will advertise the sale of the buildings in a local
newspaper for thirty (30) days. Should no one desire the
buildings, they would be demolished.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
Immediately after
acquisition, the City will
place an advertisement
for the sale of the
buildings in a local
newspaper for thirty (30)
days. If no interested
buyers step forward, the
buildings will be
demolished. If a buyer
does come forward, they
will be given sixty (60)
days to remove the
buildings.
Mitigation Measure 4 -2: Evaluate Findings. Should
any previously unidentified prehistoric or historic
artifacts, or other indicators or examples of cultural
resources be discovered during the course of site
preparation, grading, excavation, construction or other
development activities, all operations within 50 feet of
the find shall cease until such time as a qualified
archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the finds and
recommend appropriate action.
Prehistoric materials can include flaked stone tools (e.g.
projectile points, knives or choppers) or tool making
debris of obsidian, chert, quartzite and other materials;
culturally darkened soil (i.e. midden, which often
City of
Alameda
During construction
The City shall retain a
qualified archeologist
who shall be on call in
the event of a find.
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
contains heat affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish
remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling
equipment such as mortars, pestles and hand stones.
Historic materials may include wood, stone, concrete or
adobe footings, walls and other structural remains;
debris filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood,
metal, glass, ceramics and other refuse.
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human
remains on the project site, there shall be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until
the coroner of Alameda County has determined
whether the remains are subject to the coroner's
authority. This is in accordance with Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code. If the human
remains are of Native American origin, the coroner
must notify the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours of identification. Pursuant to Section
5097.98 of the Public Resource Code, the Native
American Heritage Commission will identify a "Native
American Most Likely Descendent" to inspect the site
and provide recommendations for the proper treatment
of the remains and any associated grave goods.
Mitigation Measure 4-3: Building Relocation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1b would
preserve these buildings, but would not preserve them
in their original setting.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
Implement Mitigation
Measure 4-1b.
v-Xy
�...5- .'��i F�.: �.. fit. i? yLx v a=,Xh...._'` .. vf,!�y vi, sS.i Y:saix,. �.i �
��
�����2y,
,.�.:R £� 'Sa , ��� . .. S•. :. $'
� �� \i:� �'° �� „ 5 7ir �R�"G
Mitigation Measure 5 -1: Phase 2 Study. A Phase 2
study shall be undertaken by the City of Alameda. The
Phase 2 study would include actual sampling and
laboratory analysis of the soil and groundwater on the
Project site for hazardous materials to identify the
nature and extent of these materials in soil and /or
groundwater. The following process shall be undertaken
by the City of Alameda in order to more fully identify
and reduce potential impacts associated with the
Project:
If the Phase 2 Study determines that the Project site is
contaminated, the need for and method of remediation
shall be determined under the oversight of the Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH), which would be the responsible agency.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board would act as
the enforcement agency. If remediation is required, it
shall be performed by the City of Alameda in
coordination with construction activities, as appropriate
and acceptable to ACDEH.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
City to contract for the
preparation of a Phase 2
study; City to hire a
contractor to remediate
the site, if necessary.
The contractor shall
prepare a Site Health and
Safety Plan acceptable to
the City and regulatory
agencies and comply
with its provisions. The
City shall monitor
compliance with the
Health and Safety Plan
and transportation
requirements for affected
soils.
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
To the extent necessary after identification in the Phase
2 Study, and with consultation with appropriate
agencies, any affected soil shall be removed, transported
and disposed of in an appropriate manner in accordance
with federal, state, and local regulations.
Potential health and safety impacts associated with
demolition and excavation within sites where a chemical
release has occurred would be minimized by
implementing legally required health and safety
precautions. For hazardous waste workers, federal and
California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal /OSHA) regulations mandate an
initial training course and subsequent annual training.
Site specific training may also be required for some
workers. Preparation and implementation of a Site
Health and Safety Plan and compliance with applicable
federal, state, regional, and local regulations would
minimize impacts to public health and the environment.
