The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-02-03 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: January 26, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meeting, Regular and Special Meetings of the Community Improvement Commission, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Annual Meeting of the Alameda Public Improvement Commission of February 3, 2004 Transmitted herewith are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meeting, Regular and Special Meetings of the Community Improvement Commission, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Annual Meeting of the Alameda Public Improvement Commission of February 3, 2004. SPECIAL HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioner meeting held November 18, 2003. The Board Secretary has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioner meeting held November 18, 2003. 2 -B Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held December 16, 2003. The Board Secretary has presented for approval the Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held December 16, 2003. 2 -C Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2003. It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners accept the Audit Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003. The Audit firm of Wallace Rowe & Associates Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers January 26, 2004 found that the financial activities of the Housing Authority were in conformance with accepted accounting principles. 2 -D Recommending Approval of Cycle Painting Contract. It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners award a contract for cycle painting of 88 units throughout 11 housing complexes to Bella Painting, the low bidder. SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of January 20, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of January 20, 2004. AGENDA ITEM 1. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend a Contract with Architectural Resources Group to provide remaining pre - planning services for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. It is recommended that the contract amendment be approved to allow Architectural Resources Group to finalize preplanning work to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre. Funding for this work will come from the bonds issued through the merger of the redevelopment project areas. ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement Corporation Meeting of February 5, 2002 and February 4, 2003. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement Corporation Meeting of February 5, 2002 and February 4, 2003. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers January 26, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 20 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council; Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on January 20, 2004; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on January 27, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting held on January 28, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to approve Second Mortgage Loan from the City to the Human Resources Director. It is recommended that Council approve a $100,000 second mortgage loan to the Human Resources Director. 4 -C. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Jo Kahuanui as a member of the Recreation and Parks Commission. This resolution appoints Jo Kahuanui to the Recreation and Park Commission. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider a recommendation by the Historical Advisory Board to the City Council to designate the Del Monte Building, located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue, a City Monument; and Adoption of Resolution Designating the Del Monte Building City Monument #28. This public hearing has been scheduled to receive comments on the proposal to designate the Del Monte Building at 1501 Buena Vista as City Monument #28. After the hearing, Council is recommended to adopt a resolution designating the Del Monte building City Monument #28. 5 -C. Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers January 26, 2004 This hearing has been scheduled to receive Council and public input on proposed amendments to the Development Code which are intended to streamline processing of permits and applications, and clarify a variety of outdated regulations. It is proposed that an ordinance, containing Council's recommendations, will be brought back for introduction on February 17, 2004. 5 -D. Recommendation related to the application of State prevailing wages for Public Works construction and capital improvement projects. As a result of encouragement from construction trade groups, the City is considering developing a prevailing wage policy. Several options are provided, along with a study of how other cities are dealing with this issue. As noted, depending on the outcome of the appeal of the Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations case, Charter cities may not have the discretion to make a decision. 5 -E. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Sale of a Vacated Portion of Adams Street. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] Final passage of this ordinance consummates the sale of a 733 square foot parcel of surplus property to the adjacent property owner on Adams Street. Four affirmative votes are required to adopt this ordinance. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 7 -A. Consideration of appointment to the Housing Commission. At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Housing Commission. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioner meeting held November 18, 2003. Acceptance is recommended. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Board of Commissioners Meeting February 3, 2004 Page 2 2 -B. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held December 16, 2003. Acceptance is recommended. 2 -C. Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2003. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend acceptance of the audit report for the year ending June 30, 2003. 2 -D. Recommending Approval of Cycle Painting Contract. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Bella Painting in the amount of $88,820. 3. AGENDA 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:43 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Authorizing the Refinancing of Parrot Village, Eagle Village and China Clipper Plaza and Approving a Loan Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda in the amount of $6 Million and Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing Authority and the Executive Director of the Community Improvement Commission to Execute all Documents Related to the Transaction. Commissioner Kerr stated the City should not refinance the Housing Authority's real property with general obligation bonds. Commissioner Daysog stated the bonds are being issued for the economic development purposes of community and commercial revitalization; the Housing Authority has access to other sources of funds; although the cost associated with the Housing Authority using other funds would be higher, bond money should be used for economic development purposes. Chair Johnson inquired how much outside funding would cost. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Minutes of November 18, 2003 Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioners Page 2 The Housing Authority Financing Manager responded the interest rates would be much higher and there would be additional costs; noted refinancing would save $178,000 per year. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the savings is accrued to the Housing Authority, to which the Financing Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Daysog stated the policy question is whether $6 million should be used for commercial revitalization, which benefits all residents, or for the Housing Authority that benefits 7,000 residents. The Financing Manager stated the savings could be used to build more low- income housing. Commissioner Gilmore stated there is a trend; interest rates are historically low and various City departments are asking to refinance to obtain lower interest rates; the Housing Authority is still the "City;" the City Council should make a policy decision regarding refinancing. Chair Johnson stated the specific question is whether redevelopment money should be used to refinance other loans; loaned money cannot be used for redevelopment projects. The Financing Manager stated the proposal would provide the City with a cash flow for the next 30 years; refinancing would allow the Housing Authority to get out from under Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, which have extensive guidelines and reporting procedures. The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Executive Director stated the policy question is which areas the Council chooses to invest funds. Commissioner Kerr noted the matter was presented before and returned without additional information. Chair Johnson stated a previous question was the impact on financing redevelopment projects; suggested that the redevelopment issue be placed on a future agenda, including available funds, current plans' costs, and the amount needed for leveraging; stated the Commissioner should have a better understanding of whether funds are available for other uses, such as Housing Authority refinancing. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the matter is time sensitive. The Finance Director responded the matter relates to the bond issuance authorized in September; the bonds have not been priced; the City will not receive redevelopment funds if the matter is delayed. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes of November 18, 2003 Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioners Page 3 Chair Johnson inquired whether the bonds could be purchased without designating whether the money would be used for the Housing Authority. The Finance Director responded the bond was not to exceed $50 million, which includes the $6 million Housing Authority loan; the bonds would be sized down if the loan were not approved. Chair Johnson stated the bonds should go forward. Commissioner Kerr concurred that other projects should move forward. Commissioner Gilmore inquired how much issuing a $6 million bond at a later time would cost. The Finance Director responded economies of scale would be lost; for example, the City would have to pay Bond Counsel again. Chair Johnson inquired whether the $6 million could be included in the bond without being designated for the Housing Authority. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated if the $6 million is not approved for the Housing Authority, it could be used for redevelopment projects. Chair Johnson inquired whether said suggestion makes sense and whether other projects would be forthcoming. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter should not be delayed; leaving $6 million undesignated until the matter is resolved is acceptable. Commissioner Daysog stated that he has concerns regarding issuing bonds without making decisions about projects and costs; generating money simply because there is the capacity to do so is backwards; leaving $6 million open generates money looking for something to fund, rather than requesting funds following project selection; a decision should be made about whether or not funds will be loaned to the Housing Authority. Chair Johnson inquired whether $6 million would be needed for other projects or whether said amount should not be issued. The Development Service Director responded there will be future redevelopment project, such as potential West Alameda Business Association (WABA) projects; significant additional bonding capacity of $10 to $15 million is being held in reserve; including $6 million does not exhaust the City's bonding capacity; noted the Housing Authority's loan payments, which would total $384,000 annually, could be deposited into the commercial revitalization fund and be used as projects arise. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes of November 18, 2003 Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioners Page 4 Chair Johnson inquired whether $6 million should be issued if Housing Authority loan is not funded and whether $6 million could be used. The Development Services Director responded the bond covers priority projects, which are currently well defined; however, the $6 million could be used for additional projects, such as upcoming Webster Street projects that are not well defined. The CIC Executive Director stated $44 million would address all identified projects. Commissioner Gilmore inquired the cost involved with issuing $6 million at a later time. The Finance Director responded underwriting, bond counsel, printing and rating agency costs; issuing $6 million at a separate time would cost approximately $200,000 to $300,000. Commissioner Kerr inquired whether cost is a function of bond size. The Finance Director responded bond counsel and rating agencies are set costs; underwriting and insurance are a function of bond size. Commissioner Kerr inquired how much Tess issuing the bonds would cost if the $6 million were not included. The Finance Director responded there would be a small savings; however, issuing $6 million later would cost far more than the savings. Commissioner Matarrese stated that having $6 million, which could be used for future, un- solidified projects on Webster Street, is an acceptable risk; the economies of scale and interest rates are compelling enough to issue the entire bond amount now in the event the Housing Authority refinancing is approved in the future; the parking structure and theatre projects should not be delayed. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of issuing the bonds in the full amount [$50 million], holding $6 million for a future policy decision about whether to use funds for other redevelopment projects versus loaning funds to the Housing Authority for refinancing. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioners Daysog and Kerr — 2. [Commissioner Torrey abstained, as he is a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, not the Community Improvement Commission.] 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes of November 18, 2003 Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioners 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Torrey wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 6. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:07 p.m. Beverly Johnson, Chair Attest: Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:53 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Daysog moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Matarrese seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Regular meeting held October 7, 2003. Minutes were accepted. *2 -B. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held October 21, 2003. Minutes were accepted. *2 -C. Minutes of the Joint CIC and Board of Commissioner Special meeting held November 4, 2003. Minutes were accepted with a correction of the day being changed to Tuesday. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to Enter into an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the CIC, Housing Authority and Resources for Community Development for the Development of 52 rental units on Certain Real Property at the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station. The Chief Executive Officer recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing Authority to enter in an OPA with the CIC and Resources for Community Development for the Development of Certain Real Property at the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Minutes of December 16, 2003 Special Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2 Station. Commissioner Torrey moved approval. Commissioner Materrese seconded. Commissioner Kerr voted no stating that all the units were to be homeownership, then it was reduced to 50 %, and now it is 10 units. Motion passed 5 -1. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS. None. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Beverly Johnson, Chair Attest: Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, Califomia 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 Date: January 22, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2003 Background: The financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003, were prepared for the first time in the format prescribed by the provisions of Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34). The firm of Wallace Rowe and Associates, Certified Public Accountants, audited the Housing Authority's financial operation. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the financial statements at its meeting on January 21, 2004. Discussion: This report submits the annual Financial Statements and the Management Letter for last fiscal year (Exhibits A and B). The auditors, Wallace Rowe and Associates, opined that "the financial statements... present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, as of June 30, 2003, and the results of its operations and the cash flow of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with accepted accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America." The Financial Statements provide a brief review of all funds. There were no findings for FY2003. The Management Letter provided by the auditor also is attached. This letter provides management with the auditor's comments and suggestions on strengthening internal controls and operating efficiency. The auditor's comments relate to compliance with the Davis -Bacon Act, which only applies to construction work at Esperanza. The Housing Authority will provide additional training to relevant staff to ensure compliance on all future projects. "Dedicated to Excellence. Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and Members January 22, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 2 Recommendation: The Housing Commission and audit report for the year ending MTP:ED u:\BOC reportslaudit fv2003 Chief Executive Officer recommend acceptance of the June 30, 2003. espectfully submitte Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Exhibit A HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 (Including Auditors' Report Thereon) HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditors' Report Management's Discussion and Analysis Page 1 3 Enterprise Fund Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 7 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds 8 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 9 Supplemental Information: Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 21 Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A -133 22 24 Status of Prior Audit Findings 26 Schedule of Findings and Recommendations 27 WALLACE ROWE & ASSOCIATES Accounting Firm 430 Verbena Court Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Board of Commissioners Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Alameda, California (925) 229 -1950 Fax (925) 229 -1952 wroweassoc@aol.com We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these basic financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, as of June 30, 2003, and the results of its operations and the cash flow of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As described in Note 2, the Authority has implemented a new financial reporting model, as required by the provisions of GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local Governments, as of June 30, 2003. The management's discussion and analysis on pages 3 and 4, are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United State of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The Management's discussion and Analysis is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. We have applied certain limited-procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary information, however, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. c January 7, 2004 2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The financial statements for the fiscal year 2003 are being issued for the first time in the format prescribed by the provisions of Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34), which requires the Authority to provide this overview of its financial statements for the fiscal year. Please read it in conjunction with the Basic Financial Statements. The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda provides housing assistance to low income families and individuals. The Authority' s primary source offending is from governmental grants received from the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) and rent collections from its owned or administered housing units. The following management discussion and analysis (MD &A) will discuss the results ofthe authority' s operations. Key financial information for the current fiscal will be compared with those of the prior year. FISCAL 2003 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Financial highlights of the year include the following: The two primary revenue resources of the Authority are the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) grants and rents collected from its owned or administered housing units. Expenditures supported by HUD in 2001 -02 amounted to $14,899,140. In 2002 -03 this amount increased by $6,496,258 to $21,395,398. OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT This annual Financial Report is in four parts: 1. Management's Discussion and Analysis (this part), 2. Independent Auditors' Report, 3. The Basic Financial Statements, which include the Statement of Net Assets, the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets, and the Statement of Cash Flows and the notes to these financial statements, 4. Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards. THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Basic Financial Statements comprise the Authority -wide Financial Statements. The Statement ofNet Assets provides information about the financial position of the Authority as a whole on the full accrual basis, similar to that used in the private sector. The Statement of Activities provides information about the Authority's revenues and all its expenses, also on the full accrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues and expenses of each of the Authority's programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net Assets for the year. 3 The Authority -wide financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis, which means they measure the flow of all economic resources of the Authority as a whole. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND MAJOR INITIATIVES Due to the continually increasing needs for affordable housing, the Authority is expected to fully utilize its funded programs for the next fiscal year. The grant amounts for both the Housing Choice Voucher Program and its other grant funded programs are expected to increase slightly. CONTACTING THE AUTHORITY'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT This annual report is intended to provide citizens and taxpayers with a general overview of the Authority's finances. Questions about this report should be directed to the Finance Manager at 701 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California 94501. 4 STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS AND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS - PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES The Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets - Proprietary Funds are statements required by Government Accounting Board Statement 34. Their purpose is to summarize the entire Authority's financial activities and financial position. They are prepared on the same basis as is used by most businesses, which means they include all the Authority's assets and its liabilities, as well as its revenues and expenses. This is known as the full accrual basis - the effect of all the Authority's transactions is taken into account, regardless of whether or when cash changes hands. The Statement of Net Assets reports the difference between the Authority's total assets and the Authority's total liabilities. The statement of Net Assets presents similar information to the old balance sheet format, but presents it in a way that focuses the reader on the composition of the Authority's net assets, by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. The Statement of Net Assets summarizes the financial position of all the Authority's Business -Type Activities. 5 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS JUNE 30, 2003 Enterprise Fund Housing ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and investments (Note 3) $ 3,480,511 Cash with fiscal agents 965,337 Due from other governments 1,242,151 Tenant accounts receivable 18,702 Accounts receivable - other 177,701 Prepaid expenses 21,634 Inventory 8,062 Total current assets 5,914,098 Fixed Assets (note 4): Land 7,746,432 Structures 29,929,209 Equipment 200,988 37,876,629 Less Accumulated Depreciation (10,518,756) Net fixed assets 27,357,873 Total assets $ 33,271,971 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 33,038 Tenant security deposits 256,647 Accrued liabilities 372,199 Interest payable 39,520 Notes payable 314,454 Accrued compensated absences 69,880 Total current liabilities 1,085,738 Noncurrent liabilities: Notes payable 16,098,137 Compensated absences 69,429 Total noncurrent liabilities 16,167,566 Total liabilities 17,253,304 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 10,945,282 Unrestricted 5,073,385 Total fund equity 16.018,667 Total liabilities and fund equity $ 33,271,971 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 6 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 Enterprise Fund Housing Operating Revenues Grants $ 22,967,145 Rents 2,761,119 Other 166,285 Total revenues 25,894,549 Operating Expenses Administration 2,087,023 Utilities 392,098 Tenant services 158,200 Maintenance 2,043,873 General 951,016 Housing assistance payments 18,562,530 Depreciation 780,887 Total expenditures Operating income (loss) 24,975,627 918,922 Non - Operating Revenues (Expenses) Donation of land (Note 2.F.) 2,626,356 Investment income 60,183 Interest expense (968,621) Net non - operating revenue (expenses) 1317,918 Net income 2,636,840 Total net assets, beginning, as previously stated Adjustment - due to change in accounting principle (Note 6) Total net assets, beginning, as restated 38,311,600 (24,929,773) 13,381,827 Total net assets, ending $ 16,018,667 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 7 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS - PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received from grants $ 21,723,072 Cash received from rents 2,761,119 Other cash receipts 106,102 Cash payments to suppliers (5,131,075) Cash payments to landlords (18,562,569) Net cash provided (used) in operating activities 896,649 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of fixed assets (63,673) Mortgage principal payments (314,455) Mortgage interest payments (968,582) Net cash (used) by capital and related financing activities (1,346,710) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest received 60,183 Net cash provided by investing activities 60,183 Enterprise Fund Housing Net increase (decrease) in cash (389,878) Cash at beginning of year 4,835,726 Cash at end of year $ 4,445,848 Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income $ 918,922 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation 780,887 Changes in assets and liabilities: Increase in accounts receivable (142,987) Increase in due from other governments (613,650) Decrease in tenants accounts receivable 76,824 Decrease in prepaid expenses 98,395 Decrease in inventories 485 Decrease in accounts payable (22,473) Increase in tenants security deposits payable 22,361 Decrease in other accrued liabilities (222,115) Net cash provided by operating activities $ 896,649 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 8 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 1 - DEFINITION OF REPORTING ENTITY The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (the Authority) was established on August 8, 1940, by a resolution of the City of Alameda City Council. The Authority is governed by a six member Board of Commissioners. Five of these members area also members of the City Council of the City of Alameda and one member is a resident in one of the Authority's complexes. The Board retains authority over the budget but has delegated authority for most other policy decisions to the seven member Housing Commission. The City Council appoints the members of the Housing Commission who serve for either two or four year terms. During the year ended June 30, 2003, the Authority did not exercise oversight responsibility over any other organizations. The financial statements present information for the activities of only that portion of funds and account groups of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. These financial statements do not present information of any other component unit or department of the City of Alameda. Note 2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Basis of Presentation The accompanying financial statements are presented on the basis set forth in Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34, Basic Financial Statements -and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments. GASB 34 requires that the financial statements described below be presented. Government -wide Statements: The Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Activities display information about the primary government (the Authority). These statements include the financial activities of the .overall Authority. These statements distinguish between the governmental and business -type activities ofthe Authority. Business -type activities are financed in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties. There were no governmental type activities for the Authority for fiscal year 2003. The Statement of Activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each segment of the business -type activities of the Authority and for each function of the Authority's governmental activities (if such activities were to exist). Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a program or function and, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. Program revenues include grants and contributions that are restricted to the operations of a particular program. Revenues that are not classified as program revenues are presented as general revenues. 9 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 2 (continued) Fund Financial Statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the Authority's funds. The emphasis of fund financial statements is on major individual governmental funds, each of which is displayed in a separate column. There are no governmental fund types for this Authority. B. Basis of Accounting The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when related cash flows take place. As explained in Note 6 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 and for all previous fiscal years the Authority presented its financial activities as Governmental Fund Types on the modified accrual basis of accounting. In order to more fully comply with guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) effective July 1, 2002 the Authority made a change in accounting principle and begin reflecting its financial activities as an Enterprise Special District and converted to the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenue from grants and donations are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied. C. Budgeting Procedures The Authority participates in the budgetary process of the City of Alameda, California. During March of each year, the Executive Director of the Authority must submit estimates of available financing and financing requirements for the Authority to the Authority's Chief Executive officer. The Chief Executive Officer makes any necessary revisions and submits the budget to the Board of Commissioners for approval. Subsequent revisions to the budget are made in the form of either supplemental appropriations or transfers between budget categories. The Board of Commissioners approves all significant budgetary revisions. D. Encumbrances Encumbrance accounting is not employed by the Authority. 10 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 2 (continued) E. Grant Restrictions The Authority has received grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that provide for community development activities and assistance to individuals. F. Fixed Assets Fixed assets are valued at historical cost. Contributed general fixed assets are recorded at fair market value at the time received. Interest expense incurred during the development period is capitalized. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 land valued at $2,626,356 was donated to the Authority by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Fixed assets include all land and site improvements thereon; all dwelling and nondwelling structures, including fixtures permanently attached thereto or installed in a fixed position; and all items of nonexpendable equipment acquired and held for the projects. It also includes items of expendable equipment paid for from funds provided for the development of the projects. Maintenance, minor repairs and replacements are recorded as expenses; extraordinary replacements of property resulting in property betterments are charged to the property accounts. Depreciation is charged to operations using the straight -line method based on the estimated useful life of the related asset. The estimated useful lives of the various asset categories are as follows: Buildings and improvements Equipment and vehicles 40 years 5 years G. Receivables All receivables are reported at their gross value. H. Income Taxes The Authority is exempt from Federal Income and California Franchise Taxes. 11 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 2 (continued) I. Inventories Inventory is valued at the lower of cost or market on a first -in, first -out basis. Inventory consists of expendable maintenance supplies held for consumption. The purchase method is used to account for inventories. Under the purchase method, inventories are recorded as expenditures when purchased; however, material amounts of inventories on hand at the fiscal year end are reported as assets. J. Employee Leave Benefits Regular full -time employees earn from 10 to 25 vacation days per year, depending upon their length of employment. Each employee also earns 12 sick leave days per year. Unused annual leave may be accumulated not to exceed 10 days in addition to that accrued in the current calender year. Unused sick leave will be allowed to accumulate. An employee terminating employment shall be paid for any accumulated annual leave at their current hourly rate of pay. Employees terminating employment receive no compensation for unused sick leave. K. Grant Restrictions The Authority has received loans and grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to build and improve housing projects. The grants require that only individuals and families that meet various income, age and employment standards be housed or aided. Note 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investments at June 30, 2003 consisted of the following: Cash and investments Investments with trustees $ 3,480,511 965,337 Total $ 4,445,848 The $3,480,511 of cash and investments reflects $1,340,815 maintained on deposit in banks and $2,139,696 deposited in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). Of the amounts deposited into banks, $100,000 is covered by Federal Deposit insurance. The remaining $1,240,815 is required by California law to be collateralized by governmental securities with a market value of 110% of the deposit or with first trust deed mortgages with a value of 150% of the of the uninsured amount. 12 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 3 (continued) The $965,337 of investments with trustees reflects amounts held by trust departments of various Authority lending agencies. These amounts will be used for future rehabilitation and operating costs of the Authority's multifamily projects. Investments are carried at fair value. Cash and cash equivalents are considered to be liquid assets for purposes of measuring cash flows. The deposits and investments are classified by investment risk as prescribed by generally accepted accounting principles as follows: Category 1 - Deposits which are insured by Federal Deposit Insurance. Category 2 - Deposits which are collateralized. Category 3 - Deposits which are uninsured or uncollateralized. Investments maintained in the Local Agency Investment Fund and with the trustee agents are not categorized by level of risk because they are not evidenced by specific identifiable securities. The following is a summary of the Authority's cash deposits at June 30, 2003: Cash in bank Note 4 - FIXED ASSETS The following is a summary of the Authority's changes in fixed assets for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003: Bank Balance Before Carrying Reconciling Amounts Items $ 1,340,815 $ 1,382,241 Bank Balance Insured (Category 1) $ 100,000 Bank Balance Collateralized (Category 2) $ 1,282,241 Land Buildings & Improvements Equipment Less accumulated Depreciation Balance 7/1/02 $ 5,120,077 29,929,209 137,314 $ 35,186,600 Additions Deletions $ 2,626,356 $ 63.673 $ 2,690,029 $ Balance 6/30/03 $ 7,746,433 29,929,209 200,987 37,876,629 (10,518,756) Fixed assets, net $ 27,357,873 13 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 5 - LONG -TERM DEBT Following is a summary changes in long -term debt for the year ended June 30, 2003: Washington Mutual Bank Reilly Mortgage Midland Loan Services Notes Payable - City of Alameda Notes Payable - Other Compensated Absences (Note 6) Balance 7/1/02 $ 2,350,326 1,987,369 9,732,789 1,088,600 1,567,962 112,764 $ 16,839,810 Additions 26,545 Deletions $ 87,236 59,275 141,928 26,015 $ 26,545 $ 314,454 Balance 6/30/03 $ 2,263,090 1,928,094 9,590,861 1,088,600 1,541,947 139,309 $16,551,901 The following is a schedule of debt payment requirements to maturity for long -term obligations other than compensated absences: Year Ending June 30 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -2013 2014 -2018 2019 -2023 2024 -2028 2029 -2033 2034 -2038 2039 -2043 2044 -2048 2049 -2053 2054 -2058 Principal $ 314,454 425,589 419,657 449,396 479,994 2,940,048 2,821,031 2,750,628 3,008,134 1,818,728 49,995 45,599 39,474 601,294 248,571 Total Required Interest Payments. $ 884,923 $ 1,199,377 890,099 1,315,688 863,419 1,283,076 832,167 1,281,563 804,305 1,284,299 3,481,941 6,421,989 2,499,037 5,320,068 1,705,478 4,456,106 943,652 3,951,786 135,647 1,954,375 49,995 - 45,599 39,474 646,582 1,247,876 - 248,571 $ 16,412,592 $ 13,687,250 $ 30,099,842 14 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 5 (continued) The deed oftrust note of $1,928,094 for the Parrot Village accrues interest at 6.125% and requires annual payments of $179,356. The deed of trust note of $2,263,090 for the Eagle Avenue Apartments accrues interest at 8.15% and requires annual payments of $306,520. The deed of trust note of $9,590,860 for the Independence Plaza Apartments accrues interest at 5.57% and requires annual payments of $680,460. Four other notes are secured by deeds of trust on six properties located throughout the city of Alameda. These notes were issued during the fiscal years ended June 30, 1997 and June 30, 2003. These notes have a balance owing of $1,541,947 as of June 30, 2003. The notes have interest rates ranging from 5.05% to 6.72% per annum and require annual payments of $116,742. Issued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997 were two deferred loans from the City of Alameda. These loans were issued for $518,600 and carry no interest rate. They are secured by deeds oftrust on nine properties located in Alameda, California. One of the notes is deferred until January 1, 2007, while the other is deferred until January 1, 2027. Varying semiannual payments are due on each loan from the deferral date through December 31, 2005. A promissory note agreement for $570,000 was entered into with the City of Alameda on June 18, 1998. This note bears interest at 3% per annum. Both interest and principal payments on this loan are deferred until the note's due date of June 30, 2057. The mortgage note payable to Washington Mutual was entered into on September 1, 1983. It is payable in monthly installments of $25,543, including principal and interest at 8.15 %. Final payment is due on August 1, 2023. The mortgage note payable to Midland Loan Services, Inc. was entered into on August 25, 1998. It is payable in monthly installments of $56,705, including principal and interest at 5.57 %. Final payment is due February 1, 2031. The mortgage note payable to Reilly Mortgage Associates, L.P. was entered into on January 1, 1981. It is payable in monthly installments of $14,946, including principal and interest at 6.125 %. Final payment is due on September 1, 2020. 