The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-12-07 PacketTime: Place: Agenda: CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 7, 2004 - - - 6:25 P.M. Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 6:25 p.m. City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission /Authority on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Beverly .:n, ayor Chair, Co . u it Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 7, 2004 - - - 6:35 P.M. Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 6:35 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Alameda Theater. Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission and Cocores Development Company. Under Negotiation: Prices and terms. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 2315 -2323 Central Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Movie TECS, Inc. Under Negotiation: Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 7, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of November 16, 2004. 1 -B. Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount an additional $320,000 to provide additional pre- planning services for the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure Project. 1 -C. Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount an additional $50,000 to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure Project. AGENDA ITEM None. ADJOURNMENT K Beverly Joh C air AGENDA TUESDAY CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 7, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 6:25 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 6:35 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation honoring Officer Patrick Wyeth for his military service. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 16, 2004. 4 -B. Bills for ratification. 4 -C. Recommendation to approve the Planning Board's decision to approve Planned Development PD 03 -004, Use Permit UP 03 -016 and Design Review DR 03 -108, with conditions, for the Bridgeside Shopping Center at 2523 Blanding Avenue at Tilden Way. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for the purchase of power from wind generation. 4 -E. Recommendation to adopt Legislation to create the procedure for the establishment of Property -Based Improvement Districts in the City of Alameda. 4 -F. Recommendation to extend ferry fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Map and Bond, Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Dedications and Easements for Tract 7232 (Winant Way) . 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alysa Beth Chadow as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues. 5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Judith A. Lynch as a Member of the City Historical Advisory Board. 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Karen L. Hollinger Jackson as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. 5 -D. Update on the new main library project. 5 -E. Public Hearing to consider amending Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6; and • Adoption of Resolution Amending Underground Districts, Phase 6. 5 -F. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04 -0013 and Variances VO4- 0005, VO4 -0015, VO4 -0016, VO4 -0017 to permit the construction of a rear deck and garage addition completed without City permits; and adoption of related resolution. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade to top surface of deck and is built up to the south (left side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an expansion of the existing single- family dwelling to the north (right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is requesting four (4) Variances to permit construction of the work completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(2)(6) to construct a rear deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(e)(1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(7) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback is required for rear yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The site is located at 913 Oak Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Fred and Ursula Hoggenboom. [To be continued to January 4, 2005] 5 -G. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 %); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued to January 4, 2005] 5 -H. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004. [Mayor Johnson] 5 -I. Recommendation to appropriate $50,000 for services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland. 5 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential Open Space) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in Their Entirety, and Adding a New Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two - Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Definition of Required Residential Open Space). 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) 7 -A. Discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2404 (Steinberg) Discrimination: Athletic Programs (Councilmember Kerr) 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Date: To: December 1, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Jomes M. Fli City Man Re: Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Improvement Commis ion.. d the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission, Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission, Regular City Council Meeting of December 7, 2004 Transmitted are the agenda and related materials for the December 7, 2004 meetings: Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Improvement Commission and the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9. Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission 3A. Conference with real property negotiator: Alameda Theater 3B. Conference with real property negotiator: 2315 -2323 Central Avenue Special Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of November 16, 2004. 1 -B. Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing contract amount an additional $320,000.00 to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure project. Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo The Executive Director recommends CIC approval of increasing the contract amount to provide pre- planning services associated with the proposed Alameda Theatre and Parking Structure project. 1 -C. Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. by increasing the contract amount an additional $50,000.00 to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed historic Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure project. The Executive Director recommends CIC approval of the proposed amendment to provide additional pre - planning services associated with the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cineplex project. Regular Council Meeting 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation honoring Officer Patrick Wyeth for his military service. At this time the Mayor will presentation a proclamation honoring Officer Patrick Wyeth for his military service. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 16, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings held on November 16, 2004. 4 -B. Bills for ratification. The City Manager recommends ratification of the October bills as presented by the Finance Director. 4 -C. Recommendation to approve the Planning Board's decision to approve Planned Development PD 03 -004, Use Permit UP 03 -016 and Design Review DR 03 -108, with conditions, for the Bridgeside Shopping Center at 2523 Blanding Avenue at Tilden Way. Page 2 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo The City Manager recommends Council consideration of the record and affirmation of the Planning Board's decision to approve the Planned Development, Permit and Design Review, with conditions. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for the purchase of power from wind generation. It is recommended that Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for purchase of power from wind generation. The power source meets Alameda Power & Telecom's goal of obtaining economic and stably priced power. 4 -E. Recommendation to adopt Legislation to create the procedure for the establishment of Property-Based Improvement Districts in the City of Alameda. The City Manager recommends the process identified in the report for establishing the West Alameda Community Benefit District and adoption of legislation to create the procedure for additional Property Based Improvement District formations in the City. 4 -F. Recommendation to extend ferry fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. The City Manager recommends extending ferry fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service due to fuel cost increases. Continuation of the existing fuel surcharge is not expected to have a significant impact on ridership. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Map and Bond, Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Dedications and Easements for Tract 7232 (Winant Way). The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution to approve the final map and bond, authorize execution of associated agreements and accept the dedications and easements for Tract 7232. 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. Page 3 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo Adoption of this resolution declares the results of the November 2, 2004 Consolidated Municipal General Election. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alysa Beth Chadow as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues. Adoption of this resolution appoints Alysa Beth Chadow as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues. 5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Judith A. Lynch as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board. Adoption of this resolution appoints Judith A. Lynch as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board. 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Karen L. Hollinger Jackson as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adoption of this resolution appoints Karen L. Hollinger Jackson as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. 5 -D. Update on the new main library project. At this time the Library Project Manager will make a presentation to the City Council regarding the status of this project. 5 -E. Public Hearing to consider amending Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6; and • Adoption of Resolution Amending Underground Districts, Phase 6. The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution amending the Underground Utility District, Phase 6 project to include part of Fair Oaks Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. 5 -F. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04 -0013 and Variances VO4 -0005, VO4 -0015, VO4 -0016, VO4- 0017 to permit the construction of a rear deck and garage addition completed without City permits; and adoption of related resolution. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade to top surface of deck and is built up to the south (left side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an expansion of the existing single - family dwelling to the north (right side) and west Page 4 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo (rear) property lines. The Applicant is requesting four (4) Variances to permit construction of the work completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(2)(6) to construct a rear deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(e)(1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(7) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback is required for rear yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The site is located at 913 Oak Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Fred and Ursula Hoggenboom. [To be continued to January 4, 2005] 5 -G. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04- 0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 %); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued to January 4, 2005] 5 -H. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004. [Mayor Johnson] Page 5 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo The City Manager recommends acceptance of the City of Alameda's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004. 5 -I. Recommendation to appropriate $50,000 for services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland. The City Manager recommends appropriation of $50,000 from the City's General Fund Reserve for services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland. 5 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential Open Space) of Chapter )00C (Development Regulations) in Their Entirety, and Adding a New Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two - Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Definition of Required Residential Open Space). Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code as it relates to open space. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Page 6 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service December 1, 2004 Agenda Transmittal Memo 7 -A. Discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2404 (Steinberg) Discrimination: Athletic Programs (Councilmember Kerr) This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Kerr. 8. ADJOURNMENT CDB:G \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \CM USER \DESKTOP \DESKTOP DOCUMENTS \ TRANSMITAL.DOC Page 7 of 7 Dedicated to Excellence - Committed to Service UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (04- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting and the Special CIC Meetings of November 3, 2004. Approved. Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) Discussion of funding options for the historic theatre rehabilitation, new two -story cineplex and 350 -space parking structure and request to confirm the Executive Director's recommended funding strategy. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation on the project funding strategies. . Commissioner Daysog noted having a good contingency is important inquired whether the company restoring the old movie theatre has historic restoration experience. The Development Services Director responded that Architectural Resources Group (ARG) would develop the construction documents and has a good reputation in historic renovation. Commissioner Daysog inquired what the argument was for the 20% construction contingency, to which the Development Services Director responded that there is a comfort level in keeping the contingency at 20% because of the project's early stage; as the project moves forward, the contingency could be lowered to 8 -10 %. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission November 16, 2004 1 Chair Johnson requested that the Commission be advised if the contingency exceeds more than 10 %. The Development Services Director stated that an update could be provided when the Disposition and Development Agreement is considered. Commissioner Daysog stated that he was concerned with the 20% contingency; costs were not nailed down when bonds were issued. Commissioner Matarrese inquired what the impact would be for separating out the historic restoration contingency verus having a smaller contingency and holding monies that would have been in the contingency unallocated. The Development Services Director responded the contingency concern is more of a rising construction cost factor; currently staff is trying to anticipate unit price costs for the future rather than allow for design differentials. Commissioner Matarrese stated that the estimate should be based on a more conservative scenario, which would allow for a smaller contingency. Chair Johnson stated that she would hate not to allocate funds and then have to find money elsewhere. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), thanked the Community Improvement Commission for making the project the number one priority in the downtown area. Chair Johnson stated the Council and Community Improvement Commission have requested a two -year completion date on the project. Commissioner Kerr stated the project is very big in terms of money; Proposition 1 -A provides some comfort against raids on redevelopment funds; the Legislature has never paid attention to Article 16 of the State Constitution; stated that she will abstain from voting; there should be more surety on the status of redevelopment funds. Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is a top priority for downtown; the City needs to move forward; that he appreciates the caution and fiscal responsibility exemplified and does not want to mistake proceeding carefully with slowly. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission November 16, 2004 2 Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Chair Johnson stated that many people in Alameda do not think that the project is going forward. Commissioner Daysog stated the project is important for moving Alameda forward as well as revitalizing Park Street; stated it is important to move forward prudently; working closely with the historic preservation community is important. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstention: Commissioner Kerr - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission November 16, 2004 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: November 24, 2004 Subject: Recommendation that the Community Improvement Commission Approve the Amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by Increasing the Contract Amount an Additional $320,000.00 to Provide Additional Pre - Planning Services for the Proposed Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure Project BACKGROUND Planning activities for the possible historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre, in conjunction with a multi- screen theater and parking structure project, have been proceeding for the last year. Historic Preservation architects, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), were selected to provide feasibility pre - planning and cost estimating for the potential historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. Since May 2003, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has been in contract with ARG to conduct preliminary cost estimates, detailed drawings, schematics, testing and further cost estimates totaling $153,190. In January 2004, the Community Improvement CIC approved a $129,200 contract amendment to provide pre - planning, more testing and complete cost estimates for rehabilitating the Theatre. In October, the CIC approved a $43,550 amendment to provide additional work needed to redesign the overall project and incorporate changes in the interface between the cinema multiplex and the Historic Theatre. The total spent to date under this contract with ARG is $325,940. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In response to CIC direction, the Executive Director is working to shorten the development schedule. In order to continue to move the planning for the project forward, architects need to begin construction documents for the proposed rehabilitation project. The proposed contract would enable ARG to produce 100% finished construction documents, including project review and cost estimates at the 50% point, and additional review and cost estimates at 90% completion. This contract would facilitate the planning and feasibility analysis process for the project and provide a base for further development, should the CIC decide to move forward with this project. A copy of the contract and its amendments is on file with the City Clerk. Item 1 -B (CIC) 12-07-04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and November 24, 2004 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACT This project will be funded by the 2003 Merged Area Bonds and will not impact the General Fund. Architectural fees for this phase of work will not exceed $320,000. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission approve the amended contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the contract amount an additional $320,000.00 to provide additional pre - planning services for the proposed Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure Project. Re ,. ecSily submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager — Business Development Division JMF /LAL /DES/KK:dc cc: Architectural Resources Group, c/o Naomi Miroglio Park Street Business Association Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Kathleen \Theater \Staff Reports \CIC Mtgs\ARG \CIC 11 -8 -04 ARG Amendment.doc CD s- L ° CD NC V I- n: of -a d 0 03 co Q Q Architectural Resources Group TOTALS Conservator 100 0 VD 0 - 00 Jr. Arch 400 40 40 O N o0 508 $85 Project Arch. 640 40 20 40 00 - N •. 20 00 N NN m NN SD C's — O0 ti fA Principal N ,N. 2. Tech'] coord for TD provided equipt in concession, audit., proj. rm, ticket booth, electronic tckt VD V 7 En Vl 110 $145 l Task 6 Scope of Work - Construction Documents IA. Construction Documents 1. Rehabilitation Design and Documents 2. Specifications 1B. Coordination with Theatre Developer (TD) allowance 1. Design Review for TD provided casework and signage 3. Meetings (assume 4) IC. Coordination with Ciniplex and Parking Garage Projects - allowance ID. Agency Review 1. Planning Department/Historic Advisory Board: 1 presentation 2. Permit Submittal; Permit Comment Responses IE. Consultant Coordination 2. Review and Coordinate consultant work F. Interior Finishes Restoration 1. Site Investigations 2. Restoration Specifications 3. Finalize Curtain Survey and Recommendations G. Exterior Rehabilition 1. Removal/Field investigation of metal awning H. Cost Estimate 1. Coord development of 50% CD cost estimate 2. Present 50% CD cost estimate to City 3. Value engineering/Finalize 50% CD project scope 4. Coord development of 90% CD cost estimate 5. Present 90% CD cost estimate to City 6. Value engineering/Finalize 90% CD project scope 00 L 0) 1. Bi- monthly Meetings with City (allow 14) HOURS TASK 6 PERSONNEL BILLING RATE Architectural Resources Group ARG Project No. 03073 ,o a o CI mo O lC E N co .� Q 6. 0. d a. °E • 0 V ° z cv Q: ,- Q L ° d s V I- O «i a "0 0 0 E E Rs CO Q Q Architectural Resources Group TOTALS V1 el O O O O O N O O O O N sa O 69 69 69 EA R M 69 M O 69 Conservator O O N 1 V ti 69 Jr. Arch O 00 M ep 69 Project Arch. O b N ti M 69 R 4 'u • O L a O N o, N '-1 EA SUBTOTAL TASK 6 Task 6 Total Fees CONSULTANTS Structural Mechanical/Plumbing /Fire Protection Electrical Acoustical Cost Estimating Waterproofing REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Lift Rental Photography, Reproduction, Delivery, Telecommunications, Transportation Total Reimbursable Expenses TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR TASK 6 1„ Architectural Resources Group ARG Project No. 03073 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: November 24, 2004 Subject: Recommendation that the Community Improvement Commission Approve the Amended Contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. by Increasing the Contract Amount an Additional $50,000 to Provide Pre - Planning Services for the Proposed Historic Alameda Theatre /Cineplex Multiplex Parking Structure Project BACKGROUND Planning activities for the possible historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre, in conjunction with a multi- screen theater and parking structure project, have been proceeding for the last year. As part of the planning process, Keyser Marston & Associates (KMA), Inc was contracted to provide financial analysis and feasibility studies for the project. Recently, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) directed the Executive Director to shorten the development schedule of this project. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In order to continue to move the planning for the project forward, KMA will be needed to provide additional financial analysis and support through Disposition and Development (DDA) negotiation. The Executive Director is requesting that KMA be retained to continue their financial analysis as the additional planning work on the project moves forward. KMA's proposed scope of work is attached. The amendment to KMA's contract would increase their contract an additional amount not to exceed $50,000. The additional tasks being added to KMA's scope of work are: • Assist staff in meetings with Developer • Assist in developing a business term sheet with the Developer • Provide recommendations on public private financing structures • Assist staff in public meetings • Assist staff and legal counsel in drafting a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). • A copy of the contract and its amendments is on file with the City Clerk. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 1 -C (CIC) 12 -07-04 Honorable Chair and November 24, 2004 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT This project will be funded from tax increment and would not impact the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission approve the amended contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. by increasing the contract amount an additional $50,000 to provide pre - planning services for the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre /Cinema Multiplex Parking Structure Project. R spe tf illy submitted,/ Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager — Business Development Division JMF/LAL/DES/KK:ry cc: Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston Associates Park Street Business Association Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \Kathleen \Theater \Staff Reports \CIC Mtgs\KMA \KMA Amend I 1- 08.doc K E Y S E R M A R S T O N ASSOCIATES I N C. GOLDEN GATEWAY COMMONS 55 PACIFIC AVENUE MALL SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: 415 / 398 -3050 FAX : 415 / 397 -5065 WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM November 18, 2004 Leslie Little Director Community Services City of Alameda 950 West Mall Square Alameda CA 94501 -7552 ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAN FRANCISCO A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Debbie M. Kern Robert J. Wetmore LOS ANGELES Calvin E. Hollis, II Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Paul C. Anderson Gregory D. Soo -Hoo SAN DIEGO Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra Re: Proposed Historic Alameda Theatre Parking Structure and Cineplex Project Dear Leslie: We would appreciate having the opportunity to continue assisting you. We would suggest the following scope: Proposed Scope of Services When an as directed by staff, KMA will assist and advise staff with respect to the redevelopment and expansion of the Alameda Theater, including but not be limited to the following: 1. Assist staff in meetings with Developer to discuss approaches to creating a viable project. Develop a business term sheet with the Developer. The joint public private agreement should identify: a. A clear understanding of why there is a need for assistance. b. A proposed structure for providing the needed assistance. c. How to leverage public funds and maximize private investment. CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR CLIENTS 99900.900b -345 Leslie Little City of Alameda November 18, 2004 Page 2 d. Based on our discussions with staff and with the Developer, we will discuss potential public private financing structures that meet the needs of the Agency and that can financed by the Developer. We will meet with staff to test alternative structures of a financial agreement. e. Recommend provisions that will mitigate risks to the Agency and ensure that the public benefits are realized. 2. Assist staff in presenting the Project to the Agency Board in public meetings and in explaining the purpose of the public private partnership in the implementation of the Project. 3. Assist staff and legal counsel draft a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). 4. Prepare the necessary documents under the Community Redevelopment Law related to Sec. 33433, the Summary Report. Method and Time Performance We are requesting an additional $50,000 be added to our contract. The budget is a function, in part, of the complexity of developing a viable financial plan, the complexity of the business terms, and the length of the overall process. A precise estimate of the financial analysis and number of meetings cannot be determined at this time. The practice of the firm is to be compensated on a time and materials basis and we advise our client monthly on the status of the budget. We would be willing to work against a budget that we will not exceed without your authorization. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this interesting project and look forward to continuing to assist you on this. Sincerely, KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. Timothy C. Kelly CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR CLIENTS 99900.900b -345 City of Alameda California Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Proclamation Officer Pat Wyeth has been with the Alameda Police Department since April 1995; and Pat is a Commander in the United States Navy attached to the 528`h Division, a Combat Support Unit; and Pat served in Iraq, Southwest Asia, from February 1, 2004 to September 27, 2004; and Pat's Division received 13 Bronze Stars which are awarded for actions above and beyond the call of duty and heroism; and Pat's Division, while in direct contact with enemy forces, was very fortunate and did not sustain any casualties; and Officer Pat Wyeth has served his country with distinction and continues to serve the Alameda community as a member of our police department. NOW THEREFORE, I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby declare December 7, 2004 as OFFICER PAT WYETH DAY in the City of Alameda and urge all citizens to join in this salute to Officer Wyeth. Beverly J. Johnson Mayor Office of the Mayor 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538 Item 3 -A 12 -07-04 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - - - 5:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Manager. (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (04- ) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimants: Jerilyn Denny and Ferdinand Pacis; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda; Number of cases: Two. (04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1327 Oak Street and 2226 Santa Clara Avenue; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Unified School District; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation; Name of case: Collins v. City of Alameda. (04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA). Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employment, the Council discussed recruitment of the new City Manager; regarding Anticipated Litgation, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the Council authorized settlement of the claims; regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiator, the Council discussed the use of the Alameda Unified School District site and City Hall; regarding Existing Litigation, the Council discussed the case of Collins v. City of Alameda; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators; the Council discussed ACEA labor negotiations. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 1 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the purchase of five 2005 Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles [paragraph no. 04- ] and recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Santa Cruz Energy, LLC [paragraph no. 04 ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 3, 2004, and Special City Council Meeting held on November 5, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to authorize a Call for Bids for the purchase of two vessel reduction gears, No. P.W. 10- 04 -15. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for the Park Street Streetscape Project, Phase I, No. P.W. 10- 02 -13. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 1 ( *04- ) Recommendation to allocate Measure B Funds for additional sidewalk improvements, construction management services and project administration of the Webster Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending September 30, 2004 and approving the supplemental appropriations. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending September 30, 2004. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept report on Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229). Accepted. (04- ) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of five 2005 Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles in the amount of $129,155.00. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how frequently police vehicles are purchased and the age determined to be non - serviceable. The Service Division Commander responded that the vehicles targeted for replacement are five years old; each vehicle has over 70,000 miles. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether replacing police vehicles is based on every five years or mileage, to which the Service Division Commander responded the five oldest vehicles are replaced every year based upon mileage. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the equipment is depreciated. The Finance Director responded that the City uses a straight -line depreciation over five years; the depreciation expense adds money back into the replacement fund to buy the next series of vehicles. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the vehicles only had 70,000 miles; to which the Service Division Commander responded 70,000 miles is the least amount; some vehicles have 80,000 or 90,000 miles. Mayor Johnson requested that more information be provided when cars are replaced in the future. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 2 ( *04- ) Recommendation to extend time by one year (to November 21, 2005) to file the Final Map for Tract 7232 (43 County Road). Accepted. (04- ) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Santa Cruz Energy, LLC for the purchase of power from landfill gas generation. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City would pay a flat rate or pay for the power received, to which the Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) General Manager responded that the City would pay a per kilowatt -hour price and is paid at 5.1 cents per kilowatt -hour for the first year and escalates at 1.5% per year. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13782, "Approving and Adopting the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Established Overall Annual Goal of 11% for Federal Fiscal Year 2004/2005." Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13783, "Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 8401 for a One -Lot Subdivision for 15 Commercial Condominium Units at 2340 and 2350 North Loop Road." Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13784, " Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Roberti - Z'Berg- Harris Urbanized Area Need -Basis Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and.Coastal Protection Act of 2002 for Woodstock Park Renovation Project ". Adopted; and ( *04 - A) Resolution No. 13785, "Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Roberti - Z'Berg- Harris Urbanized Area Need -Basis Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 for Paden School Bay Trail Project." Adopted. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,317,422.43. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Resolution No. 13786, "Appointing Toby C. Berger as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13787, "Appointing Charles E. Bunker as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 3 (04- B) Resolution No. 13788, "Appointing Edwin Cooney as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- C) Resolution No. 13789, "Appointing Steve R. Fort as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- D) Resolution No. 13790, "Appointing James G. Gwynne as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- E) Resolution No. 13791, "Appointing Adrienne Longley -Cook as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- F) Resolution No. 13792, "Appointing Elaine McCoy as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- G) Resolution No. 13793, "Appointing Gina D. McGaughey as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- H) Resolution No. 13794, "Appointing Jody A. Moore as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; and (04- I) Resolution No. 13795, "Appointing Angela C. Steffens as a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues members. Toby Berger submitted a pamphlet entitled "Disability Etiquette" to the Council. Edwin Cooney inquired whether the Commission could hold a brief organizational meeting this evening, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mr. Cooney inquired how Commissioner's terms are decided, to which Mayor Johnson responded that generally straws are drawn. Mr. Cooney inquired whether it was permissible for him to draw up an agenda, to which Mayor Johnson responded that staff generally prepares the draft agenda for the Chair and distributes to the Commission. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 4 (04- ) Public Hearing to consider the formation of new Underground Districts, Phase 6; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13796, "Establishing New Underground Districts, Phase 6." Adopted. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation on underground districts. Mayor Johnson inquired how long it would take to complete all eight districts, to which the Public Works Director responded approximately 10 years. Mayor Johnson inquired what the utility cost was, to which the Public Works Director responded that each district's costs are identified in Exhibit 10 of the staff report. Vice Mayor Daysog stated residents in districts would pay $2,000 to $4,000 and the rest of Alameda would pay the bulk through the rate structure; inquired whether there are options for people who cannot pay their portion. The Public Works Director responded that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money was used at one time but funds would no longer be available; that he contacted Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) to see whether there might be three to five -year payment plans; AP &T was unable to support the idea. Mayor Johnson inquired whether residents could start making payments prior to their phase, to which the Public Works Director responded the City Attorney and Finance Director would need to address the issue. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a letter could be sent to residents regarding payment options, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated that San Leandro has a surcharge on building permits for undergrounding services; the Code specifically states if required undergrounding is not completed, the City would complete underground construction and place a lien on the property. Mayor Johnson stated that Lincoln Avenue residents have had numerous neighborhood meetings and have requested to have their utilities undergrounded; inquired whether the City has received any undergrounding inquires from residents east of Broadway on Lincoln Avenue, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 5 Mayor Johnson inquired what the timeframe was for interested neighborhoods to be placed on an agenda for a public hearing, to which the Public Works Director responded there is a 15 -day noticing requirement. Mayor Johnson stated Roosevelt Drive residents want to be added also. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents: Kame Richards, Alameda; Jane Neal, Alameda; Dan Patterson, Alameda; Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda. Requested to be added to the list of Underground Districts: Henry Bowles, Alameda; Steve Coyle, Alameda [submitted petition]; Kelsey Ashford, Alameda [submitted petition]; Gretchen Finer, Alameda [submitted petition]; Dave Brownson, Alameda [submitted petition]; Alex Kranson, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how much is generated in the underground special fund and what formula is used. The AP &T General Manager responded that 2% of electric revenues are allocated; approximately $800,000 is collected per year; anything not spent is carried over. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the prior undergrounding phases have been completed. The AP &T General Manager responded that Phase 1 and 2 have been completed; Phase 3 is almost complete; two of the eight Phase 4 districts have been completed and the third district is in the process of being completed. The Public Works Director stated that establishment of a district for Fair Oaks Avenue would return to Council on December 7, 2004; that he has requested a petition from residents on Lincoln Avenue; he can bring a recommendation for Lincoln Avenue, Everett Avenue and Gould Court at the December 7 City Council Meeting and incorporate the other section of Lincoln Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 6 Mayor Johnson stated the process should be accelerated. The Public Works Director stated that AP &T indicated that the identified districts would take 10 years to complete. Mayor Johnson stated that she did not think priority should be given to heavy traffic areas. Councilmember Matarrese inquired why underground funds are not zeroed out at the end of the year, to which the AP &T General Manager responded that some non - expenditures are due to resource issues and getting in alignment with other utilities to proceed with the work. Mayor Johnson inquired whether franchise agreements have an undergrounding cooperation requirement, to which the Public Works Director responded that not all utilities have franchise agreements; those that do have an agreement are required to cooperate. Councilmember Matarrese stated that it is not good management to collect money and no follow through with the promise to underground utilities; to carry over such a large balance is justification for expediting the process and getting the cooperation of the other utilities. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is concerned that such a small part of the City has been undergrounded; everyone is paying for undergrounding; encouraged priority be given to streets with trees. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there is a long -range undergrounding plan for the City, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative; the utility districts are created phase by phase. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he liked the idea of developing a long -range plan with a comprehensive analysis that inventories the situation; the Public Utilities Board should give suggestions for a long -range plan. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution establishing new Underground Districts, Phase 6, excluding St. Charles Street [District 1. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 7 Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he wanted a long - range plan for the City but the perfect plan should not get in the way of what is good for the neighborhoods. On the call for the question, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution establishing new Underground Districts, Phase 6, including St. Charles Street [District 1. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Gilmore - 1. Councilmember Matarrese directed staff to include Fair Oaks Avenue, the 2400 -2500 block of Lincoln Avenue, Gould Court, the 1500 -1600 block of Everett Street, and Roosevelt Drive for consideration on the December 7, 2004 City Council agenda; requested an analysis on expediting the undergrounding process to ensure spending down to a zero balance of dedicated funds rather than building up a surplus. Vice Mayor Daysog requested a memo addressing issues that need to be considered to move forward with a long -range plan. Mayor Johnson requested an Off Agenda report on replacing light posts with historic fixtures. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider Revisions to Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX, Sections 30- 4.2(d)(9), 30- 4.3(d)(10), 30- 4.4(d)(10), 30 -4.5 (d) (10) , 30 -4.6 (d) (10) , and 30 -5.12, more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance, regulating Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential Open Space and Usable Open Space Requirements; Report on the Development Code Open Space Committee's recommendations; and (04- A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential Open Space) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in Their Entirety, and Adding a New Subsection 30- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 8 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two - Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10) (General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (Hotel Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and Section 30 -5.12 (Definition of Required Residential Open Space). Introduced. Councilmember Kerr stated that referenced sections of the Alameda Municipal Code were badly written; several efforts have been made to clarify and simplify the language; that she is pleased with the results and believes the Code is very clear and understandable; that she hopes the next Council will leave the ordinance alone for a year to allow for review. Councilmember Kerr moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she assumes height requirements have not been deleted from the development code, to which Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson thanked Councilmember Kerr for all her work and thanked the committee for their time and effort. On the call for question, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 %); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 9 Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. Continued to December 7, 2004. Councilmember Daysog moved that the item be continued to the December 7, 2004 City Council Meeting. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Recommendation to amend City Seal to include the City's incorporation date. Mayor Johnson stated that other city seals include an incorporation date; placing Alameda's incorporation date in the outer part of the seal circle is a good idea; stated that Alameda is the oldest city in Alameda County and is 150 years old this year. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she likes the change; inquired whether everything the City currently has would be changed, to which Mayor Johnson responded the change would only be made as new items are ordered. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City's date of incorporation was April 19, 1854; that he liked the new design. Councilmember Kerr stated that she liked the change. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- )Discussion of General Fund revenue alternatives. The Finance Director gave a brief Power Point presentation on revenue alternatives. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether rental duplexes would be taxed, to which the Finance Director responded that duplexes would be taxed as a single- family residence. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 10 Councilmember Matarrese requested a review of the total Measure B allocations. Mayor Johnson requested a briefing on the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Contract to allow Council to provide direction to the Fire Chief. Mayor Johnson stated cuts need to be considered instead of adding more taxes and fees; she is not sure the City is a lean operating government. The Finance Director stated that Council received an Off Agenda Report that included a list of another $650,000 in General Fund deductions that were being implemented as of November 1, 2004; the additional cuts will also be noted in the mid -year budget review. Councilmember Kerr stated that she was concerned that all the cuts discussed over the last six months have not been implemented. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council gave specific direction; the only transparent cuts were the Library service hours which have been restored; any additional fees requiring a vote should be reviewed carefully to determine if they could pass. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would like to review the possibility of closing City Hall one day per month. The Finance Director stated that the reduction impacts will be more apparent at mid year. Mayor Johnson stated that it is more important to look at the cost of doing business; the City cannot just consider adding taxes and fees for short -term solutions; the residents must be convinced that the City is efficient and not wasting money [before more fees and taxes are added]; that she does not believe there has been a thorough review of where cuts can be made. Councilmember Gilmore stated that there may be a point where the service levels need to be cut; if there is a reluctance to raise fees to pay for services, than there needs to be a balance in the reduction of the level of service; the hard task is determining where that level of services is as it relates to the residents' comfort level. Councilmember Kerr stated that the City will need to make cuts in service in the next two years before Proposition 1A takes affect. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 11 Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how much budget gap would be reduced with a 1.5% Return on Investment (ROI), to which the Finance Director responded approximately $300,000. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to give direction on the use of reserves. Vice Mayor Daysog stated drawing on the reserves should not be automatic. Mayor Johnson inquired how reserves are tracked, to which the Finance Director responded on a monthly basis for all funds. Mayor Johnson requested a monthly report on funds and expenditures to ensure reserve funds are being tracked. Councilmember Kerr stated that a monthly expenditure report is important because the report will indicate whether the cuts that the Council ordered are actually being made. The Finance Director stated that some of the cuts require time to be implemented. Councilmember Kerr stated that the cuts should have been implemented on July 1. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the Council needs to make a policy decision on cuts or revenue enhancements. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has already made a decision on cuts; the concern of the Council is that the cuts are not being implemented. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the Council made preliminary decisions on cuts; subsequent decisions not to implement the 911 fee requires additional discussion. Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; stated previous discussions on cuts were within the context of implementing the 911 fee. Mayor Johnson inquired how much of the reserves will be needed for the current Fiscal Year, to which the Finance Director responded $3.9 million. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired if there still would be a $2.9 million budget gap if the PILOT and ROI were adopted, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 12 Mayor Johnson stated that Council did not expect to draw down on reserves that quickly. Councilmember Kerr stated that reserves were built up because CalPERS did not charge as much; now more money will be going into CalPERS. Mayor Johnson stated that the City's contribution to retirements significantly increases next year. The Finance Director stated that next year's reduction for the Fresh Start is $800,000. The Finance Director stated that the only alternative to not using reserves is either increasing revenue or cutting additional expenditures. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council needs to know the savings in closing City Hall one day per month. Mayor Johnson stated that the amount is insignificant without including Public Safety. The City Attorney stated that there are union bumping rights and meet and confer obligations with each bargaining unit. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bargaining unit could agree to close City Hall one day per month without the bumping rights, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the City of Berkeley has applied a one -day work holiday to Public Safety. Mayor Johnson stated that there are continued serious budget times ahead; the budget will be worse next year; requested a comparison of other cities' transfer tax rate; stated that the City provides the boat owners with service; questioned whether the boat owners would demand more service if a fee was imposed. The Finance Director stated that it costs approximately $80,000 per year for the police and fire boats to be staffed and provide service. Councilmember Kerr stated that the boat owners already pay property taxes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 13 Councilmember Gilmore requested additional information and possible Council consideration on implementing the business license tax, particularly adding single- family homes and duplexes to apartment rental rates, the transient occupancy tax increase, and the property transfer tax increase; stated that she is not in favor of raising the Utility User Tax because of the disproportionate affect on low income and seniors. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he was not ready to provide any suggestions regarding taxes and fees because the conversation needs to be done in the context of expenditure cuts and reductions. Mayor Johnson stated that the requested items are for additional information only. Vice Mayor Daysog requested more detailed information on the future outlook; cuts might not happen within two or three years if the City receives $3 million back from the State. The Finance Director stated that there is not sufficient information regarding the repayment plan. Councilmember Matarrese requested a report similar to Exhibit A of the Quarterly Financial Report showing the actual amount for revenues and expenditures year to date versus the amount budgeted. Mayor Johnson inquired how appropriations are determined for departments that go over budget, to which the Finance Director responded that Council addresses the issue at quarterly and mid- year budget reviews. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that departments appear to stay within 98% of their allocations, which indicates that costs can be anticipated and controlled. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the quarterly statements are audited, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to investigate whether other communities charge an additional fee for marina licenses. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that either a special assessment district or a bond issue might work well if approached from a public safety, sidewalk repair and tree maintenance angle; publicizing the $1,235 actual cost per parcel per year for fire and police services might be useful. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 14 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $1235 per parcel cost includes any of the retirement expenses, including the old retirement plan, to which the Finance Director responded the cost includes the current employee CalPERS and not the 1079 Plan. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (04- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. (04- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, commended the City Clerk, supporting staff and Council for providing the agenda with links to the staff reports on -line; urged development of email sign up lists. (04- ) Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association, urged Council to continue with negotiations with the owners of the Harbor Island Apartment; stated that the Association is looking for phasing in of the renovation process. (04- ) Delores Wills Guyton, Harbor Island Tenant Association, urged consideration of permanent affordable housing for all renters in Alameda. (04- ) Reginald Lee James, Harbor Island Tenant Association, thanked the Council for participation in the lawsuit; stated that the Association must be kept informed and involved; stipend checks from the owners have bounced. (04- ) Isolina Cadle, Harbor Island Tenant Association, stated some tenants have been placed in shelters; repairs are not being made; urged Council to ensure that there is a just cause order implemented in Alameda for all tenants. Councilmember Kerr requested the City Attorney to find out who the tenants could contact in the Federal Court regarding violations of the court order. (04- ) Cynthia Landry, Alameda, stated tenants were required to waive future legal rights if they wanted to stay through November 15; the wood used to close up doorways has a very bad odor. (04- ) Lorraine Lilly, Harbor Island Tenant Association, urged Council to do more to help the tenants. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 15 (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues. Mayor Johnson nominated Alysa Beth Chadow for appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues. (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Judith A. Lynch for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Karen L. Hollinger Jackson for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2004 16 December 2, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my,opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Amount 130611 - 131220 2,646,194.60 Void Checks: 130115 (300.00) 86455 (5.00) 130666 (263.47) 130981 (272.49) GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Chief Financial Officer Council Warrants 12/07/04 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sible 2,645,353.64 BILLS #4 -B 12/07/04 City of Alameda Memorandum Date: November 30, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint, City Manager Subj ect: PD03 -004, UP03 -016, DR -03- 108 — Bridgeside Shopping Center -2523 Blanding Avenue at Tilden Way. Consideration of an approved request for a Planned Development to allow master planning of a site with modification of standards for demolition of an 87,000 square foot existing shopping center on an 8.75 acre site, and replacement with a 107,000 square foot center in a similar configuration, with 422 parking spaces. A 59,000 square foot supermarket, in- line stores, food establishments, services, gasoline station and carwash are proposed, along with improvements to the public shoreline and trail; and Use Permits to allow a) operation after 10 pm and before 7 am; b) gasoline service station with carwash, c) liquor sales in market and restaurants; and d) outdoor uses including but not limited to sidewalk cafes; and Major Design Review for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted in December 2003. The site is located within the C -2/PD, Central Business District Commercial/Planned Development Zoning District. BACKGROUND In 2003 the Community Improvement Commission acquired the Bridgeside Shopping Center and sold it to Foothill/Regency Partners after initiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement for a new shopping center. On October 25, 2004 the Planning Board approved a Planned Development, Use Permits and Major Design Review for the project. On November 4, 2004 the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council, asking that several conditions of approval be modified. On November 22, 2004 the Planning Board held another hearing to clarify several conditions of approval included in the October 25, 2004 action. As of November 29, 2004 the appeal had not been withdrawn and no new appeal documents have been provided. The applicants have requested that the City Council agendize the matter for December 7, 2004 and affirm the Planning Board's decision on the consent calendar, so that the record would be clear that the November 22, 2004 Planning Board approval was a valid amendment to the October 25, 2004 Board action and accepted by the City Council. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 4-C 12 -07-04 Honorable Mayor and November 30, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS The City Attorney's Office and the Planning and Building Departments have advised the applicant that the November 22, 2004 Planning Board action amends and supersedes the October 25, 2004 Board approval. However, the applicant has requested that on December 7, 2004 the City Council accept the Planning Board action. The applicant seeks to commence demolition of existing buildings early in 2005 and obtain occupancy of some buildings late in 2005, and therefore asks for timely City Council action. For the December 7, 2004 City Council agenda, courtesy notices but not legal notices were published and sent to neighbors near the Bridgeside Center site. If the City Council determines that a Public hearing is necessary, staff should be advised and more formal notification will be sent, for a future hearing in January 2005. Staff submits that no hearing is necessary if the City Council concurs with the Planning Board by accepting this report on the Consent Calendar. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT No general fund monies will be used for implementation of the project. The Community Improvement Commission has approved a Disposition and Development Agreement for the project, which establishes financial obligations of each party, and the Agreement is being implemented. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council consider the record and as a consent item, affirm the Planning Board's decision to approve the request with conditions. Respectfully submitted, regory L. Fuz Planning & Building Director By: 3-44/€ Dave Vales a Planner III Attachment: 1. Planning Board staff reports dated October 25, 2004 and November 22, 2004 2. Planning Board resolution dated November 22, 2004 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and November 30, 2004 Councilmembers Page 3 3. Reduced Scale Bridgeside Center Plans 4. Applicant Appeal Letter, November 4, 2004 Documents on file with City Clerk: 1. Full Record of Planning Board Hearings, with Minutes 2. Full Scale Plans, Color Boards, Written Testimony G:\ PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \bridgecc.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 STAFF REPORT 9 -B PD03- 004/UP03- 016/DR03 -0108 – 2523 Blanding Avenue, Bridgeside Shopping Center — Foothill Partners. A request for a finding pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that a Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in December 2003 fulfills CEQA review for the project; a Planned Development to allow master planning of a site with modification of parking standards; a Major Design Review for rebuilding of an 83,000 square foot existing shopping center as a shopping center with 107,000 square feet of retail and office; a Use Permit to allow operations after 10 pm for grocery and restaurants, and to allow package /off sale of liquor in a market and on -sale sale of liquor with meals at in -line tenancies and for a gasoline service station with carwash. The 8.75 acre site fronts on the Oakland/Alameda Estuary and is located in the C -2- PD (Central Business District Zoning, Planned Development Combining Zoning District). Community Commercial Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Initial Study was prepared for the Disposition and Development Agreement for this site, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding no significant impact with adoption of mitigation measures, which was adopted in December 2003, fulfills CEQA for this project. The State Clearinghouse Number is 2003 - 042 -073. Dave Valeska, Planner III Approve Planned Development, Use Permit, and Major Design Review, prohibit liquor sales in gasoline station/convenience store and deny without prejudice to later applications, hours between 10 pm and 7 am for any building except for grocery in Building A. AMC – Alameda Municipal Code C -2/PD— Central Business District/Planned Development Combining Zoning District Attachment #1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. October 11, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Board 3. Preliminary Minutes, October 11, 2004 Planning Board Copies of the following documents are available for inspection in the office of the Planning and Building Department, City Hall during business hours; Item C was provided to Planning Board: A. Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Review with Traffic Engineering Study B. Noise Impact Study for Raley's Carwash, Galt -The N Group, June 6, 2003 C. Applicant Submittal to SFBCDC, 2003 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant proposes development of approximately 107,000 square feet of new buildings: 98,300 square feet of first floor retail area, 7,000 square feet of second floor office floor area, and 1,700 square feet of non - retail carwash and gasoline station space. Within the retail area, 58,660 square feet would be a "grocery store" as defined in Section 30 -2 of AMC. This is what the applicant calls a "market." The new buildings would replace the existing approximately 83,000 square feet of floor area, in the Bridgeside Shopping Center. This Center is located between Blanding Avenue, Tilden Way, the Oaldand Alameda Estuary and Stone Boatyard. The approximately 8.75 acre project includes demolition of the existing Center, with rebuilding of one -level retail and limited second -level offices, and reconfiguration of existing parking with 422 parking spaces. The rebuilding program is expected to commence with demolition of existing buildings in Fall 2004 with construction completed by Fall 2005. This project has been subject to several study sessions and neighborhood meetings this year. As a result of input from the Planning Board and community, the project plans have been revised to address numerous issues, including shoreline amenities, waterfront design orientation, exterior siding materials, and roof line orientation. Planning Board direction from the October 11, 2004 meeting has been incorporated into the conditions for approval in the attached draft Resolution. The primary tenant in the Bridgeside Shopping Center is in Building A, Nob Hill or similar quality grocery. In Buildings B, C, D and F, other tenants would provide products, services and restaurants. A Use Permit has been requested for Building E, the gasoline station/car wash, with convenience store at the corner of Tilden and Blanding. The AMC allows retail use to be open from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. These hours may be extended by Use Permit. A Use Permit has been requested for the market with no limit for operating hours. Other businesses which wish to be open during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am would file for later Use Permits once the precise nature and location of such uses is determined by the applicant. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 2 A Use Permit has been requested to allow 1) off -site consumption liquor sales in the grocery, and 2) on -site alcoholic beverage service in restaurants in the in -line spaces. The off -site sales Use Permit would apply to the 58,660 square foot grocery. II. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions The site is relatively flat and fully developed. Buildings are located between the Estuary and the parking area. Drainage is primarily to low spots /catch basins in the center of the parking lot. The applicant has been working with the railroad about acquisition of easement control over the Belt Line rail right -of -way on the east side of the Center along Tilden. If the negotiations are successful, the applicant would add the acquired portion on the south to the Center parcel by lot line adjustment or other process at a later time. The City has sold approximately 1 /10 acre of City land along Blanding near Tilden to the developer to add to the Center. B. Surrounding Land Use North — Former Stone Boat Yard and other industrial uses West - Industrial and commercial uses South- Residences and vacant land in the Fernside neighborhood East- Oakland/Alameda Estuary and docks of Stone Boat Yard; Miller- Sweeney Bridge C. Permit/Project History The Center was built in the 1970's. In the late- 1990's, vacancies in the shopping center resulted from relocation of the grocery to Oakland. Several development proposals were made public including housing, an office park and a new shopping Center. The Community Improvement Commission responded to the Economic Development Commission and neighbor concerns by purchasing the property in 2003, for resale to the shopping center developer; the resale was completed in early 2004. On May 10, 2004 and July 26, 2004 Planning Board study sessions were held. A neighborhood meeting was held June 16, 2004. On August 25, 2003 and October 11, 2004 the Planning Board gave comments to the owner and developer, with expectations for the project in the pending permit process. Minutes of these meetings have been provided to the Planning Board with the October 11, 2004 report, while October 11, 2004 preliminary minutes are with this report. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 3 On October 18, 2004 staff met with the applicant to review the draft Resolution conditions. Where the developer planned to fulfill Planning Board direction, staff made changes to the Resolution as agreed. Where the developer had not agreed to make changes mentioned by the Planning Board, the issues are discussed in the staff report, for Board consideration. At the Board's October 25, 2004 hearing the applicant can explain reasons for these positions. D. Applicant Foothill Partners represented by Douglas Wiele of El Dorado Hills (Sacramento area) has participated in shopping center development including the new Lafayette town center Fiesta Square. Regency Centers is an equity partner with Foothill in development. III. ANALYSIS Design/Elevation Project plans current to October 11, 2004 have been reviewed by the Planning Board. The concept is for a mix of concrete and metal buildings with open space south of the property line (top of bank). The applicant is not proposing shoreline improvements between the property line (top of bank) and the water's edge. -- Building A, 58,660 square foot grocery, concrete block walls topped by metal/stucco panel walls and metal roof. The Planning Board is particularly interested in increased glazing on the north elevation of the grocery, where planned clerestory and east side ground level glazing was removed from earlier plans. Condition 3 -a of the draft Resolution addresses this building. On October 18, 2004 the applicant agreed to pursue an additional 10 feet of glazing in the northeast corner with the grocery, and advised that Raleys would not agree to substantially more windows on the north side of the store. The Board can determine whether this is a sufficient response. -- Buildings B (4,543 square feet retail), C (14,980 square feet first floor retail, 7,000 square feet second floor office) and D (13,800 square feet retail), all built with steel skeleton with interchangeable panels of stucco - covered metal with brick wainscoting, or glass doors and windows (glazing). Application plans ( "Exhibit A ") show glazing. In response to direction from staff and the Planning Board, the applicant has provided exhibits which are approximately as follows: Building B, 66% north (Estuary) side, 82% (facing parking lot) south side; Building C, 68% north and 68% south; Building D 76 % north and 72% south. Condition3a of the draft Resolution requires the applicant to build the Exhibit A plans on the first occupancy, and provides a process for the Director, or upon referral, the Board, to modify the glazing/nonglazing percentage for cause (e.g. bank or jewelry store security needs). Prior to October 19, 2004 meeting with staff, the applicant's actual request has been 40% .glazing and the applicant has made no commitment to conditions requiring more glazing. The Board asked for more modulation in the shoreline facades of buildings to limit long wall planes in these structures. On October 19, 2004, the applicant submitted a revision request to Condition 3b, that combines glazing, outdoor seating, merchandise displays, public art and other amenities over sixty percent (60 %) of each building "as a minimum goal," with Planning and Building Director discretion. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 4 The proposed language of this request was accepted in concept with modifications and is in the attached Resolution for Board consideration. Staff notes that the Board's stated goal is activation of the waterfront, and that amenities other than glazing can achieve the Board's goal, particularly outdoor dining and outdoor merchandising such as kiosks. Staff has modified Condition 3 -c to require varying the horizontal planes of storefronts and floorplans to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. Reduction in approved floor area would not be necessary if each time the applicant obtained approval for an inset of a storefront, a popout of similar floor area would also be submitted and approved. Condition 3 -h requires the applicant to relocate the rooftop equipment enclosure from the parking lot side to a central axis recessed well, or other solution to be approved by the Director. -- Building E, gasoline station under canopy, 1,700 square foot carwash/storage, 500 square foot convenience store. Condition 23 in the draft Resolution addresses this building. -- Building F, 6,000 square foot retail building near the Tilden/Blanding corner. - -Steel stair towers at two -story Building C in -line section, in the style of the Fernside Bridge towers. The metal panel construction system, similar to a product known as "Drive -It," involves aluminum or steel cladding over foam -core insulation and was shown to the Board at the October 11, 2004 study session. A stucco surface or enamel painting can be applied at the factory, and the panels installed on the steel frames. Brick veneer is proposed for Building F and other areas. Shoreline The waterfront edge of the site between the proposed shopping center and the northerly property line extends approximately 1,050 feet and varies from 25 to 70 feet wide, averaging approximately 40 feet wide, exceeding 120 feet deep on the east landscaped area proposed to be graded like an amphitheater (no seating, stage or other improvements proposed). The total open space area along the waterfront is over one acre. The Planning Board has requested specific details regarding this area to ensure generous public access between the storefronts and the Estuary. Conditions 3, 4, 13, 20 and 28of the draft Resolution address shoreline improvements and subsequent refinement of details with permits. These conditions require that: Outdoor areas incorporated into tenant lease areas shall be delineated; these areas should only be removed from the all- purpose public access area in order to provide outdoor dining or seating, or kiosks which do not block public trails or areas along the railings; the minimum required shoreline Bay Trail width of 12 (twelve) feet should not be encroached into for private use; the shoreline area shall provide generous landscaping, seating areas, trellises and/or other overhead protection, utilities for portable kiosks, etc. to maximize public enjoyment of this area subject to BCDC review and approval. The current plans provide the following: Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 5 - -70 trees of 15 gallon or larger size, more than double existing tree count on the site at this current location - -Over 12,000 square feet of rebuilt pedestrian paved plazas to be located on former back -of- store drive aisles and storage at shoreline - - Outdoor dining/seating: 4 wood and metal benches, plus .up to a dozen sets of 4 cafe seats each - -12 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trails on the shore -- Central shoreline approximately 900 square foot shoreline lawn area near grocery - -East shoreline viewing decks of approximately 400 and 900 square feet respectively - -East shoreline landscape amphitheater of approximately 3,000 square feet - -West shoreline viewing deck, approximately 150 square feet and 12 feet high, with stairs shared with grocery for access to employee break room - -Two 38 foot decorative metal towers, with viewing decks on stair landings 14 feet high (one on shoreline side, one on parking lot side of Building C) The applicant is not proposing any shoreline improvements between the property line and water's edge. Parking The applicant proposes 422 parking spaces shared by the grocery, in -line stores offices, restaurant and other permitted uses. This is a decrease of 103 spaces from the parking requirement which existed before mid -2004 code amendments. If restaurants are included, under new requirements, the restaurant parking requirement increase was from 5 spaces per 1,000 sf to 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of floor area, further increasing the Center's parking reduction from otherwise applicable standards; Under the Planned Development provisions of AMC, the Board may reduce shared parking requirements in recognition of different tenancies' different peak hours of use. Based upon the DKS Engineering traffic and parking study, a Planned Development ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area is supportable. In comparison, South Shore Center was recently approved for 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet based on a parking engineering study and December 2002 observation that there were substantial vacant parking spaces with 4.5 spaces provided per 1,000 square feet of building. That report noted three dozen California cities with a parking standard of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Likewise, at Bridgeside Center, with over 1/3 of the buildings vacant, the parking lot is rarely 50% occupied at 6.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, so a reduction to 4 per 1,000 sf has no identifiable impact. Parking demands overlap in the Planned Development. Observations have been made that seated dining in restaurants tends to be after 6 pm, whereas use of offices, retail and some services and grocery shopping have been observed to occur primarily before 6 pm. Following principles approved by the Planning Board for other mixed tenancy Planned Developments (e.g. SouthShore Center, Mariner Square, Pacific Marina), overall parking reductions in demand can be projected based upon different peak hours of use among tenants. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 6 Traffic: Traffic is addressed in Resolution Condition 4. Traffic generated by the Center has been reviewed by the September 2003 DKS traffic study for the project. The study analyzed eight intersections from the Center and found that no intersections had a potential to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) "D" (significant) levels as a result of the project. The conclusion was that the current project to expand the Center, combined with Baseline and Cumulative other traffic impacts through the year 2020, would be satisfactory. Mitigation measures are included in the project conditions and the Negative Declaration, including applicant installation of a four way stop at Blanding/Broadway. Because the project did not have the potential to increase "peak period" regional system weekday traffic by more than 100 trips, the Congestion Management Agency staff has explained that no further requirements are necessary. The location of the Center near walk -in neighborhoods, the historically high bus use to the Center and the distance from the regional freeway system make the Center less of a regional traffic impact than several other shopping centers outside Alameda. Staff concludes that as conditioned, the approximately 20% increase in Center size should not cause significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, the City or adjacent communities. Bicycle Paths/Racks Condition 4 addresses bicycle paths and racks. The Planning Board study sessions and two Bay Conservation and Development Commission design review board sessions included review of bicycle and pedestrian paths. Along the shoreline, 12 foot wide east west paths through the average 40 foot wide open space connect with 5 foot wide north -south paths which would extend from exterior streets ( Blanding and Tilden), crossing the parking lot and the grocery truck loading area, and would have enhanced signing. On the east side of Building D, the paths shared with an access road would vary from 12 to 19 feet wide. Bicycle racks with 46 spaces are divided between 7 locations around the center's periphery, with a minimum of 1 bike space per 10 automobile parking spaces, fulfilling the City's minimum requirement. Transit Condition 4 addresses transit. Currently a bus stop and layover area exists in Blanding at Broadway, in front of the shopping center. Reconfiguration of the center may result in moving this stop slightly west or east. City staff recently confirmed this location with AC Transit staff. Widening the Tilden Way driveway may result in the option to route buses through the Center at a future date; at present, headway times for AC Transit and other factors make a Blanding Avenue location viable for the Center. The City has been exploring a future light rail /commuter transit line in Clement Avenue, connecting to BART in Oaldand/Fruitvale via the Miller Sweeney bridge. Currently there is no construction or operational funding for this system, however, funding may be identified in the future. Therefore current rail rights -of -way are being kept clear in order to facilitate this option. The applicant's plans do not show a rail crossing signal at the proposed new driveway on Tilden, because when the rail system is installed, the driveway will be closed. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 7 Vehicular Services: Condition 23 addresses the gasoline station. The applicant plans show a gasoline station without maintenance /repair services. A carwash is included in a convenience store as Building E. The carwash/gasoline station uses are conditional uses in the C -2 Central Business District and C -C Community Commercial District which are included in the Planned Development as well. The Use Permit would allow the gasoline pumps under canopy, with pay - station; and a convenience store/carwash. The Disposition and Development Agreement anticipated this use in order to serve the east side of Alameda's main island, which is currently without a gasoline station. The noise study for the carwash demonstrates that residential areas would not experience noise in excess of that permitted by the Alameda Municipal Code. The position of Building F between the gasoline station and residential areas, and the design of the canopy with downward directed lights, as well as a condition limiting light to 2 to 5 foot candles, all serve to reduce light impacts on residential areas. While there is already a carwash in the vicinity, there is no gasoline station between Park Street, Interstate 880, Crown Beach and Hegenberger Road. Providing a gasoline service station on the east side of Alameda has been mentioned by the neighbors and by City's Development Services Department and the Economic Development Commission, for consideration. Land Use Compatibility: Over the past 3 decades, Bridgeside Center has been generally compatible with its residential and industrial surrounding neighborhood. Ownership dwellings on the south and west allow customers to walk easily to the Center; during testimony to the Economic Development Commission and at neighborhood meetings, residents asked that this center and its grocery be restored. On the north side, the substantial buffer of the Estuary reduces impacts of the Center on Oaldand/Fruitvale areas. Industrial areas to the west (former Stone Boatyard, Pineapple Sails etc.) have been compatible uses with the former shopping center. Overall, BridgesideCenter is compatible with surrounding land uses. Noise: For neighbors east of Tilden Way, Figure 8 -2 of the General Plan Noise Element shows current ambient noise levels of 65 to 69 decibels. The Initial Study indicated no noise sources from the rebuilt Bridgeside Center would significantly add to that noise level for residents to the east, who would be the primary sensitive recipients of any noise. A detailed noise study for the type of carwash to be used, Raley's new station in Galt, California, has been provided by the applicant for the Alameda carwash. The study was prepared June 6, 2003 by The N Group acoustical engineers and demonstrated that with mitigations, the carwash like the one in Galt would not exceed City standards when measured at Tilden Way property lines or at residential properties to the east. The chief long -term noise impact is semi - trailer truck deliveries to the center, mainly early in the morning. The applicant plans to rebuild the main truck delivery area for the grocery on the west Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 8 side by former Stone Boat Yard which is not a noise - sensitive site. Deliveries in the remainder of the Center would be limited to 7 am to 10 pm. These measures are designed to reduce noise impacts to an insignificant level. Relationship to Emerging City Policies: The City's Economic Development Commission has adopted an Economic Development Strategic Plan which calls for enhancement of major shopping districts, including Bridgeside Center. The Center's plan was presented to EDC in Fall 2002 and the EDC established suggestions which the applicant is following. EDC reviewed new Bridgeside plans May 20, 2004 The Commission minutes noted that they encouraged "fully using the waterfront and the need to have as many businesses as possible oriented to the waterfront. ". On April 30, 2003 and at other sessions, the Citywide Retail Forum also addressed this matter; many speakers at discussion tables supported expansion of the shopping center. General Plan Conformance: Policy 2.5.3 states that the City should "maintain full- service shopping centers serving all sectors of the City." The narrative for that Policy states that "Alamedans enjoy convenient access, variety and competitive food prices." The new plan for Bridgeside Center restores a grocery and redesigns retail floorspace to more fully serve shopping needs of all sectors of the City, while preventing very large superstores from entering the Center. Policy 2.5.m states that the City should "improve public transit service to shopping areas" and the narrative states that "transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters, by locating store entrances on the street with parking at the side and rear..." The new plan for Bridgeside Center relocates and enhances transit use and bus shelters. Policy 2.5.n states that the City should "require that large parking areas serving shopping centers or other commercial uses be adequately landscaped with large- growing trees and that the trees be maintained in a manner that preserves and promotes natural growth form." The new plan for Bridgeside Center intends enhanced tree planting in the parking lot and major entrances although details will be forthcoming in the next submittal for Design Review. Staff finds that the proposal relates well to the General Plan. Use Permits The applicant requests a Use Permit for a) extended hours after 10 pm, for the grocery, restaurants /cafes and gasoline station b) liquor service, off -site consumption liquor sold in grocery and on -site consumption before or during meals in restaurants /cafes; c) for a gasoline station/carwash/convenience store use. Condition 16 -n allows temporary construction trailers and a temporary food service trailer (to keep the pizza business open during construction), pursuant to pending agreements with the applicant, Community Improvement Commission and Round Table Pizza, as a portion of the Planned Development, without requiring a separate Use Permit, this activity would be subject to applicable health and safety code and permit requirements. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 9 Extended Hours. Condition 19 addresses the Use Permit for extended hours. The applicant requests extended hours for the grocery, gasoline station/carwash/convenience store and restaurants /cafes, however, is unable at this time to identify the number and locations of restaurant/cafes or the need for late hours at the gas station/ convenience store. Staff submits that it is premature to approve extended hours without this information, for restaurants /cafes or gas station/convenience store. Consequently, Use Permit conditions proposed by staff for extended hours relates to the grocery in Building A, and limit the carwash to 9 pm only, and because of the distance to residential areas, impacts should be minimal. Liquor Service. Condition 7 addresses liquor services. This Use Permit request for off -site consumption sales of liquor relates to the grocery only, and restaurant/cafe uses for on -site sales only. AMC Section 30 -2 defines a "grocery" with the option of selling "alcoholic beverages." Because of distance to residential areas, the impacts should not be significant. The zoning and the CIC's Disposition and Development Agreement prohibit bars and other liquor service which might have impacts. Off -site consumable sale liquor sales would be from the grocery, and on- sales liquor sales before or with meals would be approved for the restaurants and cafes. While the applicant requests flexibility to have a wine bar, this would require amending the disposition agreement with the City and is not currently part of the Use Permit. CONCLUSION The project, as conditioned, would fulfill Planning Board requirements and produce an attractive and functional new neighborhood center which complies with applicable policies for a Planned Development. The Use Permits for extended hours, except for the grocery, are premature and would be deferred until more is known about future restaurant use. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no further CEQA analysis is required on this project because CEQA has been fulfilled by a prior adopted environmental document, and no new significant impacts have been identified for the current application, nor have mitigation measures previously found infeasible become feasible. Detailed findings pursuant to Section 15162 are specified in the draft Resolution. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the rebuilding of the shopping center was prepared by Wagstaff Associates and DKS Traffic Engineering in September 2003. Availability of the study was announced by public notice printed in the newspaper of record and sent to neighboring property owners for a 30 -day review period from October 17, 2003 to November 17, 2003. The State Clearinghouse Number is 2003- 042 -073. No comments directed primarily at CEQA or environmental impacts were received, which identified significant environmental impacts which had not been mitigated. Therefore, the City Council as CIC approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in December 2003. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 10 Mitigation measures of the Negative Declaration address traffic, dust and hazardous materials control and noise control. The primary mitigation is to modify the Broadway/Blanding intersection controls and Tilden driveway design to improve performance, particularly southbound. Mitigation measures are conditions of the project incorporated therein. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then approve the Planned Development, Use Permit and Major Design Review, except to prohibit liquor sales in gasoline station/convenience store, and deny without prejudice to later applications, hours between 10 pm and 7 am for any building except for the market in Building A. G:\ planning \pb\repons\20044bct25 /5bridge final 10 -20 Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of October 25, 2004 11 ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 8 -B APPLICATION: PD03 -004, UP03 -016, DR03 -108, Bridgeside Shopping Center- - 2523 Blanding Avenue: Request for Reconsideration of Planning Board Approval PLANNER: Dave Valeska, Planner III SUMMARY This public hearing is being held for the purpose of reconsidering the Planning Board's previous action of October 25, 2004 conditionally approving the Bridgeside project. After considering the information presented by the applicant, supplemental analysis provided in this report and testimony from any interested parties, staff recommends that the Planning Board adopt the attached draft Resolution which readopts and modifies the October 25, 2004 approvals for the Bridgeside project with various clarifications addressing the following issues: a) measurement methodology for establishing compliance with minimum glazing requirements; b) clarification of the scope of subsequent Planning Board review of the final landscape and open space improvement plans; c) alternatives for mechanical equipment screening; and, d) modifications to Building D and adjacent public access ways. On November 17, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised conceptual landscape plan for the project site; revised floor plan for buildings B, C and D and a new color rendering illustrating a portion of the northern (waterfront) side of the project (Attachment 2). These materials are now incorporated into the project plans, replacing and superseding the conceptual landscape plan and floor plans that were previously approved by the Board on October 25. BACKGROUND On October 25, 2004 the Planning Board adopted Resolution PB04 -0061 conditionally approving the Bridgeside project which involves demolition of the existing Bridgeside Shopping Center and construction of a new neighborhood shopping center on the project site. The applicant filed an appeal of the Board's decision on November 4 to seek clarification of portions of Resolution Condition 3 and other matters, citing difficulties for tenant leasing that might result. On November 4, 2004 staff met with the applicant to review the conditions, followed by a subcommittee meeting of Planning Board members Piziali, Vice - President Cook and by conference call, President Cunningham. The subcommittee was supportive of clarifying the October 25, 2004 Board Resolution to more accurately reflect the Board's intent, regarding certain conditions in the Resolutions. On November 8, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Planning Board unanimously adopted a motion to reconsider its previous action on the Bridgeside project and to set a new public hearing on November 22 to consider various clarifications to the previously adopted Resolutions. Planning Board Subcommittee Supplemental Staff Report Planning Board Meeting of November 22, 2004 Page 1 members met again November 17, 2004 with staff to review three new plan sheets provided by the applicant on November 17 (Attachment 2). While this hearing to reconsider is a new public hearing, the focus will be primarily on clarifying the previous October 25, 2004 action with regard to the issues identified above. DISCUSSION A discussion of each of the issues that staff and the applicant seek to clarify follows: Glazing (Condition no. 3 -b): The method of calculating compliance with the 80% standard established by the Planning Board in Condition 3b of the Resolution was not clearly established in the original condition. The applicant and staff propose that the methodology be clarified to reflect that it is the Board's intent for glazing, including glass doors, windows, to constitute an average of 80% of the entire length of the waterfront elevation of the ground floor of buildings B, C and D excluding necessary tenant demising wall returns up to three (3) feet in length on either side of the structural columns supporting such walls, utility cabinets as shown on the November 17 plans and perpendicular or nearly perpendicular projecting walls. The Subcommittee has also expressed that it was not the Board's intent to allow product display cases installed within exterior walls to be counted as glazing unless such areas are open into the adjoining tenant space and provide a substantially unobstructed view into the tenant space. Staff and the Planning Board Subcommittee have reviewed these proposed "exclusions" and have found them to be reasonable and consistent with what we believe to be the Board's intent in establishing the 80% requirement. The applicant has submitted a revised floor plan (attachment 2) dated November 17, 2004 with calculations consistent with this methodology to demonstrate how compliance could be achieved with this standard. Staff has verified that these plans and the accompanying calculations provided by the applicant demonstrate compliance with the 80% standard provided that the Board accepts the proposed measurement methodology. Using this methodology, 308 lineal feet of glazing would be required on the November 17 plan to achieve compliance with the Board's 80% standard. The actual length of glazing shown on the November 17 plan is 348 linear feet. If the applicant submits revised plans for subsequent tenant improvements, the same methodology would be used by staff to determine compliance with the 80% standard and under no circumstances would less than 308 lineal feet of glazing be required (since the November 17 plan is intended to illustrate the maximum number of demising walls /returns that may be anticipated for the ground floors of Buildings B, C and D). 