The plan would include identification of chemicals of
concern, potential hazards, personal protection dothing
and devices, and emergency response procedures as well
as required fencing, dust control or other site control
measures needed during demolition and excavation. In
protecting the workers, who would be closest to
potential sources of hazardous materials, the health and
safety measures would also serve to protect others who
live, work, or visit the area during the temporary
demolition and construction period.
Mitigation Measure 5 -2: Protection Procedures.
City of
During demolition
City shall hire a licensed
Asbestos related work must be performed by a licensed
asbestos contractor if there is more than 100 square feet
of asbestos involved. If less than 100 square feet is
involved, the contractor is not legally required to have
the asbestos licensing. However, the contractor must
have proper training and utilise the same engineering
controls, protective equipment, exposure monitoring,
etc. that are required of a licensed asbestos contractor.
Alameda
of the buildings
asbestos contractor to
remove asbestos. The
City shall hire a
demolition contractor to
develop Demolition plan.
City to monitor
compliance with the
Demolition plan.
For this reason, it is recommended that licensed
asbestos contractors perform any asbestos related work
regardless of the quantity. This is due to the fact that
most of the non - asbestos contractors do not have
trained asbestos workers or the specialized tools and
equipment required to perform asbestos related work.
Lead and asbestos surveys should be
reviewed /performed and a Demolition Plan for safe
demolition of existing structures at the Project site
should be prepared. All transportation of hazardous or
contaminated materials from the site shall be performed
in accordance with an approved Demolition Plan and
Removal Action Workplan. The Demolition Plan
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
should address both on -site worker protection and off -
site resident protection from both chemical and physical
hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be
disposed of at appropriate licensed landfill facilities.
Prior to demolition, a written plan or notification of
intent to demolish the buildings on site shall be
provided to the appropriate Air Pollution Control
Officer at least ten (10) working days prior to
commencement of demolition, as required under the
Bay Area Aix Quality Management District's Rule 11 -2-
401.3 regarding asbestos control. Prior to whole -scale
demolition, hazardous building materials such as
peeling, chipping and friable lead -based paint and
asbestos containing building materials should be
removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines,
laws and ordinances. The Demolition Plan should
include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates
and attached contaminants. Dust control and
suspension of work during dry windy days should be
addressed in the Demolition Plan.
For the impact of flaking and peeling lead paint the
requirements of Title 8, California Code of Regulations,
Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed.
These requirements indude (but are not limited to) the
following.
Loose and peeling lead - containing paint should be
removed prior to building demolition. Workers
conducting removal of lead paint must receive training
in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1.
The lead paint removal project should be designed by a
DHS certified lead project designer, project monitor or
supervisor,
Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be
certified by DHS in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1,
Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level
must have blood lead levels tested prior to
commencement of lead work and at least quarterly
thereafter for the duration of the project. Workers that
are terminated from the project should have their blood
lead levels tested within 24 hours of termination,
A written exposure assessment must be prepared in
accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1, and
Any amount of lead waste generated from painted
building components must be characterized for proper
disposal in accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure 7 -la: Dust Abatement
Program. Construction contractors shall implement a
dust abatement program that includes the following
measures:
• Covering Trucks. All trucks hauling soil, sand and
other loose materials shall be covered, or shall be
required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Watering. All unpaved construction staging areas
shall be either paved, watered three times each day,
or be treated through the application of non -toxic
soil stabilizers. Soil, sand and other loose materials
hauled away from the project site shall be watered
prior to covering.
• Sweeping Access Road, Parking Areas and Staging
Areas. All paved access roads, packing areas and
staging areas shall be swept daily with water
sweepers.
• Sweeping Public Roadways. If visible soil material
is carried onto adjacent public roadways, these
roadways shall be swept daily with water sweepers.
• Covering Stockpiles. Exposed stockpiles of dirt,
sand, etc. shall be enclosed, covered or watered
twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be
applied.
Responsible
Party
City of
Alameda
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
During construction
City shall require the dust
abatement program to be
part of the contract
specifications and shall
monitor the contractor
to ensure compliance.
Mitigation Measure 7 -1b: The project proponents
shall comply with Mitigation Measure 5 -1 in Chapter 5
of this document.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
Implement Mitigation
Measure 5 -1.