15 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 6 - ADJUSTMENT DUE TO CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE In order to comply more fully with the guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development effective July 1, 2002 the Authority converted from accounting for its financial activities as Governmental Fund Types and Account Groups using the modified accrual basis of accounting to accounting for the Authority as an Enterprise Special District using the full accrual basis of accounting. The adjustment of $24,929,773 reflects the restated net assets of the Authority on June 30, 2002 on the accrual basis of accounting. Note 7 - COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the Authority's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation leave up to a maximum of 10 days. This leave will be used in future periods or paid to employees upon separation from the Authority. Accrued vacation leave has been valued by the Authority and has been recorded at $139,309 as of June 30, 2003. It is the Authority's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused sick leave, however, the value of unused sick leave is not payable to employees upon separation from the Authority. The cost of vacation is recognized when payments are made to employees. Note 8 - OPERATING LEASE The Authority on March 14, 2003 entered into a lease agreement with the Resources for Community Development (RCD) to lease land to RCD until March 14, 2078. Total rental income for the year ended June 30, 2003 under the lease agreement was $1. At June 30, 2003, the future rental income required under the lease for the land is as follows: Fiscal Year Ending 2004 $ 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 Thereafter 69 $ 74 16 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 9 - EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN On July 1, 2000, the employees of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda officially became employees of the City of Alameda. The individuals continue to work at the Authority as contracted staff Upon becoming employees of the City of Alameda these employees became entitled to the benefits offered all other employees of the City, including participation in the City's employees' retirement plan. The information pertaining to the retirement plan for staff at the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda is included in the financial report for the City of Alameda. In addition to becoming participants in the City of Alameda's retirement plan, the employees remain participants in the retirement plan established by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. The information for this plan is as follows: A. Plan Description All permanent employees are eligible to participate in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CALPERS), an agent multi - employer public employee retirement system that acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. The fund provides retirement, disability, and death benefits based on the employees' years of service, age and final compensation. Employees vest after five years of service and may receive retirement benefits at age 50. These benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statue and County ordinance. Copies of the Fund's annual financial report may be obtained from CALPERS' executive office: 400 P. Street, Sacramento, .CA 95814. B. Funding Policy As there were no active employees for this plan for the fiscal year 2003 there were no required contributions to the plan. C. Annual Pension Cost The Authority's annual pension cost for the fund was equal to the Authority's required and actual contributions which were determined as part of the June 30, 2000, actuarial valuation using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. Significant actuarial assumptions used to compute the PERS pension benefit obligation include an actuarial interest rate of 8.25% per annum and projected salary increases that vary by length of service. The total increase in any future year includes an assumed 3.5% assumed inflation rate and no across the board or merit increases. The actuarial value of the Authority' s assets was determined using a technique that smooths the effect of short-term volatility in the market value of investments over a two to five year period depending on the size of investment gains or losses. Theplan's unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) (or excess assets) is being amortized as a level percentage 17 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 9 (continued) of projected payroll on a closed basis. The amortization period of any unfunded actuarial liabilities of the Authority ends on June 30, 2001. Required supplementary information Unfunded Actuarial Entry Age Unfunded Liability as Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Percentage Valuation Asset Accrued Accrued Funded Covered of Covered Date Value Liability Liability Ratio Payroll Payroll 6/30/99 2,296,303 1,600,315 (695,988) 143.9% 1,495,641 (46.534 %) 6/30/00 2,715,857 1,620,625 (1,095,232) 167.6% N/A Note 10 - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS Workers' Compensation Insurance The Authority participates in a joint venture under a joint powers agreement (JPA) with the California Housing Workers' Compensation Authority (CHWCA). CHWCA was formed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for member housing authorities. As of December 31, 2002, there were 31 members. The relationship between the Authority and CHWCA is such that CHWCA is not a component unit of the Authority for financial reporting purposes. Condensed audited financial information for the year ended December 31, 2002, is as follows: Total assets $ 11,235,751 Total liabilities (13,296,506) Total retained earnings $ (2,060,755) Total revenues $ 5,458,532 Total expenses (6,719,869) Net increase in retained earnings $ (1,261,337) CHWCA had no long -term debt outstanding at December 31, 2002. The Authority's share of year ended assets, liabilities, or retained earnings has not been calculated. The Authority contributed $118,231 to CHWCA during the fiscal year. 18 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2003 Note 10 (continued) Property and Liability Insurance The Authority participates in a joint venture under a joint powers agreement (JPA) with the Housing Authorities Risk Retention Pool (HARRP). HARRP was formed to provide property and liability insurance coverage for member housing authorities. At December 31, 2002 there were 93 members. The relationship between the Authority and HARRP is such that HARRP is not a component unit of the Authority for financial reporting purposes. Condensed audited financial information for the year ended December 31, 2002 is as follows: Total assets $ 21,845,560 Total liabilities (5,362,982) Total retained earnings $ 16,482,578 Total revenues $ 5,166,621 Total expenses (4,577,230) Net increase in retained earnings $ 589,391 HARRP had no long -term debt outstanding at December 31, 2002. The Authority's share of year end assets, liabilities, or retained earnings has not been calculated. The Authority contributed $44,673 to HARRP during the fiscal year. 19 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 20 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 Federal Grantor CFDA Number Expenditures Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Direct Programs: Public and Indian Housing 14.850 $ 105,656 Rent Supplements/Lower Income Families 14.119 163,087 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 14.871 19,362,179 * N/C S/R Section 8 Programs 14.182 1,523,087 Public Housing Capital Fund 14.872 241,424 Total direct programs $ 21,395,433 * Major Federal Program The accompanying Independent Auditors' Report and notes are an integral part of this statement. 21 WALLACE ROWE & ASSOCIATES Accounting Firm 430 Verbena Court Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (925) 229 -1950 Fax (925) 229 -1952 wroweassoc@aol.com REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the Board of Commissioners Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Alameda, California We have audited the financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2003, and have issued our report thereon dated January 7, 2004. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants, noncompliance which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that is required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level of risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. 22 This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners, management and federal awarding agencies and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. January 7, 2004 23 WALLACE ROWE & ASSOCIATES Accounting Firm 430 Verbena Court Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (925) 229 -1950 Fax (925) 229 -1952 wroweassoc @aol.com REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A -133 To the Board of Commissioners Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Alameda, California Compliance We have audited the compliance of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California with the types of compliance requirements described in the U. S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 Compliance supplement that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2003. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and (OMB) Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non - Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A -133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2003. 24 Internal Control Over Compliance The management of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, California's internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A -133. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that noncompliance with applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants that would be material in relation to a major federal program being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over compliance and its operation that we consider a material weakness. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Commissioners, management, and federal awarding agencies. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. January 7, 2004 25 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA STATUS OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS JUNE 30, 2003 The previous audit report for the year ended June 30, 2002, contained no audit findings 26 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JUNE 30, 2003 Section I - Summary of Auditors' Results Financial Statements Type of auditors' report issued: unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: Material weaknesses identified? no Reportable conditions identified not considered material weaknesses? no Noncompliance material to financial statements? no Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: Material weaknesses identified? Reportable conditions identified not considered material weaknesses? no No Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs: unqualified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with A -133, Section .510(a)? no Identification of major programs: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 14.871 Dollar threshold to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs $ 641,863 Auditee qualified as low risk auditee? no Section II - Financial Statement Findings no Section III - Federal Award Findings no 27 WALLACE ROWE & ASSOCIATES Exhibit B Accounting Finn 430 Verbena Court Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 January 7, 2004 To the Board of Commissioners and Executive Director Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Alameda, California (925) 229 -1950 Fax (925) 229 -1952 wroweassoc@aol.com In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for the year ended June 30, 2003 we considered the Authority's internal control structure to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. However, during our audit we became aware of a matter that is an opportunity for strengthening internal controls and operating efficiency. The item that accompanies this letter summarizes our comments and suggestions regarding this matter. We have issued a separate report on the Authority's internal control structure which is included in our financial report dated January 7, 2004. This letter does not affect our report dated January 7, 2004 on the financial statements of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. We will review the status of this comment during our next audit engagement. We have already discussed this comment and have made suggestions to various Authority personnel, and we will be pleased to discuss it in further detail at your convenience, to perform any additional study of this matter, or to assist you in implementing the recommendation. Sincerely, Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Management letter Page 2 During our examination of a construction project requiring compliance with the Davis - Bacon Act we noted the following items regarding the Authority's controls over monitoring the contractor's compliance with the Act. 1. Employee interviews were performed, however, the payroll amounts indicated by the employees did not always agree to the payroll records submitted by the contractor. Two of the employee interviews were not signed and dated that they had been reviewed. There was no notation on the employee interviews or other documentation available to indicate that the differences in the payroll amounts per the employees and the payroll records were investigated. 2. Payroll records obtained from the contractors were not signed or dated by an employee of the Authority to indicate when the records were obtained or to show that the records had been reviewed and approved. 3. The payroll records for two pay periods had two different certified payroll records for each of the two pay periods. The two certified payroll records for the same pay period were not in exact agreement. There was no documentation available to indicate that an employee had reviewed and determined why there were differences in the certified payroll records for the same pay period. 4. Twelve payroll period records examined did not contain the required certification from the contractors. 5. One letter was sent to a contractor by the Authority six months after the project had been completed. This letter notified the contractor that errors were noted in the payroll records submitted by the contractor. All payments had been made to the contractor many months before this letter was written. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 Date: January 23, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Recommending Approval of Cycle Painting Contract Background: The Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids on December 22, 2003 for unit cycle painting. A total of 12 contractors picked up bid packages. A bid walk was held on Monday, January 5 with fifteen (15) painting contractors in attendance. The bid opening was held at Anne B. Diament Plaza on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. There were four contractors in attendance. One of the bid submission requirements was proof that the contractor's insurance company could provide the Housing Authority the additional insured endorsement. Of the nine bid proposals submitted only one did not provide the required statement from their insurance company. The Housing Commission approved a staff recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to recommend approval of the contract with the lowest, most responsive bidder. Discussion: The bids are as follows: TUDIO:' BELL"A PAINTINI -BED. -LEVEL Faiirfield ED 4 -BED $ 690.00 $ 870.00 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,265.00 $ 1,245.00 $ 1,445.00 $ 1,625.00 $ 9,220.00 U.S. NATIONAL CORP I $ 700.00 Z.K. PAINTINGx Panii ama City $ 900.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,300.00 CastroVaileysx;. $ 1,600.00 I$ 1,800.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 850.00 PARO PAINTING: $ 1,000.00 1$ 1,300.00 I $ 1,300.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 1$ 1,550.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 800.00 I $ 900.00 acrament $ 1,800.00 PAINTING & PROP,ERTY MAINTENANCE $ 1,500.00 1$ 2,000.00 1$ 1,800.00 Hayward $ 3,000.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 15,050.00 $ 746.00 $ 867.00 $ 1,197.00 $ 1,197.00 $ 1,460.00 I$ 1,460.00 $ 1,640.00 I $ 1,790.00 1$ 10,357.00 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners K. CONSTRUCTION January 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2 $ 2,295.36 $ 2,669.75 I $ 3,455.28 COASTAL COATINGS; SERVICES,INC $ 3,048.08 Ieasanton $ 3,841.92 I $ 3,467.52 $ 4,234.68 I $ 4,626.00 $ 27,638.59 $ 2,500.00 I $ 2,700.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 3,500.00 ATLANTIS;. PAINTING';': Vallejo; $ 3,500.00 I $ 4,700.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 29,600.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 2,200.00 I $ 3,200.00 I $ 2,900.00 $ 3,480.00 I $ 3,400.00 $ 4,100.00 I $ 4,200.00 $ 25,280.00 The Housing needs to paint eighty -eight units throughout 11 housing complexes as follows: 8 - Studio Units 39 - One Bedroom Units 19 - Two Bedroom Units 13 - Three Bedroom Units 8 - Four Bedroom Units 1 - Five Bedroom Unit Based upon the unit price bids above the total bid for the eighty -eight (88) units is as follows: NAME STUDIO 1 -BED 2 -BED /2 2 -BED /1 3 -BED /2 3 -BED /1 4 -BED 5 -BED TOTAL Bella 5,520 33,930 10,400 9,360 15,180 1,245 11,560 1,625 88,820 US Nat'l. 5,600 35,100 12,000 9,900 16,800 1,300 12,800 1,800 95,300 Z.K. 6,800 39,000 13,000 11,700 16,800 1,400 12,400 1,700 102,800 Paro 6,400 35,100 18,000 13,500 24,000 1,800 24,000 3,250 126,050 P & P 5,968 33,813 11,970 10,773 17,520 1,460 13,120 1,790 96,414 F.K. 18,362 104,120 34,553 27,433 46,103 3,468 33,877 4,626 272,542 Coastal 20,000 105,300 30,000 28,800 42,000 3,500 37,600 6,500 273,700 Atlantis 14,400 85,800 _ 32,000 26,100 41,760 3,400 32,800 4,200 240,460 Staff has checked references, insurance and licenses of the above bidders to ensure qualifications are met. Fiscal Impact: The Housing Authority has appropriated $99,500 for cycle painting in this year's budget. Awarding a contract of $88,820 to the lowest qualified bidder would leave a balance of $10,680 for unforeseen contingencies and/or painting of additional units. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Chair and Members January 23, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 2 Recommendation: The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Bella Painting in the amount of $88,820. Respectfully submitte Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:wa Please Note: The Contract with Bella Painting is on file with the City Clerk. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: January 21, 2004 Subject: Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Amend a Contract with Architectural Resources Group to Provide Remaining Pre - planning Services for the Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre BACKGROUND The Executive Director has initiated planning activities for the historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre in conjunction with a multi- screen theater project. Preservation architects, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), were contracted to provide feasibility preplanning and cost estimating for the possible historic rehabilitation of the theater. As with most architectural projects, the pre - planning component of this project has been phased, starting with very general examination, assessment and review and moving to the next level of review based upon favorable results of the previous phase. This approach allows for careful analysis without wasting time and resources which might occur if the analysis were not phased. To date, two purchase orders and two contracts have been developed for ARG resulting in the following information: • Purchase Order I, $4,905— Building walk through and examination, document review and preliminary discussions regarding cost estimates, issues and approach to rehabilitation of the building. • Purchase Order II, $4,910 — Compared cost estimates provided by the theater developer and estimates by ARG. Defined cost alternatives related to the extent of rehabilitation performed on the building. • Contract I, $38,510— Interior rehabilitation/existing finishes analysis and condition assessment. On -site sampling and analysis of all historic finishes was conducted throughout the theater and documented. Conditions assessment of all historic features was also carried out and documented. • Contract II, $78,890 —This contract involved preliminary design discussion with the theater developer, code analysis, preliminary treatment recommendations for three alternative scopes of work, preliminary building measurements and preliminary cost estimates. Based upon the analysis carried out under Contract I, a description of how the major areas of the theater should be treated was developed, including alternative treatments Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #1 (CIC) 2 -3 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission 1/21/2004 Page 2 as appropriate. Preliminary building measurements were taken to compare to the original building plans and to identify any changes which may have been made. Using these measurements, preliminary space layout drawings were made of the lobby and concession stand, which would involve a modification to the entrance to the auditorium. Preliminary cost estimates were developed, based on detailed instructions provided by ARG, including three treatment options and corresponding pricing. Additionally, ARG contracted with specialists to examine the building and provide recommendations related to the structure and infrastructure, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical systems and acoustical design components of the building. • The result of this most recent contract is that further work on the feasibility of the project is warranted at this time including additional and more specific building measurements, testing and drawings. Information from the cost estimates has helped to determine that, based upon a draft project budget, a partial historic rehabilitation of the building would be possible, concentrating on the entrance and lobby with a less extensive restoration of the auditorium. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The next stage of this analysis is to develop the final phase of documents for preplanning and cost estimates for rehabilitating the Alameda Theatre. ARG Contract III Under consideration in this report is a contract to finalize preplanning work. The Scope of Services is attached. Total amount for the contract amendment with ARG is $129,200. The major components of this contract include: • Building Measurements — Previous contracts involved measurements in limited areas of the building. This contract would provide for detailed measurements of the remaining building, such as the bathrooms, balcony and building exterior in preparation for the next phase of work, developing construction drawings. • Materials Treatments — Additional testing and test panels would be made throughout the building to further refine treatment of finishes. • Code and Agency Consultation — Specific discussions related to multi- agency regulations and permitting would be conducted. • Program Development —Based upon the detailed drawings, layout of all equipment and fixtures such as seats, projectors, lights, HVAC, would be developed to ensure proper placement and function. • Acoustic Designs —ARG would coordinate with the theater developer on specific design needs for acoustical equipment and interior finishes needed to produce appropriate sound specifications. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\ Kathleen \Theater \Staff Reports \CIC 1 -21 2 -3 -04 staff report.doc F: CP /Alameda Theatre/ARG /Staff Reports Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission 1/21/2004 Page 3 • Cost Estimates — Development of a cost estimate package to be used by cost estimator /s to provide final cost estimates. If approved, this contract would complete the remaining pre - planning activities for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater for a total cost, including previous contracts, of $256,415. Future Work —If the above contract is approved and completed, the next step, if approved, would be to produce construction bid documents, followed by selection of a contractor and rehabilitation work, including oversight by ARG. The final contract with ARG would be approximately $343,585, based on a total fee amount of 12% of construction costs, currently estimated at $5,000,000. FINANCIAL IMPACT This project will be funded by the Merged Areas Bond Issuance and would not impact the General Fund. Architectural fees for the contract amendment would not exceed $129,200. RECOMMENDATION Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend the contract with Architectural Resources Group to provide remaining preplanning services for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. By: JMF/PB/MJF/KK:ry Attachment cc: Naomi Miroglio, ARG Kyle Conner, MovieTECS Park Street Business Association 1 ectfull • mitted Ben. it , Development Services D* ector Marc Fontes Business Development Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G : \econdev\Kathleen \Theater\Staff Reports \CIC 1 -21 2 -3 -04 staff report.doc F: CP /Alameda Theatre/ARG /Staff Reports Architectural Resources Group Alameda Theater Task 4 Proposal Cost Estimate Architectural Resources Group Activity Cost Task 4 Scope of Work A. Base Drawings (areas of new work) $8,000 1. Field Measurement 2. Update base plans B. Coordination with Theatre Developer $12,040 1. Establish Concession, Ticketing, Acoustical and Projection Program Requirements 2. Finalize Space Layouts 3. Meetings (assume 4) C. Code Analysis I $7,160 D. Preliminary Agency Consultation I $4,880 1. Building/Fire 2. Planning/Historic Advisory Board E. Consultant Coordination $7,160 2. Review and Coordinate proposed system upgrades F. Interior Rehabilitation i $12,040 1. Treatment Recommendations 2. Conduct Test Panels 3. Condition and Treatment summary G. Cost Estimate Package $13,080 1. First floor plan, second floor plan, balcony floor plan, roof plan, building sections, exterior elevation, reflected ceiling plans, interior elevations H. Cost Estimate $8,460 2. Review cost estimate 3. Present cost estimate to City j 4. Value engineering/Finalize project scope G. Meetings I $4,880 1. Meetings with City (allow 4) • SUBTOTAL TASK 4 Task 4 Total Fees I $77,700 CONSULTANTS Structural Mechanical/Plumbing /Fire Protection Electrical Acoustical Waterproofing REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Photography, Reproduction, Delivery, Telecommunications, Transportation $15,750 $16,250 $8,000 $3,500 $5,000 $3,000 Total Consultants and Reimbursable Expenses $51,500 $129,200 TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR TASK 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: January 27, 2004 Re: Recommendation to Approve An Employee Mortgage Assistance Loan in the Amount of $100,000 from the City to the Human Resources Director BACKGROUND In the early 1980's, the Council approved a recruitment incentive and hiring program in response to the increasing difficulty public employers were facing in attracting and recruiting new employees to certain public employment positions. The most difficult recruitments are generally those where our City must compete in the external marketplace to find a sufficient pool of qualified candidates (statewide or even national recruitments). Moreover, Council has expressed a desire to have department heads reside within City limits. DISCUSSION Karen Willis relocated to Alameda from New Mexico in November, 2002 in order to fill the position of Human Resources Director. She and her husband desire to purchase home in Alameda and need a second mortgage in order to do so. In keeping with the Council's intent to attract high quality staff at the Department Head level, such assistance is deemed appropriate. A formalized Employee Mortgage Assistance Program is in the process of being created and will be presented to Council in the near future. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACT A second mortgage in the amount of $100,000 is being proposed for Karen Willis to assist her with the purchase a home in Alameda. The general terms of the loan are: • Interest will be the average Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate for the prior 12 month period, adjustable annually; Dedicated to Txce1Tence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B 2 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor January 27, 2004 and Councilmembers Page 2 • Interest only monthly payments • Balloon payment of principle due at the end of the 30 -year term or within six months of employment separation, whichever comes first; and • This loan will be subordinated to a first trust deed mortgage from the primary lender. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve an employee mortgage assistance loan in the amount of $100,000 to Karen Willis, the Human Resources Director, in conformance with the loan document on file with the City Clerk. ZJ /fl Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager 144, 4olvt) By: Zenda James Finance Director 'Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service' CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING JO KAHUANUI AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -7.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JO KAHUANUI is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Recreation and Park Commission of the City of Alameda commencing February 3, 2004 and expiring on September 30, 2006, and to serve until her successor is appointed and is qualified. * * * * ** w CC 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 2 -03 -04 City of Alameda Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: January 21, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Council Members James M. Flint, City Manager Public hearing to consider a recommendation by the Historical Advisory Board to the City Council to designate the Del Monte Building located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue, a City Monument. BACKGROUND Peter Wang, owner of the Del Monte Building, has requested that the City of Alameda designate his property as a City Monument. On 4 December 2003, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing on the matter and acted to recommend that the City Council approve the request. A brief history of the building is attached (please see attachment #1). Mr. Wang intends to rehabilitate the Del Monte building and change its use from an industrial building to retail, restaurants, a parking garage and work/live studio use. Only minimal exterior changes are planned. The building would be upgraded to meet seismic and other code requirements and additional floors would be inserted into the building shell. Additional parking and required landscaping would be installed on the site and a portion of the Clement Avenue extension would be built to the north of the building. The Historical Advisory Board has reviewed the rehabilitation proposal and has provided Mr. Wang and his design team with comments. The Board is very supportive of Mr. Wang's efforts and has commended him for his rehabilitation plan for the building. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In order to be designated a City Monument, a building must meet one of four criteria: ❑ Reflect the board cultural, political, economic or social history of the Nation, State or City; ❑ Be identified with a historic personage or important event is the main currents of National, State or local history; ❑ Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or ❑ Be the work of a notable master builder, architect or designer. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing #5- e 2 -03 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 January 21, 2004 The Del Monte Building is significant because: it was a major element in the industrial development of the north shore of Alameda in the 20`h Century; it represents the modernization of the food canning industry in America in its role as the central distributing warehouse for the California Packing Corporation in the period if its greatest innovation and expansion; it is a noteworthy example of 1920's industrial design; and its construction was associated with a notable builder, R.W. Littlefield. Thus it would meet all four City Monument criteria. The building also appears to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C: A. A building associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; C. A building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. City Monument designation would ensure that structural alterations to the building and modifications to character- defining elements be considered by the Historical Advisory Board, thus preserving an important historic building. Mr. Wang is aware of these requirements. The designation would also assist Mr. Wang in using Federal Tax Credits in rehabilitation of the building. 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 designate the Del Monte Building City Monument # 28 by adopting the draft City Council Resolution contained in the agenda packet as Attachment. By: Respectfully submitted, Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director Judith Altschuler Supervising Planner Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Attachments Page 3 January 21, 2004 1. A brief history of the Del Monte Building cc Peter Wang, Encinal Industries G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \del monte monument designation.