308 feet of glazing in relation to the total gross length of the waterfront elevations of Buildings B, C and D of 538 feet would result in a gross ratio of 308/538 or approximately 57 %. If this approach is acceptable to the Board, the project conditions would be modified accordingly to clearly express this intent. The attached revised Resolution includes such language for Board consideration. Supplemental Staff Report Planning Board Meeting of November 22, 2004 Page 2 Final Landscape Plan Review (Condition no. 3 -k) : This issue concerns clarifying the scope of the Planning Board's future review of the final detailed landscaping and open space improvement plan for the project. With regard to this matter, it is staff and the applicant's request that the Board clarify that the intent of this condition is for the Board to ensure that the final plan is in substantial conformity with the approved conceptual landscape /shoreline open space plan and the improvements depicted thereon as originally approved with conditions by the Board as part of Exhibit A, dated September 20, 2004 and as amended by the applicant's November 17, 2004 plan submittal and by any applicable project conditions in the Resolution (e.g. Conditions 1, 3, 13 and 28). The attached revised Resolution contains language to this effect for consideration by your Board. Modifications to Building D (Condition 3 -i): On November 17, the applicant submitted revised floor plans for Buildings B, C and D (Attachment 2). These plans were reviewed by staff and the Subcommittee on November 17 to determine if the proposed modifications to Building D satisfy the Board's intent as expressed in this condition. Staff and the applicant request the Board to review the revised plan for Building D and determine whether the revisions address the Board's concerns. Ifthe revisions are acceptable, Condition 3i would no longer be necessary and may be deleted. The revisions in the November 17 plan include: Opening up the exterior north and south easterly corners of the building to provide an open recessed public area at each corner; provide sufficient space between the westerly edge of the proposed Bay Trail and the easterly wall of Building D to accommodate a paved public walkway using paving materials identical to pavement approved elsewhere for patio and walkway areas, and a landscape planter area along the entire easterly elevation; provide a combination of architectural treatments, glazing and articulation to eliminate the "blank" wall appearance of the easterly elevation; provide a paved pedestrian walkway that continuously wraps around the easterly and northerly elevations of this building; relocate the utility cabinet to a wall perpendicular to the waterfront; add new glazing to various segments of the north elevation facing toward the waterfront. Mechanical Equipment Screening (Condition no. 3 -h): The applicant has agreed to use a cupola/platform system to screen and locate mechanical equipment on the roofs ofBuildings B, C and D. The design of this system would result in a roof line similar to the shed /gambrel -like roof element proposed for the Nob Hill grocery and would straddle the ridge of the roof lines of Buildings B, C and D. The applicant has not provided a design or cross - section depicting this proposal at this time. Staff and the Subcommittee have agreed that the concept would be acceptable subject to review of the final design by the Director. Condition 3 -h is proposed to be modified to allow this concept as an acceptable alternative screening solution subject to final review and approval by the Director. The attached revised Resolution contains language to this effect for consideration by your Board. CONCLUSION The changes to project conditions proposed above would clarify the Board's intent and provide for clearer administration of the conditions when future plans are submitted for final staff review. The Board's action to adopt a revised resolution is subject to appeal by any interested party. Supplemental Staff Report Planning Board Meeting of November 22, 2004 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board is asked consider testimony, review the record and adopt the attached draft Resolution to amend the October 25, 2004 approval implementing the clarifications discussed above. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Resubmittal Plan Details from Applicant Dated November 17, 2004 3. Chart Comparing Glazing Requirements with Applicant Plans G: Iplanninglpb ireports120041bridsup5 11/18/04 Supplemental Staff Report Planning Board Meeting of November 22, 2004 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 3 BRIDGESIDE GLAZING CHART (All dimensions in feet unless followed by percents; data from November 17, 2004 plans, verified by Planning measurements) BUILDING FACADE FACADE CLEAR PERCENT LETTER LENGTH LESS GLAZING GLAZING EXCLUSIONS* B 79 60 51 85% C 215 141 136 97% D 244 184 161 88% TOTAL 538 385 348 90% "Exclusions" include the length of wall returns of 3 feet or less on either side of necessary demising walls /necessary structural columns; utility closets as shown on the November 17 plans and wall segments perpendicular to the waterfront. Supplemental Staff Report Planning Board Meeting of November 22, 2004 Page 5 DRAFT CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -04 -64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD03 -004, USE PERMIT UP03 -016 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR03 -108 FOR RECONSTRUCTING AND EXPANDING AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT 2523 BLANDING AVENUE, BRIDGESIDE SHOPPING CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made on August 13, 2003, by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Foothill Partners, as agent for Regency Centers requesting a Planned Development, PD03 -004, a Use Permit UP03 -016 for sales of alcoholic beverages, extended hours after 10:00 pm and before 7:00 am, and for outdoor use and sales of gasoline with carwash and convenience store; and Major Design Review DR03 -108, to permit the reconstruction of 83,000 square foot, 8.75 acre Bridgeside shopping center; and addition of a net 22,500 square feet of retail and office floor area, plus 1,500 square feet of carwash and storage, for a total approximately 107,000 square feet, with improvement of the shoreline public access and amendment to parking regulations for the Center; and WHEREAS, the application was determined to be incomplete for processing September 11, 2003 and was subsequently accepted as complete on September 21, 2004, except that Use Permit and Design Review building elevations for the gasoline station, carwash and convenience store were not provided until October 5, 2004, with completeness for this submittal October 12, 2004; and WHEREAS, a Disposition and Development Agreement regarding redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center was signed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Regency Centers, affiliate Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center LLC; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -2 -PD, Central Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared on the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Clearinghouse Number 2003 -042 -073, and was circulated for public review between October 23, 2003, and November 23, 2003, Initial Study IS03 -002, and no comments were received which identified new significant environmental impacts which were not already discussed or mitigated in the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2003 the Board found the Initial Study complete and correct, and after considering public testimony including documents, recommended that the Community Improvement Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS03 -002 and Mitigation 1 Attachment #2 Initial Study and finding no significant environmental impacts from the project as mitigated pursuant to the Initial Study; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2003, the Community Improvement Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a Notice of Determination was filed December 16, 2003 pursuant to CEQA in conjunction with approval of a Development and Disposition Agreement under the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, no appeal or other challenge was brought to the Community Improvement Commission's approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement or adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and those approvals are now final; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15074 and 15162 the City finds regarding PD03 -004, UP03 -016 and DR03 -108 that on the basis of the whole record before it including the Initial Study and comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and that since adoption of IS03 -002 there is no substantial change in the project or new information available that would require additional review and analysis for PD03 -004, UP03 -016 or DR03 -108 As mitigated, the project would have no significant unmitigated impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City finds that the current proposal does not represent a change in the project as evaluated in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration such that new significant environmental impacts have been identified which were not previously considered; and WHEREAS, no substantial environmental changes which are pertinent to the current proposal have occurred in the project setting that will result in significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, no new environmental information of substantial import and which is pertinent to the current proposal has become available that will result in new significant environmental impacts or will require a reassessment of the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the application incorporates all Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2003, May 10, 2004, and July 26, 2004 Planning Board study sessions were held and on September 13 and 27, 2004, the Planning Board continued the public hearing to October 11 and subsequently, October 25, 2004, the Board held a public hearing on the application for the Planned Development, Use Permits and Major Design Review; and 2 WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Planned Development: 1. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan which specifies commercial uses for the site, which is designated as Community Commercial. The Community Commercial designation is intended for a wide range of commercial stores and services, ranging from small stores to larger businesses. The proposed expansion of retail commercial, restaurant and office uses and addition of gasoline station/carwash/convenience store is consistent with this designation. 2. The Planned Development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the C -2 zoning district because a Planned Development allows for consolidation of parking and driving aisles for parcels and a comprehensive site design including building location, parking lot design, landscaping and internal circulation to use a site which historically has been linked in this manner. 3. The Planned Development, because it incorporates all mitigations of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Use Permit: 1. The location of the shopping center is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area because streets, parking areas and waterways separate the shopping center buildings from uses which might be sensitive to traffic and extended hours of business. 2. The proposed use is served by adequate transportation and service facilities because existing bus service can be retained and future potential for light rail service is provided, and because bicycle and pedestrian paths are enhanced. 3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, because the uses would be physically separated from sensitive uses by roads, waterways and parking areas and because such uses are common in neighborhood shopping centers. 4. The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan because the General Plan calls for neighborhood shopping at this location and because the proposed uses are often associated with neighborhood shopping centers. 5. The proposed use relates consistently and favorably to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan requirements of the Community Improvement Commission. WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Major Design Review: 1. The project will not have impacts on persons or property in the vicinity because the design is of a similar horizontal low- profile nature to structures in the area which 3 would have a unified configuration fitting to the neighborhood. 2. The project is compatible and harmonizes with the design and use of the surrounding area because the buildings would rebuild with the proportions and sizes of stores in the existing Shopping Center in a manner consistent with past practice. 3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines because the materials and surfaces for the building shapes relate well to nearby structures as viewed from adjacent streets and residential areas. WHEREAS, on October 25, 2004 the Planning Board adopted Resolution PB04 -0061 approving the request with conditions, which on November 4, 2004 the applicant appealed to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004 after public notice and public hearing, the Planning Board reconsidered its Resolution and action of October 25, 2004; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development PD03 -004, Use Permit UP03 -016; and Major Design Review DR03 -108, including the gasoline station, carwash and convenience store; approvals subject to the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: The plans dated September 20, 2004, by Kenneth Rodriguez and Associates with landscape plans by EDAW Inc. Architects, consisting of sheets and color and materials boards; including approval of the gasoline station, carwash and convenience store per detailed plans submitted October 5, 2004; and conceptual landscape plans and floor plans for Buildings B, C and D updated November 17, 2004, such plans and board constitute Exhibit "A," on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, and are approved except as modified by the conditions in this Resolution including, but not limited to the following specific modifications required prior to issuance of a building permit for the project: a) Easements to the public for use of the shoreline amenities shall be recorded and all shoreline amenities on applicant's property shall be installed as one phase, with the first building occupancy in coordination with BCDC requirements; b) Revisions to the exterior elevations of the proposed Nob Hill grocery store to revise the configuration/design of the two -tone split face block (condition no. 3a); c) Revisions to the size, configuration and location of glazing and doorways on the northern elevation of the Nob Hill grocery store, to provide for at least 45 feet of glazing (windows and doors) on the ground floor at the northeast shoreline wall as proposed by the applicant at the 10/25/2004 Planning Board hearing_(condition no. 3a); 4 d) Revisions of the northern and southern elevations of the Nob Hill grocery store to include arbor /trellis elements (condition no. 3a); e) Revisions to the landscape plan for the areas adjoining the northern and southern elevations of the Nob Hill grocery store to increase planting density (condition no. 3a.); f) Revisions to the Tilden- facing elevation of Building D to provide arbor /trellis elements and/or other distinguishing architectural features to avoid the appearance of a "blank" wall (condition no. 3i); g) Revisions to the plans for locating and screening mechanical equipment to require that such equipment shall be located in recessed areas outside of direct public view or adequately screened with architectural features (condition no. 3h); h) Replacement of the proposed sandstone /rose color option for the textured stucco wall panels with a suitable substitute complementary to the remaining primary color palette approved for the project (condition no. 3j); i) Revisions to Buildings B, C and D to achieve increased articulation along northern and southern elevations (condition no. 3c); j) Designation of outdoor areas to remain free of obstructions for public use /access adjoining Buildings A, B, C and D consistent with BCDC approval/designation of public use areas within the BCDC regulated portion of the shoreline. Detailed landscaping and improvement plans for open space and shoreline areas are to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior to building permit issuance for any structure. These plans shall show specifications and details for all proposed open space and shoreline area amenities and improvements including but not limited to details of the amphitheater, stage, decks, railings, common public areas, etc. (condition no. 4i); k) Procedures for considering modifications to areas (windows, and doors) shall equal or exceed 300 feet of the lineal waterfront frontage of Buildings B, C and D.(condition no. 3b); 1) Designation of ground floor areas for retail use (condition no. 18); m) Submittal of a detailed improvement plan for all areas intended for outdoor public use /access depicting planter/landscape details, pavement/surface type, lighting fixtures, benches /walls /railings, trash containers /receptacles, and any other proposed physical improvements within these areas for City review and approval (condition no. 3k); n) Revisions to elevations of Buildings B, C and D to incorporate appropriate amenities, public art landscaping, planters, trellises, space frames, benches, and/or similar features on portions of walls without glazing /openings (condition no. 3c) 2. VESTING. The Planned Development, Major Design Review and Use Permits shall terminate on the later of: November 22, 2005, or one year (1 year) from the date of any subsequent approval on appeal, unless actual construction under valid permits has begun, or the developer applies for and is granted an extension prior to expiration; the Planning and Building Director is directed by the Planning Board to rule upon an extension on their behalf. The Planned Development and Use Permits approval shall not be in force and effect, and no building permits will be issued, unless and until the developer has completed any necessary Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Map to accomplish necessary property lines, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 5 3. DESIGN INTENT. The project shall be designed with a prominent and substantial physical orientation toward the waterfront using design principles intended to activate the waterfront, including modulation of building heights, fenestration, towers, bays, awnings and other details. This will be accomplished through integration of architecture, landscaping and site planning to provide generous, pedestrian level placement of windows and doors along the northerly waterfront side of the center; improvement of shoreline walkways between the center buildings and the seawall; placement of pedestrian oriented amenities within and adjacent to the shoreline walkway areas; placement of open space and view corridors between buildings. All shoreline amenities /improvements on the project site between the proposed buildings and the northern property line along the waterfront shall be installed as a single phase prior to occupancy of the first building. Detailed landscaping and improvement plans for open space and shoreline areas are to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior to building permit issuance for any structure. These plans shall show specifications and details for all proposed open space and shoreline area amenities and improvements including but not limited to details of the amphitheater, stage, decks, railings, common public areas, etc. The intent of this condition is for the Board to ensure that the final plan is in substantial conformity with the approved conceptual landscape /shoreline open space plan and the improvements depicted thereon as originally approved with conditions by the Board as part of Exhibit A, dated September 20, 2004 and as amended by the applicant's November 17, 2004 plan submittal and by any applicable project conditions in the Resolution (e.g. Conditions 1, 3, 13 and 28). Project plans shall comply with the following standards to achieve the stated design intent for shoreline orientation for the project. Plan changes required on the initial plans that will be prepared for building permit issuance are identified below as "Initial "; plan changes or standards that will apply to potential future tenant improvements /modifications to the initially approved and completed Center are identified below as "Future "; standards or plan changes that apply to both cases shall be identified accordingly: a. (Initial): Plans for the proposed Nob Hill Market (Building A) shall be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to building permit issuance as follows: Trellises and planters shall be added, with a design, location, spacing and appropriate plant materials on the north and south elevations to the Director's satisfaction, including addition of at least 6 additional 15 gallon minimum size trees on north and south sides. The intent of the landscaping is to screen the walls, with plant materials to be selected to maximize screening, including broad tree crowns. The colors of horizontal courses of split face block on north, east and south sides shall be varied to a greater degree to avoid a monolithic 2 -stripe concept. The glass door /window area on the north elevation at the northeast corner of the building shall be a minimum of 45 feet, pursuant to the applicant's presentation to the Planning Board on October 25, 2004, to widen the public corner effect and shall include as a minimum a double size glass door facing the waterfront. At least 200 square feet at 6 the northeast corner of the grocery site outside the cafe area shall remain as a public use area with appropriate amenities such as chairs, tables and benches etc. in coordination with BCDC requirements. This area and required amenities shall be designated on the project plans to the Planning and Building Director's satisfaction. b. (Initial and Future): The applicant shall comply with the design intent of the shoreline orientation for the project by maximizing, openings and physical orientation to the waterfront (e.g. doors or windows in glazing, outdoor dining areas and outdoor merchandise displays) on the ground floor of the north elevations of Buildings B, C and D. As a minimum requirement, not less than 300 lineal feet of the overall length of the combined northerly frontage of the ground floor of these buildings shall include glazing, defined as doors and windows. This minimum requirement shall be calculated excluding the width of outdoor passageways between Buildings B and C, and C and D. Any disputes relating to the determinations made by the Director regarding compliance with this condition shall be brought before the Planning Board for resolution. In addition, without reducing required glazing, the same area is to be activated by "qualifying amenities," as described in condition 3 -c, at pedestrian level along this waterfront frontage. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code and this condition, tenant storefronts including openings are subject to administrative action by the Planning and Building Director in conjunction with Minor Design Review for any tenant improvement application. Note: Any tenant improvement for storefronts which the Planning and Building Director concludes through the Minor Design Review process is not in substantial conformity with these conditions shall be referred to the Planning Board for a determination. c. (Initial and Future): There shall be no walls or wall segments over 20 feet long on the northerly sides of Buildings B, C or D which are without openings including doors and windows. Any ground -floor tenant lease areas which are without openings on the northern frontage shall include "qualifying amenities," such as outdoor dining areas or seating areas, planters, arbors, canopies, public art, fixed or portable merchandise displays and/or similar features to avoid blank walls adjacent to publicly accessible waterfront areas. "Qualifying amenities" must be approved by the Planning and Building Director and must have characteristics distinguishing the amenities from nearby areas and be compatible with the character of the shoreline space. Distinguishing characteristics may include, but not be limited to, pavement, planters, benches, seating, and/or physical delineation such as railings. All qualifying amenities will have direct door access from Buildings B, C or D, except for approved kiosks of independent businesses with staff present during business hours (no vending machines). All qualifying amenities will be located between the north facades of Buildings B, C or D, and the southerly edge of the Bay Trail. In order to implement the Design Intent section of this condition, the plans reviewed prior to building permit issuance shall depict articulation related to tenant improvements either through pop -out or recessed store fronts, or other appropriate 7 means, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. d. (Future): Requirements for window and door clear /glazing areas commence at three (3) feet above grade or less and extend to at least ten (10) feet above adjacent grade. e. (Future): The applicant shall provide copies of these criteria to each ground floor lessee with waterfront frontage. f. (Initial): The balcony and stairs on the northwest wall of Building A, the market site, shall remain open to the public and not barricaded; any changes may be approved by the Planning and Building Director in Design Review for cause including security, public health or safety, in coordination with City public safety departments. g. (Future): Public views of the waterfront through glass in any northerly waterfront facade area shall not be substantially obstructed by signs, banners, fixtures, window blinds, or products as determined by the Planning and Building Director. h. (Initial): For Buildings B through D rooftop equipment enclosures shall be relocated to center below the roof in a recessed area outside of public view, for buildings B through D, or equivalently screened with architectural features compatible with the style and materials of the buildings,, to be approved prior to building permit issuance by the Planning and Building Director or the Planning Board upon referral. (Initial): The outdoor areas adjacent to Building D may be made available for outdoor seating or product display areas subject to Minor Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director. Distinctive paving shall be used under the tower element where it joins the connection to the Bay Trail access. Prior to Building Permit issuance, final plans shall depict to the Director' s satisfaction trellises, glazing, and/or other distinguishing architectural features placed along the east wall of Building D to avoid a blank wall appearance. These features may project out from the wall of the building subject to Minor Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director. (Initial). The construction materials are generally concrete block and enamel- painted metal exterior with windows and doors for the market; and interchangeable panels of stucco or factory enamel painted metal over foam insulation, alternating with windows and doors, with metal enamel painted roof, with brick veneer wainscoting, for in -line stores. Colors shall be per approved board on file; the rose sandstone is expressly not approved. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a suitable replacement and/or shall be provided subject to Planning and Building Director review and approval. k. (Initial): Prior to building permit issuance, a detailed improvement plan showing light fixture details, streetscape amenities, details of planters, benches and paving shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Board to implement the design 8 intent and requirements of this project approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an updated landscape plan/irrigation plan consistent with the grading plan shall be also provided to the Planning Board for review and approval indicating the precise locations of trees and shrubs by species, size, spacing and quantity. It is the Board's intent to review said plan for the purpose of ensuring that the plan is in substantial conformity with the approved conceptual landscape /shoreline open space plan and the improvements depicted thereon, Exhibit A, dated September 20, 2004, conditionally approved by the Board on October 25, 2004, updated November 17, 2004 and reapproved herewith and the design intent of this project as described in this condition and any applicable project conditions in this Resolution (e.g. 1,3,13, 28). 1. (Initial) The project's sign program will require subsequent City approval. 4. TRANSPORTATION. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for improvements at the site, the applicant shall execute an agreement with the Public Works Director to implement the following measures, including pro rata shares of project impacts related to applicable costs based on then - applicable City policies, with any necessary bonding/performance securities to the Director's satisfaction per City policy: a) Currently at the intersection of Blanding Avenue and Broadway, the Blanding Avenue traffic is uncontrolled and the Broadway and Bridgeside driveway traffic is stop - controlled. The Caltrans multi -way stop warrant is satisfied at this intersection on a peak hour basis. If the operation of the intersection were changed to multi -way stop, the intersection would operate at LOS B in the Baseline plus Project condition during the PM peak hour. The Blanding Avenue/Broadway intersection controls will be modified for an all -way stop location. b) The project shall provide standard intersection caution signage on the southbound approach to the Tilden Way project driveway. The driveway shall be redesigned to allow for adequate turning radii for trucks and buses to City Public Works Director satisfaction. At such time as the City implements a light rail transportation system along the UPRR right of way, the applicant shall close the Tilden Way project driveway entrance to the project. c) Exhibit A shows the design of the Blanding Avenue/Project Driveway Intersection between Tilden Way and Broadway for adequate separate right and left turn lanes. d) The locations of bicycle parking racks throughout the Center is indicated on Exhibit A plans. City - standard signage will be located throughout the Center directing bicyclists to bicycle parking locations, to the Public Works Director's satisfaction. e) Access to the Bay Trail from Tilden Way at the new Tilden Driveway and Tilden 9 sidewalk, will be provided as indicated on Exhibit A plans. Americans with Disabilities Act standards for grades shall apply. f) Existing concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along Blanding Avenue shall be reconstructed to City standards. g) For those tenants within the new Center areas with 50 or more employees at a work site, they will be responsible for developing Employer Trip Reduction Programs and reaching certain levels of reductions. Those tenants will also be required to contribute an amount equal to an annual fee of $0.0015 per square foot of building area or $58 per employee per year, whichever is greater, as a pro -rata share of pedestrian, bicycle and other transportation facilities. h) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain Planning and Building Director, Public Works Director, Building Official and AC Transit approval for design of an all- weather bus shelter, and shall install the bus shelter in the general location shown on Exhibit A plans prior to approval of occupancy. i) Pedestrian /bicycle paths shall be designated with approved striping, raised areas or differences in paving to distinguish from vehicle travel areas. Pedestrian paths shall be at least 5 feet wide through the parking lots and to the west of Building A, the market; and a portion of 12 feet wide shared use Bay Trail segments in the shoreline park to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The Bay Trail alignment and improvements and any pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be improved as approved by the Public Works Director and Planning Board in coordination with BCDC. Designation of outdoor areas to remain free of obstructions for public use adjoining buildings, other than approved cafe seating, shall be consistent with City and BCDC regulations, preserving at least sufficient space for the public trail and adjacent public space. 5. OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to the Planned Development of Bridgeside Shopping Center, as amended, except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Planned Development approval. a) All utilities shall be installed underground pursuant to City standards and requirements. b) Citywide Development Impact Fees and public art fees /program for incremental increase of building area shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of final occupancy clearance for any building, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Public Art Ordinance. 