Mitigation Measure 7 -1c: Based upon the findings of
a Phase 2 Study, the BAAQMD's Enforcement Division
shall be consulted prior to commencing demolition of a
building containing asbestos containing materials, in
accordance with the limitations of District Regulation
11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition,
Removal and Manufacturing.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
City shall consult with
BAAQMD in the event
asbestos is found in the
Phase 2 study; City shall
monitor contractor to
ensure compliance with
dust control watering.
Mitigation Measure 8-3: Waste Management Plan.
The City shall prepare a Waste Management Plan for
the demolition of the two buildings in accordance with
the Alameda Municipal Code.
City of
Alameda
Prior to demolition
of the buildings
The demolition
contractor shall prepare a
plan to the satisfaction of
the City's Public Works
Department. The plan
shall be made part of the
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Timing of
Implementation
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
contract for services.
The City shall monitor
compliance with the Plan
during demolition.
G:\ PLANNING \SPECPROJ \LIBRARY \MMRP.doc
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
1325 St. Charles St.
04 i ; f p „Alameda CA 94501
9 June 2004
Honorable Mayor,
Councilmembers,
City of Alameda
I am writing to ask you to consider carefully the fate of the historic structure at
2320 Lincoln Avenue, proposed for demolition as part of the new main library
site. Please vote to preserve this building —one of Alameda's most important
(though lesser known) commercial landmarks.
Research has established that the building originally stood at the southwest
corner of Park Street and Lincoln Avenue as early as 1864, the year the railroad
arrived in Alameda. This prominent corner location, directly opposite the train
station, lay at the heart of the new Park Street business district. (In 1875, the
building was moved a few doors west, to its current location.)
So great was the impact of the railroad on the community in the 1860s that a
number of buildings were moved from "Old Alameda" in the East End to the
vicinity of the train station. Based on its architectural style, 2320 Lincoln Avenue
could be one of them; if so, it might date back to the Gold Rush.
As it stands the building is a rare, if not unique, survivor of the earliest type of
commercial architecture in our city. Its simple gabled form and simply detailed
doorway and windows are typical of the pioneer Greek Revival style, popular in
the years during and after the Gold Rush.
As an architectural historian, I was retained by the Planning Department in
1989 -92 to survey and evaluate all historic commercial buildings in Alameda.
(The cut -off date for "historic" designation was 50 years of age.) On the basis of
that survey, I am able to tell you that 2320 Lincoln Avenue is unquestionably the
oldest known commercial building in the city —as important to our commercial
heritage as the Webster House, the city's oldest known residential building, is to
our residential heritage.
I urge you to act as stewards of our collective history and preserve this precious
piece of our past for future generations.
Sincerely,
Woody Minor
Re: Agenda Item# 5 -I
6 -15 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE
FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1435 WEBSTER STREET
(PARKING LOT D)
WHEREAS, Geoffrey A. Farrar, Kristina A. Farrar Trust II, Charles A.
Begley and Dorothy Crane McKee, (herein called "Lessor ") own certain real property
located at 1435 Webster Street in Alameda, California (herein "real property "); and
WHEREAS, the real property has been utilized by the City as a municipal
parking lot for the West End Business District; and
WHEREAS, both the City and the Business District desires that the
provision of this parking facility be continued; and
E
o WHEREAS, the Lessor desires to directly lease the real property to the
LL. w City of Alameda on the terms and conditions set forth in the lease on file in the Office of
z the City Clerk.
co _ - WHEREAS, the City of Alameda desires to enter into such lease.
Q
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
- CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows:
o_
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves execution of the Lease
between the City of Alameda and Geoffrey A. Farrar, Kristina A. Farrar Trust II, Charles
A. Begley and Dorothy Crane McKee, as Lessor.
Section 2. That the form of Lease referred to in the above, and the terms,
conditions and covenants contained therein are hereby approved.
Section 3. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda be, and is
hereby authorized to execute, for an on behalf of the City of Alameda, the Lease
substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out
in the Lease on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -J
6 -15 -04
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
l,')ES:
ABS ENT:
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.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTION 30 -16
(INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) TO
CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new
Section 30 -16, "Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects," to Chapter
30, Development Regulations, thereof to read:
30 -16 Inclusionary Housing Requirement For Residential Projects
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
30 -16 -1 Purpose.