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service THE DEL MONTE BUILDING Background The California Packing Corporation was formed in 1916 out of a merger of four major fruit and vegetable canners: J.K. Armsby Co., Griffing and Skelley, the California Fruit Canner Association and Central California Canneries, and a purchase of stock in the Alaska Packers Association, a large salmon packing company. This giant new company was formed in an effort to market California food products nationally and internationally. For the first time among food canners, a major company was created which controlled its producing areas, its processing plants, and its marketing and distributing activities. From a single activity — canning, the industry was transformed into a complex of activities that controlled the product form its creation, through its processing to its purchase by the consumer. The old system whereby a large number of independent canneries sold their goods to independent jobbers and wholesalers who in turn sold their goods to grocers who labeled and sold them was replaced by a new system whereby one company performed all of these activities. This was accomplished through combining the unprecedented size of the new company with a major national advertising campaign and a national distribution system. The company grew rapidly in the 1920's, quickly dominating its own industry and establishing itself as a major modern company. When the California Packing Corporation was formed in 1916, it had 61 food - processing plants. The construction of the Del Monte Building centralized its distribution system in northern California where the majority of these plants were located. It's location close to railroad, trucking and shipping lines, allowed the shipping of Del Monte products to both domestic and overseas markets making "Alameda "...the largest canned goods distributing center in the world (Alameda Times Star, 26 February 1927). A key feature of the company's growth was the identification of all California Packing Company products under the Del Monte brand name. While the name originated in 1891, it was not until 1917 that it caught on nationally with a advertising campaign featuring color photographs. One reason for the use of the name was its association with the romanticized Hispanic past of California promoted nationally through the 1915 Panama - Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco and the 1916 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego. The Builder The building was built by the Alaska Packer's Association for the California Packing Corporation which intern held a controlling stock interest in Alaska Packers. The Association had previously built Encinal Terminals from 1922 to 1925 and had continued to try to develop its extensive land holdings in Alameda for year -round use The City of Alameda and others has also promoted industrial development of the north shore of the Island primarily through an extension of the Belt Line Railroad west of Grand Street. After at least a year of public controversy over the appropriateness of a railroad in a residential neighborhood, the expansion plans for the Belt Line were competed and announced on the same day as the formal announcement was made concerning the construction of the Del Monte Building. The construction of the Building was wholly dependent upon its rail connections which the Belt Line established via the Southern Pacific, Santa Fe and Western Pacific to all parts of the United States. The Alaska Packer's Association was assisted in the construction by Phillip Bush, engineer and R.W. Littlefield, builder, who was also involved in the construction of the National Register Listed PG &E Building at the corner of Clay and 17th in Oakland and the National Register University High School Building (former Merritt College) on Martin Luther King Way in Oakland. The Building Construction on the Del Monte Building began following the issuance of a building permit on 18 March 1927. Originally announced as a $500,000 concrete and steel building, it was actually built of heavy timber and bricks for a cost of $297,247. It is a long nearly rectangular red brick structure measuring 250 feet by 1,000 feet and enclosing 250,000 square feet. It curves slightly to the south at its east end in conformity with the property line and Buena Vista Avenue. Its design and location could accommodate a variety to transportations modes: the docks of Alaska Basin were to the north; it was aligned between two spurs of the Alameda Belt line railroad; and it was organized so that trucks could pass lengthwise through the building without having to turn. The building consisted of four roughly square sections separated by brick fire walls with large fire doors. Each section was lit and ventilated from above by large rectangular monitor skylights; roof trusses were carried on five parallel rows of large square wood posts over a concrete floor. On the sides, metal sash clerestory windows would bring light to the interior roll -up doors would open onto rail docks shaded by metal awnings. At the ends of the building, roll -up doors at ground level would permit the passage of trucks and wagons. A small office was sectioned off in the southeast corner of the building. Architectural ornamentation is devised from Classical Revival and Mission Revival sources. The exterior brick walls are faces in contrasting brick types with a clinker brick pier order and parapet trim set against common brick infill areas. The walls terminate in three gabled parapets on each side which are further decorated with green tile inlay. At the northwest corner of the building a modern truck loading dock was attached to the building and connected to a storage and labeling shed. The loading dock and the shed are steel frame structures partially open at the sides and roofed in corrugated metal. Next to these structures is a small corrugated iron shed that was once the pump house at the base of a water tower. The tower was removed in 1948 and the pump house was used for storage. As a work of architecture, the structure is a highly successful design for an industrial building. John Beach who completed a State Historic Inventory Resources Form for the building in 1980 "(t)he long curve which was generated by functional need, provides a handsome urban enclosure and prevents the very long facade from becoming monotonous. The building is proportioned such that it coexists without overpowering the . small scale residential area across Buena Vista Avenue." The Building's Significance The Del Monte Building is significant in three areas: it was a major element in the industrial development of the north shore of Alameda in the 20th Century; it represents the modernization of the food canning industry in America in its role as the central distributing warehouse for the California Packing Corporation in the period if its greatest innovation and expansion; and it is a successful work of architecture and urban design. The building appears to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C: A. A building associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; C. A building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. G:\PLANNING \HAB \REPORTS\2003 \The Del Monte Building.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DESIGNATING DEL MONTE BUILDING CITY MONUMENT #28 WHEREAS, an application was made by Peter Wang to request that the City Council designate Del Monte Building located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing on this request on 4 December 2004 and acted to recommend that the City Council designate the building; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and examined pertinent documents on 3 February 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings; 1. The building reflects the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the Nation, State or City because it represents the modernization of the food canning industry in America in its role as the central distributing warehouse for the California Packing Corporation in the period if its greatest innovation and expansion. 2. The building is identified with a historic personage or important event is the main currents of National, State or local history because it was a major element in the industrial development of the north shore of Alameda in the 20th Century. 3. The building embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style because it is a noteworthy example of 1920's industrial design. 4. The building is a work of a notable master builder, architect or designer because its construction was associated with a notable builder, R.W. Littlefield. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda finds that this request is not a project as defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council designates the Del Monte Building at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue City Monument #28. Resolution #5 -B 2 -03 -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: To: Memorandum January 27, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Re: James M. Flint City Manager Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03- 0001) Contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more Commonly Referred to as the Zoning Ordinance BACKGROUND During the Joint Meeting between the City Council and Planning Board in April, 2002 (Attachment 2), a proposed work program for revisions to the Development Regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code (Code) drafted by the Planning and Building staff was reviewed in order to modify various sections of the Code to reduce inconsistencies with the California Building Code, incorporate policy interpretations, and to allow for the more efficient implementation of the Code. Subsequent to authorization to proceed with the Code update, Planning and Building Department staff reviewed several drafts of the proposed revisions with achieving the objective of streamlining the development review process. Particular attention was given to establishing consistency to the extent possible with the Alameda Building Code and recent Planning Board and Council determinations (e.g. water tanks, rear yard setbacks for waterfront lots, acceptability of routine encroachments, etc.). The draft amendments were also reviewed by the Development Review Team comprised of staff from all City Departments. After the internal staff level review was completed, a public workshop was held on December 12, 2002. In response to comments at the public workshop, staff continued to work with the Building Division of the Department and the City Attorney's office to further refine the draft amendments. The Planning Board commenced the first public hearing on April 28, 2003. Over a period of approximately five months, Planning staff and the Planning Board studied each of the topics addressed by the proposed amendment and received additional public input through the hearing process with additional hearings on July 14, 2003 and September 8, 2003. The Planning Board's review concluded on September 22, 2003 (Attachment 4 — Planning Board Minutes) with adoption of the recommendations included in this report. The proposed amendments represent an initial effort to improve the administration of the Code. Subsequent efforts will focus on updating the format of the Code and integrating the Code with the updated Design Guidelines that are currently being reviewed by the Planning Board. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Hearing #5 -C 2 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers PLANNING BOARD REVIEW Page 2 January 27, 2004 During the Planning Board review in 2003 of the draft Code revisions, each section was discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment would impact the development review process and why the amendment was being recommended for approval by staff. The minutes of the Planning Board meetings are attached for reference. Improving clarity, resolving inconsistencies and codifying existing practice, where appropriate, were key objectives. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments have been grouped for discussion into two parts. Part I is the recommended changes to "development standards" regulations, which govern the location, height and size of structures, landscaping and on -site parking. Part II is the recommended changes to the "procedural and use regulations," which govern land use (as opposed to development) and the process in which zoning regulations are implemented by the decision - making bodies. The public hearings focused on amendments to the following Sections of the Code: PART I - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENTS ♦ Projections & Encroachments ♦ Landscaping and Private Open Space ♦ Parking ♦ Waterfront Lots ♦ Water Tanks PART II - PROCEDURAL/USE AMENDMENTS ♦ "Life Span" of Approvals; Extensions & Transferability ♦ Psychic Services ♦ Family Day Care ♦ Planning Board's "ratification" of Zoning Administrator's Actions ♦ CC District — Retail Store Frontage ♦ HAB Appeals and Calls for Review It should be noted that during the initial public hearings the Planning Board did not reach consensus on staff's proposed changes on Building Height regulations and deferred action on this portion of the draft amendments. The Planning Board advised that they are also reviewing draft revisions to the Residential Design Manual and as a part of that review they would then consider amendments to the Building Height regulations. In addition, the Planning Board is not recommending changes to the (k) and (1) findings in Section 30 -5.7 which allows existing non- conforming setbacks to be extended for additions nor the "replacement in kind" definition which pertains to replacing of existing architectural elements such as windows or deck with those equal in size, materials and design until their review of the Residential Design Manual is completed. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Page 3 January 27, 2004 Each topic addressed in this proposed Code Amendment is described below, together with a summary of the changes to the Code being recommended for that topic by the Planning Board. The specific language for the Code changes being recommended for each topic by the Planning Board is included in Attachment 2. The proposed Code revisions which generated the most discussion were those pertaining to Parking. The objective of the draft revisions is to be responsive to the community testimony received during project public hearings that parking is a significant issue impacting neighborhoods. The Planning Board noted that, almost without exception, the lack of on -site parking has been raised by neighbors of projects where expansion of residential units is proposed. Currently the Code requires new residential on -site parking only when new units are proposed. The Code does not currently require on -site parking to be provided for new additions of floor area or additional bedrooms. The Planning Board determined that additional on -site parking should be provided when significant additional floor area is proposed for an existing residential property. While the Planning Board concurred with increasing the parking requirements for expansion of residential units, discussion focused on the impact of the proposed revisions on the ability for a homeowner with unused floor area in attics or basements to convert that unused floor area to habitable space. In particular, historic homes with large attics may be prevented from converting this space to habitable floor area if additional on -site parking cannot be provided due to a narrow driveway and/or limited yard area. After discussion, the Board concurred that if the City has identified parking as a primary concern associated with expansion of residential units, then the Code should not include exceptions for certain types of floor area increases. The Board concluded that floor area added by conversion of attics and basements creates the same impact on parking as new floor area additions to residential units. The Planning Board determined that some expansion of a residential property would be acceptable prior to triggering the proposed new parking requirements. The draft amendment proposes that for dwelling units less than 3,000 sq. ft., two parking spaces are required per unit and for dwelling units of over 3,000 sq. ft. three parking spaces are required per unit. Also, that, one parking space shall be provided for each 500 sq. ft. of newly conditioned space added to a residential property, however, in no case would more than three off - street parking spaces be required for each dwelling unit. This would allow the expansion of an adequate sized room (e.g., two 12 x 14 foot bedrooms, plus an 8 x 8 foot bathroom equals 425 square feet) without requiring additional parking. It is important to note that if the parking cannot be provided, the requirement to provide more parking on residential lots would preclude some of the expansions of residential units that have been allowed in the past. The Planning Board recognized this outcome, however, they believed that the recommendations are responsive to the parking impacts identified by neighborhood residents to be associated with residential infill projects. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 January 27, 2004 Analysis considered by the Planning Board is contained in each of the sections describing the draft amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment 1 provides a summary of each proposed text amendment. More detailed discussions, and illustrative graphics, are provided in Attachment 2, which contains the actual draft text of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There will be no direct impact to the Planning & Building Department Budget. The draft code amendments should result in a more streamlined development review process which may result in cost savings to the customer and/or property owner. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council open the hearing to allow staff to review the proposed Development Code Amendments, take public testimony and then continue the hearing to the February 17, 2004 meeting after providing direction to staff. This will provide an opportunity for staff to review each of the proposed amendments with the City Council and receive direction from the City Council on where there is agreement with the Planning Board recommendation and where further discussion is warranted. After this initial meeting staff will finalize the draft ordinance incorporating the Development Code Revisions supported by the Council. The draft ordinance amending the AMC will then be introduced at the February 17, 2004 meeting. By: Respect P1 egory Fuz ._' g and uilding P irector rmack eve opment Review Manager Attachments: 1. Summary of Proposed Text Amendments 2. Recommended Changes to Zoning Development Standards dated February 3, 2004 3. City Council/Planning Board Joint Meeting Minutes — April 30, 2002 4. Planning Board Minutes for 4/28/03, 7/14/03, 9/8/03 and 9/22/03 Cc: Planning Board Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Board of Realtors G:\PLANNING\ZOU\20304CCReport.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service PART I — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REGULATIONS ❑ PROJECTIONS & ENCROACHMENTS - [PART I: TOPIC 1 of 6] Although zoning regulations typically create "required minimum yards" that are generally to be kept free of structures, certain types and portions of structures are permitted to encroach into required minimum yards, and these items are currently addressed in the A.M.C. in section 30 -5.7 ( "Permitted Encroachment in Yards "). SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING PROJECTIONS & ENCROACHMENTS: • Clarify and simplify regulations that allow the features that can encroach into minimum required yards (including but not limited to bay windows, pools, patio covers, decks, stairs and landings) to be built within required minimum yards. For example, current zoning regulations do not address pools or spas specifically. Since many spas are associated with decks, staff has been using the deck standards to determine setbacks for spas. However, in the case of free- standing spas, no regulations exist. This has led to confusion. The proposed amendment sets specific setbacks for both in- ground pools and spas and free- standing spas and location of associated mechanical equipment which has caused concerns with adjacent neighbors. • Re- define "accessory building" in terms of: a) its location being within the minimum required rear yard, and b) its use as new accessory buildings within the minimum required rear yard would be limited to the "U" (utility) use occupancy as defined by the Alameda Building Code (A.B.C). Current zoning regulations do not prohibit full bathroom facilities in accessory buildings nor prohibit these types of buildings from being developed as habitable space as defined by the A.B.C. This has led to approval of a use (i.e. the original use of a structure was shown as an "art studio") which may later be converted to a dwelling unit causing Code Enforcement staff action. The proposed amendment would allow an accessory building, such as a garage or a potting shed, to be accessory to the main building in line with the intent of the Code. Please also see graphics in the Attachment 1, Topic 1 of 6. The amendment would also permit legally, non - conforming accessory structures to be replaced with a building with equal or less non - conformity subject to design review. Page 1 Attachment #1 • Provide new regulations that apply to the use and design of "dormers" and "monitors," requiring that their proportions relate to their traditional architectural applications. Current regulations do not provide setback or spacing requirements for dormers. This presumes that designs which appear to be closer to stories than traditional dormers are not prohibited. The proposed regulations clearly state setback requirements, height requirements and required spacing of dormers so that these architectural elements will be used as they are intended (i.e. to provide light and air into attics) and not to create an extra story unauthorized by the Alameda Municipal Code. • Relocate and consolidate driveway regulations into "Parking" section (30.7). Current regulations relating to driveways can be found both in the parking section of the Development Code and the General Provisions. This causes confusion. The amendment consolidates all driveway regulations in the parking section. o LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE - [PART I: TOPIC 3 of 6] The A.M.C. currently requires a minimum area of both private and common open space for two and multi - family residential development. The current standards vary for the five (R -2 through R -6) two - family districts, and reflect the "apartment" type development that was permitted prior to Measure "A," with a requirement for "common" open space in multiple dwelling units which is no longer applicable. While there are currently complex rules for amount of "private open space" that must be provided for each dwelling unit on a parcel, there is currently no minimum requirement for the amount of landscaping that must be provided on the parcel as a whole. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE • Delete requirement for "common open space," but increase requirements for "private" open space for each individual dwelling unit. Current regulations provide for a separate "common open space" requirement for all multi family developments. With the adoption of Measure A multi family developments have not been constructed making the concept of "common open space" outdated. The amendment would simplify the open space requirement by requiring a percentage of any parcel to be landscaped and requiring a minimum of 120 additional square feet of open space for all parcels developed with more than one single family home or a duplex. Page 2 • Provide the same "private" open space (per dwelling unit) requirements for all 5 zoning districts (R -2 through R -6), which permit more than one dwelling unit per parcel. Given Measure A and the fact that there are generally no differences in parcel sizes in the various residential zoning districts, it is not reasonable to require less open space in the R -5 district that in the R -2 district. • To assure a minimum of "green space" on each parcel, require that a minimum of 25% of the parcel is to be "landscaped," and that this requirement be the same for all 5 zoning districts (R -2 through R -6), and provide a definition of "landscaped." For example, current regulations allowing "open space" do not require open space to be landscaped (open space can be paved as patios or decks). The amendment would ensure that at least a small percentage (25 %) of any parcel be landscaped which assists in reducing demand in the City's storm drains, enhances air quality and increases the aesthetics of the City. • Allow area within required minimum side and rear yards to be considered in meeting "private" open space requirements (i.e. private fenced yards, which were not applicable in multi - family contexts, are highly applicable in two - family contexts). Current regulations do not permit some required setback areas to be counted toward open space requirements. It seems unreasonable, for example, to not allow the entire rear yard of a parcel to be used as open space. This amendment would simplify the entire open space regulations and allow areas generally considered open space to be counted toward the requirement of 25% landscaped area on each parcel. ❑ PARKING - [PART I: TOPIC 4 of 6] The "intent" language at the introduction of the Regulations states that the City has established parking regulations "to relieve congestion on streets, and to provide more fully for the movement of traffic and emergency vehicles." This "relief' is to be provided by the requirement of adequate off - street parking for new development and certain changes in use. The following changes are proposed to correct what has been frequently noted where the current standards do NOT provide for adequate off - street parking. Additional changes have been proposed to simplify and clarify driveway placement and use, and regulations for parking lot design: Page 3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING PARKING • Update /simplify "required off - street parking space schedule" for residential uses. (e.g. delete "apartment style" parking schedule's reference to studio and one - bedroom units and simply require 2 spaces per "unit ") Current requirements for off - street parking are based on the number of bedrooms in proposed dwelling units. These types of requirements are usually associated with apartment developments which are no longer permitted in Alameda. Simplifying parking standards by requiring a set number of parking spaces, ie two spaces per unit, reflects both the goal of the City Charter and the reality that many dwelling unit tenants have two cars. • Add requirement for additional parking space(s) for very large homes. (e.g. homes over 3,000 sq. ft.). The City has seen a dramatic increase of proposals for significant additions or development of basements to habitable space. This has resulted in very large homes for families with many cars or other vehicles which typically are parked on already congested streets. Requiring one additional on -site parking space helps to address the parking needs of the trend toward larger homes. • Add requirement for additional parking space(s) for certain residential additions. (e.g. when 500 sq. ft. or more are added to an individual existing unit, parking for that unit, must be brought up to current standards). • Update /simplify "required off - street parking space schedule" for certain non- residential uses. (e.g. increase requirements for assembly /church uses). • Provide for new restrictions on parking lot lighting next to residential uses. Current regulations do not address parking lot lighting which may have adverse effects on adjacent properties. The amendment provides for illumination levels in footcandles for parking lots and maximum height limitations for light standards and further provides a public hearing process via a Use Permit to exceed those maximums. • Allow for new exceptions to driveway /landscaping width requirements when existing residential driveways are extended (eliminating need for variance). The Development Code allows for existing non - conforming driveways to be retained. Many of these driveways do not extend to the rear yard and are not associated with a garage. However, if a property owner wishes to construct a complying garage in the rear yard of a parcel with such a non - conforming driveway, he /she must secure a variance to allow an extension of this driveway. These types of variances are routinely granted because the development of garages tends to increase the use of off - street parking, thus reducing on- street parking Page 4 congestion. This amendment would simplify the process and allow the property owner to extend a non - conforming driveway without a variance. • Clarify the parking regulations that apply in the minimum required front and street -side yards — that the placement of a required parking space is prohibited within minimum required front and street -side yards BUT the parking of vehicles on driveways and behind the minimum required front and street -side yards is not prohibited. Consolidate driveway standards into "parking" section (relocate standards from 30 -5.7 into 30 -7). The current language causes confusion about where one can park a car. For example current regulations prohibit the location of parking spaces in the front and street sideyard. This amendment would not change this requirement, but clarify that parking in those areas is also prohibited. WATERFRONT LOTS - [PART I: TOPIC 5 of 6] Generally, rear yard setbacks for waterfront lots (defined as lots immediately adjacent to the Tidal Canal, San Leandro Bay or San Francisco Bay) are measured from the "higher high water line" rather than from the property line. Waterfront lots are also different from more typical lots in the community as they abut open water and do not share a common property line with another residence to the rear. LOTS SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING WATERFRONT • Clarifying that when the rear property line is submerged (i.e. the rear property line is at a lower elevation than the higher high water line) the minimum required rear setback of the parcel shall be measured from the higher high water line as if it were the rear property line. This clarification would provide setback equity for all properties adjacent to the Tidal Canal, San Leandro Bay and San Francisco Bay by using a standard (ie the higher high water line) rather than the rear property line for purposes of determining rear yard setback. • Clarifying that there are exceptions to setback requirements for parcels adjacent to interceding public lands. For parcels with interceding public lands between the parcel's rear property line and the higher high water line, the minimum required rear setback shall be measured from the higher high water line, but a 3' minimum setback from the rear property line (which is required by the A.B.C. as a minimum setback from any property line) shall be maintained. Page 5 This amendment would acknowledge that some properties next to the public waters have public lands which are leased to the adjacent property owners. Currently this situation is not recognized for purposes of determining rear yard setback even though these public lands will not be developed and can provide the same rear yard separation as required rear yard setbacks on conventional landlocked properties. • Simplifying the permitting process of residential accessory structures (such as decks and gazebos) on leased public land within the "0" Zoning District by allowing such as "Permitted Uses subject to Minor Design Review" as opposed to requiring full use permit review. Some private residences are adjacent to water zoned R- residential and some are adjacent zoned O -open space. All structures in the 0 district require the approval of a Use Permit; those in the R districts require only design review. This amendment would bring equity to all private residential development adjacent to the public waters by eliminating the requirement for Use Permits for typically residential accessory structures such as gazebos but making those structures subject to design review. • Allowing reductions to required minimum rear yards subject to major design review approval process (as opposed to the variance process currently required) — stressing the importance of preserving neighbor's views, thus allowing the a reduction to minimum rear yard requirements when views are unaffected. This amendment would streamline the process for allowing reductions of rear yard setbacks on properties adjacent to the water to be approved by Staff through the Major Design Review process which has a public notice component. This amendment acknowledges that such properties have unique attributes relating to the fact that the submerged areas will not be developed. This amendment recognizes recent Planning Board and City Council decisions while still providing for neighborhood input through the Major Design Review process. ❑ WATER TANKS - [PART I: TOPIC 6 of 6] Section 30 -5.8 of the A.M.C. currently allows a specific list of utility structures, including water tanks, "to exceed a height of not more than 25' above the height limit established for the district in which the structure is located." This provision was intended to allow essential utility structures an exception to the regular height limit, but currently water tanks are no longer needed for individual utility uses in Alameda. The existing "water tank" structures are functionally archaic and no longer used for their original intent, and therefore should no longer receive an "automatic" height exception that was intended for essential utility structures. Page 6 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGE REGARDING WATER TANKS — Remove "water tanks" from the list of utility structures that are permitted by Section 30 -5.8. Existing water tanks may remain and be repaired if not significantly altered. New water tanks are not allowed because they are no longer necessary components of contemporary developments. PART II - PROCEDURAL AND USE REGULATIONS ❑ "LIFE SPAN" OF APPROVALS; EXTENSIONS & TRANSFERABILITY — [PART II: TOPIC 1 of 6] The proposed text amendments would streamline the review process for the public, as many of the current minor and routine extensions (due to the limited "life spans" of the current approval process) would no longer be needed. The proposed changes would also make the AMC more consistent with State law, as a use permit is an entitlement granted to the property, and must now be allowed to transferred to new owners of the property and/or business. Providing a longer time period of three (3) years than the current one (1) year to reconsider an application that has been denied would reduce the impact to the neighborhoods and the City of repeated public hearings on the same or substantially same applications. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: • Expand "shelf life" of Use Permit and Variance approvals from one year to two years. • Replace the current possible extension (currently one year) to allow the Planning. Board to determine the length of possible extensions up to two years from date of approval. • Expand Design Review "shelf life" and "extension" periods from 6 months to one year. • Delete regulations that require public approval of the transfer of a use permit (" the use permit shall not be transferable by the grantee to any other person without prior approval of the Planning Board"). • Specify that denied applications can not be resubmitted for three (3) years where the current resubmittal time period is one (1) year. Page 7 o "PSYCHIC SERVICES" (i.e. "fortunetellers")- [PART II: TOPIC 2 OF 6] The proposed change is required to make the AMC consistent with State law, as recent court cases found that "fortunetellers" are not in the same class as "adult businesses." Cities are thus not able to use restrictive "adult business" regulations to limit such "fortuneteller" uses to a greater extent than other office /service uses. Cities may still require a "background check" of the individual business operator, as currently required by Alameda Municipal Code. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: • The proposal would relocate "fortuneteller" regulations from "Adult Entertainment Activity" and into the related office /personal services regulations of the AP (Administrative - Professional) District, where it would be a "permitted use." Like other professional /office uses, the new "psychic services" use class would be permitted in all Commercial Districts as a second floor office use — Office use on the first floor would require use permit approval, as do all other AP permitted uses. FAMILY DAY CARE - [PART II: TOPIC 3 OF 6] The proposed changes would make the AMC consistent with State law, as the regulations on the number of children permitted under "large family" and "small family" care has changed since the City's current Code was adopted. The proposed approach will allow the State to change the definition and number of children allowed in the future without a need to change the AMC. Although Alameda does not currently make a distinction between "small" care homes (6 to 8 children) and "large" care homes (12 to 14 "children "), the State defines them separately — so for consistency with all other regulatory agencies — it is best to keep the separate definitions, but allow both as "permitted uses." SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: • Change "permitted use" and provide new "definition" to respond to the State's new definition of "family day care," and also require that these non - residential facilities be Licensed by the State. • (delete specific reference to "12 children" under the "permitted use" sections, and instead require conformance to the State definition of "Family Day Care" - which is currently up to 14 under certain circumstances) • Provide formal definition of "day care center," which includes "nursery" and "nursery school," and also require that these non - residential facilities by Licensed by the State. Page 8 ❑ DELETION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RATIFICATION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTIONS - [PART II: TOPIC 4 of 6] Proposal would streamline the review process for the public, as the "ratification" of the Zoning Administrator's action by the Planning Board's receipt of the required "report" would no longer occur. Zoning Administrator actions would be final unless specifically appealed. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: • Remove need for "reports" of Zoning Administrator to Planning Board prior to close of time allowing "Calls for Review. (i.e. "ratification "). This change makes the Zoning Administrator a decision making official rather than a recommending official as currently all actions of the Zoning Administrator are subject to Planning Board action. ❑ CC DISTRICT: RETAIL STORE FRONTAGE - [PART II: TOPIC 5 of 6] Proposal would assure that the Community Commercial District's intent to promote ground floor retail is maintained is cases where there may be an interceding "front yard setback" between the public street and building frontage. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: • Add "Community Commercial District" to list of designated districts. • Clarify that the CC District's requirement for "ground floor retail" is for buildings which are on sites that adjoin a public street, public alley or public spaces, not just for "buildings which adjoin..... ". ❑ HAB: APPEALS & CALLS FOR REVIEW - [PART II: TOPIC 6 of 6] The A.M.C. does not currently provide a specific procedure to appeal the decisions of the Historical Advisory Board. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: Add the "Historic Advisory Board" to the list of decision - making bodies outlined is Section 25 who's actions may be appealed and/or called for review. The Historic Advisory Board would be on the same level as the Planning Board, as appeals and or call for review of the decisions of both bodies would be heard by the City Council. G: \ PLANNI NG\ZOU'20304CCReport_Attachment 1.doc Page 9 CITY of ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Council Chambers, City Hall February 03, 2004 POSSIBLE CHANGES TO ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DRAFT, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WHAT ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ?: "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" REGULATE THE LOCATION, HEIGHT AND SIZE OF STRUCTURES, LANDSCAPING AND ON -SITE PARKING. WHY ARE CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BEING CONSIDERED? TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND STREAMLINE REVIEW PROCEDURES BY IMPROVING CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER CODES, CLARIFYING TECHINICAL ISSUES, AND CODIFYING PRACTICES AND DECISIONS REGARDING CODE INTERPRETATIONS. WOULD THESE PROPOSED CHANGES AFFECT LAND USE? GENERALLY, NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO EXISTING "USE REGULATIONS," NOR ARE CHANGES PROPOSED TO ZONING DISTRICTS (i.e. "R -1," "R -2," ETC.) AND ZONING MAP. THE GOAL is to PROVIDE BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE AND EFFICIENCIES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES THIS GOAL CAN BE REACHED by STREAMLINING the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS to the GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE WHILE RETAINING the HIGH LEVEL of PUBLIC SCRUTINY and INPUT the COMMUNITY CURRENTLY ENJOYS. G: \PLANNING\ZOU \DEV GOLDENS.doc Page 1 of 7 Attachment #2 TOPIC 1 of 6: PROJECTIONS & ENCROACHMENTS WHAT ARE "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS?" Although zoning regulations typically create "required minimum yards" that are generally to be kept free of structures, certain types and portions of structures are permitted to encroach into required minimum yards, and these items are currently addressed in the A.M.C. in section 30 -5.7 ( "Permitted Encroachment in Yards"). Examples include: ■ Bay windows ■ Decks • Accessory Buildings • Patio Covers • Pools, Portable Pools and Spas • Stairs and landings SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PROJECTIONS' and ENCROACHMENTS:" ❑ Clarify and simplify regulations that allow the above features to be built within required minimum yards (e.g. consolidated categories of "decks "). ❑ Redefine "accessory building" in terms of: a) its location being within the minimum required rear yard, and b) its use as new accessory buildings within the minimum required rear yard would be limited to the "U" (utility) use occupancy as defined by the C.B.C. ❑ Provide new regulations that apply to the use and design of "dormers" and "monitors." requiring that their proportions relate to their traditional architectural applications. ❑ Relocate and consolidate driveway regulations into "Parking" section (30.7). HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS:" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ❑ Simplified wording, and more consistency with the terminology used in the C.B.C. would make construction and/or development options easier to understand. OTHER POSSIBLE CHANGES to the "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS:" REGULATIONS: •:• Staff had proposed changes to the existing regulations allowing for the continuation of pre- existing non - conforming side yard setbacks (commonly called the "k" and "1' provisions) The Board did not reach a consensus on staff's proposed changes. and is not making a recommendation to the Council at this time. The Board will be reviewing the applicability of these side yard setback exceptions concurrently with its upcoming review of the Draft Design Review Manual, and will make its recommendations at that time. G PLANNING'ZOL'DEV GOLDENS !� Page 2 of' 7 July 30. 2003 ZONING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOPIC 1 of 6: PROJECTIONS & ENCROACHMENTS PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITION Section 30 -2 - DEFINITIONS • Accessory building shall mean a detached subordinate building, any part of which is within a required minimum yard of the subject Zoning District, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot, or to the use of the land. For properties within a Residential zone, or with a Residential use, the use of such accessory buildings is restricted to garages, carports, storage sheds, and similar buildings which are found by the Building Official to conform to the "U" (utility) occupancy classification. • Bay Window [new definition] shall mean an architectural projection built out from a wall, with windows and without any, or very limited, solid wall area on the longest wall of the projection itself. • Dormer [new definition] shall mean an architectural projection built out from a sloping roof and typically houses a vertical window or ventilation louver. A dormer can be further defined by the type of roof on the projection itself, and includes the terms gable dormer, hip dormer, shed dormer (which is also known as a "monitor ") and eyebrow dormer. • Habitable Space [new definition] shall mean a space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking, and that complies with the applicable A.B.C.'s minimum requirements for habitable space, which include but are not limited to . requirements for insulation, heating, egress and minimum ceiling height. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. • Historic Structure shall mean a building listed on the Historic building Study List or one that was built before 1910 1942. • Landscaped [new definition], shall mean an expanse of natural scenery including lawns, trees, plants, and other natural materials, and decorative features, including sculpture, patterned walks and fountains. Driveways, parking and storage areas, decks and patio shall not be considered as required landscaped areas. Container plantings on top of paved surfaces or rooftops are not considered as part of a landscaped area. • Main Buildinj(s) [new definition] shall mean a building, or buildings, which typically contains the principal use(s) of any lot. There may be more than one main building on a lot. G. •PL.AN \ I\ G \ZOC'\Projecuonc- Encroadi -ACSRY BLD\GS 6 O.J, Page 1 of 10 July 30, 2003 • Patio cover Structure shall mean a one (1) store structure unenclosed by \calls on fifty- 00(7c) percent of its wall surfaces. and partially or fully roofed, including but not limited to sunshades, arbors, trellises pergolas, gazebos, and lath houses, and greenhouses, which may be attached to or detached from the main building or accessory building. The definition of Patio Structure excludes structures partially or fully enclosed by solid walls and /or glazing, such as sunrooms or greenhouses. For the purpose of this definition, the walls of adjoining main and /or accessory building(s) shall not be considered as having "enclosed" the patio structure, providing that such walls do not constitute a) more than two (2) of the four (4) sides of the patio structure and b) more than fifty (50 %) percent of the patio structure's perimeter. • Structure [new definition] shall mean that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed or parts joined together in some definite manner. • Sunroom [new definition] shall mean a non- habitable area attached to a main building, or an accessory building, that is enclosed with glazing, and is primarily used for recreational and outdoor living proposes. • Yard, front shall mean a yard extending across the full width of the lot measured between the front property line (or the lot line connected to a street by legal access) and the nearest point of the wall of a building or enclosed or covered porch on such lot. The front yard of a corner lot is the yard adjacent to the shorter street frontage of such lots. • Yard, rear shall mean a yard extending across the full width of the lot measured between the rear line of the lot and the rear line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch nearest the rear line of the lot. Properties abutting the Tidal Canal, owned or leased by the st jcct fi.Foperty owner, shall have a rear yard setback . [Section 30- be revised to address 5.6 "Building Site, Areas and Easements" t waterfront Tots] • Yard, side shall mean a yard on either side of the lot extending from the front line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch to the rear line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch, the width of each yard being measured between the side line of the lot and the nearest part of the main building or enclosed or covered porch. • Yards, minimum required shall mean the minimum depth, as prescribed for a particular zoning district, of the area of land between a main building and the property's perimeter, and ourrounding a building site which must remain free of 6 PLANNING \ZOL \Projections- Enc-oa h -ACSRY BLDNGS 6 0 J.•e Page 2 of 10 July 30, 2003 structures and unobstructed from the ground to skv, unoccupied or unobstructed. except for such exceptions and encroachments as may be permitted by this article. which include, but is not limited to, allowances to permit accessory buildings, patio structures and roof eaves. - PLA\\I\G,ZOC',Pro∎ra;o 1,-Eneroach..\CSRY BLD \GS 6 0 .i . Page 3 of 10 July 30. 2003 PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES Section 30 -5.7 — Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments, in-and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards a. Minimum required front yards, and street side yards on corner lots, shall be landscaped. Excepting walkways, and driveways and staircases as permitted by this Article, minimum required front yards, and street side yards on corner lots, within residential zones, and for residential uses in non - residential zones may not be paved and shall be used exclusively for landscaping. b Architectural features. -a, Canopies, eaves, cornices. sills, beltcourses. fireplaces. galleries, sunshades and similar architectural features. but not including any wall or window surface, may extend into any required yard a distance not exceeding two (2') feet at+4, however in no case shall such features have a setback of less than three (3') feet from the property line. Overhead projections shall provide at least seven and one half (7 1/2') feet of headroom above grade. 1. Special Exemptions for Eaves. An exemption to allow a building eave with a setback of less than three (3') feet from a property line may be granted by the Planning & Building Director concurrently with, and subject to the required finding for, the approval of a residential addition with less than the required minimum side yard as permitted by subsection "k, " and subject to the approval of the Building Official. c. Decks. Decks, and similar features such as uncovered porches and cantilevered balconies Uncovered pef hea shall conform to the standards for decks, as prescribed i-n-pafagr-aph-e. below: Covered porches or enclesed porches are by definition part of 1. Measurement of Height. (a) 2. The height of each level of a deck shall be calculated separately and the required setback that correlates with the height of each level shall be applied to the portion of the deck at that level. (b) J. On sites with a slope of ten (10%) percent or greater deck heights may be averaged and setbacks calculated based on the average height of numerous points. In such cases, any configuration of terraces or levels may be approved that provides for privacy for adjoining properties, lack of impacts from shading of adjoining properties, and safety without precisely meeting the setback requirements of this subsection. 2. Setback requirements. (a) e. Decks of up to, and including, twelve (12 ") inches in height may encroach into any required side and rear yard. (b) Decks over from twelve (12 ") inches to not more than thirty (30 ") twenty four (24) inches in height may encroach into any required side and rear yard, but shall maintain a minimum setback : .. -- - . -- of three (3') G PLANNING \ZOC\Pr 0 cuans- Encroach -ACSRY BLDNGS 6.0 .L.c Page 4 of 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. ! -- (5') feet from the side and rear property lines. (c) No deck that exceeds thirty (30 ") inches three (3') feet in height at any point shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard area. 3. Privacy screening requirement for decks exceeding thirty (30 ") inches in height. 4. Notwithstanding safety railing requirements prescribed by the A.B.C., and the limitations on barrier height prescribed in Section 30 -5.14, decks above thirty (30 ") thirty six (36 ") inches in height, and all roof decks may be required as a condition of Design Review approval to provide privacy screening barriers: as provided in Section 30 5.11, and /or landscaping of sufficient height deemed sufficient to provide adequate screening, as part of Design Review, to mitigate potential address, privacy impacts. Roof Decks however, may be required to July 30. 20C3 neighboring properties. At no time, however, shall the top elevation of any railing or privacy screen for such decks exceed the building height limit of the subject zone. 4. Decks and conformance to maximum building coverages Decks above thirty (30 ") inches three (3') feet in height and in excess of two hundred (200) square feet in size shall be considered as part of the building coverage requirements. Decks subject to coverage requirements shall be calculated at fifty percent (50%) of their area in excess of two hundred (200) square feet. 5. Exceptions to setback requirements for small decks. g. Decks or balconies which are less than fifty (50) square feet, have no exterior access and are cantilevered or supported from the structure may be allowed to extend three (3') feet into the required front, rear or street -side yard; however, in no case shall such a deck have a setback of be less than three (3') feet from any property line. Such decks shall not project more than six (6) feet from the supporting wall to its furthest outward extension. d. Window and roof projections. 1. Window Projections. Bay, garden and greenhouse windows, and similar features that increase either floor area or enclosed space, may extend three (3') feet into any required front, rear, side, or street -side yard ail, however in no case shall such features have a setback of less than three (3') feet from the a property line, and are subject to the following regulations and the regulations in paragraph 3, below: polygonal, or 4) rounded.. Bay windows shall not encroach into yard areas at any other level than the story on which the window openings or glazings are located except that ornamental brackets or canopies may be required and approved through Design Review. 2. Roof Projections. Dormers . , . • . . . may project from the roof plane, however in no case shall such features have a setback of less than three (3') feet from the property line or exceed the building PLANNI NG ZOC\Pro;c,rrn,- Fncn•..h- \CSRY BLUNGS 70.0 Page 5 of 10 July 30. 2003 height limit of the subject zone, and are subject to the regulations in paragraph 3, below: 3. Minimum Separation, Spacing and Size Limitations for Projections. Encroaching window projections, and all roof projections, are subject to the following dimensional requirements.: (a) The maximum length of each projection bay shall be ten (10') feet and the minimum horizontal separation between projections bay shall be five (5') feet. (b) Such features - - _ shall not extend horizontally across more than one -half (1/2) of the linear wall or roof surface to which they are affixed. e. Stairs and Landings. 1. General Exception. Uncovered stairs and landings may encroach into any required front and rear yard a distance not exceeding six (6') feet (i.e. for the placement of stairs and landings, the minimum required front and rear setback is reduced from twenty (20') feet to fourteen (14') feet): and into any required side yard and minimum required street side yard a distance not exceeding one - half (1/2) the width of the required side yard or three (3') feet, whichever is less. 2. Special Exception for Historic Structures. A reconstructed reconstruction or rebuilding of a staircase that is to be attached to the facade of an "historical structure," as defined in Section 30 -2, shall be may ate encroach into the minimum required front yard a distance not to exceed seventeen (17') feet (i.e. for the placement of reconstructed stairs and landings on historic structures, the minimum required front setback is reduced from twenty (20') feet to three (3') feet)yard areas, providing that the design of such staircase conforms to the original historic design >and -few, allowing for minor modification to accommodate requirements mandated by the A.B.C., or alterations in the finished floor elevation, subject to the approval of the Planning & Building Director and Building Official. Accessory Buildings. "Garages, carports and accessory buildings may be located within minimum required side and rear yards, and shall conform to the following: 1. Height limits. Accessory buildings located in a required side or rear yard shall not exceed - . - - . - - _ • one (1) story, and shall not exceed a height of - • ' • - . • - - ten (10') feet at the top of a parapet or at the point where the side elevation intersects with the roof, with the following exceptions: at the top of the parapet. (a) the height at the ridge of the roof may exceed the above height limitation, up to a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet. (b) the front and rear elevations may exceed the 10' height limit up to the 15' height at the ridge of the roof, however, in no case shall the 15' ridge height be extended along the entire front or rear elevation. PLAN ING`ZOC`Prajrruon,- [ncroxh -ACSRt 6LDSGS 60 Jo, Page 6 of 10 July 30. 2003 (c) the height at the top of the front or rear elevation's parapet may exceed the above height limitation, up to a maximum height of twelve (12') feet. 2. Maximum sizes permitted. Accessory buildings shall not exceed 400 square feet in size. As an exception to the 400 sq. ft. limit, lots that have a minimum required rear yard of over 1000 sq. ft. may have accessory structures that exceed 400 square feet in size, but may not occupy net more than forty (40 %) percent of the minimum required rear yard as prescribed by the subject Zoning District . defined in Section 30 2 00. That portion of an accessory building which is outside the minimum required rear yard is subject to maximum main building coverage limitations of the subject zone. 3. Minimum setbacks from side property lines. If located less than seventy - five (75') from the front property line, the accessory building shall observe a five (5') foot side and rear yard setback. If the accessory building is to be located seventy -five (75') feet, or more, from the front property line, it may be built up to the interior side and rear property line(s), provided that all construction within three (3') feet of the property line (including eaves and similar architectural features) is one hour fire resistive as required by the A.B.C, as approved by the Building Official. 4. Minimum setback from rear property line. If located within that portion of the minimum required rear yard that adjoins the neighbors' required minimum rear yard(s), the accessory building may be built up to the rear property line, provided that all construction within three (3') feet of the property line (including eaves and similar architectural features) is one hour fire resistive as required by the A.B.C, as approved by the Building Official. If the proposed accessory building is to be located within that portion of the minimum required rear yard that does not adjoin the neighbors' required minimum rear yard(s) (i.e. adjacent to that part of the neighbor's side property line not within his/hers minimum required rear yard), a minimum five (5') foot setback from the rear property line shall be maintained. 5. Minimum separation from neiihboring structures. There shall be a minimum of five (5') six (6') feet foot distance opal separating all construction (including eaves and similar architectural features) of the accessory building(s) from the main building(s) or other accessory building(s). The separation requirements of this paragraph may be reduced by the Planning & Building Director and Building Official if one hour fire resistive construction is utilized and/or occupancy classification of the subject buildings allow for a lesser separation, as specified by the A.B.C.. 6. Reconstruction of legally nonconformink buildin "s. Notwithstanding the limitations prescribed by Section 30 -20; Nonconforming Buildings and Uses, legally nonconforming accessory building(s) with conforming residential uses in Residential zoning districts, may be reconstructed, with G \PLAN`f\G`ZOL'Projcctions- Encroach -ACSRY BLDNGS 6 .0 do, Page 7 of 10 July 30. 2003 an equal or lesser nonconformity to the size, and location requirements of this sub - section (i.e. paragraphs 2, through 4), subject to the approval process for improvements, as outlined in Section 30 -37; Design Review Requirements, and allowing for modifications to the height and /or roof configuration, provided that the resulting design does not exceed the height limitation prescribed by paragraph 1 of this subsection) Such reconstruction may occur as part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or replace the existing non - conforming structure. gf. Patio Structures. Patio structures covers, attached to or detached from a main or accessory building may encroach into any minimum required side yard or rear yard, but shall: 1. not exceed a maximum height of twelve (12') fifteen (15') feet, as measured from grade. A detached patio structure, if not located within a minimum required yard, may be permitted to a height not to exceed fifteen (15') feet, subject to approval of the Planning & Building Director and Building Official. 2. conform to the building coverage requirements prescribed for accessory buildings in sub - section 30.5.7.f.2, regardless of whether the patio structure is attached to or detached from a main or accessory building. Detached patio covers shall be separated from each main and accessory building on the same lot requirements for accessory buildings. Patio covers shall be subject to coverage accessory buildings when attached to an accessory building. 3. observe a minimum not extend within five (5') feet setback from the of the side and rear property lines. No part of the patio cover may extend within three (3') of the property line. 4. have a minimum five (5') six (6') foot distance shall separating all elements of a detached patio structure (including eaves and similar architectural features) from the main building(s) or accessory building(s). The separation requirements of this paragraph may be reduced by the Planning & Building Director and Building Official if the occupancy classification of the subject buildings allow for a lesser separation, as specified by the A.B.C. Attached patio attached by not less than six (6') five (5') feet. 5. not half of a corner lot. occupy any portion of the front 6. - . . - - . : - - . - . not be enclosed by any walls, partial solid panel wainscoting, and /or glazing, excepting for those walls of the adjoining main and /or accessory building(s), which may not constitute a) more than two (2) of the four (4) sides of the patio structure and b more than fifty (50%) percent of the patio structure's perimeter. Patio structures may meted e-be fitted with removable clear plastic or screen mesh panels and /or retractable shade screens, as regulated under the A.B.C.Alameda Building Code. PLANNING'ZOL\Projenions- Encroach -ACSRY BLDNGS 6 U doe Page 8 of 10 July 30, 2003 ;ide and rear yards as provided in subsection 30 7.S. No parking spaces shall be located in any required side }ard on the street side of a corner lot. [deleted, issue now address as subsection a, and in parking section] h. Pools and Spas. I. pools or spas that are constructed and /or permanently located "in-ground," and any mechanical equipment for such pools or spas, may be located within a minimum required rear and side yard, providing that a minimum five (5') foot setback is maintained from any property line. 2. portable pools, spas, hot tubs, and similar features which are determined by the Building Official not to be structures, are not subject to either the setback requirements for accessory buildings prescribed in subsection f, or those setback requirements for permanent "in ground" spa prescribed in paragraph 1, above, except that no mechanical equipment for such portable pools or spas shall be placed within five (5') feet of any property line. i. Driveways. Driveways may be located within minimum permitted t oach ac -res.s required front yards, and minimum required street side yards of corner lots, subject to the regulations prescribed in subsection 30.7.9.f.1. [remainder of this subsection relocated to 30.7,9] , areas to provide access to (a) required parking J• lots developed with residential uses, a minimum driveway width of eight and one half two (2) curb cuts. These access points may be directionalized i.e. one way, no left Structures for Disabled Access. Uncovered wheelchair ramps or other structures providing disabled access may encroach into any required front, side or rear yard as long as the access structure provides continuous access from the street or parking area to an entrance of the building. The encroachment shall be the minimum necessary to provide safe and adequate access and shall be subject to Design Review. k. Exceptions to Allow Continuation of Noncomplying Sideyard Setbacks [no change to existing "side setback exceptions" process proposed at this time.] In exception to the setback requirements of this article. one (1) and two (2) story room PL. NNINGVOI' role non E),,,h —\CSR\ BLD`GS 60 J,, Page 9 of 10 July 30. 2003 additions may he approved that observe the same sidevard setback as the existing main building, or none if none exists, on lots where the existing main building is constructed with noncomplying sidevard setbacks if the following finding can he made: No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties. I. Exceptions to Allow Vertical Extensions of Noncomplying Sideyard Setbacks [no change to existing "side setback exceptions" process proposed at this time.] In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the ground floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with exterior walls in the same plane as the walls of the existing building below if the finding of paragraph k. above can be made. E\D --?u ,uO C \ Data \Does \General \Alameda \?003 -OS SIX STATU TES - FINAL P13`Pri lecuons- En.rua..l:- \('SRI f3LD\GS 6 O.Joc PI. \.\ING ZOC`Pr Kell ns ACSRV BLD \GS h 6 J Page 10 of 10 • • -1• -M • •• .Mg 1 e. hl • NN \N .• Kve& SIM YARD se-rtokcKS Pot cr,c7740(t•f 11.01g a E."; 0 - (. ir21 uslosmsa — SW e- Art-L01012. IeEAr. YeoW ?`f LIr S 4iHi.F. GaNS"112„c?lo►� N106,Y ✓Iz eM rrr n �,v Y�° I°G ✓2 Y u N� o c .L r: 0- 15 W+iJ r'L 1 N i M u M S !- EA ol. ►S,,tk 15 DERL+t ptEp (r�G/•.'f� o l4Hffi2fy N14J11'44'm S SIO SG7(3AC4 IS KGQviQttc7 1�&51W c Q S�o� '(Arty A42i1..c 4.t1 1 Kfi'( (-r i(AL) M IN11 -1,) 2�LZv�vtEv 12 6440... `0,212 CTYolcaL.-) U 10' TOPIC 2 of 6: BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS The Board did not reach a consensus on staff s proposed changes on height limit regulations, and is not making a recommendation to the Council at this time. The Board will be reviewing height limit regulations concurrently with its upcoming review of the Draft Design Review Manual. and will make its recommendations at that time. G ,PLANNING \ZOC'DE\ GOLDENS. Joc Page3of7 TOPIC 3 of 6: LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE HOW ARE MINIMUM LANDSCAPING and OPEN SPACE STANDARDS REGULATED NOW ?" The A.M.C. requires a minimum area of both private and common open space for two and multi - family residential development. The current standards vary for the five (R -2 through R -6) two- family districts, and reflect the "apartment" type development that was permitted prior to Measure "A," with a requirement for "common" open space in multiple dwelling units which is no longer applicable. While there are currently complex rules for amount of "private open space" that must be provided for each dwelling unit on a parcel, there is currently no minimum requirement for the amount of landscaping that must be provided on the parcel as a whole. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE" ❑ Delete requirement for "common open space." but increase requirements for "private" open space for each individual dwelling unit. ❑ Provide the same "private" open space (per dwelling unit) requirements for all 5 zoning districts (R -2 through R -6), which permit more than one dwelling unit per parcel. ❑ To assure a minimum of "green space" on each parcel, require that a minimum of 25% of the parcel is to be "landscaped," and that this requirement be the same for all 5 zoning districts (R -2 through R -6). and provide a definition of "landscaped." ❑ Allow area within required minimum side and rear yards to be considered in meeting "private" open space requirements (i.e. private fenced yards, which were not applicable in multi - family contexts, are highly applicable in two- family contexts). HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ✓ Simplified wording would make construction and/or development options easier to understand and clearly define open space requirements on each parcel. ✓ Review time would be reduced, as calculations to determine code compliance would be more straightforward than the highly complex process currently required. ✓ Improved utilization of open space areas on each parcel. ✓ Improve the visual quality of two- family development be establishing. a minimum percentage of the parcel that must be landscaped. G PLANNING \ZOL'DEV GOLDENS.doc Page 4 of 7 July 30.2003 ZONING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOPIC 3 of 6: LANDSCAPING & PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS Section 30 -2 - Definitions • landscaped [new definition], shall mean an expanse of natural scenery including lawns, trees, plants, and other natural materials, and decorative features, including sculpture, patterned walks and fountains. Driveways, parking and storage areas, decks and patio shall not be considered as required landscaped areas. Container plantings on top of paved surfaces or rooftops are not considered as part of a landscaped area. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Sections 30 -4.2 through 30 -4.6 (d) Minimum Height Bulk and Space Requirements — R -2 through R -6: 10. Usable Open Space Requirements: the Minimum Required Private table open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling, and every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, €ef as regulated in subsection 30 -5.12 on each building site 12. Minimum Required Landscape Area: Twenty five (25 %) percent of lot area. The minimum required landscape area applies to all permitted and conditional uses and uses permitted with use permit. • Section 30 -5.12 !. • • ... • [DELETE ENTIRE SECTION'S EXISTING TEXT - NEW TITLE & TEXT: Minimum Required Private Open Space] a. Every dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling, and every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, shall be provided with a minimum private open space area, conforming to standards prescribed below: 1. Minimum Size. The minimum of 120 sq. ft. shall be provided, with a minimum horizontal dimension of 8' and no more than three sides enclosed by the adjacent building. The minimum area shall be improved as either a deck patio, and shall not be counted as a "landscaped area" for purposes of meeting the Minimum Required Landscape Area requirements of the subject zoning district. Alternatively, the minimum size requirements of this,naragraph may be fulfilled by providing a G. \\PLA`NING'ZOL'Lmd; cape Pmate OS 4 0 dot: Page 1 of 2 July 302003 contiguous landscaped area (e.g. a lawn and ground covers with no hardscape areas) of at least 500 sq. ft., with a minimum horizontal dimension of 20'. 2. Vertical Clearance. Open space areas with either a story, staircase, porch or deck directly above shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum area requirements prescribed in paragraph (a) above. 3. Location. The required open space may not be constructed in either the minimum required front yard, or the minimum required side yard on the street side of a corner lot. Existing non - conforming porches may however be used if all other standards of this section can be met. 4. Privacy and Access. All dwelling units shall be provided with an exclusive and directly accessible open space area (e.g. there shall be no commonly accessible areas between a dwelling unit and its own private open space). 5. Screening. Private open space areas, other than existing porches, shall be screened with a barrier of at least 3' in height, but not to exceed the limits prescribed in Section 30 -5.14. b. Open space areas for dwelling units in pre - existing multi family building, as regulated by Article III, shall be provided and maintained as per code requirements applicable immediately prior to <date new code is adopted >. If such pre - existing multi family buildings are damaged or destroyed, they shall be reconstructed to the open space standards of the zoning code that was applicable, if any, at the time of permitted construction. [END- 7._0._003] PLAN. \I\GZOL • L.mu,a;+e Pr, .1, OS 4 4,, Page 2 of 2 D ALTERNATIVE # I AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING BOARD AT JULY 11, 2003 — WITH PROPOSED MINIMUM 25% LANDSCAPING EXISTING REGULATIONS PROPOSED REGULATIONS Combines requirements for a lot's minimum "usable" open Provides a distinct requirement for the minimum area of site space areas, which includes both "cotnmon" and "private," than must be landscaped, (proposed at 25Th) with an areas which then can either be landscape or paved area for additional and separate requirement for a minimum paved recreation use. recreational area for each dwelling unit. MINIMUM t: )rrn ! .i[ MINIMUM ` a - , REQUIRED + REQUIRED + 9..- -alt t ificen°° °t °°,, , a.Ailtir io it r "USABLE i "PRIVATE adustment to include an % °- " Ii '3c (t'" a � r. ZONING OPEN SPACE' ) t -- OPEN SPACE' MINIMUM G -' '4 �' ' =� DISTRICT approximation of .'i;r °t Y1 1 RF,Q(IIRED >'°. —1._1.,llifi 10,' ", minimum required front t (per unit, in sq. ft) yard areas NOT currently ^' t f `° (120 sq. fl. her unit) L/1 ND$CAPE ARI:'A I!' °�!i''!� \�� AND calculated as "usable (in sq. fl) ' la i` ©J c` d ) No re uirement that o en s ace in s ft. (, (which typically must he LOT SIZES p p c q.) �t °t °r_ ;;,>< ,;,�� these spaces he ; a patio -- of clock, and t °1f'l does N(1'I' count toward (which must include all ' F (in sq. ft.) landscaped — typically r 1 minimum required minimum required t(� ioyib ,�j�glwaclt-. j 111 only paved recreation = k d;;'., landscaping front yard areas not t T areas are provided c d (per unit) used for driveways) 1, G�_t -,12f ,'rc r i 'TYPICALLY I .� (25% of lot K.°Irvt [TYI /CA /_I.Y I AVED /— LANDSCAPED/ 1111(,tl.l.)' /'AV1i1)/ lr� ' t t r,r [ landscaped),. R-2 4,000 600 x 2 450 1 , 11 120 x 2 1,000 .ii` 5,000 " 600 1l - 11 1,250 4,000 500 x 2 450 r' ,T 1.: -11, -; 0 - -- R3 — 1,000 [ �;� ili= 5,000 600 r- ii,aill1 . _ 1.250 r -" :`it0jlj_ `_ R -4 _4,000 400 x 2 450 [ r l a_` 91, _ 1 1 000 _ I� 5,000 600 )qI' __ �-- _- 1250 R -5 4,000 200 x 2 450` I) LL 1,000 s ,000 " 60_0 ).i4(0...x 1,250 1l- 4 000 120 x 2 - 450 1 j _ 1,000 5,000 " 600 N _.,o � 1,250 w�� .9_i J • ^ L ° =I C1) • V ^ ^� Ca. CJ v, cz = G h S • ao _ a - °Ts o CZ 0 04. N 0 in o in N • 4._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 to o \ or' N < X o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z L TOPIC 4 of 6: PARKING HOW CAN THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS BE IMPROVED TO BETTER MEET THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S "OFF- STREET PARKING" REGULATIONS? The "intent" language at the introduction of the Regulations states that the City has established parking regulations "to relieve congestion on streets, and to provide more fully for the movement of traffic <and> emergency vehicles." This "relief" is to be provided by the requirement of adequate off - street parking for new development and some changes in use. The most frequently noted shortcoming of the current regulations is that the current off - street parking requirements for new residential development and additions. which are based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. may not be adequate to avoid an over dependence on street parking. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PARKING" ❑ Update /simplify "required off- street parking space schedule" for residential uses. (e.g. delete "apartment style" parking schedule's reference to studio and one - bedroom units and simply require spaces per "unit ".) ❑ Add requirement for additional parking space(s) for very large homes. (e.g. homes over 3.000 sq. ft.). ❑ Add requirement for additional parking space(s) for certain residential additions. (e.g. when 500 sq. ft or more are added to an individual existing unit. parking for that unit. must be brought up to current standards). 7 Update /simplify "required off - street parking space schedule" for certain non - residential uses. (e.g. increase requirements for assembly /church uses). ❑ Provide for new restrictions on parking lot lighting next to residential uses. ❑ Allow for new exceptions to driveway /landscaping width requirements when existing residential driveways are extended (eliminating need for variance). ❑ Clarify the parking regulations that apply in the minimum required front and street -side yards — that the placement of a required parking space is prohibited within minimums required front and street -side yards BUT the parking of vehicles on driveways and behind the minimum required front and street - side yards is not prohibited. Consolidate driveway standards into "parking" section (relocate standards from 30 -5.7 into 30 -7). HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PARKING" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ✓ Avoid conflicts as to definitions /status of "bedrooms," by standardizing parking requirements for most all units. ✓ Increase supply of off- street parking when non - conforming units are enlarged. ✓ Remove ambiguity as to parking limitations in minims m required front and street side yards. ✓ Some minor and routine variances (such as allowing an extension of a driveway without required "landscape strip ") would no longer be necessary. G' YLANNING\ZOL\DE GOLDENS J Page 5 of 7 July 30.2003 ZONING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOPIC 4 of 6: PARKING PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITION'S Section 30 -2 - Definitions • Conditioned Space [new definition] shall mean that portion of a residential structure, measured as floor area, which is defined as "conditioned space" by the California State Energy Regulations (i.e. all floor areas included in Title 24 calculations). • Driveway [new definition] shall mean a paved, or alternate all weather surface as approved by the City Engineer, that provides access from a publicly accessible travel way to parking and /or loading spaces that are located in conformance with Section 30 -7.8: Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas. '.3 'PLA.\ \ING'ZOL "Prkm_ 4 0 ,:n; Page 1 of 8 July 30,2003 PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Section 30 -7.6 Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces TABLE «'ITH THOSE USES PROPOSED FOR CIIANGES TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS EXISTING PROPOSED Residential Uses Studio unit —1 '/z spaces per dwelling unit One and two bedroom units — I 3.4 spaces per dwelling unit 3. Three or more bedroom units — 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1. 