6. PARKING. The shopping center shall at all times operate with at least 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building floor area which generates parking demand. All parking areas on all parcels shall be made accessible to all other portions of the center through recorded documents including joint access and reciprocal parking easements to the 10 satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 7. USE PERMIT LIQUOR LIMITS. The Use Permit allows off -site consumption liquor sales only in connection with sales of major food store use; and on -site sales of beer, wine and spirits served as part of the operation of meal service in restaurants or taverns. Off -site sales of beer, wine or liquor for other uses shall require a separate Use Permit. Sales of alcoholic beverages in gas station, carwash or convenience store is not allowed. Bars serving primarily distilled spirits are not allowed. 8. ALAMEDA POWER AND TELECOM. The developer shall install any newly required substructures including conduits, pullboxes, and transformer pads necessary to serve the proposed improvements. The developer shall grant all easements to Alameda Power and Telecom necessary for the provision and maintenance of electrical service to the site. Easements shall include metes and bound descriptions and plats and shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying. Existing easements that are no longer applicable after the proposed improvements are operational shall be vacated at the direction of AP &T and City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits, the approval of the Planning and Building Director regarding location and 5 foot high landscaping or decorative fence screening shall be obtained. 9. STORM AND SANITARY SEWER ANAYLSIS Applicant shall provide in conjunction with building and site improvement plan submittals, storm drain and sanitary sewer flow calculations of the existing and proposed development. Private storm and sanitary sewer lines shall be constructed at the owner's expense. Should the developer use the existing private storm and sanitary lines then they shall be inspected to the approval of the City Engineer and any inflow and infiltration from open joints, broken pipe, etc. shall be rehabilitated by means acceptable to the City Engineer (i.e. slip lining, pipe bursting, replacement, inversion lining etc.) at the owner's expense. Existing public storm drain mains must remain functional during construction through use of bypass lines or other means approved by the City Engineer. The existing public storm drain lines and estuary outfalls shall be inspected to the approval of the City Engineer and shall be rehabilitated if and as necessary by means acceptable to the City Engineer. The cost of rehabilitation of the public storm drain shall be agreed upon between the developer and the City prior to work being done on the storm drain main and the developer shall pay the pro -rata cost share of any improvements deemed necessary pursuant to this condition. The pro -rata share shall be determined by the City Engineer using standard City procedures, with appeal rights to the City Council. a. No buildings shall be constructed over utility easements or main lines without the approval of the Public Works Director. The existing 60 foot wide public utility easement east of the existing eastern building running in a north/south direction aligned with extension of Pearl Street includes two City storm drains, sanitary sewers and other utility agency lines. The preliminary project plan showed buildings C and D aligned along Pearl Street utility easements which may be narrowed from their 11 current width to the minimum operable width with Public Works Director approval. Should it be necessary to relocate existing sanitary sewer lines and utilities to be clear of the proposed improvements, new easements shall be provided as necessary and old easements vacated. For storm drain and sanitary sewer lines, 10 foot easement widths shall be provided and for larger pipes or parallel pipes, easement widths shall be sized to provide a clearance of 5 feet from the outside edge of pipe to the easement line. Easement metes and bounds descriptions shall be described along the perimeter of the easement and not along the centerline and shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer qualified to practice surveying as designated by the State licensing board. b. There are other public service utility, gas, and water easements scattered throughout the site that serve similar functions that will need to be vacated or new easements created based upon the proposed improvements. The improvement plans shall show existing easements to remain, easements to be vacated and proposed easements. Easements shall be recorded prior to construction. 10. PLANS. Site civil improvement, traffic signing, striping and detouring, landscape, irrigation, utility, and urban runoff plans shall be submitted either separately or in conjunction with building plans to Building and Planning Services for review under standard City requirements and procedures by the City Engineer. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the existing shoreline, including the bulkhead and overlook. Any modifications and changes to the shoreline will require permit approval from BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineers if work is to be done in this area. Any requirements or conditions that the Army Corps may have with regard to this project must be incorporated into the plans /design. 11. FIRE DEPARTMENT. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide plans for approval of the Alameda Fire Department. If applicable to the type of construction, the buildings shall be fitted with automatic fire sprinkler systems to NFPA 13 standards to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. On -site 3,000 gallon per minute fire hydrant(s) shall be retained and if necessary, additional hydrants installed to the satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Department. 12. URBAN RUNOFF. Redevelopment projects shall minimize stormwater pollutant discharges through implementation of construction sediment control and post - construction design and treatment measures, incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures to the maximum extent practicable per requirements of the Alameda Countywide Non - Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit. Should the developer reconfigure the project such that Planning Board re- approval of the project would be necessary, then that portion of the project would no longer be considered "grandfathered" and could be subject to any modifications in the NPDES permitting requirements. 12 a. Grading plan review submittals shall include a table showing the amount of pervious and impervious areas prior to redevelopment and the amount of pervious and impervious area after redevelopment. Areas shall be given in square feet. Conceptual drainage plans shall show methods by which impervious surfaces will be minimized to the extent feasible. Such methods may include methods such as pervious parking stalls using interlocking pavers, and filter inserts and units within storm drain structures. All runoff catch basins shall be labeled "Drains to Bay." b. Post - construction stormwater treatment control measures shall be included into project construction plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. A treatment measure operation and maintenance (O &M) plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer following City procedures and standards. O &M plans shall include treatment type, location, maintenance requirements, maintenance schedule and assurances of party responsible for O &M, including on -site pavement cleaning with sweeping, litter control and spill cleanup and asphalt maintenance. c. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Landscaping should be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff. d. Construction activities shall comply with Notice of Intent (NOl) and Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) NPDES permitting requirements. Design plans shall include a plan for erosion and sediment control measures that implements current Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction activities. The erosion and sediment control plan is subject to review and approval by City Engineer, consistent with applicable City Ordinance. e. Trash enclosures and/or recycling areas must be completely covered with wood or metal covers approved by building permits, with no surface flows from other areas draining into this area. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution. Self contained trash compactors are considered covered. These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean-up. f. Loading dock areas should be designed to minimize the amount of storm water run - on onto the loading dock area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of stormwater must be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitary sewer, or intercepted and pretreated prior to discharge to the storm drain system. g. Food retailers (including restaurants and grocery stores) must be designed to prevent the discharge of washwaters from the cleaning of mats, equipment and containers to the storm drain system. Contained wash areas shall be covered or designed to prevent run -on or runoff from the area and shall not discharge to the storm drain 13 system. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution. These BMP's may include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control and spill clean-up. Mobile washing and discharges must be conducted according to the Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for Waste Water Runoff developed by the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association. h. The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential stormwater pollution and to minimize the amount of flows to the sanitary sewer drains at locations indicated under e, f & g above. The Operation and Maintenance plans per Item #b above shall address these requirements. i. Drains from the carwash operations shall not be directly connected to the Storm Drain System. Water treatment shall meet Public Works Director standards. 13. LANDSCAPING. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall specify the size, type and number of trees, shrubs and ground cover. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to approval of first occupancy of adjacent buildings. A City standard landscape maintenance agreement including required bonding/performance securities for installation and maintenance shall be signed in a form approved by the Planning and Building Director. a. The developer shall be required to install trees as shown on the approved landscaping plan in Exhibit "A." Species, location and size of street trees shall be generally as shown on Exhibit "A," to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. Trees that are 15 gallon size or larger shall be specified unless otherwise directed by the Planning and Building Director. There shall be at least one tree per 4 parking spaces. Eucalyptus trees are not approved. b. Trees shall be maintained and watered in a healthy state to achieve a canopy of greenery within the parking areas. Diseased trees shall be removed and replaced immediately with healthy trees of the same or similar species to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. 14. LIGHTING. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan and details of lighting fixtures for Planning and Building Director review and approval. Lighting shall be installed in substantial compliance with City standards, generally an average of between 2 and 5 footcandles, as determined by the Chief Building Official, Police Department and AP &T. All on -site lighting shall be downward- directed lighting and shielded to avoid lighting impacts on adjacent residential areas. Post installation review of lighting to ensure no adverse impacts /off site spillover onto adjacent properties shall be implemented and a report provided to the satisfaction of the Director documenting compliance. An automatic timer for light control shall be provided after approved hours of the service station, to dim the canopy and other lights to 2 footcandles or less and to turn off any lights which project primarily towards residences to the east. 14 15. AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE. The project is subject to the Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Ordinance (Alameda Municipal Code Section 27 -1) for floor area over and above credit for existing floor area. The area subject to the fee is estimated to be approximately 22,500 square feet. The applicant must provide housing units, pay an in -lieu fee or prepare an Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Plan and secure the approval of the Housing Development Manager, prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant must provide the housing units or pay the Affordable Housing fee, as calculated in the approved Plan, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Currently the fee is $1.92 per square foot of building area for retail (e.g. groceries, drug store, personal services, banks)and $3.79 per square foot of building area for offices. 16. CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS a. Prior to start of work of demolition, remodeling or construction, the applicant shall provide a draft demolition, dust control, construction and waste management plan to the Public Works Environmental Services Division. This can be in any format, but must include the following: i. Contractor's name, address, and telephone number ii. Project location and/or street address iii. Anticipated start and completion dates of the project iv. A list of materials expected to be generated (e.g., glass, wood, metal, drywall, concrete, bricks), the tonnage or volume of each material, how they are to be reused, disposed or recycled, and the destination/processor for that reuse, disposal or recycling. The Environmental Services Division will review this draft plan for conformity with Citywide waste management plan procedures, and any changes or recommendations shall be incorporated into the site plans for the project. At the end of the demolition, remodeling or construction project, the contractor shall submit a report to the Environmental Services Division on actual tonnages disposed or recycled for each material, and the actual destination/processor. The developer shall follow Mitigation Measure AQ -1 page 6 of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration as if set forth at length herein. b. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Work on Saturdays shall require special approval of the City Engineer. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sundays or State and Federal holidays. Work requiring inspection after 3:30 p.m. weekdays will require city construction inspection fee at time and a half (1 -1/2). Said fee will be in accordance with the latest public works fee overtime schedule. Work 15 done on Saturdays requiring inspection is prohibited unless approved by the city engineer and an inspector is available. Inspection fees for Saturday work will be at time and a half (1 -1/2) with a four -hour minimum. c. All construction vehicles shall adhere to City of Alameda truck routes. d. Storage of construction material and equipment on city streets will not be permitted. e. The contractor shall provide all lights, signs, barricades, flagmen, or other traffic safety devices necessary to provide public safety in accordance with City standards. The contractor shall provide a traffic control plan to the approval of the City Engineer. The contractor shall allow a minimum of three working days for review of the traffic control plan. f. Temporary no parking on City streets for construction will require posting of "No Parking Signs" 48 hours in advance. Signs are available at the Building Services Office, Room 190, City Hall. Only City of Alameda issued no parking signs will be allowed. g. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled. Unnecessary idling of grading construction equipment is prohibited. h. Stationary noise - generating construction equipment such as compressors shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housing units. i. Contractor shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. j. Construction equipment, tools, etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street, gutter, storm drain or stream. Shovel or vacuum saw -cut slurry and remove from site. k. A contained and covered area on -site shall be used for storage of cement bags, paints, flammables, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, or any other materials that have potential for being discharged to the storm drain system by wind or in the event of a material spill. 1. All construction debris shall be gathered on a regular basis and placed in a dumpster which is emptied or removed weekly. When feasible, tarps shall be used on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to stormwater pollution. Any temporary on -site construction piles shall be securely covered with a tarp or other device to contain debris. m. Concrete /gunite trucks and concrete /plaster finishing operations shall not discharge wash water into the street gutters or drains. Trash and debris shall be cleaned up 16 daily on all public streets in the project vicinity and along haul routes. Sweep as needed and as directed by the Public Works Inspector. n. Temporary construction trailers /offices /equipment storage and a temporary trailer for service of food and beverages including pizza, are approved for use on site, subject to administrative Minor Design Review, including review of setbacks, parking, management practices, lighting and other features and regulations by the Planning and Building Director; such facilities to be removed within 30 days of final occupancy at the applicant' s expense Food facilities shall be subject to compliance with all applicable Alameda County Health Department requirements and other code requirements. Food facilities must be compatible with neighboring land uses, not being of a carnival appearance, and have adequate landscaping (which may be hand - watered potted plants), parking and other facilities; and with limitations on hours, noise, lighting, signage and other impacts to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. o. In the event any archaeological or historical resource is discovered during earth moving activities, all grading within 150 feet of the resource shall be halted until an appropriate mitigation program is formulated by a qualified archaeologist. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. 17. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Prior to demolition and construction related activities for the site, the applicant and the contractor shall comply with the Phase II recommendations of the City's previously commissioned soils engineering report. In this implementation, the applicant shall demonstrate to City satisfaction that registered underground storage tank(s) (UST) is /are not in need of remediation or is in the process of being remediated to jurisdictional agency satisfaction, by applicant demonstration that the abatement recommendations identified in Phase II Environmental Investigation, (Northgate Environmental Management Inc. July 18, 2003) have been implemented, or applicant submittal to City of official jurisdictional documentation indicating that jurisdictional closure has been achieved with respect to the registered UST(s) and any association remediation need. As a condition of on -site demolition permit issuances, the developer is required to contract with a licensed hazardous materials remediation contractor to 1) implement the ACM - remediation recommendations identified in Asbestos Investigation by Acumen Industrial Hygiene, July 10, 2003 and 2) following Federal and State mandated protocols, removing or adequately sealing any asbestos, lead -based paint or other hazardous materials, and dispose of them at properly licensed landfills or other licensed locations, complying with regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and other regulatory agencies with related jurisdiction. The regulations shall apply to the selection of 17 contractors, the set -up of the removal operation and the actual removal and disposal of these materials including long -term liability. 18. PERMI'1TED USES. The permitted and conditional uses within the PD shall be those listed in the C -2 and C -C zoning districts, except as herein further limited by the Development and Disposition Agreement with the Community Improvement Commission. Ground floor uses must be retail, with uses having waterfront orientation as expressed in Condition 3 regarding design intent, including restaurants and other uses specifically permitted as uses in this Condition except offices, and other non - office commercial uses, unless such non - retail use is approved by Use Permit. Second floor office use does not require a separate Use Permit. A Use Permit is issued for operation of the market at any hour, and off -site non - consumption sales of liquor in market; and on -site consumption sale in restaurants and taverns in conjunction with food. A gasoline station with convenience store (no alcohol sales) and carwash is approved per Exhibit A. The following uses are specifically prohibited: primarily tobacco stores (except cigar stores); adult business stores or entertainment venues; check cashing stores; primarily outdoor businesses such as lumber yards; primarily alcohol sales such as bars approved by Use Permit; drug stores in Building A or with drive- through service; gun sales; used clothing stores. Incidental sales of these items with other uses remains permitted where these are not the primary use. The following uses are specifically permitted: general retail excluding prohibited uses; supermarket/gourmet stores; a drug store without driveup service outside of Building A, restaurants and cafes with outdoor seating on the Estuary and/or parking lot sides (no additional Use Permit needed for outdoor seating); learning /tutoring centers for children; public safety office including police substation (on ground floor or upper floor); upper floor offices; public access to the shoreline including ramp for canoes and portageable boats where allowed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and BCDC; sales of equipment for such public sports and access; day spas; postal store. tanning salon. 19. HOURS OF OPERATION. The Center shall not be open to the public from 10 pm to 7 am, except that Use Permit allows a supermarket to operate without limited hours. Later hours for other businesses require separate later Use Permit approvals. The truck loading area for the supermarket shall be on the west side of the market only. Only the supermarket may have loading between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. 20. SHORELINE/BOAT YARD: Prior to occupancy of the first building, the applicant shall coordinate with the owner of the adjacent west and north property (former Stone Boat Yard) to remove metal containers and other objects and clean up the site, as part of preparation of the shoreline for public use with the first occupancy. The applicant shall coordinate with BCDC and fulfill their conditions in this regard. 21. PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT INSPECTION. Prior to final occupancy approval for any structures, the applicant shall arrange for an inspection by the Planning and Building Department to assure compliance with all applicable project conditions. 18 22. MITIGATION MONITORING. Mitigation measures of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are incorporated by reference as conditions of the project whether or not specified at length herein. Prior to issuance of building permits and during construction, the applicant shall assure implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, incorporated herein by reference. 23. SERVICE STATION : A Use Permit for a gasoline /fuel station and carwash ( "Gasoline Station ") is granted, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of building permits for the service station, the applicant shall obtain all required agency permits including regional air and water quality permits as applicable, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. b. Prior to issuance of building permit(s) for the Gasoline Station, the applicant shall record against the parcel on which the Gasoline Station is to be constructed a Deed restriction in a form acceptable to the Planning and Building Director and the City Attorney, which Deed Restriction shall: (i) establish standards of operation of the Gasoline Station. (ii) establish maintenance standards for the Gasoline Station property. (iii) require that once constructed, if the Gasoline Station should cease operations for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months (other than on account of damage or destruction, the repair of which is diligently pursued to completion), the Gasoline Station Use Permit shall expire, and promptly thereafter the owner of the Gasoline Station parcel shall demolish all Gasoline Station improvements, removal all underground fuel tanks, remediate any Gasoline Station - related hazardous materials contamination, and restore the site to a clean and orderly condition. (iv) The on -site storm drainage system shall direct all drainage from the gas station fuel dispensing areas and bays, as well as the proposed carwash area, away from the municipal storm drainage system prior to treatment to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Fuel dispensing and service bay areas shall not rely on water for cleaning and shall use alternative treatment measures that do not result in disposal into the municipal storm or sanitary sewer system. (v) No existing service station which has ceased operations for more than 12 consecutive months shall be reopened unless a new Use Permit is issued by the Planning Board; and if no Use Permit is issued, the station shall be demolished and the fuel tanks removed, with any hazardous materials remediated within 180 days, or sooner, if required by lease or operating agreement between the Gasoline station and the market; as required by the Planning and Building Director. (vi) Exterior appearance of the gasoline station, carwash and convenience 19 store, including colors, materials, treatments and signage shall be compatible with the exterior appearance of the shopping center unless a Major Design Review amendment is approved by the Planning and Building Director. c. The on -site storm drainage system shall direct all drainage from the gas station fuel dispensing areas and bays, as well as the proposed carwash area, away from the municipal storm drainage system to be processed before being transported to the municipal storm drainage system. d. Fuel dispensing areas shall not rely on water for cleaning and shall use alternative treatment measures that do not result in disposal into the municipal storm or sanitary sewer system, unless first treated to eliminate pollutants. e. The display of merchandise (other than fuel) for sale shall be permitted only within the Gasoline Station building, or within vending machines in specially designed areas approved by the Planning and Building Director. Outdoor operations shall be limited to the retail sale of petroleum products, supply of air and water, tire changing, battery servicing, charging and changing, installation of minor accessories such as windshield blades and arms, gas caps, lamps, and performance of minor repairs. Other outdoor storage is prohibited. f. The following are prohibited: body and fender work, painting, major and minor mechanical repairs, vehicle rentals or trailer rentals. g. The Alameda Municipal Code prohibits balloons, wind -blown or other moving signs. The applicant shall comply with these provisions. 24. RAILS. Prior to occupancy under the first building permit, the applicant shall remove rail road tracks and repair Blanding Avenue along the frontage of the subject property; any necessary bonding/performance securities shall be provided to Public Works Director satisfaction. 25. NOISE. A carwash is approved as shown in Exhibit A only. The applicant shall incorporate, to Planning and Building Director satisfaction, noise control and reduction measures into the car wash operation, building design and/or site plan sufficient to achieve exterior noise standards at the receiving land use set forth in Section 4 -10.4 (Exterior Noise Standards) of Alameda Municipal Code Article II (Noise Regulations), pursuant to that certain noise engineering study performed for Raleys carwashes on file with the Planning and Building Department. Such noise reduction may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: a. A restriction on carwash hours of operation to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm b. Enclosure of the car wash dryers in an acoustically insulated structure and/or c. Additional restrictions on the car wash dryer functions. 20 26. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the applicant shall implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the July 24, 2003, Geotechnical Engineering Study - Bridgeside Center by Consolidated Engineering Laboratories, unless alternatives acceptable to the City Engineer or Public Works Director are approved, including: a. Clearing the site of vegetation, structures, foundations, pavement and debris. b. Over - excavating building pad and paving, moisture - conditioning, compacting soil. c. Backfilling utility trenches with compacted soil. d. Implementing Cal-OSHA construction methods. e. Supporting structures on properly constructed spread footings. f. Constructing properly prepared concrete slab -on -grade floors and retaining walls. g. Designing and laying pavement in accordance with Cal Trans standards. h. Review of final project plans and observing of testing and construction by a registered geotechnical engineer. 27. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Currently the applicant does not anticipate any work in the shoreline administered by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to occupancy. However, if such work becomes necessary, as a condition of grading permit issuance, in order to protect biological resources, the developer shall complete necessary consultation with a) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine whether these project- associated shoreline modifications or in -water construction activities would require Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act and/or Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act, and b) Regional Water Quality Control Board for compliance with Section 401 of the U. S. Clean Water Act. Additional consultation and implementation pursuant to Mitigations BIO -1 and BIO -2 of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be followed as if set forth herein at length, including: a. Silt curtain around shoreline area where sediment release is likely. b. Monitoring channel silt/turbidity to no more than 10 percent above ambient levels. c. BMP's to prevent demolition and construction debris /dust from entering channel. d. Use of vibratory hammer to drive any shoreline sheet piles to minimize hydro - acoustic shockwaves in the tidal channel from the pile driving. 28. SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS . No improvements to the shoreline are proposed by the applicant within US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jurisdiction (i.e. north of the existing property line along the waterfront) due to the existing ACE moratorium on consideration of applications for such improvements. When the ACE allows applications to be made for such improvements in the future, the property owner shall be required to submit such application and all necessary supporting plans, materials, and fees to the City, ACE and BCDC for construction of a water stairs, and new hand railings, or alternative shoreline improvements that may be approved by the Planning Board. If any of these agencies' conditions require substantial reevaluation or project change, the Planning and Building Director shall bring the changes to the Planning Board for action/interpretation to assure consistency with City approvals. The property owner shall be obligated to comply with this Condition of approval 21 only if all costs and expenses for approvals and installation, including installation of the approved shoreline improvements, are borne by a third party and not the property owner. If such funding is made available, the property owner will within a reasonable time period as determined by the Planning and Building Director in consultation with ACE and BCDC make the installation of the approved shoreline improvements. 29. FEES. The applicant shall pay all outstanding, due and applicable City fees prior to issuance of building permits, including but not limited to housing, citywide development or other fees as may be applicable. 