30 -16 -1 Purpose.
30 -16 -2 Findings.
30 -16 -3 Definitions.
30 -16-4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements.
30 -16 -5 Exemptions.
30 -16 -6 Alternatives.
30 -16 -7 Incentive.
30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures.
30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units.
30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability.
30 -16 -11 Limited Use of Fees.
30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers.
30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas.
30 -16 -14 Enforcement.
The purpose of this section is to (a) implement the goals and objectives of the
Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, (b) mitigate the impacts on
housing affordability caused by new residential development, and (c) meet the need for
housing affordable to persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income.
30 -16 -2 Findings.
a. California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that
threatens their economic security. Persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income are
experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and
1
Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -K
6 -15 -04
sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact
upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda will not be
able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy
environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing
Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for
housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness.
b. A lack of new Inclusionary Units will have a substantial negative impact
on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built
elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing
increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii)
City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need.
Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by
providing more affordable housing close to employment centers.
c. Development of new market -rate housing encourages new residents to
move to the City. These new residents will place demands on services provided by
both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees
needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for
affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City
will be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their
quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a
negative impact on air quality.
d. Increasing the production and availability of affordable housing is
problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to
attract new construction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly
diminishing amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of
affordable housing units solely through private action. Federal and state funds for the
construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of
affordable housing within the City.
e. The City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with
housing available to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. The City's
General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each
community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic
levels.
f. It is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of
providing housing for very low -, low- and moderate - income persons directly on the
developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the
need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such
developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of
2
affordable housing. Zoning and other ordinances concerning new housing in the City
should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing
for persons at all economic levels.
30 -16 -3 Definitions.
As used in this section:
Affordable Rent shall mean monthly rent (including utility allowance) that does
not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum annual income for a Household of
the applicable income level (Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income).
Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council
to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units.
Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a legally binding agreement between a
Developer and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied.
The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the —uiiiber and location of Affordable Units,
production schedule and other standards.
Affordable Ownership Cost shall mean a sales price that results in a monthly
housing cost (including mortgage, insurance utilities, taxes, assessments and home
owner association costs, if any) that does not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the
maximum annual income for a Household of the applicable income (Very Low -, Low -
or Moderate - Income).
Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing
residency whose income is considered for housing payments.
Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable
Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income
Households.
In -Lieu Fee shall mean the fee described in Subsection 30- 16 -6(a) that is paid to
the City as an alternative to the production of inclusionary housing, which fee shall be
used in accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -11.
Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not
exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the
California Health & Safety Code.
Market -Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling unit in a Residential Development that is
not an Inclusionary Unit.
3
Moderate - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does
not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate
income" in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code.
Residential Development shall mean any planned development district,
subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that
authorizes the construction of residential dwelling units.
Very Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does
not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households" in Section 50105
of the California Health & Safety Code.
30 -16 -4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements.
a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of five (5) or more
units, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total units must be Inclusionary Units
restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. The
number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only
once, at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design
results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units
required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.
b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units
required by this subsection, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under
California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) will not be counted in
determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determining the number of
whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded
down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be
rounded up on the nearest whole number.
c. Types of Inclusionary Units: Four percent (4 %) of the total units must be
restricted to occupancy by Low - Income Households; four percent (4 %) of the total units
must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low - Income Households; and seven percent
(7 %) must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate - Income Households. For Residential
Developments with sixty -nine (69) or fewer total units, Inclusionary Units shall be
restricted for occupancy by very low -, low- or moderate - income households in the
following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations:
4
Total
Units
5 to 9
10 to 16
17 to 23
24 to 29
30 to 36
37 to 43
44 to 49
50 to 56
57 to 63
64 to 69
Inclusionary
Units
Income Levels
1 1 moderate
2 1 moderate, 1
3 1 moderate, 1
4 2 moderate, 1
5 3 moderate, 1
6 3 moderate, 2
7 3 moderate, 2
8 4 moderate, 2
9 4 moderate, 3
10 5 moderate, 3
d. Affordable Housing Guidelines.
low
low, 1 very low
low, 1 very low
low, 1 very low
low, 1 very low
low, 2 very low
low, 2 very low
low, 2 very low
low, 2 very low
Inclusionary Units built under this section
must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council.