3. Dwelling units with 3,000 sq. ft., or less, of conditioned space — 2 spaces per unit. Dwelling units with over 3,000 sq. ft. of conditioned space — 3 spaces per unit. Notwithstanding the allowances of Section 30 -20: "Nonconforming Buildings and Uses," additional parking spaces, at the rate 1 per 500 sq. ft. of newly added conditioned space, shall be provided when a dwelling unit which is without the parking spaces required by paragraphs 1 or 2 is to be enlarged. (a) No additional spaces, as otherwise required by this paragraph, are required once compliance with paragraphs 1 or 2 is achieved. (b) Notwithstanding the requirements for perimeter landscaping prescribed by subsection 30- 7.10.a.2, existing driveways may be considered as parking space(s) if the proposed space(s) will be in conformance to the location requirements of Subsection 30- 7.8.a.1, and the dimensional requirements of Subsection 30 -7.9. .1 PLANNING ZOL 'Parkm2. - 0 u`� Page 2 of 8 July 30.2003 Institutions and Plug's of .Assembly Churches. theatres. auditoriums. Churches, theatres. auditoriums. Lodges and mortuaries — 1 space Lodges and mortuaries per 200 sq. ft of floor area in R- Zones; 1 space per 300 sq. ft. in C- Zones; 1 space per 350 sq. ft. in the C -M. and M- Zones. 1. Assembly areas — 1 space per 50 sq. ft. [AS ALT.: 1 space per 50 sq. ft. in R- Zones; 1 space per 75 sq. ft. in C- Zones; 1 space per 100 sq. ft. in the C -M, and M- Zones.] Administrative office areas — 1 space per 400 sq. ft (all zones) Commercial /Office Uses General retail, office, restaurant, 1. General retail, banks, minor minor repair and service, doctor and repair and service, 1 space per dentist offices (including hospital 200 sq. ft. of ground floor area: l space per 400 sq. ft. of upper floor space including mezzanines, 2. Professional office, doctor and outpatient services) 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of ground floor area; 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of upper floor space including mezzanines. dentist offices (including hospital outpatient services) 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 3. Restaurants, a. Less than 4,000 sq. ft. gross area - 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area b. 4000 sq. ft. or more — 40 spaces, plus 1 for each 50 sq. ft. of seating area over 4,000 s i . ft. PROPOSED ZONING CODE REGULATIONS • Section 30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas. All parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, shall be provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand, except as provided by subsection 30 -7.6, and subject to the following additional requirements: a. Residential Zones, and Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones: 1. No parking space may be located is permitted in any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot. Parking spaces may be located within minimum required side and rear yards, subject to the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: "Perimeter Landscaping Required." 2. The parking of vehicles within any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot, is prohibited. I'L \ \ \I\G ZOL\P.rkmg 4 0.10, Page3of8 July 30.2003 (a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide access to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking. Driveways used for such ancillary parking may not exceed the maximum permitted widths as prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f.1.(a). Such ancillary parking shall not be considered toward meeting the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.6; "Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces." 3. Unenclosed parking spaces are only permitted upon the front one half (1/2) of a lot when: (a) a landscaped are of a least five (5') feet in • .ark ing areas and any main or accessory building(s); and (b) a wall or fence of not less than three (3') feet is provided along the sides and front of such parking facility 3. See subsection 30 -5.7.h for additional provisions related to the located of garages. a. Non - residential Uses in Non- residential Zones. Parking spaces may be located between the main building(s) and the street frontage(s). subject to the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: "Perimeter Landscaping Required." Any parking which is adjacent to a public street shah -be area of not less that five (5') feet. b. Non- residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone. • Section 30 -7.9 Parking Dimensions and Access a. Regular Spaces [unchanged] b. Compact Spaces [unchanged] c. Adjustments to Parking Space Dimensions [RELOCATED FROM 30- 7.10.f, and BP # 20] The parking space lengths specified in paragraphs a. and b. above may, for nonparallel spaces, be reduced by up to one and one - half (1 1/2') feet, with the curb to serve as a tire stop. The one and one -half (1 1/2') feet wide area that would otherwise be paved as part of the parking space (i.e. the "overhang" area), shall either be landscaped (with lawn or ground covers not exceeding six (6 ") inches in height), or if abutting a walkway, shall be paved with material similar to that of the walkway. The landscaping of the "overhang" area shall be in addition to, and not considered a part of, any minimum landscape requirements of this Code. When paved as part of an adjacent walkway, the "overhang" area shall not be included in the required width for walkways or handicapped access. it a curb or bumper stop and additional Landscaping under six (6 ") inches high is installed in the area so reduced. d. Vertical Clearance [unchanged] e. Tandem Parking [unchanged] J PLAN \I \(i ZCI :'Puking 4) Ja c Page4of8 July 30,2003 f. Driveways. [EXISTING STANDARDS TO BE DELETED, AND REPLACED WITH STANDARDS RELOCATED FROM 30- 5.7.1] Driveway widths for new driveway.; shall be based on the number of or 2 driveways. 1. Minimum and Maximum Driveway Widths. (a) In residential zones and for Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones : - - - - - - - , a minimum driveway width of eight and one -half (8'h') feet and a maximum of ten (10') feet may be permitted. Driveways that provide access to 2 or more adjacent single car garages, if separated from each other by a landscaped strip not less than three (3') feet wide, are measured as individual driveways when determining compliance with this subsection. (b) Exceptions to exceed the 10' feet limitation for driveways in residential zones and for residential uses in non - residential zones In exception to his restriction a driveway may be permitted to: (i) allow a maximum width of up to sixteen (16') feet in order to provide access to a two (2) car garage located no further than in the front fifty (50') feet from the lot's street frontage(s) of a lot ;or (ii) allow a 'Tare out" that provides adequate maneuvering area to a multi car garage located more than (50') feet from the lot's street frontage(s), subject to approval by the Planning & Building and Public Works Directors. (c) On Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones On commercially and industrially zoned lots and to serve commercial and industrial uses, a driveway occupying no more than forty (40 %) percent or twenty (20') feet in width (whichever is less) may be permitted may encroach across required front, side, and rear yards to provide access to required parking spaces . For service stations a maximum driveway width of forty (40') may be permitted. 2. Curb Cuts. No more than one (1) curb cut per lot shall be allowed, except for service stations where access shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) curb cuts, unless otherwise approved by the Planning & Building and Public Works Directors. These service station access points may be directionalized (i.e. one way, no left turn etc.) at the discretion of the Public Works Director City Engineer. Existing service gas stations shall be brought into compliance whenever modifications requiring a permit are approved. 3. The centerline of an access driveway where it connects to a street shall be at least thirty -five (35') feet from the nearest street right -of -way line of an intersection, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning & G `.PLANNING \ZOL P:vk rg.4 0,1o: Page 5 of 8 July 30,2003 Building and Public Works Directors. Engineering and Planning Pep-aft-men-t-s• 4. New developments may utilize existing driveways of nonconforming width with approval of the Planning, Director.[grandfather clause, which also includes non conforming "1' landscape separation requirement" to be relocated to new section "30- 7.18" Use and extension of non - conforming driveways and perimeter landscaping "] 5. Residential developments shall have only one (1) driveway per parcel per frontage, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning and Public Works Directors. g. Handicapped Parking Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided, in quantity and dimensions necessary for conformance with the A.C.B. -14 h. Ingress and Egress [unchanged] i. Backup Area [unchanged] • Section 30 -7.10 Landscaping a. Perimeter Landscaping Required: 1. Any unenclosed parking space or backup area which is adjacent to a public street, (where permitted by subsection 30- 7.8.b), shall be separated from the public street or sidewalk by a minimum of five (5') feet of landscaped area. 2. Unenclosed parking spaces next to either: walls of adjacent buildings, fences, buildings or property lines shall be separated from such structures or property lines by a minimum three (3') feet of landscaped area, except for areas needed for automobile and pedestrian access. 3. Backup areas and driveways shall have a minimum of one (1') foot of landscape separation from walls, fences, buildings and property lines. b. { street trees] — [unchanged] c. All landscape plans shall conform to the landscape and irrigation requirements in Article IV of this chapter. d. All landscape areas shall have an adequate irrigation system [delete as redundant] to the landscape requirements in Article IV of this chapter[delete as redundant] • {parking stall lengths adjacent to Landscaping} [relocated to 30 -7.9] g. Open Parking in front 1/2 of residential lot [delete to be consistent w/ propose 30- 7.8.a] • Section 30 -7.11 Design Review [unchanged] PL: \ \ \I \G'ZOLP1rkml 4.0 Page6of8 July 30.2003 • Section 30 -7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing facilities a. One (1) parking space per parcel sere in`T e.xistin17 facilities ma■ he eliminated under the following, circumstances: 1. The electrical service for the facility is converted from overhead to underground. and both the Planning & Building Director and the Bureau of Electricity determine the best location for the required pedestal mounted transformer requires the removal of a parking space. 2. Recycling bins are proposed for existing facilities and the Planning & Building Director determines the best location requires the removal of a parking space. b. Additional parking spaces serving existing facilities may be eliminated from properties with non - residential uses, with the approval of the Planning & Building and Public Works Directors, as needed to conform to current A.B.C. standards, which include but not limited to changes in the number of handicapped parking spaces that are required for specific non - residential uses. • Section 30 -7.13 Reductions in Parking Requirements [unchanged] • Section 30 -7.14 Off - Street Loading Space [unchanged] • Section 30 -7.15 Bicycle, Motorcycle and Pedestrian Facilities [unchanged] • Section 30 -7.16 Surface Improvements of Parking Areas [unchanged] • Section 30 -7.17 Illumination of Parking Areas a. Parking areas shall be adequately illuminated whenever necessary to protect the public safety, subject to the regulations in subsections b., c., and d. below: b. The such illumination of parking areas shall be so designed and located that light sources are shielded from adjoining properties and shall not be-of excessive brightness or cause a glare hazardous to pedestrians or auto drivers. All light fixtures in residential zones, or on parcels adjacent to any residential use, shall be limited to `full cut-off' illumination, or as approved by the Planning & Building Director. c. The maximum height of any parking lot light standard is twenty five (25') feet, unless a use permit to allow a height in excess of twenty five (25') feet is approved by the Planning Board. d. The ground level illumination shall not exceed a "minimum standard" of two (2) foot candles, with a ratio no greater than 15 to 1 between the highest and lowest areas of illumination. In a residential zone, or on a parcel adjacent to any residential use, the permitted "minimum standard" is reduced to ane -half (1/2) foot candles. Any proposal for • PLAN P.rkrig 4 0 Jo, Page 7 of 8 July 30.2003 parking lot lighting that would provide illumination at ground level in excess of the above standards is subject to approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Board. • Section 30 -7.18 Use and extension of non- conforming driveways and perimeter landscaping Existing residential driveways that are non - conforming to the minimum widths prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f1, and /or the minimum perimeter landscaping prescribed by subsection 30- 10.a.3, may remain and may be extended with the existing non - conforming dimensions at such time the property is further improved with small scale development, which includes but is not limited to additions to existing single family uses or the construction of an additional dwelling, subject to the approval of the Planning & Building and Public Works Directors. • Section 30 -7.19 Adjustments for Senior and Affordable Housing Developments Notwithstanding the minimum required parking space requirements prescribed in Section 30 -7.6, developments providing housing for residents that are to have a lesser dependence on personal vehicles, may be allowed to reduce such off - street parking requirements at time such projects are given Design Review, Use Permit and /or Planned Development approvals. Such projects may include, but are not limited to housing exclusively for Senior Citizens and housing deemed affordable to those with low to moderate incomes, as defined by the applicable City and Federal HUD requirements. As part of any request to reduce off - street parking requirements, the applicant(s) of the subject housing developments shall provide parking and traffic study(s) as deemed necessary to document the reduced need for off - street parking. [END - 7.30,2003] PI.A .ING'ZOL -Park mg. 4 0 .Soc Page 8 of 8 TOPIC 5 of 6: WATERFRONT LOTS WHY SHOULD THERE BE "SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS" TO TIIE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACKS OF WATERFRONT LOTS? Generally, rear yard setbacks for waterfront lots (defined as lots immediately adjacent to the Tidal Canal. San Leandro Bay or San Francisco Bay) are measured from the "higher high water line" rather than from the property line. Waterfront lots are also different from more typical lots in the community as they abut open water and do not share a common property line with another residence to the rear. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "WATERFRONT LOTS" • Clarifying that when the rear property line is submerged (i.e. the rear property line is at a lower elevation than the higher high water line) the minimum required rear setback of the parcel shall be measured from the higher high water line as if it were the rear property line • Clarifying that there are exceptions to setback requirements for parcels adjacent to interceding public lands where there is no public access. For parcels with interceding public lands between the parcel's rear property line and the higher high water line, the minimum required rear setback shall be measured from the higher high water line, but a 3' minimum setback from the rear property line (which is required by the C.B.C. as a minimum setback from any property line) shall be maintained. • Simplifying the permitting process of residential accessory structures (such as decks and gazebos) on leased public land within the "0" Zoning District by allowing such as "Permitted Uses subject to Minor Design Review" as opposed to requiring full use permit review. ❑ Allowing reductions to required minimum rear yards subject to major design review approval process (as opposed to the variance process currently required) — stressing the importance of preserving neighbor's views, thus allowing the a reduction to minimum rear yard requirements when views are unaffected. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "WATERFRONT LOTS" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ✓ Simplified wording, and replacement of the more cumbersome variance process with a "major design review" process, would make construction and/or development options easier to understand and process, but retain public notice and review. ✓ Some minor and routine use permits for accessory structures on leased public lands could become administrative minor design review items — allowing public comments but with a shorter review period. G `PL.ANNING\ZOL\DEV GOLDEN S.!nc Page 6 of 7 July 30.2003 ZONING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOPIC 5 of 6: WATERFRONT LOTS - REAR SETBACKS PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS Section 30 -2 - Definitions • Yard, rear shall mean a yard extending across the full width of the lot measured between the rear line of the lot and the rear line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch nearest the rear line of the lot. Properties abutting the Tidal Canal. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Section 30 -5.6 Building Site, Areas and Easements. [ADD NEW PARAGRAPH "d "] d. Adjustments to minimum rear yard requirements for certain waterfront parcels. The following adjustments to the minimum required rear yards otherwise prescribed by the subject zoning district (i.e. the minimum required setback from the rear property line) apply to parcels which are either immediately adjacent to, or adjacent to interceding public tidal lands (Le. "public trust lands ") which are immediately adjacent to, the Tidal Canal, San Leandro Bay or San Francisco Bay: 1. Additional setback requirements for parcels immediately adjacent to water. For parcels where the rear property line is either: a) at the same elevation as the higher high water line, or b) is at a lower elevation than the higher high water line (i.e. the rear property line is submerged), the minimum required rear setback shall be measured from the higher high water line as if it were the rear property line. 2. Special adjustments to setback requirements for parcels adjacent to those interceding public lands which do not have public access. For parcels with interceding public lands between the parcel's rear property line and the higher high water line (such as public tidal lands owned and /or managed by Federal, State or Local agencies which do not have public access, but portions of which may be leased to owners of adjacent parcels for private use), the minimum required rear setback shall be measured from the higher high water line (which falls within the interceding property) as if it were the rear property line of the subject parcel, thereby reducing the minimum required rear setback from that prescribed by the subject zoning district. However, in no case shall the subject parcel have a rear setback from the actual rear property line of less than three (3') feet. The above adjustment to minimum rear setback requirements does not PLAN ING ZOL.W'aterfront lot, 4 0 dot: Page 1 of 3 July 30.2003 apply to parcels adjacent to public or private waterfront lands which have been improved as parklands, trail easements, or similar amenities. 3. Exceptions to setback requirements for waterfront lots may be granted. Notwithstanding the minimum rear yard requirements of the subject zoning district, exceptions to the rear setback requirements prescribed for waterfronts regulated by this subsection (paragraphs 1. and 2. above), may be approved subject to the notification and approval process for improvements requiring Major Design Review, as outlined in Section 30- 27; Design Review Requirements. Exceptions to reduce the minimum required rear setback, but not to less than three (3') feet from the actual rear property line, may be granted with Major Design Review approval, with the additional and specific finding that the proposed encroachment into the setback otherwise required by this subsection will not substantially impair the adjoining neighbors' views of the water and hillsides beyond. 4. Exemptions for Piers and Floating Docks. Notwithstanding the minimum rear yard requirements of the subject zoning district and the specific setback requirements of this subsection, peers and floating docks are exempt from such minimum yard and setback requirements, and may be built up to and across the property line of adjacent public tidal lands, provided all permit requirements of the A.B.C., A.M.C. and applicable governmental agencies (e.g. B.C.D.C.) are meet. • Section 30 -4.19 0, Open Space District a. General. The following specific regulations shall apply in all 0 Districts as delineated and described in the zoning map(s). It is intended that this district classification be applied on lands, tide lands and water areas suitable for recreational and aesthetic resources, and that the regulations established will promote and protect recreational uses, scenic vistas or reservation of land or water against the intrusion of improper uses. b. Uses Permitted. 1. Public and private parks, parkways, playgrounds, beaches, lagoons or lakes, excepting buildings or structures thereon. 2. Public and private golf courses, country clubs, excepting buildings or structures thereon. 3. Public and private land or water preserves. 4. Underground utility installations for local service. e. Uses Permitted, Subject to Minor Design Review. Subject to the adjacent property owner's ability to lease portion(s) of the public tidal lands within the "0" District, minor structures that are accessory to the adjacent residential use for the purpose of either: a) waterfront access, including but not limited to docks, and fences /gates not to exceed 8' in height above the dock; or b) landscape amenities, such as arbors, gazebos, and similar unenclosed structures not to exceed 10' in height, G PL:\ \ \1 \G'ZOL Watertront lots 4O.d Page 2 of 3 July 30.2003 are permitted subject to approval process for improvements requiring Minor Design Review, as outlined in Section 30 -37 Design Review Regulations. e d Uses Requiring Use Permit. It is the intent of this paragraph that the following uses shall be reviewed by the Planning Board for their appropriateness in a specific location or for such other factors as safety. sanitation, design and visual attractiveness. 1. Any structure or building (other than those described in paragraph c) located within areas described in paragraphs b, 1., 2. and 3. 2. Above ground utility installations for local service. 3. Publicly owned small craft marinas and related installations. 4. Public and commercial concessionaire activities. uses and buildings. ;END -,) 26 2002; i PL.\NNING ZCl R rrr.rnni L ;. 4 0 ,:, Page 3 of 3 TOPIC 6 of 6: WATER TANKS WHAT SPECIAL PROVISIONS CURRENTLY APPLY TO THE HEIGHT OF WATER TANKS? Section 30 -5.8 of the A.M.C. allows a specific list of utility structures such as: chimneys, spires, machinery, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, water tanks, radio aerials, television antennas and similar utility structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances to exceed a height of not more than 25' above the height limit established for the district in which the structure is located." This provision was intended to allow architectural accents and essential utility structures an exception to the regular height limit. WHY SHOULD THE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR WATER TANKS BE DELETED? Water tanks are no longer needed for individual uses in Alameda. The existing "water tank" structures are functionally archaic and no longer used for their original intent, and therefore should no longer receive an "automatic" height exception that was intended for essential utility structures. WHAT CHANGE IS PROPOSED? — Remove - stater tanks.' from the list of utility structures that are permitted by Section 30 -5.8. C:\Data\Docs \General \Alameda\2003 -08 SLX STATUTES -FINAL PB \DES' GOLDENS.doc G \PLANNING`ZOLDE\ GOLDEN'S Joc Page 7of7 ZONING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TOPIC 6 of 6: WATER TANKS - DELETE HEIGHT EXCEPTION PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Section 30 -5.6 Height Exceptions. Towers, spires, chimneys, machinery, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, water tanks, radio aerials, television antennas and similar architectural and utility structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be built and used to a height not more than twenty -five (25') feet above the height limit established for the district in which the structures are located: provided. however. that no such architectural or utility structure in excess of the allowable building height shall be used for sleeping or eating quarters or for any commercial or advertising purposes. Additional heights for public utility structures may be permitted upon approval by the Planning Board. Height limitations provided herein shall not apply to electric transmission lines and towers, unless they encroach on any officially designated aircraft approach zone. (Ord. No. 535 N.S. §11 -14A8; Ord. No. 1277 N.S.) [END - 1 092x)31 ■.; PLANNING ZOI . \o %Vatcr T.utks.i 0 Jo: Page 1 of 1 PART II POSSIBLE CHANGES TO ZONING PROCUDURAL & USE REGULATIONS WHY ARE CHANGES TO PROCUDURAL & USE REGULATIONS BEING CONSIDERED? TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND STREAMLINE REVIEW PROCEDURES BY SIMPLYFYING CERTAIN PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRMENTS AND TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY WITH RECNETLY ADOPTED CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA STATE LAW. ti G \PLANNING\ZOC\PROCEDCR AL YELLOWS 2 0 Jn, Page 1 of 7 PROCEDURAL/USE TOPIC 1 of 6: "LIFE SPAN" OF APPROVALS; EXTENSIONS & TRANSFERABILITY; LIMITATION ON NEW APPLICATION. WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: o Expand "shelf life" of Use Permit and Variance approvals from one year to two years. o Replace the current possible extension (currently one year) to allow the Planning Board to determine the length of possible extension (Up to two years ?). ❑ Expand Design Review "shelf life" and "extension" periods from 6 months to one year. o Delete regulations that require public approval of the transfer of a use permit (" the use permit shall not be transferable by the grantee to any other person without prior approval of the Planning Board"). ❑ Specifying that denied applications cannot be resubmitted for three (3) years where the current resubmittal time period is one (1) year. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ Proposed text amendments would streamline the review process for the public as many of the current minor and routine extensions (due to the limited "life spans" of the current approval process) would no longer be needed ✓ The proposed changes would make the AMC more consistent with State law, as a use permit is an entitlement granted to the property, and must be allowed to transferred to new owners of the property and/or business. ✓ Provides for a longer time period to reconsider denied applications so the Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, City Council and neighborhoods are not impacted by repeated public hearings on the same or substantially same applications. G :PLANNING\Z.OU \PROCEDLRAL YELLOWS 2.0.doc Page 2 of 7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 1 of 6: "LIFE SPAN" OF APPROVALS; EXTENSIONS & TRANSFERABILITY [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, April 24, 2003] PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES 30 -21 VARIANCE, USE PERMITS: PROCEDURE: • 30 -21.8 Limitations on New Applications In case an application is denied by the Zoning Administrator. Planning Board, or, on appeal, by the City Council. it shall not be eligible for resubmittal for one (1) year three (3) years from the date of the denial. unless, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, new evidence is submitted in writing or conditions have changed to an extent that further consideration is warranted. (Ord. No. 1792 N.S.) • 30 -21.9 Termination Due to Inaction and Transferability A Variance or Use Permit shall, if granted, terminate one (1) two (2) years from the effective date of its granting unless actual construction or alteration, or actual commencement of the authorized activities in the case of a Variance or Use Permit not involving construction or alteration, has begun under valid permits within such period. When a Variance is associated with an approved parcel map or tentative subdivision map the Variance shall remain valid for the same period of time as the approved parcel map or tentative subdivision map, to the maximum time allowed by the State of California Subdivision Map Act for the land division approvals. N.S.; Ord. No. 2215 N.S.) • 30 -21.10 Time extensions (Ord. No. 1792 Prior to the expiration of the time limit within which Variances or Use Permits must be first exercised, the grantee may apply for an additional one (1) year time period(s) within which to exercise the approval, which may be granted on a case by case basis for any length of time, up to a total of a two (2) year extension from the expiration date for the original permit approval. Such applications for extension shall be ruled upon by the Zoning Administrator after public hearing, or by the Planning Board for those approvals including a reduction in the number of required vehicular parking spaces. (Ord. No. 2215 N.S.) G PLANNING2OL \I -3. doe. Lucspau or approvals 1.0 d'. Page 1 of 2 30 -37 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS. • 30 -37.6 Expiration and Extension Design Review approval shall expire one (l) year six 6) months from the initial date of approval unless construction has commenced under valid permits. When a Design Review approval is associated with a use permit or variance, the Design Review approval shall remain valid for the same period of time as the use permit or variance, as regulated by Section 30 -21. Prior to the expiration of the Design Review approval the applicant may apply to the Design Review Staff armies for and is granted one one (1) year six (6) month extension by prior to said expiration. (Ord. No. 1716 N.S.; Ord. No. 1983 N.S.; Ord. No. 2599 N.S. §1) G: \PLANNING\ZOU' \1- 8.doc: Lifcspan of approvals 1 (aloe [END - 1.29,200+] c PLANN[..GZOC \I- S.doc. Lde,p;,1,,: Ippro. 0 Page 2of2 PROCEDURAIJUSE TOPIC 2 of 6: PSYCHIC SERVICES WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ The proposal would relocate "fortuneteller" regulations from "Adult Entertainment Activity" and into the related office /personal services regulations of the AP (Administrative - Professional) District, where it would be a "permitted use." Like other professional/office uses, the new "psychic services" use class would be permitted in all C Districts as a second floor office use — Office use on the first floor would require use permit approval, as does all other AP permitted uses. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ The proposed change is required to make the AMC consistent with State law, as recent court cases found that "fortunetellers" are NOT in the same class as "adult businesses." Cities are thus not able to use restrictive "adult business" regulations to limit such "fortuneteller" uses to a greater extent than other office /service uses. Cities may still require a "background check" of the individual business operator, as currently required by Alameda Municipal Code. G.tPLANNINGZOL'\PROCEDL'RAL YELLOWS 2 .0. d c Page 3of7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 2 of 6: PSYCHIC SERVICES [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, February 13, 2003] ZONING CODE DEFINITION TO BE DELETED [SECTION 30 -9 "ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITIES "] • Sections 30 -9.2. Definitions. more people engage i -R-Of conduct the l sines€s, art or practice of astrology, reading or necromancy. PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS Section 30 -2 - Definitions • Psychic services [new definition], shall mean businesses or establishments which provide psychic services, which include but is not limited to the practice of: astrology, palmistry, phrenology, life - reading, fortunetelling, cartomancy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, crystal - gazing, mediumship, prophesy, augury, divination, mind reading or necromancy. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Sections 30 -4.7 AP administrative - Professional District (b) Uses Permitted: 1. Offices of an administrative and professional nature including but not limited to the following: (a) Accountants, (b) Architects, (c) Artists, (d) Attorneys, (e) Authors, (f) Doctors and dentists, (g) Engineers, (h) Insurance agencies, (i) Real estate offices, (j) Hypnotherapists and hypnotists, (k) Optometrists. (I) Psychic services (subject to permit requirements of section 6 -46.4 & 5 of the Alameda Municipal Code.) 2. Medical facilities, including, but not limited to the following: G PLANK NG'ZOL\2- 8.doc: Psychic ser•,xs i I Jot: Page 1 of 2 (a) Dental clinics. (b) Hospitals, (c) Medical clinics. (d) Medical laboratories, (e) Nursing and convalescent homes. (f) Radiologist laboratories. (g) Rest homes. (h) Sanitariums. G:\PLANNING\ZOUA2- 8.doc: Psychic services I.1.doc [END - 1 27.2005'; G PL. \NNING ZOL'2 S , c. Ps■.chu :ern ices 1 I do.: Page2of2 PROCEDURAL/USE TOPIC 3 of 6: FAMILY DAY CARE WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ Change "permitted use" and provide new 'definition" to respond to the State's new definition of "family day care," and also require that these non - residential facilities be Licensed by the State. ❑ (delete specific reference to "12 children" under the "permitted use" sections, and instead require conformance to the State definition of "Family Day Care" - which is currently up to 14 under certain circumstances) ❑ Provide formal definition of "day care center," which includes "nursery" and "nursery school," and also requires that these non - residential facilities by Licensed by the State. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ The proposed changes would make the AMC consistent with State, law, as the regulations on the number of children permitted under "large family" and "small family" care has changed since the City's current code was adopted. The proposed approach will allow the State to change the definition and number of children allowed in the future without a need to change the AMC. Although Alameda does not currently make a distinction between "small" care homes (6 to 8 children) and "large" care homes (12 to 14 "children "), the State defines them separately — so for consistency with all other regulatory agencies — it is best to keep the separate definitions, but allow both as "permitted uses." G \PLANNING\ZOG\PROCEDURAL YELLOWS 2.0.do Page4of7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 3 of 6: FAMILY DAY CARE [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, February 20, 2003] PROPOSED ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS • Day care center [new definition] shall mean a non- residential business or institution that provides care for persons on less than a twenty-four (24) hour basis, that is licensed by the State of California, and includes nursery schools, preschools and day care centers for children or adults, but excludes smaller residential facilities conforming to the Family day care, Large and Family day care, Small definitions. • Family day care, Large [new definition] shall mean the care and supervision of more than six (6) but less than fifteen (15) children in a provider's own home, on a less-than-twenty-four (24) hour basis and includes only those facilities licensed by the State of California, (but excludes smaller facilities that conform to the definition of "Family Day Care, Small " - which may provide care for up to eight (8) children, if certain conditions are met). Large family day care homes are mid -scale operations, intended to provide service for a limited number of children in a residential setting, as prescribed by the State of California. Such limits to number of children are as follows, or as prescribed by changes to State code subsequent to [date of code adoption]: A "Large family day care home " — H &SC 1596.78(b)) provides family day care for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, and up to fourteen (14) children, if all the following conditions are met (H &SC 1597.465): a) at least two (2) of the children are at least six (6) years of age; b) No more than three (3) infants are cared for during any time when more than twelve (12) children are being cared for; c) The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two (2) additional school age children at the time there may be up to thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) children in the home at one (1) time; d) The licensee obtains written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on the property that is leased or rented. These limits are inclusive of children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home. Family day care, Small [new definition] shall mean the care and supervision of a very limited number of children in a provider's own home, on a less-than- twenty-four (24) hour basis and includes only those facilities licensed by the State of California, (but excludes larger facilities that conform to the definition of "Family Day Care, Large "). Such limits to number of children are as follows, or as prescribed by changes to State code subsequent to [date of code adoption]: A "small family day care home" — H &SC 1596.78(c)) is limited to SIX (6) children; but may serve up to EIGHT (8) children, without an additional adult attendant, if 'all the following conditions are met (H &SC i; PL.ANNING\ZOCV -8 Jor.Fan ly Day Care 1 I Joe Page 1 of 2 1596.44): a) at least two (2) of the children are at least six (6) years of age; b) No more than two (2) infants are cared for during any time when more than six (6) children are being cared for; c) The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two (2) additional school -age children at the time there may be up to seven (7) or eight (8) children in the home at one time; d) The licensee obtains written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on the property that is leased or rented. These limits are inclusive of children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES • Sections 30- 4.1(b) through 30 -4.3 (b) Uses Permitted — R -1 through R -3: [existing use will also remain permitted in R -4 through R -6, due to the "nestling" of "permitted uses" under those residential districts] 8. Family day care homes, Large and Family day care homes, Small, as licensed by the State of California. providing care for no more than twelve (12) children. • Sections 30- 4.1(c) through 30 -4.3 (c) Uses Requiring Use Permit — R -1 through R -3: [proposed change will desirable, as "nursery school" is now incorporated into newly provided definition of "day care center "] [existing use will also remain permitted, with use permit, in the R -4 District due to the "nestling" reference to the R -3 requirements.] 2. Private and religious schools, nursery schools and day care centers. churches. • Sections 30- 4.5(b) Uses Permitted — R -5 [existing use will also remain permitted in the R -6 district, due to the "nestling" reference to the R- 5 requirements.] 4. Parks, playgrounds, public and private schools, churches and religious institutions, libraries, nurseries and day care centers, and public buildings. [END - 2_202003] G \PLANNING\ZOU\3- 8.doc;Family Day Care LLdoc PLANNI ZOC'_ -S.0 .F.und∎ D.A. Care I Page 2of2 PROCEDURAL/USE TOPIC 4 of 6: DELETE PLANNING BOARD'S "RATIFICATION" OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTIONS " WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: Remove need for "reports" of Zoning Administrator to Planning Board prior to close of time allowing "Calls for Review. (i.e. "ratification "). This change makes the Zoning Administrator a decision making official rather than a recommending official as currently all actions of the Zoning Administrator are subject to Planning Board action. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ Proposal would streamline the review process for the public, as the "ratification" of the Zoning Administrator's action by the Planning Board's receipt of the required "report" would no longer occur. Zoning Administrator actions would be final unless specifically appealed. ti G:\PLANNING\ZOC\PROCEDCRAL YELLOWS 2 0 2o, Page 5of7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 4 of 6: DELETE PLANNING BOARD'S "RATIFICATION" OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTIONS [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, January 29, 2002] PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES 30 -21 VARIANCE, USE PERMITS: PROCEDURE: • 30 -21.2 Administrative Variance c. Appeal. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of the City Council or Planning Board may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days after the decision of the Zoning Administrator or within three l3) days after the Zoning ,Administrator has reported to the Planning Board under subsection 30 21.11. whichever time is greater. Appeals shall be heard by the Planning Board pursuant to Section 30 -25. • 30 -21.11 Report to Planning Board The Zoning Administrator shall report, for informational purposes only, all approvals or disapprovals of Administrative Variances or Administrative Use Permits and conditions imposed thereon to the Planning Board at the next regular meeting hereof following the decisions. (Ord. No. 1792 N.S.) G:\PLANNING\ZOU \4- 8.doc: Ratification NOT 1.0.doc [END - 1.29.2003] PL.ANNING'ZOC.+8.doc -. R.uuluuon NOT ; 0 doc Page 1 of 1 PROCEDURAUUSE TOPIC 5 of 6: CC - DISTRICT: LOCATIONS REQUIRING RETAIL STORE FRONTAGE WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ Add "Community Commercial District" to list of designated districts. Clarify that the CC District's requirement for "ground floor retail" is for buildings which are on sites that adjoin a public street. public alley or public spaces, not just for "buildings which adjoin..... ". HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ Proposal would assure that the Community Commercial District's intent to promote ground floor retail is maintained is cases where there may be an interceding "front yard setback" between the public street and building frontage. ',PLANNI`'G'ZOC \PROCEDCR .L YELLOWS 2 0 ane Page 6 of 7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 5 of 6: CC DISTRICT - LOCATIONS REQUIRING RETAIL FRONTAGE [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, September 26. 2002] PROPOSED ZONING TAT CHANGES • Section 30 -3.1 "Designation of Districts:" [ADD "CC" TO TABLE] The several classes of general districts hereby provided, and which the City may he divided, are designated as follows: ,V1ap District Designation Symbol R -1 One - Family Residential District R -2 Two- Family Residential District R -3 Garden Residential District R -4 Neighborhood Residential District R -5 General Residential District R -6 Hotel Residential District AP Administrative- Professional District C -1 Neighborhood Business District C 2 Central Business District C -C Community Commercial District C -M Commercial Manufacturing District M -1 Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District M -X Mixed Use Planned Development District 0 Open Space District • Section 30- 4.9A.b ( "Uses Permitted" in CC District) [REVISE PARAGRAPH "mm "] (mm) Office uses (medical and professional) not associated with permitted retail sales use of the site, provided that for any building frontage of a building which is on a site adjoining a public street, public alley or public sidewalk, fifty (50 %) percent in depth of the ground floor space nearest sue-h directly behind that building frontage closest to the public street, public alley or public sidewalk shall he reserved for retail sales and/or services uses permitted in the district. P■y >>y„ zoL-, -s : �._ ��•:� Dcii Page 1of2 • Section 30- 4.9A.c ( "Uses Requiring Use Permits" in CC District) [REVISE PARAGRAPH "bb "] (bb) Office use (medical and professional) not associated with a permitted or conditional use in this district and/or i-s to be located on a site adjoining a public street, public alley or public sidewalk and within fifty (50%) percent of the of the depth of the ground floor space adjoining a directly behind that building frontage closest to the public street. public alley or public sidewalk.. [END - 9.26.20021 G: \PLANNING\ZOL\5- 8.doc: Retail Depth 3.1.doc G PLANVNGZOL\5- 3..loc. Retall Depth 3 I dot: Page2of2 PROCEDURAL/USE TOPIC 6 of 6: HISTORIC ADVISORY BOARD: APPEALS & CALLS FOR REVIEW WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ Add the "Historic Advisory Board" to the list of decision- making bodies outlined is Section 25 who's actions may be appealed and/or called for review. The Historic Advisory Board would be on the same level as the Planning Board, as appeals and or call for review of the decisions of both bodies would be heard by the City Council. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ Remove ambiguity as to the appeal procedure for decisions of the Historical Advisory Board. G:\PLANNING\ZOU\PROCEDURAL YELLOWS 2.O.doc G.`PLANNING\ZOU'PROCEDURAL YELLOWS 2 0 do, Page 7of7 ZONING - ADMINISTRATIVE & USE REGULATIONS TOPIC 6 of 6: HISTORIC ADVISORY BOARD - APPEALS & CALLS FOR REVIEW [SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES, February 5. 2003] PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES 30 -25 APPEALS OR CALLS FOR REVIEW • 30 -25.1 Purpose and Authorization for Appeals and Calls for Review a. Appeals. To avoid results inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter. decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City Council by an% person aggrieved or by any officer, agency or department of the City affected by any decision, determination or requirement. b. Calls for Review. As an additional safeguard to avoid results inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be called up for review to the Planning Board by the Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be called up for review to the City Council by the City Council or a member of the City Council. (Ord. No. 1794 N.S.; Ord. No. 1836 N.S.; Ord. No. 2025 N.S.: Ord. No. 2625 N.S. §1; Ord.No. 2733 N.S. §2) • 30 -25.2 Final Decisions b. Final Decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. Any decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board shall be final on the date of the decision, unless any person aggrieved or by any officer, agency, or department of the City affected by any decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board, files a Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department no later than ten (10) days following the decision or a City councilmember files a call for review with the Planning Department no later than ten (10) days following the decision. Decisions that are appealed or called for review shall not become effective until the appeal or call for review is resolved by the appropriate City body. • 30 -25.3 Time Limits for Appeals or Calls for Review b. Appeals of Actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. Appeals to the City Council concerning actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be taken from any person aggrieved or PLAVAINGZOL r3 �, FI : 0 .:c Page 1 of 2 from any officer. agency or department of the City affected by any decision. determination or requirement or the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. Such appeal shall he bled 00 later than ten (10) days following the decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. • 30 -25.4 Initiation of Appeals and Calls for Review c. Appeals of Actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. An appeal to the City Council concerning actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board decision shall be filed in writing with the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the required fees. In filing an appeal, the applicant shall specifically state the reasons or justification for an appeal. ;r.No- '05:oo G :\PL.AN`ING\ZOL \6- S.doe: H.AB appeal, I 0 do,: ; PLANNING- -,201.. :. II.AR Page 2 of 2 Minutes Special Joint Meeting Between the City Council and Planning Board Tuesday, April 30, 2002 The 0 Club 641 West Red Line Avenue, Alameda Point 7:00 P.M. 1. Roll Call: Mayor Ralph Appezzato called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Mayor Ralph Appezzato Vice Mayor Al DeWitt Councilmember Barbara Kerr Councilmember Tony Daysog Councilmember Beverly Johnson President Marie Gilmore Vice President John Piziali Board Member Gary Bard Board Member Horst Breuer Board Member Andrew Cunningham Board Member Frank Matarrese Board Member Ronald Rossi was not in attendance. Councilmember Beverly Johnson was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item A. Also in attendance were: Planning Director Gregory Fuz, Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, City Manager Jim Flint. Special Planning Board /City Council Meeting Page 1 April 30, 2002 Attachment #3 C. Zoning Ordinance update Councilmember Kerr requested further clarification of the parking requirements in multifamily residence zones. Ms. Altschuler noted that the parking revisions of the Zoning Ordinance that staff was contemplating would bring the Zoning Ordinance in line with the new reality of Alameda since 1973, that the town contained mostly single family homes and duplexes. The way the Zoning Ordinance was currently written, and the way that parking was calculated, envisioned an apartment -type community. The number of parking spaces is tied to the number of bedrooms. A one - bedroom apartment would not have the same parking demand as a two- bedroom apartment; the same could be said for studio apartments. Two adults may live in a studio apartment, and they may both have a car; the parking demand for that studio would have to be examined and updated. The Planning Board and the community at large would determine whether the parking demand had changed over time from the early 1960s, when the current parking ordinance was developed, and from the 1980s update. She noted that nothing was being taken away. Councilmember Kerr emphasized that parking proximity to a home affected personal safety. She also wished to discuss Zone Compression, and added that one of the factors that controlled density was the amount of open space per dwelling unit. She believed the regulations were complex, and believed that they could be simplified. Mayor Appezzato noted that parking was difficult, and emphasized that Alameda was an island community. He noted that for the past 30 or 40 years, single - family homes were tom down, and multi- family dwelling units were built without any control or sufficient parking. He had no sympathy for multi -unit owners who did not plan for sufficient parking at that time, and who complained when the City wanted more single- family dwellings to be built. He noted that the reason there was not enough street parking was because there were many motels on the city streets that did not plan for off - street parking. Vice President Piziali understood this section rounded off 1Y2 or 13/4 parking places to two spaces, and he believed that City staff understood that. Councilmember Johnson understood that current lifestyles were to be examined, as opposed to lifestyles of the past. It sounded as if the most likely finding will be that more parking spaces were needed, not less. Special Planning Board/City Council Meeting Page 9 April 30, 2002 Ms. Altschuler stated that staff wished to simplify the Code, and to acknowledge today's lifestyles. She noted that the important factor was the number of off - street parking spaces per unit, not bedroom. Councilmember Johnson agreed with that assessment. Board Member Bard noted that the Planning Board received requests for in -lieu parking in commercial developments that had far below the necessary level of on -site parking spaces. He inquired about the City Council's opinion of in -lieu parking agreements, and requested direction from the Council on that issue. Mayor Appezzato noted that every in -lieu parking case was different, and that case by case consideration was essential. Councilmember Kerr noted that she did not favor in -lieu parking agreements, especially where parking for downtown retail establishments would be adversely affected. Mayor Appezzato wished to address the affordable housing issue. Councilmember Johnson believed that the downtown districts should be examined, and noted that Webster Street had more vacant property than Park Street. She believed that one of the issues affecting downtown development was whether the City wanted to have a parking lot on every lot developed on Webster Street. The in -lieu fees could be. used to build a parking structure, which would be better planning than telling each development that a certain portion of the lot must be used for parking. Board Member Cunningham believed that a strategy for the use of in -lieu fees should be put in place, so that the use of the fees could be charted. Councilmember Johnson noted that a parking structure was needed on Park Street. President Gilmore noted that questions regarding in -lieu fees tended to arise in the kind of commercial establishments that tended to attract a lot of traffic and separate car trips, such a fast food restaurants. President Gilmore noted that an issue that the Planning Board often faced was when a developer wished to build an office complex, with a required number of parking spaces. The problem with forcing the developer to build the parking spaces was people would drive to work, which may contribute to the parking congestion. She asked if there was some way to disassociate the parking for the workers from the building. A number of spaces would be provided, but would not be free parking to the workers in the building. If the parking were more costly or inconvenient, it may provide an incentive for people to use public or other modes of transportation. Special Planning Board/City Council Meeting Page 10 April 30, 2002 Mayor Appezzato noted that people could be very creative, and that buses, ferries, and bicycles were all used for transportation. If the developer bought in to those creative incentives, that would be a workable solution. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the aerial tram idea was being pursued, and would like to see further consideration of that transportation method. Vice Mayor De Witt noted that the Congestion Management Agency of ABAG was examining ways to discourage the use of the automobile. That was tied to the availability and price of parking. He noted that there was a movement afoot in planning to discourage the use of the automobile, and he believed that Alameda should take that into account when dealing with parking. He noted that if the City wanted a business or organization in the city badly enough, they looked the other way or used the in -lieu process. He believed that the City should take a page from the environmentalists' book, and discourage the use of the automobile if possible, in order to make public transit work. Mayor Appezzato noted that if a poll were taken in the hearing room, most of the people owned a car or two; the overwhelming majority of people in the audience drove to the hearing. He noted that BART was overcrowded; no one wanted the buses on the street; and ferries did not run as frequently as they could. He believed the City should be realistic in its planning with regards to driving and parking. He noted that critics of infill housing believed it would destroy their quality of life. He noted that transportation was a major challenge, and believed that regional planning would be appropriate. Councilmember Johnson noted that Mr. Garcia - Sinclair discussed the different options for CyberTrain, and asked if staff planned to follow up with him. Ms. Eliason noted that Clement Avenue had an alternative vehicle corridor as part of its right of way, and if it proved to be a successful option, it could be included. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there was a way to work with BART to consider Alameda for this project. Ms. Eliason replied that she had not been personally involved in the meetings, and that Cheri Sheets had more knowledge of the process. Special Planning Board /City Council Meeting , Page 11 April 30, 2002 9 -B. ZA03 -0001 - City of Alameda - Citywide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report. He noted that a public workshop was conducted in December, 2002, attended by approximately 15 people. Some of the changes in the document were a result of that workshop. The action taken by the Planning Board on this document will be a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold two hearings, and will take 30 days before the revisions become officially adopted. Staff believed that topics 1 through 5 warranted the most discussion, and pertained to projects, encroachments, building height, landscaping, parking, and waterfront lots. Other changes were considered to be more procedural, and required less review than those five items. Mr. Cormack advised that the goal was to have the draft language to be as clear as possible, and emphasized that the entire Development Code was not being rewritten. Staff recommended the deletion of certain sections in order to start over, but for the most part, staff tried to develop language that would fit within the current context of the regulations as they are currently drafted. A great deal of time was spent on this item at staff level, and hopefully, it is responsive to the Planning Board policy direction last year. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Deb Greene, 2049A Eagle Avenue, noted that many of her questions were answered by Ms. Altschuler during the recess. She inquired what was meant by "simplify and expand" exceptions to minimal side requirements. She noted that the item regarding building height limits made sense, the changes to be enacted could directly or indirectly increase density. Ms. Altschuler indicated to her that the section on parking addressed those questions. She expressed concern whether future changes to parking that come with adding a story would be adequate. With respect to landscaping and open space, she had inquired why it should be changed; she believed it was because no one understood the current iteration. One of her major concerns was regarding parcels adjacent to interceding public lands, recommending that the setback to reduced to a three foot minimum setback. If access was granted to those public lands, that did not make sense to her. Ms. Altschuler stated that parcels where public access was guaranteed were not subject to this sort of change. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 April 28, 2003 Attachment #4 Mr. Mark Womack noted that he had been an architect in Alameda for ten years, and had a great deal of experience dealing with the existing zoning regulations. He understood the effects that certain changes may or may not have on how development patterns will proceed within the City. He believed this revision was a wonderful idea, and was aware that many zoning regulations were frustrating to those who used them. For example, the repetition of the paragraph that discussed rear yards in two sections of the ordinance, needed to be simplified. He expressed concern about the cumulative effect of some of the proposed changes, such as removing the limitation of stories in the Zoning regulation, raising the maximum building height to a simple maximum height calculation, and the allowance interior development of existing space. He believed those changes would have unfortunate consequences on the historic character of Alameda. Mr. Womack noted that he was an advocate of an average building height calculation, as opposed to a maximum building height calculation. He was aware that it was slightly more complicated, and if a designer did not understand it, they should not design homes. He distributed a visual comparison, showing the larger effect of a flat roof versus a more steeply sloped roof. He believed that the use of an average height definition promoted diversity in architectural styles. He believed that defining the appropriate number of stories in any given zoning designation was a good idea, and believed that it should be consistent with the CBC- UBC, which it currently was not. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance had its own unique interpretation of the definition of a story. He encouraged the Board to look at the appropriateness of allowing higher density in the way of more stories in the various zoning districts in order to understand the impact that will have, along with changes in the building heights. Mr. Womack noted that allowing interior development of existing structures that did not have exterior modifications above the maximum height may result in modifications to many rooflines, particularly in historic homes, where the architecture of the house may be compromised to accommodate additional third story construction. He knew that it was a struggle to balance the aesthetics of a project with the costs and benefits, and increased market value, as well as living space. He understood the need to preserve the historic character of Alameda. He noted that Measure A was a classic example of an action taken by the City to try to preserve that character. From his experience, he cautioned the Board that adopting all of the provisions contained within the Ordinance as drafted may result in a much greater effect than anticipated. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Gilmore inquired whether a sunroom was different than a greenhouse. Ms. Altschuler noted that greenhouse was removed from the first bullet point on page 1 (Accessory Building). Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 28, 2003 Mr. Simon advised that a greenhouse was historically part of the accessory structures. Historically, it referred to a structure that no one could live in. Since then, staff working at the counter have experienced a change in use to include a solarium addition; very few people actually build a greenhouse. Staff believed it would be simpler to remove greenhouse from the definition, and a glazed potting shed could still be defined as an accessory structure. He noted that some fully glazed structures are habitable; other non - habitable glazed spaces fall under a different definition. Staff believed that a distinction should be made between those two uses, and that the definition "sunroom" would accomplish that. In response to Mr. Cunningham's inquiry, Mr. Simon confirmed that a sunroom had a roof, often glazed. Ms. Altschuler advised that the intent was to separate the accessory structure to define it in terms of its use and how it was constructed, rather than defining it as a hobby room or a greenhouse. This particular structure may be very close to the neighbor's back yard, and therefore should be limited in terms of use. Staff attempted to find appropriate uses in the rear yard, and that the "U" classification under the Building Code helped define those uses. The U classification allowed for certain structures which were not very useful in terms of habitation. Ms. Cook noted that on page 1, a list of landscaping materials included rock and wood chips. She had seen yards in Alameda that were nothing but rock or wood chips, and would like to see a stated expectation that some plant materials should be included. Ms. Altschuler indicated that staff spent a great deal of time on that section, and acknowledged that green material was expected in a landscaped area. She noted that a percentage could be included, although a stated percentage may result in the minimum coverage and no more. Mr. Cormack noted that the phrase "rock and wood chips" could be eliminated, because the intent was described up to that point. Rock and wood chips were normally used as filler in a landscaped area. Mr. Cunningham inquired what the definition of "sculpture" was, and was concerned that a rusty old car could be interpreted by an owner to be art. Ms. Altschuler noted that art could not be defined in the Code, and noted that the additional language was included in the Code to present a broad view of what might be included in a landscaped area. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 April 28, 2003 Mr. Cormack noted that the decorative features definition could include those features accessory to the natural landscaping. He noted that Mr. Cunningham's point was to avoid making the sculpture the dominant feature in the yard. Mr. Cunningham agreed with that interpretation. Mr. Piziali noted that with respect to the setbacks for decks (page 3), he was concerned about Items A and B: "Decks of up to and including 12 inches in height may encroach into any required side and rear yard. Decks over 12 inches to not more than 30 inches may encroach into any required side yard and rear yard, but shall maintain a minimum setback of 3 feet." He interpreted that section to allow a 30 inch deck three feet from a fence, and was concerned about the privacy issues in that situation. Ms. Altschuler noted that this was not a change, except for the reduction of a 36 inch deck to 30 inch deck; at 30 inches, the Uniform Building Code starts to require a railing. Mr. Simon advised that the current Code currently had four classifications, which staff proposed reducing to three: a. Under 12 inches, no setbacks; b. 12 to 24 inches, 3 foot setbacks; c. 24 to 30 inches, 3 foot setbacks. He noted that the additional height was only 6 inches, and inquired whether that was a significant issue. He added that a 5 foot setback could be proposed. Staff attempted to dovetail this issue into other parts of the Code; for fire separation, a 3 foot setback was a uniform standard. The Building Code specifies a three foot separation for accessory sheds and decks, which was a common number. President Gilmore noted that the privacy screen requirement took effect for decks exceeding 30 inches in height, and inquired whether that was in the original Code. Ms. Altschuler advised that it was a new requirement proposed by staff, and it cited the Alameda Building Code because there were some railing requirements for decks exceeding 30 inches. President Gilmore suggested that instead of moving the setback, privacy screening could be installed for decks exceeding 24 inches. Mr. Piziali noted that he did not want to see any changes up to 30 inches. Mr. Cunningham believed that these changes may open the Board up to an increase in Variance requests. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 April 28, 2003 President Gilmore suggested starting the privacy screening lower, such as 24 inches, if the Board was that concerned about privacy. She agreed with Mr. Cunningham's assessment that a five foot setback requirement would lead to more Variance requests. Mr. Cunningham did not believe that there was a great difference in horizontal privacy screening between three feet and five feet. Ms. Altschuler noted that decks less than 30 inches in height did not require a building permit. In those cases, the homeowner may build it themselves, and may run into enforcement problems in terms of setbacks. She added that most people were aware of the three foot setbacks, and noted that if additional regulations were required for decks less than 30 inches, it became a challenge for staff to ensure that the property owner was aware of those regulations. Mr. Cormack noted that could lead to an enforcement action because the deck was built without a permit; the homeowner usually becomes aware of the regulations during the permitting process. Regarding "replacement -in- kind," President Gilmore noted that there were many situations where garages which sit squarely on the rear and side property line are beginning to deteriorate. She inquired whether the garages were grandfathered in, or if the accessory building requirement applied. She further inquired what would happen if the owner wished to build in the same location, but wished to rebuild the roofline. Ms. Altschuler cited page 6 of 9: "Reconstruction of Legally Non - conforming Buildings" and noted that a legally constructed building was located in the rear yard, the changes in rules over the past 50 years have made it a non - conforming structure. In this example, the neighbors have become accustomed to the building, landscaping has been installed, and other construction has occurred with that building in mind. If the building needs to be replaced, there would be no harm in replacing it from the ground up. That would allow for a reconstruction of that structure. If the owner wished to change the roofline, they would need to go back to the other five sections to determine whether it complied with the height limitations, size, and other required items. The garage could be reconstructed as long as it had equal or less conformity. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether the Board would entertain a recommendation to allow a roof pitch change, as long as the height and the roof pitch complied with the current regulations. Mr. Piziali noted that he would assume that would happen automatically. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 April 28, 2003 Mr. Simon noted that a sentence could be added to the end of the section: "Changes to roof may be permitted up to those standards allowed in Subsection 1." Ms. Altschuler advised that any new structure would be required to comply with all the regulations. President Gilmore requested clarification for the language on page 8. Mr. Simon noted that staff put a great deal of thought into the limitations of existing projects subject to the K &L findings. He added that it was currently structured so that a pre- existing nonconformity on the property could be extended horizontally but not vertically at a new location on the elevation. Staff decided that rather than using K &L, the document discusses exceptions, including when the grandfathering was caused by an encroachment on a pre- existing lower level. Ms. Altschuler gave an example of a property owner who asked staff about adding a room in the back of the existing residence. If it turns out that they have a compliant existing five foot setback, they cannot take advantage of the K &L findings and must continue to be in compliance. In this case, a second story must have a seven foot setback from the side property lines. However, if there is a nonconforming three foot setback, the property owner may keep that setback. She noted that it was a challenge for the planners to explain to a property owner when comparing their request to a neighbor who was grandfathered. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether the Planning Board was interested in continuing to allow nonconforming setbacks to be continued for additions either at the rear, or at the second story. President Gilmore noted that she would support that, but considering the language of this section, she was concerned about the massing of the structure. She recalled one building that was constructed as a big box. Mr. Simon noted that this was the subject of many staff discussions, and added that letting the envelope being the only tool to prevent the construction of big box houses almost always backfired. He noted that the Board's goal of not wanting more big boxes was valid, and that it must either come from the Design Review process which clarified the end product, or from very complex numerical standards. He believed that trying to accomplish this goal solely by the reliance on setbacks probably was not the answer. Mr. Piziali inquired what could be done to bring potential big box cases before the Planning Board. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff would bring a new Design Review manual before the Board which would address some of those concerns. Three workshops had been held to date. She noted that no matter how well- written the Design Review manual would be, there Planning Board Minutes Page 18 April 28, 2003 would be some unattractive buildings in town. Staff intended to try very hard to have everyone comply, and to anticipate all of the various design options that people may employ. Mr. Rossi noted that the City did not want to encourage the construction of big box houses. In the last ten years, he had seen much bigger houses built in Alameda, and expressed concern that the setbacks had decreased. The volume of the house has become a major selling point, and he believed that in a large quantity, the quality of the living environment would decrease significantly. He agreed with Mr. Womack's assessment of this issue. President Gilmore inquired what benefit would this language give the City over the existing language, if the Board asked the City Council to adopt this language. She noted that if there was not a clear benefit for the public or staff, she suggested that the City stay with K &L, and work on the language further. Ms. Altschuler advised that the proposed language was different than the existing K &L in that if a single -story house had a compliant side -yard setback. Currently, the owner could not take advantage of K &L for that situation, and the second story must be set in seven feet. Members of the public see that situation as an inherent equity issue. Mr. Simon noted that this revision was begun with the assumption that there was no problem with the K &L mechanism as a Planning Board policy. He noted that the purpose in writing the revision was to provide more equity. President Gilmore noted that each time a developer presented a planned development, the public comments are dominated by the closeness of the buildings to each other. She believed that this revision would encourage an action that the public has spoken against, notwithstanding what the individual property owner may not want. She believed that in each case, the second story must be stepped back. Ms. Altschuler suggested that this item be revisited during Phase II several months in the future. In response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding building heights, Ms. Altschuler stated that there was a difference between what the Development Code allowed and what staff would approve under Design Review. It would be possible to construct a flat - topped 30 -foot two - story building as long as the interior ceilings were 14 feet; that configuration would fully comply with current codes. She could see the possibility of a two -story flat - topped roof being approved, but not at 30 feet. She noted that the buildings on Bayo Vista off of High Street were vaguely Prairie- style. Mr. Piziali noted that he had seen single -story flat - topped roof buildings that looked fine; he was concerned about the two -story buildings. Planning Board Minutes Page 19 April 28, 2003 Mr. Cunningham noted that the presence of a flat roof did not automatically make the design unattractive. Mr. Simon noted that the neighbors would receive notice of such an application, and added that a Major Design Review did not necessarily go before the Planning Board. The public review and public discussion process would state whether the design was within the allowed envelope; however, it did not guarantee that it was an appropriate design. He noted that the City was at a juncture at which it should decide whether the zoning envelope or the process of a design within that envelope was appropriate. He believed it would be a mistake to use the zoning envelope to pre - determine design. He added that there were two architectural thoughts: that the envelope may rule out a potentially good solution because of the realm of possibilities; other designers are grateful for the limits of the envelope, making the design process easier. Mr. Rossi noted that a large upstairs space may be named something other than a bedroom, such as a game room, but that it had all of the utilities required for two or three bedrooms. He didn't believe that practice should be allowed to continue. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff proposed a limitation on the size and number of bedrooms. She noted that staff's number may have been too high, which may negatively affect the needed parking. She noted that if the Board believed a lower number was appropriate, that may be recommended to City Council. She advised that staff proposed not just a limit on the number of bedrooms, but also tying it to the maximum square footage of the house. In that case, it would not matter what the room was called. Mr. Piziali agreed with the changes made by staff. He believed that traffic and parking were the main problems for Alameda citizens, and that was the main issue they would like the City to address. Mr. Cunningham believed the letter by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society contained some very valid comments about raising houses to be within height limits in order to get additional stories. The issue in the letter was raising a building that was within the height limitations. The external envelope of the building may be changed; the AAPS took issue with that practice. The converse would be to add another story by digging out a basement, but not changing the envelope size. He would go along with that approach. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether the Board was willing to recommend the deletion of the stories in the height limit, and look at the parking issue in order to ensure that the habitable space in a home does not become an adverse impact on a neighborhood. Mr. Piziali noted that was his opinion. Planning Board Minutes Page 20 April 28, 2003 Mr. Cunningham would like a resolution on the direction between the two alternatives, and agreed with the route illustrated by Diagram 2. Ms. Altschuler noted that if a person walked through town, it would be very difficult to distinguish between an R -3, R -4, and R -5 neighborhood without having a zoning map. The residential districts were built after the historical part of Alameda was built, and the differences between the zoning districts were not as clear as they might be in other towns. Mr. Cunningham noted that if the issue came back with the design guidelines, the Board could consider the two items together, as well as the FAR and examination of the parking ratio. Mr. Rossi concurred with that suggestion. President Gilmore noted that the Planning Board agreed with staff's proposal with respect to landscaping and private open space. Ms. Altschuler noted that the difficulty with parking was that it was structured to address apartments, which had not been constructed in Alameda since 1973, when Measure A was implemented. Staff has proposed that parking be required in response to the floor area of a structure as well as the number of bedrooms. Staff did not plan to propose the parking numbers as hard and fast rules, but suggested this concept for Board review and direction. President Gilmore agreed with Mr. Cunningham's idea of tying the parking requirement to square footage, as opposed to bedrooms, for the reasons that bedrooms tend to morph. She recommended getting rid of the notion of tying parking to bedrooms, and keeping it solely with the square footage of the building. Mr. Simon noted that the Planning Board does not need to agree with the 5,000 square foot standard, but may address the base idea that every unit has two spaces. He added that this would solve a lot of problems with new constructions. He advised that staff spent a great deal of time dealing with the "monster home" provision. He noted that Part 3 was the most radical change to policy, but will be where most of the control will originate. He noted that a situation where a homeowner adds game rooms and offices, the City may say no because the site was maxed out on parking. The property owner may argue before the Planning Board for a parking Variance. Ms. Cook inquired whether staff would treat existing building envelopes differently with respect to parking, such as the older Victorian homes in Alameda. She noted that those homes had unique architecture with unusual and unusable spaces. She believed that the rehabilitation of these homes should not change the historic character and appearance of the homes. Planning Board Minutes Page 21 April 28, 2003 Mr. Simon noted that an owner of a Victorian home with enclosed void spaces may be encouraged to maintain the character of the home. There was very little zoning could do to encourage any action because of its regulatory language. The only way to encourage an action through zoning was to regulate the opposition action, and to make the encouraged action the path of least resistance. Ms. Cook expressed concern about the loss of landscaping, trees, and neighbors' privacy to increase square footage in a Victorian. Mr. Piziali did not believe that the City could separate Victorians from other homes in this regard, and did not have a problem if a property owner wanted to increase their existing floor space and make it habitable, such as a basement or an attic. He added that as long as they did not come outside the building envelope, he did not object to that. He emphasized that the Planning Board should be able to enforce the parking regulations. Mr. Simon noted that single family homes normally get two parking spaces, and a bigger home gets three spaces. These homes have the design advantage of not requiring everything to be in a garage. He noted that an office building or ADA parking regulations are more complex. If a property owner expanded their Victorian home, and their family consisted of two adults and two teenagers, they should consider the parking needs in expanding the home. He noted that tandem parking was a good option, as was creative landscaping solutions. President Gilmore inquired whether the Board would have the option to grant a parking Variance if these items were enacted. Mr. Simon advised that a parking exception may be created to define predictable standards to address an application for a parking waiver. The unique situation of the street, balanced with community benefit, may reveal measurable standards which would determine that no harm was inflicted on the neighbors. In addition, the restoration of the home may be seen as a community benefit, and a parking exception may be granted in that situation. Mr. Rossi noted that the president of the AAPS, Christopher Buckley, submitted a statement that AAPS opposes any zoning changes that eliminates the control over the number of stories. President Gilmore inquired whether parking Variances were available for commercial uses. Ms. Altschuler replied that parking Variances were available in any district. She noted that President Gilmore may be referring to in lieu fees, which allow the payment of fees to be used for enhancing parking, so that the parking demand on the parking site was reduced. She noted that Mr. Simon's idea of parking exceptions under certain predictable situations was Planning Board Minutes Page 22 April 28, 2003 similar to a use permit. The City of Berkeley used the Use Permit process to allow for certain construction, such as studios, in residential areas. She did not believe it was the best way of approaching the dilemma, but there could be a system in place that would allow the Board to grant parking exceptions (not parking Variances) under certain specified instances. That would avoid the dilemma of having to make the extraordinary circumstance and hardship findings. The detriment finding would be applicable in those cases. Mr. Piziali believed that many of the applicants for home expansions would seek a parking exception. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether the Board was ready to recommend a two space per unit parking requirement for new construction. The Board members indicated that they would recommend that requirement. Ms. Altschuler indicated that they would bring this item back to the Board with more specific numbers. The Board agreed with the general concept that if square footage were to be added over a specific number, additional on -site parking must be provided. Staff would craft language that would allow certain exceptions to that requirement if other standards were met. Staff would also make recommendations on alternate parking requirements for assembly uses, based on research on building occupancy standards provided by Mr. Simon. In response to President Gilmore's inquiry whether it would take effect for new construction or alterations to existing facilities, Ms. Altschuler replied that both would apply. Mr. Cunningham inquired what the effect of expanded retail would have on this requirement, with respect to the changes occurring at South Shore. Ms. Altschuler replied that South Shore was a planned development, so the Board could set parking standards that were different from the usual parking standards. Mr. Rossi noted that they currently had 1,200 parking spaces at South Shore. Mr. Simon noted that when he worked with the City of San Leandro, restaurants tended to have more of a parking requirement than general retail. President Gilmore was glad to see that the City allowed more parking in driveways, and that it stunned people when they heard they could not park there. With respect to front yard landscaping, she noted that there were numerous front yards that had been paved, and that they parked on that area. She noted that prohibiting parking on the front yard is not a change from the Code, but that enforcement was often an issue. She inquired whether the enforcement, such as fines, should be strengthened. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 April 28, 2003 Mr. Piziali noted that it was difficult for the police to enforce, and that it was a relatively low priority. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff was uncomfortable with the fact that front yard parking was covered in three different sections. She cited the language that required landscaping in certain areas of a yard. Mr. Simon noted that the zoning language was defined to best serve the public interest, especially with respect to a front yard. Mr. Cunningham noted that he would not want to see concrete front yards. Ms. Cook noted that the parking patterns differed depending on the type of neighborhood; cars often parked in the back of a Victorian, and in modern construction it was common to see parking in the front. A discussion of landscaping versus concrete walls for screening ensued. Ms. Altschuler noted that because the May 12, 2003 meeting had a full agenda, it may be a month before this issue could return to the Board. President Gilmore noted that because of the lateness of the hour, she would be in favor of tabling the waterfront lots item until a future meeting. She believed that the water tank topic and other items could be considered during this meeting. The Board agreed with the water tank language. With respect to time limits for Variances and Use Permits, Ms. Cook inquired whether the projects that were perennial construction sites were covered by the Building Code timeline. Ms. Altschuler replied that they were not related. Before May 1, 2003, there was a one year sunset for all projects to be completed; as of May 1, 2003, that timeline would be changed to a two -year limit. She noted that a number of people were caught in the one -year time limit, and had to pay additional fees. The Board agreed with the definitions contained in the Psychic Services section. The Board agreed with the Day Care section. Ms. Altschuler advised that the numbers changed from 12 to 14 children to coincide with the State definitions. Ms. Altschuler advised that there were currently provisions for a Zoning Administrator who may take action on Use Permits and Variances, but not on subdivisions, PDs, General Plan Planning Board Minutes Page 24 April 28, 2003 Amendments, and rezonings, which are the purview of the Planning Board. The theory behind the Zoning Administrator was to speed up the process. However, because there were regulations on the Zoning Administrator having to report back to the Planning Board, which triggered an appeal period, it would actually take longer for the Zoning Administrator process than for the Planning Board process. Ms. Altschuler advised that when the C -C District went into effect, it was created as a stand- alone district. Staff will return to the Board over the next few years, and propose having other stand -alone districts. This item clarified the retail frontage location issue which had been incorporated into the C -C District from the prior C -2 District. With respect to the Historical Advisory Board (Appeals and Calls for Review), President Gilmore noted that their decisions were appealable to the City Council. With respect to the item referring to the Design Review modified definition of replacement - in -kind, Ms. Altschuler advised that AAPS requested that the Board either not take action on this item, or allow for an expanded discussion. Mr. Piziali believed that the action should be continued to a future meeting. Ms. Altschuler advised that at this point, the Board would not be making an recommendations, and had requested additional information from staff. The Board noted that it would not want to see any changes to the building height. At the Board's request, staff would return with language tying building height with FAR, and would be discussed at a future meeting. Ms. Cook requested a definition of habitable space. Ms. Altschuler replied that it could be taken out of the Alameda Building Code. The Board did not make any recommendations to Council at this time, but requested more information at a future meeting. No action was taken. The hearing was continued to the May 27, 2003 Planning Board meeting for further discussion. Planning Board Minutes Page 25 April 28, 2003 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9 -A. ZA03 -0001 — City of Alameda — Citywide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of June 30, 2003.) Ms. Altschuler noted that at the last meeting, the Planning Board approved all of the policy changes, except for the change addressing the Design Review Manual modification of the definition of in -kind replacement. Staff continues to ask the Board to put that item off to a future date, until the Design Review Manual may be brought to the Board, which should occur at the next meeting. She understood that the Board had no questions or concerns regarding the topics having to do with procedural and use regulation changes. Staff would bring the Board's recommendations to the City Council at a future meeting. Ms. Altschuler noted that the Board had provided direction, which had been reflected in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, wished to address the replacement in kind issue, and appreciated staff's suggestion that that item be deferred. He advised that the AAPS had sent a letter on May 9, 2003, to the Board. He noted that if the issue were to be deferred until further progress was made with the Design Review Manual, AAPS would endorse that action. He believed that any changes to the replacement in kind definition should also be accompanied by clarifications to the existing submittal requirements. If staff would make a determination that a project is a replacement in kind, staff needs enough information about the project on which to base that determination, including photographs of the exact area of work to be done. He encouraged staff to defer consideration of this definition change until the submittal requirements changes were done. Mr. Don Patterson, Alameda Board of Realtors, 1256 Sherman Street, noted that he was speaking as a private citizen. He supported the coordination of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code to eliminate any conflicts in interpretation. He questioned why this approach was being used, and seemed to be an overt attempt to eliminate Design Review, and to exempt many projects within the City. He believed that the attempt to cut costs and time may adversely affect Planning Board Minutes Page 3 July 14, 2003 the integrity of the community. He believed that was a short- sighted approach which may destroy an older community such as Alameda, where the lot sizes were developed to reflect an Eastern/Mid- western width. He wished to question where the pressure was originating to utilize this approach, whether from interest groups, Planning Board, City Council, management, or other sources. He noted that personal property rights were important, as long as they did not infringe on the rights of others. Mr. Patterson noted that the open space parking requirements for narrow lots with minimum front yard setbacks were less than 20 feet. He noted that the City may be headed to a parking scheme similar to the Sunset or Richmond Districts in San Francisco if concrete and hard surface landscaping were to be allowed. He believed that the City was for people, not cars. He believed that the Design Review Manual needed more time for community review and input. He noted that the Board of Realtors met once a month, and that its input was important. He congratulated the Planning Board for its hard work, and noted that the Council had generally supported the Board and Planning staff, with the exception of Z's. He believed that the Planning staff must be supported in its efforts. Mr. John Savelli, 1118 High Street, wished to address a Zoning text change that involved psychic readers. He noted that since 1987, psychic readers had been allowed to operate in Alameda, but that they must be 500 feet away from any residential use, which he believed was impossible based on the lot sizes. He noted that since 1987, psychic readers had been classified as adult entertainment. He noted that his family took the matter to the State Supreme Court, and won a decision to make it legal throughout the state of California. He noted that since 1987, there had been no psychic readers operating in the City, because of the 500 foot law. He requested a zoning change to alter that requirement, and that the City stated, "The proposed changes required to make the AMC consistent with the State law and recent court cases found that fortunetellers are not in the same class as adult businesses. Cities are thus not able to use restrictive adult business regulations to limit such fortuneteller uses to a greater extent than other office service uses. Cities may still require a background check of the individual business operator as currently required by the Alameda Municipal Code." Mr. Savelli noted that he had done extensive research on this issue, and found that since 1992, the City disregarded performing background checks. He noted that he had four businesses having to do with psychic readers, and did not like to be called a palm reader or fortuneteller. He described his business, and noted that surrounding cities had problems with similar businesses running scams on customers. He stated that if those cities ran a background check on those businesses, there would not be as many scams. He noted that Alameda did not require a background check, and he supported that requirement. He would like to see a zoning change with respect to these businesses, and would approach the Police Department, the Mayor, Councilmembers, and the City Attorney's Office on this matter. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 July 14, 2003 Mr. Corey Simon provided an overview of the staff report, and noted that most of the changes fell under the category of Projections and Encroachments. He noted that the Board requested changes to the definitions of landscape, habitable space, and legally nonconforming accessory buildings. There was a request to allow greater flexibility, as long as the newly reconstructed building did not exceed the nonconformity of the previous structure. He noted that language was included at the bottom of page 3 of the staff report. Mr. Simon advised that the Projections and Encroachments provisions were commonly called "k" and "1 ", referring to the letters in the old ordinance that covered those items. He noted that these provisions allowed property owners to do building extensions utilizing the existing nonconforming setbacks. Staff realized that many current Board members were not on the Planning Board when the current "k" and "1" findings were adopted; therefore, staff provided background with respect to the evolution of these provisions. He noted that some form of these provisions may be essential to keeping the process, given the previously overwhelming number of Variances prior to this process. He noted that there was some concern that a proposal made by staff may have been overly generous, and that it may have opened the door wider. An alternate provision was proposed which was more limited, and reduced the number of buildings which would be able to get the ministerial adjustments to setbacks. President Gilmore noted that the definitions of landscape and habitable space were not a problem, but suspected that there would be considerable discussion about the "k" and "1" definitions. She invited questions for staff with respect to the reconstruction of legally nonconforming buildings; there were none. In response to an inquiry by President Gilmore with respect to "k" and "1 ", Mr. Simon confirmed that the new proposal was based on the Board's most recent discussion. Mr. Rossi noted that the "k" and "1" text stated, "Provisions were based on the assumption that additions of existing residences should be given certain exemptions from the Code's standard minimum sideyard requirements." He inquired where the pressure for that action originated. Ms. Altschuler replied that in 1989, the City processed between three and five Variances every month dealing with additions at the rear, lifting a house to insert a lower floor, or adding a second floor on top of a one -story house. She noted that the existing homes had nonconforming setbacks, mostly to the side. The Board at that time routinely granted Variances for additions at the rear and second story additions. Although it was difficult to make the required findings, there was nothing particularly extraordinary about a building that had a three foot setback. As a result, the Board did not believe there was anything innately wrong with that action, the designers often created "wedding cake" designs, with a larger setback on the second story. Staff developed the "k" and "1" in order to address the then - Planning Board's desire to approve these Variances, which became an administrative Variance because they were findings that must be made. She noted that view intrusion, air and privacy matters were addressed with the "k" and "1" findings. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 July 14, 2003 Ms. Altschuler noted that since then, there have been many second -story and rear additions that have been approved. Staff identified an aesthetic issue due to the current regulations allowing both one - and two -story additions at the rear, often resulting in a two -story cottage with an overwhelming vertical element. Staff proposed not allowing those kinds of designs without a Variance or Board input, rather than by right, which is the current situation. In response to Mr. Lynch's inquiry, Ms. Altschuler advised that the current staff recommendation would allow a one -story building to either be raised, or to have a second story built on top of it in the current configuration with the current setbacks. She noted that the community was very concerned with how second stories occurred, how homes are raised, and how many stories may be constructed at the rear. In order to address the Board's aesthetic concerns, staff proposed five to ten different techniques as part of the Manual that would address those concerns. She noted that staff addressed the creation of an envelope within which a structure can occur; the aesthetics of the structure would be addressed at the next Planning Board meeting. In response to President Gilmore's question regarding second story additions and infill housing, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was no distinction made in the Design Manual between an additional unit or a house that was raised to provide additional habitable space. She noted that there should be a good design in either case. She noted staff does not generally recommend the insertion of a full second story under an existing one -story house. In response to Mr. Rossi's question with respect to community review. Ms. Altschuler replied that the current proposal does not change any of the Design Review requirements for notification. She noted that a Major Design Review, if it is not associated with a Variance, Use Permit, or a Planned Development, has a minimum of a ten day notification and comment period for property owners within 100 feet of the site. Currently, the City works under an expanded notification requirement set by the City Council, which means that some notification was increased to 20 or 30 days, depending on the scope of the project. In addition, some projects are noticed up to 600 feet from the property lines. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Rossi, Ms. Altschuler noted that the Council was considering a 15 day notification period in order to give residents ample time to comment on a project. The 30 day notification requirement has presented a challenge to staff in getting the newspaper ads written and submitted on time. Mr. Cunningham inquired about the property rights of owners wishing to raising a cottage when it was located next to a two -story house. Ms. Altschuler replied that would be more evident when the Design Review Manual is released. She added that the community was adamant about respecting each resource both within the context of its neighborhood, and within its own design. She noted that design was a subjective process, and anticipated that the new Design Review Manual would provide clearer direction for residents and the community as a whole. Planning Board Minutes Page 6 July 14, 2003 Ms. Altschuler noted that if the Board felt uncomfortable with dealing wit the "k" and "1" issue, that could also be put off as well, because it dealt with building height and number of stories. President Gilmore agreed with Ms. Altschuler's suggestion, and believed that the "k" and "1" issues should be examined with the Design Review Manual. She also asked staff to give some thought to the question of property rights for the owner of a single -story home with neighboring two -story homes. She noted that if they were told they could not add a second story, although enough of their neighbors had two -story homes, the Planning Board would be effectively rezoning their property. She noted that she was troubled by the concept. Ms. Altschuler noted that conversation had taken place in the workshop, and added that some residents felt that it would be easiest to tell the owner of a one -story house that they bought a one -story house, without the ability to add a story. She noted that placed challenges on City staff. Mr. Lynch disagreed with the assessment stated by those residents, and noted that design was very difficult, necessitating design and architectural professionals. He believed that it was callous for those neighbors to suggest that sentiment to owners of one -story homes. Ms. Altschuler noted that was not a concept that staff wished to entertain, and that it would not appear in the Design Review Manual. She noted that everything from the Projections Section to "k" and "1" had been discussed, and staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt those changes as recommended, or as discussed by the Board. She noted that heights and "k" and "1" would be addressed once the Planning Board had the Design Review Manual in hand. She suggested that the Manual be brought before the Board first, and then bring the "k" and "1" and height issues as they relate to the revised Manual before the Board at a later date. The Board concurred. President Gilmore believed that adding a story to a home, whether above an existing story or raising the entire house, was substantially different from adding square footage to the same level. Mr. Bard noted that the "k" and "1" findings used the existing nonconforming setbacks for additional construction, and believed that its use was beneficial to gain needed housing space. He noted that after the additions were built, he was not happy with their designs. He believed that the Design Review was vitally important to the discussion, and would avoid the "plain box" design syndrome. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff would examine the Design Review Manual to see whether those issues have been addressed. If they have not been addressed, that language would be added. She noted that an architecture firm has been hired to assist with the graphics that would be included in the Manual, as well as some of the text. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 July 14, 2003 President Gilmore did not believe that a homeowner who wished to enlarge a breakfast nook by five feet should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as someone who was adding a second story. Mr. Bard agreed with that assessment. In response to Mr. Lynch's inquiry, Ms. Altschuler noted that 30- 5.7(g) started out by saying, "Patio structures: patio structures attached to or detached from a main or accessory building may encroach into any minimum required sideyard or rear yard, but shall..." She noted that six proscriptive conditions followed that language, including whether patio covers should be allowed to be enclosed. The Board's recommendation was that they should not be allowed to be enclosed. Ms. Altschuler noted that the new language would read, "Patio structures attached to or detached from a main or accessory building may encroach into any minimum required side yard or rear yard, but shall not be enclosed by any walls, partial, solid, wainscoting, and /or glazing, excepting for those walls of the adjoining main and/or accessory buildings, which may not constitute (a) more than two of the four sides of the patio structure, and (b) more than 50% of the patio structure perimeter. Patio structures may be fitted with removable clear plastic or screen mesh panels and/or retractable shade screens, as regulated under the A.B.C." She noted that a screen - in porch or patio would still be allowed, but a solid walled addition would not be allowed. Ms. Altschuler noted that the Board wanted to see patio structures used for outdoor activity, rather than room additions. Mr. Simon noted that although there was not much Board discussion at the last meeting with respect to landscaping concerns and open space, they were raised by a Councilmember. He noted that there were two alternate approaches in calculating open space. Ms. Altschuler noted that current open space requirements allow for a considerable amount of paved area to be accepted as outdoor recreational space. One staff suggestion was to examine the possibility of allowing each unit (in a duplex, for example) to have a small patio of 120 square feet. In addition, there would be a requirement for the lot itself to have a certain percentage of landscaped square footage. The original recommendation was to use a certain percentage of landscaped open space. Because of the current open space requirements, the R -1, R -2, and R -3 districts would have a slightly smaller requirement for landscaped open space areas, and the R -4, R -5, and R -6 districts would have a slightly larger amount. This item was pointed out by a Councilmember, and staff developed a method for retaining almost exactly the same relative amount of open space as is currently in effect. She inquired whether the Board wished to require the same amount of landscaped areas for all R district lots, or whether there should be a range, such as a higher requirement in an R -2 district lot than in an R -6 district lot. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler advised that there was currently no fixed percentage, but that the initial recommendation was that it be 25 %. After a concern had been Planning Board Minutes Page 8 July 14, 2003 raised by a Councilmember, staff developed an alternative that would allow the Board to look at the possibility of retaining a differential requirement within the zoning districts. Currently, the open space requirement in an R -2 district is 600 square feet per unit; in an R -6 district, the requirement is 120 square feet per unit. Ms. Altschuler noted that at a workshop on this issue, there had been considerable community support for the requirement that a certain percentage of land be retained as landscaping. Mr. Lynch noted that there was a distinct difference between a percent per lot versus a base, and believed that there would be a very different visual impact in Alameda through the years. Ms. Altschuler noted that the larger lots did not only occur in the higher districts, and that there were many more larger lots in the R -1 district than the R -4 district, which is the most prevalent district in the City. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Bard, Ms. Altschuler replied that one of the biggest challenges faced with the current open space regulations is that the Code does not allow certain types of open space to occur in certain setbacks. For example, private open space is not allowed in the rear 20% of a lot. She noted that staff intended to clarify the issue to the average homeowner regarding the City's goals for open space. A discussion of open space ensued. In response to Mr. Bard's inquiry, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that the City Charter did not currently allow any units more dense than duplexes. Mr. Bard noted that if a duplex were to be built in an R -2 district, there would be more landscaping than if it were built in an R -6 district. Mr. Cormack advised that staff's goal was to prepare a revision to certain sections of the Code to clarify and streamline the process. He noted that the City wished to retain the current districts, and amend them as much as possible to improve implementation, but not tamper with the type of zoning in the community. Mr. Lynch believed that the main question addressed how Alameda would appear to the eye. He believed that it seemed counterintuitive to have the different landscaping requirements based upon the formula before the Board. If the City were to enhance landscaping, he asked why the City would not move in a direction which included a sliding scale based on lot coverage. He believed the professionals could design the coverage, and design the landscaping for the coverage of the lot within a particular zone. Mr. Lynch believed that for simplicity's sake, that the City have an existing zoning regulation that would set a certain percentage. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff would be happy to bring that concept to the Council. Mr. Cunningham agreed with Mr. Lynch's suggestion, and believed that a certain square footage of landscaping may constitute 50% of the lot. He believed that would be an onerous requirement Planning Board Minutes Page 9 July 14, 2003 of that homeowner, and believed that a certain percentage applied to the lot would be a more equitable way to apply the landscaping requirements. President Gilmore noted that the required lot sizes from R -2 through R -6 were generally identical, and believed that it was counterintuitive to attempt to implement a sliding scale based on an identical metric within the zoning districts. She suggested that if any kind of sliding scale were to be used, the Planning Board should look at the items that distinguish the zoning districts from each other, whether it be lot coverage, building height, etc. The landscaping should then be based on those items, but not on the identical items throughout the zoning districts, which she believed would yield skewed results. Ms. Altschuler advised that when the larger parcels were addressed, e.g., 6,000 square foot, a duplex and a single family home may be built; an 8,000 square foot parcel would accommodate two duplexes. She noted that these regulations might reduce that ability because more of the parcel would be required to be landscaped, depending on the district. She added that if the duplexes were located in an R -6 district, it would not make as much difference if a sliding scale were to be used. President Gilmore noted that she was not convinced that the amount of landscaped area should be tied to lot size because there are similar lot sizes in each residential district. Ms. Altschuler advised that the lot size requirements were the same, but the lot sizes varied within each district. She noted that staff did not bring the issue before the Board requesting a recommendation, but because of the concerns raised by a Councilmember. Staff wanted to ensure that the Board had an alternative to discuss, and she believed that the Board would like to go with Alternative 1. She inquired whether 25% was the right number, and whether 120 square feet for Mr. Simon's so- called "hibachi heavens" was the right number. Ms. Cook inquired whether other communities required a higher percentage of open space in an R -6 because the density was greater, and a certain quality of life would be sought. Ms. Altschuler noted that it was difficult to compare Alameda to other communities because of Measure A. She noted that other communities had districts that allowed apartment buildings and larger lots. Mr. Cunningham noted that the landscaping requirement was a factor of lot size and zoning. Mr. Bard suggested a third alternative, which would have a minimum and maximum square footage of landscaping, immaterial of the district and tied to the size of the lot. He proposed a cap on the lot coverage based on the zoning district, so that the 30% lot coverage still applied to the R -2, and the 50% still applied to the R -6. He suggested that the City not ask for more than 1,250 square feet of landscaped area. He believed it was important to give people the ability to expand the building if they had a larger lot, but that the City would not accept less than a certain square footage of landscaping on a lot exceeding 5,000 square feet. In addition, there would be a cap of 50% lot coverage. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 July 14, 2003 Mr. Simon noted that these numbers would never appear in a Code book, and noted that the rule would state, for example, "25% of the lot must be landscaping." He noted that was a far simpler way to implement the Code. Mr. Rossi agreed with Mr. Simon's assessment. President Gilmore noted that the Board leaned towards Proposal 1, which would propose a minimum percentage of landscaping across all the zoning districts. She emphasized that landscaping should not be the last item considered before the building was designed, and did not want to entertain requests for landscaping Variances. Ms. Altschuler noted that it would be extremely challenging for the Board to make the findings for a landscape percentage Variance. She did not believe the Board would face that situation very often. She noted that the percentage method would make it very easy for staff to determine compliance, as well as for the homeowner. She noted that staff proposed a change with respect to open space because it had been difficult to explain the Open Space District regulations to the applicants. M/S Rossi /Bard and unanimous to take a ten minute recess. AYES — 6 (Piziali absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Ms. Altschuler noted that one of the comments in conjunction with Alternatives 1 and 2 addresses the possibility that with Alternative 1, existing properties that were built out with a duplex and minimal landscaping may become nonconforming. In that case, it would become more of a challenge to add to those properties. Mr. Cunningham noted with respect to that possibility, that the Codes were intended to move the community to a better environment. Mr. Simon advised that the parking language was relatively simple, and that there was a concern that the original attempt of creating higher requirements for residential use was based on the number of bedrooms. Given the way that applicants may label rooms other than bedrooms that eventually become bedrooms, he developed some guidelines based on the square footage of the house. Staff identified 5,000 square feet as the "monster house" provision that would require more than the basic two parking spaces. In response to Mr. Bard's inquiry, Mr. Simon replied that when a homeowner builds an addition that exceeded the baseline limit of square footage, the habitable floor area would be totaled. If the habitable space did not exceed 399 square feet, the additional parking would not be required. He noted that the number of stories would not be considered. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 July 14, 2003 In response to Ms. Cook's question regarding the development of undeveloped attic space, Mr. Simon replied that they would be required to have three parking spaces if this guideline were to be adopted. Ms. Altschuler noted that in that event, tandem spaces would be allowed to serve a single unit. Multiple units would require individual ingress and egress for each car. With respect to Victorian houses on narrow lots, President Gilmore inquired what would occur if an addition were made to that house. Such narrow lots often had no room to access additional parking in the back, and the parking would have to be placed in the front yard. Mr. Simon noted that if parking impacts have reached an acute perception of a problem, the City would have the ability to tell an applicant that their particular lot could not accommodate more expansion. Ms. Altschuler advised that in a residential situation, the only time a property owner must provide off - street parking is for a new residential unit. Staff had received many comments from neighbors with respect to that issue; they are told that unless a new unit has been created, new habitable space does not trigger the requirement for new parking spaces. She noted that this new language was staff's attempt to address this issue on some level. She noted that there will be occasions when the property owner would be limited to what they could add, both in terms of habitable space in existing basements and attics, and in terms of additional units on the lot. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler replied that 5,000 square feet was the original trigger. The Board believed that was too large, so it was changed to 3,000 square feet. Staff did not perform a survey on how large the buildings were, but they believed that 3,000 square feet was a fairly good -sized home. The addition of 400 square feet constituted an ample master bedroom suite, or two modest bedrooms, which staff believed was an appropriate level of requiring additional parking. A discussion of the 400 square foot trigger ensued. Ms. Altschuler advised that a uniform habitable space definition has been proposed. Mr. Bard thanked staff for presenting this language, and although he believed the numbers at 3,000 square feet were better than 5,000 square feet, he believed the neighborhoods in town have needed this definition. President Gilmore was pleased that the parking would no longer be tied to the number of bedrooms, and added that various rooms had morphed into bedrooms in the past. Ms. Cook expressed concern about side driveways on narrow lots. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff had received many applications to demolish substandard garages so that a new garage may be Planning Board Minutes Page 12 July 14, 2003 built to accommodate contemporary vehicles. She added that if the property's one off - street parking space was an undersized space in an undersized driveway, the homeowner would not need to provide additional parking if the 400 square feet trigger was not reached. If the homeowner wished to add more than 399 square feet, they could continue to use that nonstandard driveway, but the additional space must meet contemporary dimensions. She noted that front yard parking was not permitted. A discussion of non - standard driveways ensued. Ms. Altschuler advised that the Planning Board may determine that the landscaping requirement for new parking spaces that are created stand. However, in cases where additions are made to a house under Section 3, landscaping was not required to be provided, and that it may be in a tandem space as long as the driveway has sufficient length. She noted that the test was not whether the car could be physically taken off the street, but whether it complied with the location, landscaping, and size requirements in the Parking Ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Altschuler summarized the history of the three foot landscape strip. She noted that it was adopted for aesthetic reasons and purposes of allowing some water intrusion. Mr. Simon noted that the Building Department's definition of habitable space did not necessarily coincide with a real estate agent's definition. He noted that staff would need to reconcile the two uses of the term. Mr. Lynch disagreed with that possibility, and noted that "habitable space" was clearly defined in the Code, and may be applied by all disciplines. He noted that planners may want to assert floor space in those instances, and reward the professional design community that applies habitable space. Ms. Altschuler noted that she had seen very large hallways, bathrooms, and closets where the walls had been moved to create additional habitable space. In response to President Gilmore's inquiry, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that the Planning Board would see proposed draft language before they would be asked to recommend it to City Council. Ms. Cook noted that she remained troubled by the driveway issue, and did not want to make it difficult for homeowners to restore and reuse Victorian homes on large lots. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff tended not to see those types of restorations. She noted hat staff did see fairly modest homes in the middle of town along the Northern Waterfront being doubled in size without any parking provisions. President Gilmore noted that the waterfront lots section seemed fairly straightforward to her. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 July 14, 2003 Ms. Altschuler noted that this section reflected Variances granted by the Board in the past, as well as some of the current language in the Ordinance that was not as clear as it should be. President Gilmore noted that staff would draft language based on the discussion, and return to the Board. Mr. Cormack suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting, which would be when staff would present the Residential Design Guidelines and the discussion on building height. M/S Rossi /Bard and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2003, and to consider the Design Review Manual during the Planning Board meeting of July 28, 2003. AYES — 6 (Piziali absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 July 14, 2003 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9 -A. ZA03-0001 — City of Alameda — Citywide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2003.) Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report, and noted that the Board and public comments were incorporated into the latest draft. Staff requested Board direction on any items that should be refined with additional changes or comments. If the Board agreed with the document, staff recommended that the Board endorse it, and with a motion, pass it on to City Council. Mr. Cormack advised that the square footage for the parking space calculation was raised from 400 to 500. Language was added stating that no additional parking spaces would be required if the existing development was compliant with the off - street requirements, and that existing driveways could be considered as parking. Mr. Cormack advised that the section on patio structures (page 8) stated that they must be 50% open. He noted that the Planning Board had endorsed this policy before, and that four season sunrooms could be habitable year- round, although they were not conditioned space. They are normally allowed, but when they encroach into required yard areas, they should be treated in the same manner as if they were building an addition onto the home. He noted that the windows were removable, but that they tend to become permanent. Ms. Cook advised that she mistakenly believed that the Design Guidelines were being addressed at this meeting, and had prepared for that item instead. Mr. Cunningham noted that he had prepared for that item as well. Mr. Lynch inquired about the process regarding bringing existing outside structures and conditioned space into conformity. Mr. Cormack advised that changes to the Code would be adopted, and that buildings would become nonconforming if the rules were changed over time. He noted that the City did not require compliance, and that they would become legal nonconforming uses. When the property owner approaches the City for a change to that part of the structure, that issue would be addressed. Planning Board Minutes Page 6 September 8, 2003 P Mr. Piziali invited a motion to reopen the public hearing. M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to reopen the public hearing. AYES — 5 (Rossi absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Mr. Tom Kessler, Bell Engineering, noted that he had been in the patio construction industry for 30 years. He noted that the value of "open" was an issue, and the definition in the Uniform Building Code has been that with respect to two of the longest walls, 65% of the wall must be removable. He noted that the Planning Department normally addressed community development of the use of space and density, as it pertained to this particular industry. He noted that the Building Department dealt with health and safety. He noted that when these windows were not removable and the areas were enclosed, sometimes they covered up a bedroom's egress, which was a fire hazard. He expressed concern about lot coverage that was becoming saturated. He was worried about these spaces being construed as permanent construction, and that they did not require a foundation, electrical, or HVAC. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to Mr. Piziali's question, Mr. Cormack noted that the Zoning revisions that related to the Design Guidelines were removed from this document until the Design Guidelines were addressed by the Board. M/S Bard /Cook and unanimous to continue this item until the Planning Board meeting of September 22, 2003. AYES — 5 (Rossi absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 September 8, 2003 8 -C. ZA03 -0001 — City of Alameda — Citywide (JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of September 8, 2003.) Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and reminded the Board that it wished to put off the sections addressing height, K &L, and in -kind replacement; those items were taken out. The parking section was changed to reflect the Board's intent; the square footage trigger was modified. She recalled Mr. Lynch's previous statement that the Development Code was a maximum rather than a minimum standard. She noted that the consequence of additional parking was that fewer large additions may result, or that the additions may be smaller than in the past. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, submitted a speaker slip, but did not wish to speak The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to Mr. Bard's inquiry, Ms. Altschuler stated that there was already a flood of applications for additions. In response to Vice President Piziali's question about teardowns, Ms. Altschuler replied that the Historic Preservation Ordinance required the Historical Advisory Board action on all demolitions of buildings that were built prior to 1942. Ms. Cook noted that many older homes have substandard driveways and garages, may or may not have garages in the back, and often have very large attics that could be improved. She would not like to see those homeowners unable to build out their volume within their historic structure, but that someone in a new house could build a huge new addition. Ms. Altschuler noted that neighborhoods that had many large, old homes often had a more serious parking congestion problem because most of the homes did not have a garage or driveway to accommodate a modern family. Planning Board Minutes Page 21 September 22, 2003 Mr. Cormack inquired whether it was the Board's desire to exempt situations when the expansion would occur within the existing volume of the home, and that no exterior changes were proposed. Ms. Cook supported situations where the structure and architectural integrity of an older home were respected. Mr. Simon advised that the issues of parking and architecture renovation should not be commingled. Mr. Lynch noted that he interpreted the discussion as a philosophy of preserving the Victorian style home with a particular space, to encourage ownership, and to invest in the property. He believed that the desired values should be discussed, rather than viewing it as simply design and parking. He inquired whether that could be included in the Code to state those goals. Vice President Piziali noted that he did not agree with taking that action. Mr. Cormack advised that a Variance was a trickier procedure, and believed that an exemption may be granted if historic use of older homes was to be encouraged. Mr. Lynch suggested that the City may wish to have a public discussion regarding the importance of parking, and whether the number of cars per home should be regulated and permitted. Mr. Bard suggested that in neighborhoods where there is little parking, that the City purchase a run -down house, demolish it, and create a parking lot for the neighbors. Vice President Piziali did not agree with Mr. Bard's suggestion to tear down a house to supply parking. Mr. Simon advised that if a two bedroom home was expanded to three bedrooms, its parking demand may remain two or three cars. He noted that this was a complex situation, and it was important to gauge the public's feeling about parking. Mr. Lynch noted that this was an evolutionary process, and was not a static situation. He believed that a discussion of the values was important, and a list of priorities should be developed. Ms. Cook noted that portable pools and spas (page 9) were not subject to setback requirements, but that their equipment was subject to the setback requirements. Planning Board Minutes Page 22 September 22, 2003 Ms. Altschuler stated that there were certain elements of a structure that were not subject to the Building Code, and that it was difficult for staff to create development standards for those elements. She noted that it was easy to trigger something when there was a Building Code requirement for a permit; it was much more difficult to deal with when there was no Building Code requirement. She stated that fences six feet and less were not subject to a Building Permit, and that they were more difficult to regulate. Ms. Cook agreed that the electrical equipment should not be on the property line because of the noise problem, but that the people using the hot tub could also produce noise problems. Mr. Simon hoped that homeowners who install their own hot tubs would exhibit common sense and rotate the equipment so the noise did not disturb their neighbors. Ms. Altschuler noted that plans for that installation would be submitted, and that there were currently no regulations. Ms. Cook wished to address landscaping as it related to parking in front of the house (page 6 of 8, Section 30- 7.10). She inquired whether parking in the driveway counted as a parking space. Ms. Altschuler advised that was the special exemption detailed on page 2, which stated, "Notwithstanding the requirements for perimeter landscaping, existing driveways may be considered as parking spaces if the proposed spaces will be in conformance to the location requirements of this subsection in the dimensional requirement." She noted that if this item passed, this exemption would allow the use of part of the driveway as a required parking space. She personally believed that parking requirements should be eliminated, and that if a homeowner wished to provide parking, that would be their choice. She acknowledged that philosophy was not shared by most people, and would not be accepted by most people in town. Mr. Lynch believed that parking should be provided by homeowners. Ms. Cook suggested pulling the parking section out of consideration for this meeting. She inquired whether staff was doing everything it could to protect the public's access to the waterfront. Ms. Altschuler advised that nothing in the document changed waterfront access. M/S Bard /Cook and unanimous to continue the meeting until 11:43 p.m. AYES — 4 (Cunningham, Rossi absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 23 September 22, 2003 M/S Lynch/Bard to adopt revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance, and to referring it to City Council. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. AYES — 3 (Cunningham, Rossi absent); NOES — 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN — 0 The motion failed. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether Ms. Cook's concerns about parking were shared by the whole Planning Board. Mr. Lynch noted that parking was a core issue that the City Council must address as it related to specific types of architecture, and the difference between the size, type, and use of automobiles at that time versus the present time. Vice President Piziali did not wish to make parking exemptions for a specific type of building. Mr. Bard believed staff did a good job on the parking regulations, and if City Council wanted something different, the Planning Board could receive specific direction from them. Mr. Cormack advised that these issues would be included in the report to City Council, and inquired whether the Planning Board would like to see the report before it was passed to Council. The Board members generally agreed that they would like to see it. Mr. Lynch believed that if the Council had an issues, they would remand it to the Planning Board. Ms. Cook advised that she would like to work with staff with respect to substandard driveways and garages, which interfered with the ability to park. She believed that the more modern homes would be allowed to expand, and that the older homes would not. Ms. Altschuler advised that it was rare to see additions to modern homes because their building envelopes were already maxed out. M/S Lynch/Bard and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB -03 -49 to recommend to City Council approval of revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as Planning Board Minutes Page 24 September 22, 2003 the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed revisions is to improve customer service and streamline review procedures by improving consistency with other codes, clarifying technical issues, and codifying practices and decisions currently being implemented regarding code interpretations. No revisions are proposed to existing Zoning Classifications or regulation of uses within the various existing Zoning Classifications. The extensive comments and concerns shared by the Planning Board would be passed on to City Council as part of the staff report. AYES — 4 (Cunningham, Rossi absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 25 September 22, 2003 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: January 27, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Jim Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation Related to the Application of State Prevailing Wages for Public Works Projects BACKGROUND Historically, charter cities have not been bound by State prevailing wage law on public works projects which are considered municipal affairs e.g. projects of a local nature that do not involve State or Federal funding. As you know, a court case on appeal to the State Supreme Court challenges the discretion of charter cities on this subject, City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 636. The Long Beach case has prompted construction trades groups to ask charter cities, including Alameda, to voluntarily require contractors to pay prevailing wages on all public works projects. The City's policy has been to retain discretion, and decide whether to require payment of prevailing wages on a project by project basis. Note that, should the State Supreme Court ultimately decide that charter cities must pay prevailing wages on all public works projects, the City is bound to abide by the decision. The Court's decision is not expected for a number of months. State law currently applicable to general law cities requires contractors to pay their workers prevailing wages on any public works project of $1,000 or more. A project is a "public work" if it is paid for in part or entirely from public funds and involves construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repairs, preconstruction inspection, preconstruction land surveying, or maintenance. These terms are interpreted to include carpet laying, tree trimming and brush clearing, and landscape maintenance. The terms do not include routine janitorial service or security service. Prevailing wages are hourly amounts set by the State Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), based on an analysis of collective bargaining agreements covering construction -type work in the area. For example, at the lower end, an entry level laborer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -D 2 -3 -04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers January 27, 2004 must receive $24.43 per hour. At the higher end, a journeyperson operating engineer who uses a hydraulic excavator or power shovel must receive $53.47 per hour. Prevailing wage law is not applicable to a public entity's own employees. And, comparing these wages against City of Alameda job salaries is difficult because state DIR categories are specialized. Of five positions on City staff which Human Resources did find generally comparable to DIR categories, the differences are as follows using DIR as a benchmark: City telecom maintenance technician wage is 9 percent higher, City construction inspector wage is 3 percent higher, journey lineworker wage is equal, City laborer wage is 12 percent lower, and city engineering aide wage is 47 percent lower. Staff surveyed other charter cities within the County and benchmark charter cities for purposes of comparison. The results are attached to this report. You will note the cities are split. DISCUSSION Staff has evaluated the impacts of a change in City policy regarding prevailing wages: Alameda Power & Telecom: For Internet and cable television, AP &T has approximately $9.3 million in public works projects of a local nature anticipated for the next five years. These projects include additional fiber from the headend, construction of Alameda Point nodes, and installation services. Should the City Council adopt a policy to voluntarily require contractors to pay prevailing wages on all public works contracts, the difference in cost for the AP &T projects is estimated at $2.7 million. In other words, if the City retained its right to decide project by project, the maximum savings would be $2.7 million for AP &T's projects if the contracts did not require prevailing wages to be paid on any of the work. For the electric side, AP &T has $2.8 million in projects anticipated for the next five years, all local in nature. The work includes underground district work, underground distribution system improvements, trunk feeder upgrades, secondary upgrades to Park and Webster streets, historic streetlight work, and installation of a Coast Guard Island crossing. If prevailing wages are required, the cost would be approximately $580,000 higher than if AP &T had discretion to determine whether to require payment of prevailing wages and chose not to require prevailing wages on any of the work. Prevailing wages have been paid on a number of projects in the past. AP &T staff noted that to maintain competitiveness in the Internet and cable TV market, and continue to provide electric service at a rate below PG &E, the projects may need to be completed without paying prevailing wages. As a private employer on private projects, competitors such as Comcast, Dish Network and TV Max are not required by law to pay prevailing wages. Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers January 27, 2004 For purposes of comparison, staff surveyed several charter cities that own and operate an electric utility. The attachment includes a description of their prevailing wage policies. As you will note, the cities are split. Because no other charter city in California owns and operates Internet and cable television services, the list is limited to electric utilities only. The Public Utilities Board recently voted to recommend to Council that the department retain its discretion whether to require payment of prevailing wages, so that AP &T may remain competitive with privately owned companies that are not bound by state prevailing wage law. The anticipated cost savings for the next five (5) years is $3,280.000. Golf: The Department has more than $10 million in public works projects of a local nature anticipated for the next five (5) years. The difference in cost for prevailing wages is estimated to be $1.2 million. Attached is a survey of prevailing wage policies at local charter city golf courses that are in competition with the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. As you will note, the cities are split. The Golf Commission recently voted to recommend to Council that the Department retain its discretion whether to require payment of prevailing wages, to remain competitive, avoid having to raise fees and risk losing customers. The anticipated cost savings for the next five (5) years is $1,200,000. Public Works: The Department has $23.6 million in construction and maintenance projects that are expected to be funded in the next five (5) years where local discretion may be retained as to whether to require payment of prevailing wages. These projects include the current five -year Capital Improvement Projects (e.g., Carnegie Building, Fire Station Improvements, Atlantic Avenue Medians, and Public Works Maintenance Projects). Not included in the amount are also the Tinker Avenue Extension, the Broadway /Jackson /1-880 interchange, and Clement Street Extension, because they are not likely to be funded within the next five (5) years. If local discretion was retained and prevailing wages were not paid for non - mandated public works projects, the anticipated cost savings for the next five (5) years is $2,832,000. Recreation & Park: The Department has more than $1,036,000 in local Recreation and Park CIP projects for the next five years. The anticipated cost savings for the next five (5) years is $174,200, if local discretion is retained and prevailing wages are not paid for non - mandated projects. Additional impacts: Conditional contributions by the City may affect the cost of private projects. In the Long Beach matter, the City contributed 15 percent of the cost of construction of an animal shelter to be used by the regional SPCA and to house City animal control staff. The appellate court concluded that the City's contribution, which paid for architectural design, project management, legal services, surveying and Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers January 27, 2004 insurance, partly funded "construction." The court determined that public money paid for part of construction, and determined that the project was not local in nature because it served the region. Therefore, according to the court, prevailing wages were triggered. If the Council were to adopt a policy requiring payment of prevailing wages on all projects, it may affect costs to private parties who receive money from the City. For example, if the City provided rent credits in exchange for a private party making tenant improvements, the cost of the project may rise. AP &T commercial customer high efficiency electric retrofitting loan and rebate program may also be affected. Note that Community Development Block Grants are already subject to federal prevailing wage requirements and would be unaffected should Council adopt a prevailing wage policy. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACT A summary of the Budget/Financial Impacts of applying State prevailing wages to all public works projects over the next five (5) years is as follows: Department Total Project Budget Anticipated Prevailing Wages Costs AP &T $12,100,000 Golf 10,000,000 Public Works 23,600,000 Recreation & Parks 1,036,000 Total City Projects Costs $46,736,000 $3,280,000 1,200,000 2,832,000 174,200 $7,486,200 City staff anticipates approximately $78,936,000 million in public works projects of a local nature for the next five (5) years. A policy requiring contractors to pay prevailing wages would take away the opportunity to save $7,486,200. For the enterprise funds, Alameda Power & Telecom and Golf, a requirement to pay prevailing wages on all projects may lessen the ability to be competitive and require rate hikes which might turn away customers. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Continue to retain discretion whether to require payment of prevailing wages. This option would give the City the ability to save up to an estimated $7,486,200 over the next five (5) years on projects of a local nature. The matter could be reconsidered by Council after the State Supreme Court renders a decision. Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Councilmembers January 27, 2004 2. If Council desires to adopt a new policy requiring payment of prevailing wages, do the following: a. Exempt the enterprise funds, Alameda Power & Telecom and Golf, from a requirement to pay prevailing wages to allow them to remain competitive in the market. b. Exempt contracts with a value of $25,000 or less. This option is similar to Hayward, which has a $35,000 threshold, and San Leandro, which has a $5,000 threshold. This reflects the current City policy of requiring competitive bidding for contracts over $25,000. c. Exempt contributions from the City to private parties to avoid triggering prevailing wage requirements on their projects; d. Exempt public works projects that have been awarded or are authorized to go to bid during the current fiscal year, to avoid additional unanticipated costs. Respectfully submitted, G�� Suzan S,.Ota Interim Assistant City Manager attachment SURVEY Alameda County charter cities: Albany: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Berkeley: Requires prevailing wages to be paid. Reserves the right to waive the prevailing wage requirement in a contract with a nonprofit organization which is developing a community recreation facility. Hayward: Requires payment of prevailing wages for new construction projects of $35,000 or greater. For maintenance, replacement and repair work, prevailing wages are required only if the department director determines that formal competitive bidding should be done. The redevelopment body requires prevailing wages to be paid on all owner participation and development or disposition agreements or contracts for new construction with a cost of $50,000 or more. The following are exempt: remodeling or rehabilitation of existing buildings, and tenant improvements where the building permits are issued more than a year after approval of the certificate of occupancy. Oakland: Requires prevailing wages to be paid. Piedmont: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Benchmark charter cities: Hayward (see above) Mountain View: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Palo Alto: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Redwood City: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Richmond: Information not readily available. San Leandro: Requires payment of prevailing wages on projects valued over $5,000. Prevailing wages are also required on projects where the property is owned by the city but leased for private use or development, or privately owned but more than 50 percent will be leased by the city for its use and construction is done under plans and specifications of the city. Maintenance is exempt. San Mateo: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Also requires payment of prevailing wages on any construction project of $100,000 or more which is subsidized by city funds of $100,000 or more. Charter city municipal electric utilities in California: Needles: Does not require payment of prevailing wages. Palo Alto (see above) Pasadena: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Petaluma: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Riverside: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Roseville: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Santa Clara: Requires payment of prevailing wages. San Marcos: Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Vernon: Requires payment of prevailing wages. Charter city golf courses in the region: Berkeley (Tilden Park): See above. Hayward (Skywest): See above. Oakland (Lake Chabot and Metropolitan): See above. Palo Alto: See above. San Leandro: See above. San Mateo: See above. San Ramon (Royal Vista): Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. Santa Rosa (Bennett Valley): Does not require prevailing wages to be paid. City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum January 27, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Anthony Corica Chair, Golf Commission 04 J 03 RE: Policy Regarding Payment of Prevailing Wages on Golf Complex Public Works Projects The Golf Commission discussed the policy regarding payment of prevailing wages on Golf Complex public works projects at the January 21, 2004 regular monthly meeting. The discussion focused on keeping the rates at the Golf Complex competitive and economical, which requires discretion to choose when prevailing wages will be required on Golf projects. By a majority vote, the Golf Commission recommends that City Council allow the Golf Department to continue to determine whether prevailing wages will be required on Golf Complex projects, subject to any contrary decision by the California Supreme Court. a&e., xi---L...-- Anthony Co a, Chair City of Alameda Golf Commission Re: Report #5 -D 2 -3 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service E L w WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter section 3 -10, no real property of the City shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except for an affirmative vote of 0 four members of the City Council. ° NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda and upon the affirmative vote of four members that: CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A OF VACATED PORTION OF ADAMS STREET (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes the City Council to grant a street vacation upon finding of General Plan conformity and after receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on October 4th, 1983, Resolution No. 10170, finding vacation of Adams Street at Fernside Boulevard consistent with the General Plan and approving the vacation was adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2004 the Planning Board resolved that the sale of the vacated portion of Adams Street to be consistent with the requirements of Government Code 65402; and WHEREAS, the sale of this property is exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline Section 15312 "Surplus Government Property Sales "; and 0 Section 1. That the purchase offer attached as Exhibit A and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein are hereby approved. Section 2. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute on behalf of the City the sale of the vacated portion of Adams Street at Fernside Boulevard to the adjacent property owner, Forrest Reed, and the City Clerk is directed to attest to the same. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -E 2 -03 -04 COUNTER OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE Be it known, the undersigned, City of Alameda, Marge McLean, (Seller), hereby offers the counter offer to Forrest Reed's offer dated October 6, 2003 on behalf of himself (Buyer) to purchase from the City of Alameda (Owner /Seller) vacant real estate at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Fernside Boulevard, within the City and County of Alameda, California. The selling price shall be at $15.00 per square foot, as per the completed appraisal. For a total price of $11,000. The offer is conditional upon the following terms ,and conditions and upon City of Alameda City Council approval of sale: 1. The Purchase Price shall be paid by the Buyer to the Seller in cash at the closing. 2. Title to the Subject Property shall be conveyed to the Buyer by a Grant Deed. 3. Escrow for purchase of the Subject Property shall be opened by Buyer at an Escrow office located within the City of Alameda. Costs for said escrow shall be paid by Buyer. 4. As a condition of closing, the Seller shall provide the Buyer with a standard ALTA owner's policy of title insurance issued by the Escrow Holder in the face amount of the Purchase Price. Said policy shall insure that fee title interest in the Subject Property is vested in Buyer subject to no exceptions in the policy other than mutually agreed upon Permitted Exceptions. The premium for the title insurance policy shall be paid solely by the Buyer. S. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer is familiar with the Subject Property and the underlying soil conditions. As a result, the Seller is making no representations or warranties regarding the Subject Property, and the Buyer agrees to purchase the Subject Property "AS IS" and is solely relying on its own knowledge and investigation of the Subject Property. Buyer is solely responsible for determining whether buyer's parcel, when combined with purchased parcel, meets city requirements for a "buildable" parcel. Page 1 Page 2 6. Seller shall pay for recording fees and transfer taxes. 7. The closing shall occur within 90 days of acceptance of this offer and/or approval by City Council. 8, Buyer to prepare and obtain approval of lot adjustment map, certificate of compliance and/or other maps and documents as needed to accomplish this sale. 9. Seller acknowledges receipt of Buyer's check in the amount of $5,000 as both a good faith deposit and to cover Seller's administration costs associated with sale of this property and agrees that any and all remaining funds from this deposit will be credited towards the purchase price as part of escrow. 10. Seller also acknowledges that should the City Council not authorize the sale of this property, the deposit of $5,000, will be returned in ful Marge Mc Acting Pu Works Coordinator cepted by: 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 Nancy Gormley CURRENT APPLICATIONS HOUSING COMMISSION ONE (1) VACANCY SENIOR TENANT SEAT Partial term expiring 6/30/2005 Council Communications # 7 -A 2 -3 -04