30 -16 -5 Exemptions.
The requirements of this section do not apply to:
a. Reconstruction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been
destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the
reconstruction takes place within three (3) years of the date the structures were
destroyed.
b.
Residential Developments of four (4) units or less.
c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building
additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number
of existing dwelling units beyond four (4) units.
d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have
more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low -, Low- and Moderate -
Income Households than this Section requires.
e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for
which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building
permit was issued, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section
and which continue to have unexpired permits.
5
30 -16 -6 Alternatives.
a. In -Lieu Fees. For Residential Developments of nine (9) or fewer units,
including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this section may be satisfied by
paying an In -Lieu Fee. The fee will be set by the City Council by resolution and shall be
sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically
expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner
from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of
constructing the Inclusionary Units. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building
permits for Market -Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permits are
issued for only part of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only
on the number of units then permitted.
b. Off -site construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site if the
Planning Board can make a finding that the purposes of this section would be better
served by the construction of off -site units. In determining whether the purposes of
this section would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as
to whether the off -site units would be located in an area where, based on availability of
affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the
proposed development.
30 -16 -7 Incentive.
The City may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satisfy
the inclusionary housing requirements of this section by producing Inclusionary Units
on the site of the Residential Development.
a. Expedited Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development
and permit applications for the Residential Development.
Subsection 30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures.
a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of this section shall be imposed on
the approval of any Residential Development to which this section pertains.
b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant
shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this section.
The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of
each Market -Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which
each Inclusionary Unit will be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan
adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (iii) a
site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked.
6
c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
decision - making entity concurrently with the Residential Development in accordance
with the procedures in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Affordable Housing Plan
shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development and shall be
recorded by the applicant together with any implementing regulatory agreements,
resale restrictions, deeds of trust and /or similar implementing documents as a
restriction on the parcel or parcels on which the Affordable Units will be constructed.
d. The Planning Board shall review any applications requesting off -site
construction within their Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan shall
include a site map of the off -site location, a description of the arrangements made for
construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off -site construction
complies with Section 30- 16 -6(b). Off -site construction may only be approved in
accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -6(b).
e. All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied as specified in
the approved Affordable Housing Plan concur i ci aiy with or prior to the construction
and occupancy of Market Rate Units unless certification is obtained from the Planning
and Building Director that the applicant has met, or made arrangements satisfactory to
the City to meet, an alternative procedure set forth in subsection 30 -16 -6. In phased
Residential Developments, Inclusionary Unit.; shall be constructed and occupied in
proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Residential Development. No
final inspection for occupancy for any Market -Rate Unit shall be completed for the
Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development until the
applicant has constructed the Inclusionary Units required in the approved Affordable
Housing Plan for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential
Development by subsection 30 -16-4 or completed corresponding alternative
performance under subsection 30 -16 -6.
30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units.
a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit
unless the City or its designee has approved the Household's eligibility in accordance
with City- approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit
or purchases an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that
Household's principal residence.
b. Initial Sales Price of Owner- Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an
owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set so that the eligible Household will pay an
Affordable Ownership Cost. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit will
be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other
7
recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit as approved in the
Affordable Housing Plan per Section 30 -16 -8.
c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionary Units shall be offered to eligible
Households at an Affordable Rent.
30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability.
a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and /or other
documents acceptable to the City Manager, all consistent with the requirements of this
section, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments
containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of
Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were
designed for a minimum of fifty -nine (59) years. The forms of regulatory agreements,
resale restrictions, deeds of trust and other documents authorized by this subsection,
and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in
the document, shall be approved by the City Manager.
b. The resale restrictions required by subsection 30- 16 -10(a) shall allow the
City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit at the
maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time
the owner proposes a sale.
30 -16 -11 Limited Uses of Fees.
a. Use and Disbursement of Fees. In -Lieu Fees collected under this section shall
be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determined by the
City Manager. Expenditures of In -Lieu Fees shall be limited to direct expenditures for
capital projects or incidental non - capital expenditures related to capital projects,
including but not limited to pre - development expenses, land acquisition, construction,
rehabilitation, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governmental entities,
private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very
low -, low- and moderate - income households. Authorized expenditures also include,
but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity
participation loans, grants, predevelopment loan funds, participation leases, loans or
other public /private partnership arrangements to develop affordable housing or other
public /private partnership arrangements. The In -Lieu Fees may be expended for the
benefit of either rental or owner- occupied housing. The In -Lieu Fees may not be used
to support operations, or on -going housing services not directly related to the
construction, acquisition, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable housing units.
8
b. Accounting of Fees. All In -Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated
account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included
in an annual report that shall be made available for public inspection.
30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers.
a. Adjustment. The requirements of this section may be waived, adjusted or
reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the
impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing
in the City and the requirements of this section or that applying the requirements of this
section without the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction would constitute a
taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise
illegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or diminution in value does not
constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and
filed with the Planning and Building Department at the time of initial submittal an
application for approval of a Residential Development and /or as part of any appeal
from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and
in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the
factual basis for the request, and (iii) the legal basis of this request. If the Planning
Board determines that the requirements of this section lack a reasonable relationship to
the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing
in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United
States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this section shall be modified,
adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or illegal
outcome.
b. Appeal Procedure. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of
the City Council or Planning Board may appeal a determination under this ordinance
within ten (10) days after the decision under subsection 30- 21.11. Appeals shall be
heard pursuant to Section 30 -25.
c. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a
request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of this section and appeal shall be
borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City
Council.
30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas.
This section shall not apply to Residential Developments in the City's
Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement
Commission adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing
requirements in such areas.
9
30 -16 -14 Enforcement.
a. Misdemeanor Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provision
of this Section. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall be a
misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an Inclusionary Unit
under this Section at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Section
or to sell or rent an Inclusionary Unit to a Household not qualified under this Section. It
shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete
information to the City or to a seller or lessor of an Inclusionary Unit to obtain
occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.
b. Additional Enforcement Mechanisms. In addition to the penalties provided
in this Subsection, any violation of this Section may be redressed by any enforcement
mechanism, including but not limited to a civil action, described in Section 1 -5, Penalty
Provisions; Enforcement, of this Code.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of the Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held unconstitutional, invalid, or
ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the
validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part
thereof. The City of Alameda City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase herein,
irrespective or the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or
ineffective.
Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this Ordinance
published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in
accordance with Section 36933(a) of the California Government Code, or (b) have a
summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once
five days before its adoption, and again within 15 days after adoption in accordance
with Section 36933(c) of the California Government Code.
Section 4. Effective Date. 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.
10
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of
this decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled
on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
11
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
LIBRARY BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Leslie Krongold, Incumbent
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
06 -15 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Paul A. Bergamaschi
Thomas N. Billings
Jeffrey A. Cambra
Penny L. Cozad
Betsy P. Elgar
Michael K. Henneberry
Patrick Lynch, Incumbent
Greg J. Klein
John W. Knox White
Samuel Downer Mayhew
Christopher G. Monahan
Tom Pavletic
Cookie Robles
Roderick L. Smith II
Jean Sweeney
Debra D. Turnage
Roger D. Wise
Lawrence R. Witte
Re: Agenda Item #7 -B
06 -15 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
George Shelby Edwards
Jeffrey C. Gould
Dr. Jerome B. Healy
Karin Lucas, Incumbent
Re: Agenda Item #7 -C
06 -15 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
SOCIAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
TWO (2) VACANCIES
INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Robert Bonta, Incumbent
Betsy P. Elgar
Jim C. Franz, Incumbent
Lisa L. Grove
Dr. Jerome B. Healy
Kristoph Lukesh
Jennifer L. Miller
Jesse D. Tamplen
Re: Agenda Item #7 -D
06 -15 -04