30. EASEMENTS. Prior to occupancy of the first building, all public access areas on the shoreline shall have an easement to the public for trails, shoreline, area graded for use in the shape of an amphitheater with stage, decks and other areas, with a provision that cafe seating approved may be privately used, as a license within the public shoreline, in a form approved by BCDC and the City Planning and Building Director. 31. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this Planned Development, Use Permit and Major Design Review to be exercised. 32. HOLD HARMLESS. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Planned Development, Use Permit and Major Design Review approval, that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the developer shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and any such appeal must be made within ten (10) days of the decision or decision on any appeal by completing and submitting an appeal form and paying the required fee. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations 22 and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November 2004 by the following vote: AYES: (5) Lynch, Mariani, Cook, Cunningham, Kohlstrand NOES: (1) McNamara ABSENT: (1) Piziali A'1TEST: Gregory Fuz, Secretary City Planning Board 23 Acknowledgement of Conditions: I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -64 for the Planning Board's approval of PD03 -004, UP03 -016 and DR03 -0108, approved November 22, 2004, and in accordance with the Conditions herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to comply with the Conditions of Approval of said Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -64 and the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Executed at: By: City Applicant On: Date Title APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT. G:\ PLANNING\ PB\ RESO \2004\Bridgeside_11- 23- 04_final reso.doc 24 CY w z w 0 w 0 can w (5 0 cl 00 -1 1111111111111[1'- E H 'X I 9Si IX 1� 1[1;1111 1111'11 1 1 I1111111 J 1 1111111111111111 111 1111 1111111111 I12.eniiinQllERIMI 16- s Vrr� at W -x1r� - -- Il it II VI II Un,1IIill 11 111 111 1 1 I III I:1111 ,1H 11 11'111111W. W II 11111m11 111111 1 1 1,I,u �. 1 1 VIII III II'.111 1 II IIII 1111911111 VIII 11111111111111111111111 11111II111111111111111611 11111111 W 11 III 11IIIIIIIII II I 31 3 3 3 0 313 3:0 3 013 313 3'3 3 11/04/2004 14:53 FAX CA F N O L ' F S MI O N. l C O R R O r A. I O N C A S S I D Y 5 I-1 1 M K0 I) DAWSON November 4, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Gregory L. Fuz Planning & Building Director Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 -4477 Dear Greg: 1Z1002/010 Re: Appeal by Regency Centers and Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -0061 (Bridgeside Shopping Center) Enclosed with this letter is the appeal of Regency Centers and its affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, of the Planning Board decision on the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center. We understand from Regency representatives that productive discussions are now taking place, which may lead to a resolution of the perceived differences between the position of the Planning Board (embodied in the Conditions of Approval adopted on October 25, 2004) and the needs of Regency in implementing the redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center. As I understand it, those discussions will, hopefully, lead to reconsideration by the Planning Board of the content of the Conditions of Approval on a basis which addresses the concerns of both the Planning Board and Regency and which arrives at a solution to the concerns of both parties. 20 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9411 I TELEPHONE f a I 51 7 5 5- 2 0 40 Attachment #4 11 /U4 /LUU4 14:54 FAA November 4, 2004 Page 2 We are, as I am sure you can understand, nevertheless filing the appeal in order to protect the legal rights of Regency Centers and its affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC. If Regency representatives can come to an acceptable resolution of the issues raised by the approved Conditions of Approval with the Planning Board, it is prepared to withdraw the appeal to the City Council_ Please let me know how I may assist in the process of resolving the issues over the Conditions of Approval. In the meantime, please file the appeal and schedule the hearing before the City Council on December 7, 2004. Thank you for all of your help and assistance on these matters. SKC_hls cc: Jerry Cormack Thomas K. Engberg Matthew D. Francois Carol Korade Leslie Little Bruce Qualls Gerald J. Ramiza Douglas Wiele Very truly yours, WO03/010 11/04/2004 14:54 FAX A P R f] r C : S I O N a I. C O R C O R A T I U N CASS I DY S H I M K O D A W S O N 1) November 4, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Gregory L. Fuz Planning & Building Director Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 -4477 Re: Appeal by Regency Centers and Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, of Planning Board Resolution No PB -04 -0061 ( Bridgeside Shopping Center) Dear Mr. Fuz: As you know, this firm represents Regency Centers and it affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center in Alameda. To effectuate that redevelopment, Regency has applied for Planned Development PD03 -004, Use Permit UP03 -016 and Major Design Review DR03- 108 (collectively, the "Applications "). In connection with the Applications, Regency's affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with the Community Improvement Commission of Alameda (CIC) regarding redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center. On October 25, 2004, your Planning Board approved its Resolution No. PB -04 -0061. By this Resolution, the Planning Board approved the Applications and adopted Findings and Conditions of Approval with respect to the Applications. As you know, the Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Board deviated substantially and 20 CALIFORNIA ST. 511ITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 041 I I TELEPHONE ( -1 K ) / 0 H - 2 0 a 0 a1004/010 11/04/2004 14:54 FAX C�j 005/010 November 4, 2004 Page 2 materially from those agreed to by Regency with Planning Staff and recommended by Planning Staff to the Planning Board. As adopted by the Planning Board, the Conditions of Approval make redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center in accordance with the Disposition and Development Agreement between Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center and the CIC infeasible and commercially impracticable. Therefore, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code §30 -25, et seq., Regency and its affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, appeal the Planning Board's adoption of Resolution No PB -04 -0061 and the Conditions of Approval imposed on the Applications through that Resolution. The Conditions of Approval, as adopted by the Planning Board, pose a number of serious impediments to redevelopment of Bridgeside Shopping Center. These are outlined in detail in the chant attached to this appeal letter. We note that the most serious impediments to redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center were presented to the City by Regency and its representatives on numerous occasions prior to the Planning Board's adoption of the Resolution_ These are: • Retention by the Planning Board of future discretionary entitlement approval of final landscape and waterfront improvement plans as a result of which not only will redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center be further delayed, but an unmanageable degree of uncertainty and unpredictability, financially and otherwise will be injected into the project approval process. (Conditions of Approval 1(k), 3, 3 (k) , 4 (1) _ ) • The requirement for at least 80% glazing on the waterfront facade of Buildings B, C and D in addition to "qualifying amenities" which makes leasing to retail tenants necessary for redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center commercially 11/04/2004 14:54 FAX November 4, 2004 Page 3 impracticable. (Conditions of Approval 1(1), 3 (b) _) • The requirement that mechanical equipment be located in recessed, rooftop locations, rather than in architecturally screened rooftop areas; recessing rooftop equipment is an inferior architectural solution and substantially increases project costs. (Condition of Approval 3(h).) • Removal of approximately 1,125 square feet of floor area from Building D to create a wider outdoor passage to the Bay Trail, eliminating prime retail space, violating the financial model mandated by the Disposition and Development Agreement and the project budget approved by the CIC. (Condition of Approval 3 (i) _ ) • The requirement for future construction of water stairs, in addition to the BCDC- required overlook decks which were agreed to in lieu of the water stairs because of the prohibition on water stairs by the Army Corps; this additional requirement creates a future, undefined, unlimited and financially infeasible obligation in connection with redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center. (Condition of Approval 28.) For the reasons set forth above and based on the objectionable Conditions of Approval as set forth on the chart attached to this appeal letter, the Planning Board has abused its discretion in adopting the Resolution and imposing the objectionable Conditions of Approval. In addition, the actions of the Planning Board are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. By 11/04/2004 14:55 FAX November 4, 2004 Page 4 2007/010 comparison, the Conditions of Approval recommended by Planning Staff and agreed to by Regency and its affiliate, Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, are appropriate, reasonable, supported by substantial evidence in the record, consistent with the requirements of the City's ordinances governing the Applications, and consistent with the commitments of the CIC and Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC in the Disposition and Development Agreement. In order not to delay further redevelopment of the Bridgeside Shopping Center and in fulfillment of the obligations of both Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC, and the CIC under the Disposition and Development Agreement, we hereby request that the public hearing and decision by the City Council on Regency's appeal lodged by this letter, be conducted pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code § 30 -25 -5 on the first available City Council meeting date of December 7, 2004. Please confirm your receipt of this appeal letter and the scheduling of the appeal hearing before the City Council_ Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, CASSIDY, S 1y KO & DAWSON cc: Jerry Cormack Thomas K. Engberg Matthew D. Francois Carol Korade Leslie Little Bruce Qualls Gerald J. Ramiza Douglas Wiele Stephen K. Cas -i Attorneys for Regency Cente and Alameda Bridgeside Shopping Center, LLC 11/04/2004 14:55 FAX OBJECTIONABLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT FORM THE BASIS OF THE REGENCY APPEAL Ij008 /010 Condition Basis of Appeal Proposed Resolution Condition 1 This condition states that the project plans contain 10 sheets. The actual project plans contain 34 sheets. Correct the reference to the actual number of sheets contained in the project plans; in order to avoid ambiguity, attach the approved plans as an exhibit to. the Conditions of Approval. Conditions 1(k), 3, 3(k), 4(i) These conditions require that detailed landscaping and improvement plans be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior to building permit issuance. Detailed landscaping and improvement plans have already been provided to the City; per Condition 1, the City will have approved these plans as part of its approval of the project; requiring a further and delayed discretionary review of the plans leads to an unmanageable degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in terms of the approved development and is inconsistent with the customary practice of staff level review of fiival plans. Revise the conditions to reference the one recommended by staff, i.e., requiring staff review and approval of final plans for conformance with approved plans. . Conditions 1(1), 3(b) These conditions require that the overall length of the combined frontages of Buildings B, C, and D contain at least 80 % glazing (e.g., doors, windows, and product display areas); in addition, this arca must contain "qualifying amenities," e.g., outdoor dining areas or seating areas, planters, arbors, canopies, public art, fixed or portable merchandise displays, ctc. Condition 3.b further requires that any future tcnant improvement comply with the above glazing requirement. The proposed conditions are commercially impracticable; retail tenants in a quantity necessary to occupy the intended buildings in question cannot be anticipated to lease space with this mandatory amount of glazing and qualifying amenities. Revise the conditions to reference the one recommended by staff which would require the applicant to comply with'the design intent of the shoreline orientation for the project by maximizing, to the extent commercially reasonable while taldng into account requirements of particular tenants, space in the project with openings and physical orientation to the waterfront, with at minimum, 60% of the overall length of the combined northerly frontage of Buildings B, C, and D contain either glazing or qualifying amenities and 1 11/04/2004 14:55 FAX 11009 /010 Condition Basis of Appeal Proposed Resolution that tenant improvements be subject to Minor Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director. Conditions 3, 18 Condition 3 was revised to require that the project use design principles intended to activate the waterfront, including modulation of building heights, fenestration, towers, bays, awnings and other details. Condition 18 provides that ground floor uses must be retail, with uses having font orientation as expressed ed in in Condition 3. The intent of the amended conditions is unclear; the project plans, which depict the project's design, have already been submitted to the City. These plans will constitute the approved project plans per Condition ], and as such when approved, will comply with this requirement taken from the City's Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan with which the project plans must conform in order to be approved by the City. In addition, not all parts of the project will be "waterfront - oriented," e.g., Building F. Strike the referenced amendments to Conditions 3 and 18; restore the reference in Condition 18 to personal and banking services, which was not deleted by the Planning Board's action; and restore beer and wine bars as a permitted use since that is an ideal waterfront - oriented type use in this type of project. Condition 3(g) The revised condition strikes the reference to consideration oldie operational needs of businesses as part of the prohibition on substantial obstruction of public views in the northern waterfront facade areas. As a commercial development project, the conditions should acknowledge the operational needs of businesses while meeting the policy objectives of the City's plans and ordinances. Restore the language stricken by the Planning Board back into the condition_ • Condition 3(h) This condition requires that roof -top equipment be relocated to a recessed area of the roof and does not allow alternative screening of roof -top equipment through architectural features (e.g., mechanical wells), as had been recommended by staff. Mandatory recessing of roof- top equipment is an inferior architectural solution for the interior and the exterior of the buildings in question, and will lead to an unnecessary and substantial increase in project costs. Revise the condition to allow screening of roof -top equipment as an alternative to recession of such equipment. Condition 3(i) This condition requires the removal of approximately 1,125 square feet of space from Building D purportedly in order to create a The 'plans were already revised to address the Planning Board's concerns by increasing the size of the proposed plaza at the entrance to the Bay Trail from 1,100 Revise the condition to reflect the condition recommended by staff, i.e., requiring that the opening at the southeast comer of Building D be increased by 100 square feet 2 11/04/2004 14:57 FAX l 010 /010 Condition Basis of Appeal Proposed Resolution wider outdoor passage arca_ square feet to 2,100 square in order to serve as an open feet; a loss of 1,125 square feet of prime retail space wallcway to the Bay Trail. (which notwithstanding the suggestion of the revised condition cannot be compensated for elsewhere in the project) is not supported by the DDA mandated financial model or by the project budget; as the plans have been revised, the Planning Board's intent for this passage is already met; the 12 foot Bay Trail path is . set within a landscaped area with an average width of 20 feet; requiring additional width to 35 feet (as per the amended condition) is excessive and superfluous. Condition 28 As previously explained to the Strike Condition 28, as the Planning Board and staff, the required shoreline This condition requires the submittal Army Corps would not grant improvements (i.e., overlook of an application to the Army Corps of Engineers for approval of water stairs in addition to new hand approval of the water stairs; therefore Regency /Foothill decks and bulkhead railings) are already shown on the railings. sought and received approval of alternative improvements, i.e., 3 overlook decks; the project budget can support construction of one, but not both, of these shoreline amenities; the water stairs amenity is infeasible since one cannot predict if or when it may be approved by the Army approved plans. Corps; the bulkhead railings (like the overlook decks) referenced in this condition are already shown on the proposed plans (see, Sheets 1 of 3 of the landsca• a plans). 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: December 1, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for the Purchase of Power from Wind Generation Background: Alameda Power & Telecom (Alameda P &T) has been investigating a number of possibilities to meet its pending need for additional power supply including purchasing power from the existing High Winds generation project in Solano County. Earlier this year, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) approved the pursuit of power purchases from certain renewable resources, which were identified as a result of a request for proposals conducted in early 2003. The subject wind generation is among the best of those proposals, as is the landfill gas generation that the City Council approved in November. These agreements provide prices and conditions that are extremely competitive with conventional sources of power and purchases from the wholesale market, but with the additional benefit of contributing to the high level of renewable resources in Alameda P &T's power supply portfolio. Contracts for additional landfill gas generation projects are still under negotiation. On November 15, 2004, the PUB approved the wind generation agreement subject to the City Council's ratification of their action. Discussion: The proposed power purchase agreement is between PPM Energy, Inc. (PPM), an Oregon corporation and subsidiary of Scottish Power, and Alameda P &T. It provides for the delivery of 10 megawatts (MW) of power and the associated environmental attributes. The power will come from the 162 MW High Winds project near Rio Vista, California, which consists of 90 wind turbines each providing 1.8 MW of nameplate capacity. Because the term for this agreement exceeds 15 years, the agreement must be ratified by the City Council as required by the City Charter. The major provisions of the power purchase agreement are: • Capacity and Energy: 10 MW share (6.17 %) of the 162 MW rated capacity of the High Winds project. Alameda P &T's share of the expected annual energy output is 28,900 megawatt-hour (MWh), or approximately 7.6% of Alameda's annual electricity load. Energy will vary by time of day and time of year but will approximate a 33% Capacity Factor (the ratio of actual output to full nameplate rated capacity) on an annual basis; • Environmental Attributes: Alameda P &T will receive the environmental attributes, sometimes described as "Green Tags ", associated with its share of the generated energy; Item 4 -D 12-07-04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers December 1, 2004 Page 2 • Price: The price is flat over the life of the contract, with no escalation. The cost will be approximately $1.7 Million annually, and $39 Million over the contract term. The price is competitive with projected wholesale electricity prices; • Term: 23.5 years, with deliveries beginning when the agreement is executed, possibly during December 2004 or by January 1, 2005, and continuing through June 2028; • Expansion of Plant: Alameda P &T will have a right of first refusal to purchase any energy resulting from expansion of the plant; • Environmental Regulations: PPM will comply with all environmental regulations and comply, at their expense, with future changes in law; The agreement is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The power to be delivered under this agreement meets Alameda P &T's goal of obtaining economic and stably priced power. Since the plant is located close to the Bay Area, there is possible protection from transmission congestion pricing exposure and some contribution to area reliability. Budget Consideration/Financial Impact: This purchase power agreement provides Alameda P &T the ability to obtain power that is at or below current and projected future market prices. In addition, this power comes from a renewable energy source with the associated environmental attributes. These attributes have monetary value and could be sold separately if desired. The cost of this power was taken into consideration in the development of Alameda P &T's power cost budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 and in longer -term proj ections. Recommendation: The City Manager recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for the purchase of power from wind generation. cc: Public Utilities Board Respectfully submitted, Valerie 0. Fong General Manager Alameda Power & Telecom Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: November 24, 2004 Subject: Adoption of Legislation to Create the Procedure for the Establishment of Property -Based Improvement Districts in the City of Alameda BACKGROUND In 2000, the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Development Services began exploring the Property -Based Improvement District (P -BID) concept for use in the West End. A P -BID is a specific area within which property owners are assessed a fee for a special benefit. Currently, WABA is funded through a Business Improvement Assessment District (BIA) on business owners and operators based on sales, a grant from the City, and its own self - generated revenue. While consultant Marco Li Mandri of New City America did find enough interest to form a P -BID in 2000, the effort was suspended. Earlier this year, the WABA Board voted unanimously to resume the P -BID creation effort. Their vote was based on the belief that with the installation of the new streetscape imminent, the P -BID is needed more than ever and also more likely to be adopted. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS P -BIDs are authorized and described by State law. However, a charter city such as Alameda can adopt its own legislation to apply its own standards for the procedure to create a P -BID. Consultant Marco Li Mandri of New City America is assisting in the P -BID formation process. Each P -BID he has formed in a charter city has been enacted by its own P -BID legislation to allow for two adjustments: • The percentage of property owners that must sign the petition to call for an election on the question of whether to call a vote: State law requires property owners in the proposed district submit a petition signed by those who will pay 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied. Because of absentee ownership and the difficulty of getting out -of -town owners to respond, the local enabling legislation would drop to 30 percent. • The lifespan of the PBID: State law sets the life of the P -BID at five years. Five years, is, however, a relatively brief time period and inadequate to show long -term results of having a P -BID in place. This short time span also results in a great deal of time and resources having to be spent again very quickly in the life of the program to get it reauthorized. Consultant Marco Li Mandri recommends changing the period to 20 years. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 4-E 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and November 24, 2004 Members of the City Council Page 2 On September 22, 2004, the WABA Board voted unanimously to move forward with the creation of local enabling legislation that incorporates both of the above modifications with one slight modification to number two above. The Board prefers the local enabling legislation allow the P- BID Task Force, composed of property owners, to determine the lifespan of a P -BID on Webster Street. On October 21, the Economic Development Commission endorsed the concept of Council adopting local legislation to create a procedure for the formation of P -BIDs, incorporating the two changes previously discussed. If Council adopts the legislation, P -BID formation process could continue in the West End with a P -BID Task Force coordinating the effort. WABA Board member Michael Dugan has agreed to chair the Task Force. If established, the land area of the proposed P -BID for West Alameda would mirror the current Business Improvement Assessment District boundary and additionally, include the College of Alameda and the land area currently being developed by Catellus (the former FISC property). The P -BID for West Alameda, if established, would be known as the West Alameda Community Benefit District (CBD). While the BIA, which assesses business owners, would be retained, those zones of the Landscape & Lighting District within the Webster Street Business District would likely be dissolved. Thus, a property owner would have one special assessment to pay rather than two. Business owners would continue to pay the BIA. Special local enabling legislation, if adopted, could also be used citywide in the event other areas consider P -BID formation in the future. Process for Establishing the West Alameda Community Benefit District Once the City Council has enacted the authorizing ordinance, which creates the procedure for the establishment of a P -BID, the following are the "next steps ": • First, the City prepares a Management District Plan and an Engineer's Report, which includes a map of the proposed P -BID, describes the planned program of activities and improvements, estimates the district budget, and states the proposed assessment methodology. • Next, the City must receive a petition requesting initiation of proceedings to establish the P -BID, which must be signed by owners who will pay at least 30% of the total assessment. • Upon receipt of the petition, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which calls a public hearing on the assessment and commences the mailed notice and majority protest (balloting) proceeding required by Proposition 218. • At least 45 days prior to the public hearing, the City must mail a notice and assessment ballot to the record owner of each parcel subject to the assessment. • Assessment ballots may be returned to the City until the close of the public hearing. The City may then tabulate the ballots. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\BUSAS SOC\PBIDS \p- bidcestaffreport.doc Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council November 24, 2004 Page 3 • If the number of ballots returned in support of the assessment (weighed by the amount of the assessment) equals or exceeds the number of ballots returned in opposition to the assessment, then the City Council may adopt a Resolution Establishing the West Alameda Community Benefit District and levy the assessment for the initial year. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the adoption of legislation to create the procedure for the establishment of property -based improvement districts in the City of Alameda JMF /LAL /DES /SGR:dc cc: West Alameda Business Association Marco Li Mandri, New City America G:\BUSAS SOC\PBIDS \p -bi dcestaffreport.doc Respectfully L Development Services Director s mitted, By: Dorene E. Soto Manager - Business Development Division Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Extend Fuel Surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service BACKGROUND On August 3, 2004, Council approved a $0.25 one -way Fuel Surcharge (FS) on the City's ferry services (see Table 1). Implementation of the FS was pursuant to authority granted by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Resolution TL- 19042. FSs implemented under Resolution TL- 19042 are required to sunset no later than December 5, 2004. While diesel fuel prices have lowered slightly, they are volatile and continue to be well above historic levels. For this reason, Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM), Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF) and other Vessel Common Carriers asked the CPUC to extend FS authority beyond the December 5, 2004 date. If the CPUC grants that extension at their December 2, 2004 meeting as expected, the City has the option of continuing the $0.25 one -way FS approved in August, continuing the FS but at a different amount, or eliminating the FS entirely. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Diesel fuel costs have exceeded budgeted amounts since last February and continue at historic levels. Harbor Bay Maritime: January through November 12, 2004, HBM purchased 71,633 gallons of diesel for $115,196. This is $29,236 more than the $85,960 anticipated in the budget (actual cost per gallon is shown in Table 2). Over the last ten months, HBM has paid an average of $1.608 per gallon. If that rate continues through June 2005, HBM's 2004 /2005 fuel expenses will be $161,618 compared to the $130,650 budgeted, a shortfall of $30,968. If the FS is continued through June 30, 2004, it will have generated a total of $22,637 for FY 2004/2005. Under the HBM fixed subsidy operating agreement, HBM would absorb the shortfall balance of $8,331 ($30,968 - $22,637). Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS): From January through November 12, 2004, B &GF purchased 281,366 gallons at a cost of $422,349. This is $112,849 more than the $309,500 budgeted (actual cost per gallon is shown in Table 3). The AOFS uses 340,000 gallons of diesel per year. Over the last ten months B &GF paid an average of $1.501 per gallon. If that rate continues through June 2005, AOFS 2004/2005 fuel expense will be $510,340 compared to the $374,000 budgeted, a Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service p� Gtvorwmedo Debpaent Public Work Nfiriafir Yule Item 4-F 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers November 24, 2004 shortfall of $136,340. If continued through June 30, 2005 the FS would generate approximately $65,000 for FY 2004/2005. That would leave a fuel expense shortfall of $71,340 ($136,340 — 65,000). The AOFS operating contingency could offset the remaining $71,340 shortfall balance. B &GF operates the AOFS under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement (Cost Plus). Under a Cost Plus agreement, fuel cost is a pass through expense paid by the City. The City Manager will ask the City Council to adopt the FY 2005/2006 ferry operating budgets in June of 2005. If fuel prices have not significantly receded by that time, the City Manager will bring the City Council alternatives designed to address the resulting shortfalls. These may include service reductions, schedule changes and/or permanent fare increases. Public Out Reach: The City Manager had the Public Works Department take the following steps to inform the public that the City Council would consider extending the FS on December 7, 2004: 1) E- mails were sent to the subscriber lists of each service; 2) Flyers were placed and distributed on all AHBF and AOFS boats; 3) Notices were sent to newspapers; 4) Postings were placed on the AOFS and HBM web sites; 5) Ferry service staff conducted AOFS "ride - alongs" on the evenings of November 17, 22 and 23, 2004 and on the mornings of November 18, 19, and 22, 2004; and 6) Notices were posted at both ferry terminals, on the City's web site and cable channel scroll. Ride Comments: Staff conducted "ride - alongs" during AM and PM commute periods on both ferry services. "Ride alongs" were publicized through onboard flyers and announcements by the boat captain. "Ride alongs" provided customers with an opportunity to express their concerns about the proposed FS extension. The general consensus was that riders understood the need to continue the surcharge (fuel prices continue to be high) and that FS continuation was preferable to ferry service reductions. Of all the riders stating an opinion, none expressed opposition to continuation of the FS. Options Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service: The City can address the $136,340 fuel shortfall in three ways. Option 1 - Extend the existing $0.25 FS through June 30, 2005 and use the AOFS operating contingency to cover the shortfall balance of $71,340 ($136,340 — 65,000). Staff believes this option will have little or no negative impact on ridership as customers have already adjusted to the FS. In fact, the FS has had no discernable impact on ridership since its implementation last August. The City Manager recommends this option. Option 2 - Eliminate the FS and use a portion of the $275,255 AOFS operating contingency to make up the shortfall. This option will leave a contingency of approximately $139,000 for a ferry service that operates on a yearly budget of $3.1 million. The City Manager believes that this option leaves insufficient reserve for unforeseen events such as vessel breakdowns, security expense increases, or ferry terminal emergency repairs. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service �1! of Department Public Works Wor fw You! Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers November 24, 2004 Option 3 - Eliminate the FS and implement service reductions. One reduction option is to eliminate the last weekday roundtrip departing the Ferry Building at 8:25 p.m. The last ferry from San Francisco would then be the 7:25 p.m. Ferry Building departure. If the 8:25 p.m. is eliminated and the midday schedule adjusted, operational cost would be reduced by approximately $120,000. The $120,000 figure assumes no ridership loss due to the service reduction and schedule adjustment. However, this service reduction would significantly reduce the viability of the ferry for commuters who have to work late or who want stay late in the City for other reasons. Therefore, it would have a significant negative impact on ridership. Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF): As HBM operates the AHBF under a fixed subsidy agreement operational expenses are their responsibility. However, the City has in the past considered unusually large fuel price increases to be extraordinary expenses beyond the control of the ferry operator. Consequently, the City has worked with HBM to provide financial relief and/or reduce ferry service. If City Council decides to provide HBM with relief, there are three ways to address the $29,236 fuel shortfall. Option 1 - Extend the existing $0.25 FS through June 30, 2005, thereby generating total FS revenue of approximately $22,637 for FY 2004/2005. The shortfall balance of $8,331 ($30,968 - $22,637) would be absorbed by HBM under their fixed subsidy agreement. The City Manager believes this option will have little or no negative impact on ridership as customers have already adjusted to the FS. In fact, the FS has had no discernable impact on ridership since its implementation last August. The City Manager recommends this option. Option 2 - Eliminate the FS and use the $20,586 AHBF operating contingency to make up the shortfall. The shortfall balance of $8,650 ($29,236 - $20,586) would be absorbed by HBM under their fixed subsidy agreement. The operating contingency was established to provide resources needed for unforeseen events such as vessel breakdowns, security expense increases, or ferry terminal emergency repairs. In fact, at least $13,000 of the $20,586 budgeted has already been used for Bay Breeze engine computer repairs and it is likely that the $7,000 balance will be needed for repairs. The City Manager believes that this is not a viable option. Option 3 - Eliminate the FS and reduce service by cutting the 7:35 PM weekday Ferry Building departure. This would reduce the AHBF service from seven round trips per weekday (three AM and four PM) to six round -trips (three AM and three PM): If implemented on January 2, 2005, this would reduce projected FY 2004 /2005 fuel expenses by approximately $15,240. The City Manager estimates that accounting for ridership losses due the service reduction net fuel savings would be in the range of $5,000 to $8,000. In addition, there would be a reduction of the long -term vessel maintenance expenses of approximately $14,000. Elimination of the 7:35 PM run also raises the possibility that the current eight -hour evening crew shift could be reduced to a six -hour crew shift. If implemented on January 2, 2005, this would result in a labor expense reduction for the remaining Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofNam.da PublicWodu Department Public Works IWxk'furYou! Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers November 24, 2004 127 days of FY 2004/2005 in the range of $30,000. However, reduction of an eight -hour crew to a six -hour crew raises various labor issues. The existing HBM Inland Boatman's Union ( "IBU ") agreement has expired and the parties are in negotiations on a new agreement. The parties have agreed to a month -to -month extension of the existing contract until a new contract is reached. HBM IBU employees have not had a pay increase in three years and the IBU is likely to vigorously protest any reduction in their work schedules. Given the uncertainty surrounding the impact on labor relations and on ridership resulting from elimination of the 7:35 PM run, the City Manager does not recommend this option at this time. This option will be among those presented when Council considers adoption of the FY 2005/2006 ferry budgets. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The General Fund is not used to fund ferry operations. The AOFS and the AHBF are budgeted under CIP# 621.20 and CIP# 621.10 respectively and funded through Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Measure 1, Regional Measure B, Transportation Improvement Fund, the Port of Oakland and farebox receipts. Continuation of the existing FS is not expected to have a significant impact on ridership. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, extend fuel surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. Resp� lly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director 5JJ By: Ernest Sanchez 14 Ferry Manager MTN:ES:gc Attached Tables 1 -3 cc: Measure B Watchdog G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \120704\Ferry Fuel surcharge #2.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtvofdlaiwde tublicWorks Department Public Work Workafrr Yon! Table 1 FARES Alameda Ferries TYPE Pre -Fuel Surcharge One -Way Fares One -Way Fares with Fuel Surcharge Adult $ 5.25 $ 5.50 Junior (5 -12) $ 2.50 $ 2.75 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (65, +) /$ Disabled 3.00 $ 3.25 Active Military $ 4.00 $ 4.25 Short Hop $ 1.25 $ 1.50 Ticket Books: Without Fuel Surcharge With Fuel Surcharge 10- Ticket Book $ 42.50 $ 45.00 20- Ticket Book $ 75.00 $ 80.00 40- Ticket Book (AOFS) /Monthly pass (AHBF) $140.00 $150.00 School Groups Current Roundtrip Fare Proposed Roundtrip Fare Student, teacher or$ chaperon 3.00 $ 3.50 Angel Island TYPE Current Roundtrip Fare* Proposed Roundtrip Fare* Adult $ 12.00 $ 12.50 Junior (13 to 18) $ 9.00 $ 9.50 Child (5 to 12) $ 6.00 $ 6.50 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (62 +) /Disabled $ 9.00 $ 9.50 * Includes park admission Date Rack Table 2 Harbor Bay Maritime Schedule of Fuel Cost FY 2004 Actual Budget 1/02/04 $1.088 $1.21 $1.20 1/09/04 $1.095 $1.22 $1.20 1/12/04 $1.091 $1.21 $1.20 1/16/04 $1.046 $1.16 $1.20 1/23/04 $1.117 $1.24 $1.20 1/27/04 $1.120 $1.24 $1.20 1/30/04 $1.123 $1.25 $1.20 2/02/04 $1.135 $1.26 $1.20 2/04/04 $1.255 $1.39 $1.20 2/05/04 $1.305 $1.44 $1.20 2/06/04 $1.305 $1.44 $1.20 2/09/04 $1.325 $1.47 $1.20 2/11/04 $1.335 $1.48 $1.20 2/13/04 $1.277 $1.41 $1.20 2/16/04 $1.219 $1.35 $1.20 2/18/04 $1.219 $1.35 $1.20 2/23/04 $1.212 $1.34 $1.20 2/24/04 $1.291 $1.43 $1.20 2/25/04 $1.380 $1.53 $1.20 3/01/04 $1.381 $1.53 $1.20 3/03/04 $1.357 $1.51 $1.20 3/12/04 $1.146 $1.28 $1.20 3/22/04 $1.221 $1.36 $1.20 3/24/04 $1.210 $1.35 $1.20 3/29/04 $1.316 $1.46 $1.20 3/31/04 $1.351 $1.50 $1.20 4/02/04 $1.442 $1.60 $1.20 4/12/04 $1.598 $1.77 $1.20 4/14/04 $1.670 $1.85 $1.20 4/19/04 $1.653 $1.83 $1.20 4/21/04 $1.608 $1.78 $1.20 4/26/04 $1.643 $1.82 $1.20 4/28/04 $1.643 $1.82 $1.20 Date Rack Actual Budget 5/03/04 $1.728 $1.91 $1.20 5/05/04 $1.772 $1.96 $1.20 5/10/04 $1.799 $1.99 $1.20 5/12/04 $1.763 $1.95 $1.20 5/14/04 $1.700 $1.88 $1.20 5/17/04 $1.663 $1.84 $1.20 5/19/04 $1.571 $1.75 $1.20 5/21/04 $1.502 $1.68 $1.20 5/24/04 $1.481 $1.66 $1.20 5/26/04 $1.449 $1.63 $1.20 10/04/04 $1.710 $1.89 $1.20 10/06/04 $1.710 $1.88 $1.20 10/08/04 $1.731 $1.91 $1.20 10/11/04 $1.756 $1.93 $1.20 10/13/04 $1.756 $1.93 $1.20 10/15/04 $1.841 $2.03 $1.20 10/18/04 $1.851 $2.04 $1.20 10/20/04 $1.791 $2.04 $1.20 10/22/04 $1.85 $2.04 $1.20 10/25/04 $1.81 $2.00 $1.20 10/29/04 $1.73 $1.92 $1.20 11/01/04 $1.69 $1.88 $1.20 11/03/04 $1.62 $1.81 $1.20 11/05/04 $1.60 $1.79 $1.20 11/08/04 $1.55 $1.74 $1.20 11/10/04 $1.55 $1.74 $1.20 11/12/04 $1.62 $1.81 $1.20 Table 3 Blue & Gold Fleet Schedule of Fuel Cost FY 2004 Date Rack Actual Budget 1/23/04 $0.960 $1.08 $1.10 1/27/04 $0.970 $1.09 $1.10 1/30/04 $1.000 $1.12 $1.10 2/02/04 $1.000 $1.12 $1.10 2/04/04 $1.110 $1.24 $1.10 2/05/04 $1.170 $1.30 $1.10 2/06/04 $1.150 $1.28 $1.10 2/09/04 $1.180 $1.31 $1.10 2/11/04 $1.200 $1.34 $1.10 2/13/04 $1.130 $1.26 $1.10 2/16/04 $1.120 $1.25 $1.10 2/18/04 $1.090 $1.22 $1.10 2/23/04 $1.080 $1.21 $1.10 2/24/04 $1.150 $1.28 $1.10 2/25/04 $1.215 $1.35 $1.10 3/01/04 $1.255 $1.40 $1.10 3/03/04 $1.180 $1.31 $1.10 3/12/04 $1.020 $1.14 $1.10 3/22/04 $1.100 $1.23 $1.10 3/24/04 $1.070 $1.19 $1.10 3/29/04 $1.200 $1.34 $1.10 3/31/04 $1.230 $1.37 $1.10 4/02/04 $1.370 $1.52 $1.10 4/12/04 $1.450 $1.61 $1.10 4/14/04 $1.520 $1.68 $1.10 4/19/04 $1.500 $1.66 $1.10 4/21/04 $1.460 $1.62 $1.10 4/26/04 $1.480 $1.64 $1.10 4/28/04 $1.520 $1.68 $1.10 5/03/04 $1.610 $1.78 $1.10 5/05/04 $1.650 $1.82 $1.10 5/10/04 $1.610 $1.78 $1.10 5/12/04 $1.600 $1.77 $1.10 5/14/04 $1.530 $1.69 $1.10 5/17/04 $1.470 $1.63 $1.10 5/19/04 $1.410 $1.56 $1.10 5/21/04 $1.350 $1.50 $1.10 5/26/04 $1.260 $1.40 $1.10 6/01/04 $1.220 $1.36 $1.10 6/02/04 $1.190 $1.33 $1.10 6/04/04 $1.170 $1.30 $1.10 G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \120704 \ferrytables.doc Date Rack Actual Budget 6/09/04 $1.190 $1.32 $1.10 6/16/04 $1.190 $1.32 $1.10 6/24/04 $1.280 $1.42 $1.10 6/30/04 $1.380 $1.53 $1.10 7/06/04 $1.420 $1.57 $1.10 7/09/04 $1.390 $1.54 $1.10 7/14/04 $1.370 $1.52 $1.10 7/21/04 $1.340 $1.49 $1.10 7/23/04 $1.400 $1.55 $1.10 8/02/04 $1.420 $1.57 $1.10 8/16/04 $1.430 $1.58 $1.10 8/20/04 $1.450 $1.60 $1.10 8/25/04 $1.430 $1.58 $1.10 8/27/04 $1.380 $1.53 $1.10 8/30/04 $1.370 $1.52 $1.10 9/01/04 $1.290 $1.43 $1.10 9/03/04 $1.370 $1.52 $1.10 9/08/04 $1.320 $1.46 $1.10 9/10/04 $1.400 $1.55 $1.10 9/13/04 $1.350 $1.50 $1.10 9/15/04 $1.440 $t59 $1.10 9/16/04 $1.450 $1.60 $1.10 9/20/04 $1.480 $1.64 $1.10 9/22/04 $1.520 $1.68 $1.10 9/24/04 $1.540 $1.70 $1.10 9/27/04 $1.570 $1.73 $1.10 10/02/04 $1.590 $1.76 $1.10 10/04/04 $1.580 $1.75 $1.10 10/11/04 $1.630 $1.80 $1.10 10/15/04 $1.710 $1.89 $1.10 10/25/04 $1.720 $1.90 $1.10 10/27/04 $1.680 $1.85 $1.10 10/29/04 $1.590 $1.76 $1.10 11/01/04 $1.570 $1.73 $1.10 11/05/04 $1.450 $1.60 $1.10 11/10/04 $1.440 $1.59 $1.10 11/12/04 $1.500 $1.66 $1.10 11/15/04 $1.470 $1.63 $1.10 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 23, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Final Map and Bond, Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Dedications and Easements for Tract 7232 (Winant Way) BACKGROUND On November 21, 2000, City Council originally approved Tentative Map Tract 7232 per City of Alameda Resolution No 13291. Subsequently, Council has approved three (3) one -year time extensions. The development is located at 43 County Road. The Final Map provides for the development of five (5) single - family residential lots and is on file in the Public Works Department. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Final Map has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. The tract infrastructure, including sanitary sewer and storm drain lines, sidewalk, curb, butter, street pavement, sidewalks and landscaping will be maintained by the homeowners as approved by the architectural committee. The Alameda Municipal Code requires the subdivider to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City and post bonds guaranteeing the subdivision improvements. The performance bond guaranteeing the subdivision improvements is $301,013 and the labor and materials bond is $183,833. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form the agreement and bonds. The Agreement is on file with the City Clerk. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no General Fund costs or appropriations required since all of the tract improvements will be constructed by the subdivider and maintained by the homeowners' association. thydAlameda Ppublic Works Department Public W Mks Wrckv for Y ,! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 4-G 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers November 23, 2004 RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution approving the final map and bond, authorize execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accept the dedications and easements for Tract 7232 (Winant Way). Respe bmitte Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director �s�wa Cau By: Robert Claire 9 Associate Engineer MTN:RC:gc G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \120704 \7232.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtyofAlrneda PUblicWoifs epartment PblicWo KAT fir r,! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING FINAL MAP AND BOND, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTING DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR TRACT 7232 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 1, Chapter 3, Title XI of the Alameda Municipal Code, ALAN HOICHUN LAU, a Private individual, owner and subdivider, has prepared and presented to this Council the Final Map of the Subdivision known as Tract 7232; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Tentative Map for a five (5) single - family residential lot subdivision known as Winant Way Homes on November 21, 2000; and WHEAREAS, the City Council granted three extensions of one year each to file the final map on November 5, 2002, November 18, 2003, November 16, 2004; and WHEREAS, said Final Map delineates thereon for dedication to the City of Alameda of easements for public utilities and rights for public safety vehicles and emergency equipment; and WHEREAS, subdivider desires to enter into an agreement to construct and complete 2 the improvements in said subdivision, has filed the final map therefore, for approval at this time, and cc has posted its bond guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said work, all in accordance with ® said Article; and 0 WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage and benefit of the City to have said work performed in accordance with said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the Final Map of Tract 7232 be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said easements dedicated to the public and rights of access dedicated to the City of Alameda are hereby accepted, on behalf of the public and the City, for use in conformity with the terms of the offers of dedication. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agreement for construction and completion of the public improvements in said subdivision, and all its terms and conditions be, and hereby is, approved and the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute and attest to, respectively, said agreement on behalf of the City of Alameda. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bonds in the sum of $301,013 and $183,833 guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said improvements are hereby approved as sufficient in amount. Resolution #4 -G CC 12 -7 -04 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Lara Weisiger City Clerk Date: November 17, 2004 Subject: Resolution Declaring Results of the Consolidated Municipal General Election Held on November 2, 2004 Background The California Elections Code requires the governing body of a city to meet at their usual place of meeting and adopt a resolution to declare the results of an election. Discussion/Analysis Attached is the Certificate of Election Results and Official Canvass for the Consolidated General Municipal Election held on November 2, 2004. Candidates Marie Gilmore and Doug deHaan received the highest number of votes cast for the Office of Councilmember. Uncontested candidate Kevin Kearney was elected the Office of Auditor and uncontested candidate Kevin Kennedy was elected to the Office of City Treasurer. City Measure F passed by a majority vote. Financial Impact None. Recommendation The City Council adopt the resolution declaring the results of the Consolidated Municipal Election. Respectfully submitted, siOVI Lara Weisiger Lara Weisiger City Clerk Attachment — 1 Item 4-H 12-07-04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) I, BRADLEY J. CLARK Registrar of Voters for the County of Alameda, State of California. having canvassed the returns of all votes cast in the City of Alameda at the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the Results of all votes cast for each of the candidates entitled to receive votes for the office indicated. CITY OF ALAMEDA c'1J y COI NUM .MFMRrR (Two Elected) Marie Gilmore 11,342 Doug DeHaan 9,217 Pat Bail 8,920 Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft 8,499 Ruben Tilos 5,090 Vemice L. Boone 3,553 Betsy P. Elgar 2,368 CITY AI TQITOR (One Elected) Kevin R. Kearney 21,946 CITY TRPASITRRR (One Elected) Kevin Kennedy 21,780 I further certify that the total number of ballots cast in the City of Alameda at said election was 32,552 and attached hereto is a complete statement of the results showing the number of votes cast at each precinct for each candidate. I hereby set my hand and my official seal this 30th day of November 2004 at Oakland, California. ' i , 7.1. CLARK Re: strar of Voters County of Alameda State of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 1, BRADLEY J. CLARK, Registrar of Voters for the County of Alameda, State of California, having canvassed the returns of all votes cast in the City of Alameda at the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the Results of all votes cast on the following measures: Measure F: Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be atnended to delete references to the Board of Education resulting in the Board no longer being subject to, controlled and/or governed by the Charter but instead :ovemed by State law? Yes 15002 No 11231 I further certify that the total number of ballots cast in the City of Alameda at said Election was 32,552 and attached hereto is a complete statement of the results showing the number of votes cast at each precinct for and against the measures. I. hereby set my hand and my official seal this 30th day of November 2004 at Oakland, California. BRAD , . CLARK Re ar of Voters County of Alameda State of California Se- CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING CANVASS OF RETURNS AND RESULTS OF CONSOLIDATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004 WHEREAS, a consolidated General Municipal Election, under and pursuant to the provisions of Article XIX of the Charter of said City, was held for the purpose of electing officers to the Office of Mayor and Office of Councilmember, and for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Alameda certain proposals, as set forth hereafter: Two (2) Councilmembers on the Council of said City for full terms, each term commencing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesday in December, 2004 and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. One (1) Auditor of said City for a full term, commencing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesday in December, 2004 and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. One (1) Treasurer of said City for a full term, commencing at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesday in December, 2004 and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. MEASURE F Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to delete references to the Board of Education resulting in the Board no longer being subject to, controlled and/or governed by the Charter but instead governed by State law? WHEREAS, nominating petitions were duly and regularly presented to, and filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Alameda, in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, nominating for said offices: FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER: Vernice L. Boone Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Doug deHaan Pat Bail Ruben Tilos Marie L. Gilmore FOR THE OFFICE OF CITY AUDITOR: Kevin R. Kearney Resolution #4 -H CC 12 -7 -04 FOR THE OFFICE OF CITY TREASURER: Kevin Kennedy WHEREAS, said nominations were entered in a list, with the offices to be filled, which list was certified to and filed in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, whereupon a notice of nominees for public office containing a statement of the time of the election, the offices to be filled, and the names of the candidates to be voted on, was duly and regularly issued more than seven (7) days before said election in the official newspaper of said City; and WHEREAS, a notice of the measure, certified by the City Clerk, was duly issued and published in the official newspaper of said City in the manner and time prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, there were 49 election precincts within the City of Alameda fixed and designated; and WHEREAS, all of the ballots used for said election were prepared, as to form and content, as prescribed by law, and a sample ballot was mailed to each voter of the City of Alameda within the time and in the manner provided by law and such mailing was completed at least ten (10) days preceding the date of said election; and WHEREAS, the officers of election for said election were duly appointed and qualified, and all election supplies furnished and election booths provided for each precinct as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda, twenty -eight (28) days following said election has met and fully canvassed the returns of the votes cast at said Consolidated General Municipal Election as required by law, and being fully advised in the premises, and having the returns of said canvass before it; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA and said Council finds, as follows: (1) That said Consolidated General Municipal Election was held and conducted, and the votes cast thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof ascertained, determined and declared in all respects and particulars in the time, form and manner provided by law. (2) That the whole number of ballots cast in the City of Alameda at said election was 32,552. (3) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for each of the aforementioned candidates for the Office of Councilmember of said City was as follows: Marie Gilmore 11,342 Doug deHaan 9,217 Pat Bail 8,920 Marilyn Ezzy Ashcroft 8,499 Ruben Tilos 5,090 Vernice L. Boone 3,553 Betsy P. Elgar 2,368 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND DECLARED that the aforesaid Marie Gilmore and Doug deHaan, having received the two highest number of votes cast for the Office of Councilmember, were, and are hereby declared to be, duly and regularly elected to the Office of Councilmember of the City of Alameda, for a term beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m., on the third Tuesday in December, 2004, and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified, and (4) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for each of the aforementioned candidates for the office of Auditor of said City was as follows: Kevin R. Kearney 21,946 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DECLARED that the aforesaid Kevin R. Kearney having received the highest number of votes cast for the office of Auditor, was, and is hereby declared to be, duly and regularly elected to the office of Auditor of the City of Alameda, for a term beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m., on the third Tuesday in December, 2004, and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. (5) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for each of the aforementioned candidates for the office of Treasurer of said City was as follows: Kevin Kennedy 21,780 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DECLARED that the aforesaid Kevin Kennedy having received the highest number of votes cast for the office of Treasurer, was, and is hereby declared to be, duly and regularly elected to the office of Treasurer of the City of Alameda, for a term beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m., on the third Tuesday in December, 2004, and continuing for four (4) years thereafter and until a successor is elected and qualified. (6) That the total number of votes cast in the City of Alameda at said election for the aforesaid Measure F was as follows: Measure F Yes 15,002 No 11,231 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DECLARED that the aforementioned Measure F, having received a majority of the number of yes votes cast was and is declared passed. 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 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING ALYSA BETH CHADOW AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -17.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 2931, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ALYSA BETH CHADOW is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Commission on Disability Issues of the City of Alameda for a term commencing on December 7, 2004 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly O 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 Resolution #5 -A 12 -7 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING JUDITH A. LYNCH AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JUDITH A. LYNCH is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda, to fill the unexpired term of Nancy Gill, for the term commencing December 7, 2004, and expiring on June 30, 2005, and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the $. day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: :s9 ce 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 Resolution #5 -B 12 -7 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING KAREN L. HOLLINGER JACKSON AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination by the Mayor, KAREN L. HOLLINGER JACKSON is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Social Service Human Relations Board of the City of Alameda, to fill the unexpired term of Kenneth Werner, commencing December 7, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2005, and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 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 -C 12 -7 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Response to City Council Questions Regarding Value Engineering Alternatives for New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01 -03 -01 BACKGROUND: The July 2004 bid from S. J. Amoroso Construction (SJA) to build the new Main Library was $4.6 million over the architect's construction cost estimate. In an effort to reduce the cost of constructing the building, value engineering alternatives in the amount of approximately $5 million were prepared by the Project Manager, Contractor and Architect. The alternatives were priced by SJA, then reviewed by the Library Building Team (LBT) and the Library Board, whose recommendations were transmitted to Council. On November 3, 2004, Council reviewed the value engineering (VE) alternatives and recommendations, and requested analysis of the following issues: 1. Exterior brick wall cladding options. 2. Costs involved in LEED certification. 3. Durability of fiber cement counter tops compared to pressure laminate counter tops. 4. Suitability of leather compared to vinyl as an upholstery material for the library lounge chairs. Summary: Four written consultant reports are attached for your reference. The wall cladding options are addressed in the reports of SJA and Thomas Hacker Architects, Inc. (THA). LEED certification is addressed in the THA report and also in the report of our construction management firm, Consolidated Construction Management (CCM). Issues regarding the durability of counter top materials are discussed in the THA report, and written information regarding vinyl and leather upholstery is provided in the report of the City's interior designer, Bev Moris of Page & Moris. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 5 -D 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers December 2, 2004 DICUSSION /ANALYSIS Exterior brick wall cladding: Staff indicated at the November 3, 2004 City Council meeting that an option for embedded brick in a pre -cast concrete panel, in lieu of a full brick wall, might result in a significant cost savings. Further analysis has shown that because of extensive welding required for this cantilevered wall design, any cost savings from using embedded brick is offset by the cost of welding. SJA has provided a detailed analysis of all wall systems considered and the resulting selected system. The SJA and THA reports both discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using thin or veneered brick in lieu of a full brick exterior wall. An example of a thin brick wall system can be found in Alameda at the Walgreen's store at the corner of Webster Street and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Costs to retain LEED certification: During the VE process, all significant LEED items relating to energy conservation and the well- being of the building's occupants were retained.1 In other words, as proposed, the building's "green" features would be retained whether or not formal LEED certification is sought. If "certified" the Main Library would be the first such building within Alameda and may set an example for future development within the City. Both CCM and THA have commented extensively in the attached memos on the advantages, disadvantages and cost impact of LEED certification. Certification through the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) requires not only incorporating LEED items into the structure, but mandates extensive documentation. Total costs for this process are estimated at $52,000. If the City pursues LEED certification, we would incur the expense of documentation with no guarantee of receiving certification. Certification cannot be not determined until the structure has been completed and USGBC has reviewed and approved all documentation; this a six- to nine -month process. The cost commissioning of the mechanical systems (which involves testing and "fine- tuning" all HVAC equipment) to assure compliance with LEED, and the required documentation, were a large part of the potential cost savings identified in the value engineering option. Alternatively, staff has obtained an informal estimate of $10,000 from the mechanical engineer to fine -tune the building systems without actually undergoing the LEED documentation process. Durability of the fiber cement vs. pressure laminate counter tops in staff areas: The THA report concludes that pressure laminate countertops in the staff areas would be appropriate and would provide a cost savings of approximately $26,000 over fiber cement countertops. Fiber cement countertops would be retained in the public areas. 1 A few minor items, such as the employee shower, were eliminated. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers December 2, 2004 Comparison of leather vs. vinyl as a library upholstery material: The City's interior designer, Bev Moris of Page & Moris, has prepared a report which presents the advantages and disadvantages of both leather and vinyl as lounge furniture upholstery material. Her report includes information learned from personal observations and direct conversations with facilities managers at UC Davis, UCSF Medical Library, and the San Francisco Main Library, as well as manufacturers' specifications. The comparison is presented in a format which will enable the Council to judge and better understand the performance of the materials in various environments, and the parameters which are important for the specific conditions at our Library. RECOMMENDATION This report is for your information only. If the City Council wishes to provide direction on the above, staff is prepared to return as soon as possible with a recommendation to award the contract to SJA (thereby locking in all 2004 prices) with a possible groundbreaking in late February or early March 2005, and completion date no later than September 2006. Project team members, including George Leonoff, Vice President (S. J. Amoroso Construction), Jim Benson, Chief Estimator (S. J. Amoroso Construction), Kacey Jurgens (Thomas Hacker Architects, Inc.), Matt Scoble (Consolidated Construction Management) and Bev Moris (Page & Moris) will be in attendance at the December 7th City Council meeting and can provide technical backup data and answer any questions. Respectfully submitted, ul Benoit Assist., ity M By: Robert G. Haun Project Manager PB/RH:ms attachments cc: Library Director O:\ Library_Project\LIBRARY\Council \120704 \CCVE rpt 120704.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 0since 1939 ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY VALUE ENGINEERING WALL OPTIONS November 22, 2004 AMOROSO construction The original exterior wall design had a row of real brick backed by 3 inches of air space, rigid insulation and dampproofing applied over a 10 -inch poured -in -place concrete wall. A thin layer of special plaster was applied to the inside of the concrete wall. These walls were individual unconnected sections, approximately 35 feet high, which were essentially cantilevered from the ground. Between the concrete wall sections were recessed sections of metal stud framed glazing, metal panel and pre -cast concrete construction. The following is a summary of other exterior wall options considered during the V.E. process. 1. Concrete block construction using an exterior architectural finish resembling the brick with interior insulated furred metal stud walls covered with gypsum board. This method would have been the least expensive, saving at least $400,000 and would have avoided dealing with the uneven interior surface of the poured -in -place concrete wall. However, only a small portion of the exterior wall could be engineered in this manner and this option was rejected. 2. Utilize pre -cast panels including a version incorporating face brick set into the pre- cast panels at the plant. Pre -cast panels of this size and shape are expensive to transport and erect due to the extensive welding required using the cantilevered wall design. These are not conventional tilt -up panels, which can be tied together at the top and with pilasters. Our preliminary estimate showed this system to cost approximately $150,000 more. Furthermore, applying full brick as a veneer could create future adhesion concerns. (See Item 4a under brick finishes.) Rejected as an inappropriate application. 3. Delete all concrete walls and redesign structure as steel frame with brick supported by metal studs. This approach would have required a complete structural re- design and significant plan revisions before the full amount of any savings might be identified. This would be a hardship for the A &E and consume valuable time; therefore it was rejected. 4. Substitute shotcrete for concrete and replace exterior dampproofing and insulation and interior plaster with a furred insulated wall. The furred inside wall is essential with this method to conceal the rough quality of the shotcrete finish. A number of variations to this approach were considered: a. Shotcrete against a full brick wall used as a form. Too tall, not feasible. Page 1 of 2 AMOROSO construction b. Shotcrete against a one -sided form. This was the selected system. The approximate savings was $107,000. Two variations for the brick finish were considered with the Shotcrete wall: a. A brick or tile veneer applied directly to the shotcrete wall. This would be the least expensive (savings of approximately $100,000 including furred wall) but was rejected because it probably will not look like real brick and that the long term risk of delamination (falling tiles on sidewalk) is greater. b. A one - course full brick wall in front of the shotcrete with a one -inch separation containing brick ties and void space. This was the selected finish. Savings including furred wall was approximately $40,000. Page 2 of 2 T H O M A S H A C K E R ARCHITECTS INC. December 1, 2004 Mr. Robert Haun Reconstruction Manager City of Alameda, Development Services Department Alameda Point, Building 1 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 Re: Alameda Free Library (0125) Benefits and Challenges of LEED Appropriateness of Building Materials Dear Bob: Per your request, this letter is intended to be a summary of benefits and challenges of pursuing LEED certification as well as some observations about the appropriateness of building materials being considered for the exterior skin and non - public area counter tops for the new Alameda Free Library. In reviewing this information, please note that since achieving LEED certification has already been factored into the design process, some of the challenges identified below have already been overcome. LEED The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system was developed by the US Green Building Council in the 1990's in response to a need for a consistent and verifiable way to evaluate sustainable design strategies in building projects. Before the LEED system became available, there was a great deal of confusion in the industry because many owners, contractors and design professionals were making claims about the environmental performance of their projects which had little meaning because they were subjective and not easily verified. Benefits of LEED • The biggest benefit of the LEED process is that it encourages building practices which improve the health and comfort of a building's occupants and reduces consumption of building resources and energy. • The system is comprehensive and holistic, addressing every component in the building process from start to finish beginning with energy and transportation costs embodied in product manufacturing and including recycling of construction waste products. • Certification by the LEED rating system is a highly regarded and internationally recognized benchmark, which, if achieved, can positively impact public perception of projects. • The requirement for on -going review and input from an independent commissioning agent, who in effect acts as a conscience for the project, maximizes the performance and efficiency of all chosen building systems. • Because the LEED certification system is based on quantifiable objectives, it is very difficult to "cheat," which adds to its credibility. • The various categories of certification (Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum) represent meaningful degrees of difficulty. 733 SW OAK STREET. PORTLAND. OREGON 97205 TELEPHONE 503'227-1254 FAX 503 •227 •7S 1 S Mr. Robert Haun City of Alameda, Development Services Department December 1, 2004 Page 2 of 3 • Projects which have achieved LEED certification generally have lower operating costs which translate into long -term savings for building owners. • Many local utility companies provide financial incentives for projects utilizing the LEED certification process. Challenges of LEED • Owners, contractors and design professionals not familiar with the details of the LEED process will be on a definite learning curve as the system is fairly bureaucratic and involves a substantial amount of paperwork. Because the LEED system is a continually evolving process, there are still some problems and inconsistencies. • To be effective, the LEED process requires "buy -in" from all team players, including owners, contractors, sub - contractors, architects and their consultants. Project soft costs are higher as a result of increased fees reflecting additional efforts by design professionals, as well as required energy modeling and life -cycle studies. Some LEED components may translate into higher initial construction costs. Because "local" and "green" building materials and products are encouraged, available choices are more limited. Because credit for LEED points is ultimately confirmed by independent analysis at the conclusion of projects, there is no guarantee that they will be certified or at what level, until the process is complete. Appropriateness of Building Materials One of the cost reduction strategies explored for the new Alameda Free Library related to the building exterior wall assembly. In their November 22, 2004 letter, SJ Amoroso did an excellent job summarizing the different options considered as well as the selected system. During that VE process, the design team was asked to consider a wall system which replaced the full -sized brick veneer wall with a thin brick which would be adhered directly to the Shotcrete wall. While this would have represented some savings to the project, T.H.A recommended against it for the following reasons: Utilizing the thin brick would also result in the elimination of the one -inch air space which gives the building an important added layer of both moisture protection and thermal insulation. • As noted in SJ Amoroso's letter, over time the thin brick would become a maintenance issue because of the high possibility of de- lamination, especially given the100+ years expected life span of the Alameda Free Library. • In our opinion, a thin brick applied directly to a concrete wall cannot effectively appear to be a true brick wall, especially one requiring recessed mortar joints and brick returns used to give the building character and scale. • The rich legacy of authentic and historic brick structures in Alameda was an important component in the evolution of the design of the Library which was energetically supported by both the Library Building Team as well as the Alameda Historical Society. • Finally, one of our guiding principles as described in our stated "Philosophy of Design" is that "...buildings should express the integrity of their construction and materials... and their methods of construction should provide lasting value." We believe you chose us as your architect because of the integrity of our work, and in our opinion, thin veneer brick is not consistent with our stated approach to design. Mr. Robert Haun City of Alameda, Development Services Department December 1, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Countertops We understand another issue which has been raised relates to the proposal to substitute plastic laminate for stone on countertops located in staff areas of the building. While plastic laminate will never have the longevity of a solid surface material, staff use (and abuse) of countertops is substantially less frequent than that which occurs in public areas of libraries. It is also very easy and inexpensive to replace plastic laminate surfaces if necessary, at a fraction of the initial cost of stone. This approach has been utilized on many of our other public libraries in the past with no negative results Bob, I hope this letter assists you in your ongoing discussions with City Officials. Please call if you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, Jonah Cohen Principal gat cc: Matt Scoble, Consolidated CM George Leonoff, SJ Amoroso Construction, Inc. File PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS Memo Date: November 30, 2004 To: Bob Haun —City of Alameda From: Matt Scoble —CCM Consolidated Cu Subject: LEED's Certification Project: Cost Impact Associated with Retaining LEED's In response to your request to review the pros and cons of LEED's certification for the Alameda Library, I have reviewed the matter with our staff. The comments below are based upon that review. Background LEED's is the US Green Building Council's rating system for building projects. First introduced in 1995, use of the LEED's rating system has both benefits and drawbacks. LEED's provides a standard to permit the qualitative measure of efficiency and environmental friendliness, and has become increasingly popular in recent years. Properly designed Green Buildings are ideally less expensive to operate, more comfortable and healthy for the occupants, place less strain on the local infrastructure and reduce the consumption of natural resources. These are desirable characteristics for any building, and meeting these goals is part of the modern architectural design process, whether the building is to be LEED's certified or not. Some of these benefits are difficult to quantify. The LEED's rating system provides an organized approach to measuring the success of an individual project in achieving these goals. There are currently four levels of LEED's certification: Platinum (52+ points), Gold (39 -51 points), Silver (33 -38 points) and Certified (26 -32 points), with the certification level based on the number of points a project achieves in five pre- determined categories. The five categories are: Sustainable Site, Water Efficiency, Energy Et Atmosphere, Materials 8 Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. A maximum of 69 points is possible. The as -bid project configuration of the Alameda Library included features valued at 29 points, which placed the project in the certified project category. However, only 26 points are required for approval in the certified project category. In order to receive certification an independent review of the proposed points and the associated documentation is conducted by the US Green Building Council. Typically, during the review, the reviewers do not accept all of the proposed points, so the recommended approach is to include additional points to ensure that certification will be granted. The Alameda Library, as designed, included 3 additional points as "review insurance." Discussion An extensive value engineering (VE) process for the Alameda Library is almost complete, and over $3 million in project cost savings have been identified. Some of the identified savings directly impact project features associated with the planned project LEED's points. The following summary table compares the original project "as -bid" LEED's point totals with VE items; the impact on the LEED's points, if accepted; and the associated project cost savings. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1520 • Oakland, CA 94612 • (510) 208 -1720 • Fax (510) 208 -1721 www.consolidatedcm.com • ccm @consolidatedcm.com PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS A detailed table is attached. Consolidated Eli LEED Original Revised Associated Category Points Points Savings Notes Sustainable Site 4 3 $1,769. Water Efficiency 2 2 $0.00 Energy Et Atmosphere 7 6 $68,250. Includes pre- requisite Materials Ft Resources 4 2 $10,500. Indoor Environmental Quality 11 9 $2,950. Innovation Et Design Process 1 0 $21,602. Totals 29 22 $105,071. Total Savings Note: In order to receive any level of LEED's certification, there are specific pre - requisite activities that must be performed. Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning, which is part of the Energy & Atmosphere section, is one such activity. Consequently, if it is accepted as a value engineering item, the project cannot be certified regardless of the status of any other item. In this memo, I have itemized the value engineering items, which directly impact the LEED's process, in order to hi -light the cost of obtaining the US Green Building Council LEED's certification. The $105,071 savings associated with not pursuing the LEED's certification process includes $83,469, the majority of which is for commissioning activities which will serve to fine tune building performance. The balance of $21,602 is associated with specific LEED's mandated documentation requirements. Building commissioning is a valuable tool in achieving and maintaining building performance, but it is not necessary that it be performed as part of a LEED's certification to produce worthwhile benefits. It may prove a better value to forgo formal commissioning as required by LEED's and instead wait a year following building occupancy, after the building systems have been in service for a while, and then re- commission the building. This is not an uncommon approach and may ultimately provide the City a better final product. The goal of the LEED's guidelines is to encourage the construction of buildings, which are environmentally friendly and more efficient. When these goals are achieved, long -term benefits such as reduced operating costs can be realized. The LEED's goals have already been achieved and are reflected in the current design of the Alameda Library. Consequently, regardless of which version is constructed, the City will reap the rewards which flow from operating an environmentally sound and efficient building. Conclusion The new Alameda Library, as proposed, will retain the " LEED's Systems" included in the design to promote efficiency and environmental friendliness. The value engineering savings totaling $105,071, noted above, relates largely to the support of the technical /oversight work associated with obtaining LEED's certification and can be provided at a later date, outside the LEED's process at lower cost. For this reason, it is recommended that LEED's certification not be pursued. Cc: file 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1520 • Oakland, CA 94612 • (510) 208 -1720 • Fax (510) 208 -1721 www.consolidatedcm.com • ccm @consolidatedcm.com To: Robert Haun Project Manager From: Bev Moris, Page & Moris Date: December 2, 2004 Subject: Use of Leather vs. Vinyl Upholstery at the Alameda Free Library The use of leather upholstery vs. vinyl upholstery on lounge chairs can be considered from a reference point of many different performance requirements. For the purpose of this comparison, technical specifications were reviewed from 5 different contract level manufacturers (3 for leather and 2 for vinyl) of both materials, which described their different test ratings for different properties. With the exception of cost, the two materials' performance is generally equivalent. In addition to reviewing technical specifications, I telephone - interviewed three library facilities managers (San Francisco Main, UC Davis Shields Library, and UCSF Medical Library) and visited the UCSF Medical Library Installation to evaluate the condition of the leather chairs. My report of the conversations follows after a short background. BACKGROUND Leather is a natural material that has been used for centuries as an upholstery material. It has natural pores which allow it to breathe and ventilate /adjust to the environment. Its appearance can actually improve with age and use. Being a natural material, there is variation, and selection of the appropriate quality, or grade, from a reputable manufacturer is important. Over the past 5 years, manufacturers have developed processes to give leather anti- bacterial properties, improved abrasion and water repellency. As a result, it can be used on outdoor furniture, healthcare, and marine applications. It has also been the upholstery of choice on first class seats on airplanes, because of its durability and upscale appeal. It is a low- maintenance material, requiring only wipe -up after spills. Vinyl is a man -made material using chemicals from the petroleum industry. The older vinyls (before 1985) had a tendency to dry out, thus causing cracking and splitting. New innovations in the last 15 -20 years have generated much improved products, starting with the leather look - alikes. And in the last 7 years, the boom in the healthcare industry has resulted in new high performance vinyls that are a fraction the cost of leather, and are hard to distinguish in appearance. Like leather, maintenance is low, requiring only wipe -up after spills. In addition, it can be cleaned with bleach and solvents if needed. CASE STUDY 1: SAN FRANCISCO MAIN LIBRARY Conference call with Facilities Director Matt Smyth (415) 557 -4225 and Building Maintenance Darren Brown Leather lounge seats were installed when the library opened in April, 1996. They were all removed and disposed of in 2003. The following situation was communicated: "At this library, we have a huge homeless problem, and all that comes along with it — the Tice, the germs and bacteria, the urine, etc. Any upholstery, including leather, had to be completely wiped down every single night, from the very first day. At first we cleaned them with water, then with water and a soft detergent, then progressively ,..,t3:.f more aggressive cleaners, until we had to start using disinfectants because of all the bacteria. Eventually, the leather began to wear down and become more porous; until it was just permanently soiling after absorbing everything. There was some fading out and graying from wear; some stretched some didn't; we had vandalism too with some slashed seats. Our advice is if you have a clientele like we have, don't put in any lounge seats." CASE STUDY 2: UCSF KALMANOVITZ LIBRARY Telephone call with Facilities Manager, John O'Meara (415) 476 -1000 Leather lounge seats were installed when the library opened in the early 1990's. The library is open over 100 hours /week. The original seats are still in use. The following situation was communicated: "I've been with the library since the first day it opened, but have been the Facilities Manager for only the past 3 years. I think the seats have held up very well. There was one incident, shortly before I became the facilities manager, where some of them got slashed with a knife. So we had those re- upholstered in matching leather. You might remember we have 3 colors here: green, brown and black. (In response to my question about maintenance and the SFML issue:) Somewhere along the way, I guess we must have had them cleaned, but not in the 3 years I've been the facilities manager. We don't have the same homeless problem, but what we get are regular sleepers here. They take 2 seats face to face and make it into a bed. But the leather has held up fine; is been successful. We like them, so 2 years ago, we put some in our branch library in Mission Bay." (Note: Attached are some photos taken Nov. 29, 2005 which show the condition of the leather.) CASE STUDY 3: UC DAVIS SHIELDS LIBRARY Telephone call with Facilities Manager George Bynam (530) 752-2110 Leather lounge seats were installed when the library opened in 1990. The original seats are still in use but they have been reupholstered. The following situation was communicated: "Well, we're certainly not the San Francisco Main Library. Here, we have so few lounge chairs (12) that they are in constant use. They are the most popular seat type. We don't have vandalism but those chairs are occupied every single minute of the day. We get requests for more lounge seats, but we don't have the money and also they take up more room than a table with chairs. We didn't do any maintenance and we got about 10+ good years out of the leather before it started to look really worn and we decided to change it out. When we reupholstered the chairs, we had them done in leather again, and we expect to get another good 10 years wear out of them, before we reupholster them in leather again." IN CONCLUSION The only area where vinyl is clearly superior is cost. The cost of the high performance vinyl is about $43 /yard; and a lounge chair will take typically about 6 yards of vinyl: vinyl cost would then be $258. The same lounge chair takes approximately 114 SF of leather to upholster at a cost of $5.95/SF: leather cost would then be $678.30. The difference in net cost is then about $420 /seat, with the sales tax of 8.75% is $457 /chair. There are approximately 67 lounge seats in the layout, so the savings associated with the vinyl material itself is $30,619. In addition, upholstering in leather takes more workmanship than vinyl and therefore adds cost of about $4,000. So the total savings of using vinyl instead of leather is approximately $34,600. The other area where vinyl may be superior is the ability to withstand aggressive cleaners for a more extended time period. It can be cleaned with solvents, disinfectants, and bleach. While the new leathers can also be cleaned with P2f.'�_u 33f�f3r {o'� c�?t S� �LtL�cf h.tl ? i z3i 4i }? f r }e• 5 { ^ ;?, ,in3 .f�a , f : 5,3.E <z r % ✓; E.L / f f fvS' <>, i t. <t.: <r: ll ,>, C,)i 3 these, it is a natural material and cannot withstand it over the long period of time, as evidenced by what happened at the San Francisco Main Library. In all other comparisons, leather appears to perform as well or better than vinyl. And aesthetically, it can improve with age. My professional recommendation is to use the leather if it can be afforded, and if the City feels the level of homeless population frequenting the library will not be as extensive as in San Francisco. I hope this information is helpful. I will be present at the December 7 City Council meeting to answer any questions they may have. • .a >.r<. - ifr:.LtJ..) ✓.'3 ,i �o `.�' ' J.: ?ii F.ir.. %,; S.T i'iin f i t . -i at...s ,.i `: �!' ,. �.'.., f��.;ff; ...,t .:f Page 1 of 1 http: // smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/ webacc /dm7gkeTe4gp8116Hi8 /GWAP /AREF /1 ?action... 12/2/2004 Page 1 of 1 http: / /smtp.ci.alameda .ca.us /servlet /webacc /rs4uv 1 Tefuv61r4Hg8 /GWAP /AREF /3 ?action =... 12/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 http: / /smtp.ci.alameda .ca.us /servlet /webacc /rs4uvl Tefuv61r4Hg8 /GWAP /AREF /4 ?action =... 12/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 http: / /smtp.ci.alameda .ca.us /servlet/webacc /rs4uvl Tefuv61r4Hg8 /GWAP /AREF /2 ?action =... 12/1/2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From James M. Flint City Manager Date: November 29, 2004 Re: New Main Library Project Update Attached to this memorandum is the December 1, 2004, Library Construction Report. Attachment Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: St/s) s ardie Library Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Construction R et io 4 • 1.I December 1, 2004 Bid Process O U M O 1) O rn 0 z - oy ." U O O r0 N 0 te+ C" 0 -F, '.Y O NM cn i•+ - cd" ,•0 g O cd g U `O o i a c o aoi A - i. o — o N to O 15 r,1 ¢ a 0 3 O o� o". b U O N 1U U4. aP N O O ilin O U C • O ' ;5_, o as 'n • Entitlements ment Procurement Planning process for FF &E begins June, 2005. Library Move Planning process for move begins August, 2005. • The opening of the Main Library is tentatively scheduled for September, 2006. • a) The budget report, including supplemental funding sources, is attached. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Revenue/Expenditures Balance Available 0 0 Original Budget 000 000 Ncod M 1■ • N O ao to u') 0 M dt- to M ca. E!} O o 0 000 O N O L0 N O • tf) 0co a T 0 22,368,710.00 $3,729,242.00 $26,097,952.00 Sources Subtotal. 20,363,934.00 3,463,685.00 23,827,619.00 Uses of Funds $2,004,776.00 0 0 $2,270,333.00 Balance Available Earmarked Supplemental Funding: OIs O Ln OrnO�rw ON 0 tp O In 0 a0 co O O M cr O -O N t0 New Main Library FS O4- 05.xls CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 23, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Consider Amending Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6 and Adopt a Resolution Amending Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6 BACKGROUND Since 1985 the City of Alameda, through Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) and the Public Works Department, has an on -going effort to create and develop Utility Underground Districts (UUD) in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Section 19. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS On November 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13796 Establishing New Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6. Based on public comment at this meeting, the City Manager recommends that Fair Oaks Avenue (from Caroline Street to St. Charles Street), Lincoln Avenue (from Park Street to Broadway) including Gould Court and Everett Street (from Webb Avenue to Noble Avenue) be included in Phase 6. Subsequent to this meeting there has been strong support from the residents of Lincoln Avenue (from Broadway to Versailles Avenue and from Gibbons Drive to High Street) to have that area added to the Underground Utility Districts. The City Manager recommends that area be included in the Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6, too. The City Manager further recommends that: Fair Oaks Avenue (from Caroline Street to St. Charles Street) be included in the Bay Street /St. Charles Street District (Priority 1); Lincoln Avenue (from Park Street to Broadway), Gould Court and Everett Street (from Webb Avenue to Noble Avenue) be included in the Park Avenue/Noble Avenue District (Priority 6); and Lincoln Avenue (from Broadway to Versailles Avenue and from Gibbons Drive to High Street) be included in the Eighth Street /Lincoln Avenue District (Priority 11). The revised UUDs are shown in Exhibits 1 -3. Glyofhlameda QUblicWoiks Vepartrnent Public Wak Wmkrfa Yuri! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 5 -E 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers November 23, 2004 Requirement for Property Owners in an Established UUD: AMC Chapter 19 -4 and applicable State law provide for company's with overhead utilities to place their main line facilities underground using funds from their various rate structures. These proposed Districts include facilities owned or operated by AP &T, SBC, Comcast and the City of Alameda's streetlights and traffic signals. However, service lines are not covered by these requirements. Instead, property owners who currently receive their utilities overhead will be required to convert their existing service to an underground service connection. This conversion typically requires installation of conduit, meter conversion and (in some cases) building modifications. Costs typically range from $2,000 to $4,000 for a single - family residence or small commercial building. In 1988, the City established a policy of requiring the owner of an owner /occupied single - family residence to pay the first $1,000 of the conversion cost of the electrical service only. This figure was indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and is currently $1,597. AP &T will reimburse the owner for costs in excess of this amount for the electrical service only. Based on this policy and with the additional costs associated with undergrounding phone and cable service, a typical house that is located 25 feet from the main line should expect to pay about $2,000 for this work. Non - owner /occupied single - family residences are responsible for the total amount of the conversion costs. AP &T's contractor for each District provides an estimated cost to convert a typical house. The property owner is given the option of negotiating a price for the conversion work with the contractor, doing the work themselves or hiring their own contractor. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT: AP &T estimates the cost of the conversion work for their facilities to be included in Phase 6 cost, which is shown on a District -by- District basis (see Exhibit 4). The City, through the Public Works Department is responsible for the installation or conversion of traffic signal wiring within each District. The cost for the traffic signal work will be funded from Gas Tax. SBC and Comcast will be responsible for undergrounding their facilities in conjunction with the work done by the City and AP &T. AP &T has approximately $1 million per year available for undergrounding projects. SBC and Comcast have stated their support for these Districts and will pay their estimated costs for conversion. Procedures for Full Utilization of AP &T's UUD Funds At the November 16, 2004 City Council meeting, Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Manager direct AP &T staff to provide a procedure to fully spend AP &T's available UUD funds each fiscal year. It was requested that the plan be presented on the following City Council meeting of December 7, 2004. Unfortunately, the AP &T staff member most familiar with the UUD funds is off on leave for November and December. The City Manager will provide the requested information to Council in an Off - Agenda Report in January. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlametla QObl cWoiks Uepattrnent Public Works ;Voila for You! Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers November 23, 2004 RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the Council hold the Public Hearing and receive testimony from individual property owners. It is also recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution amending new Underground Utility Districts, Phase 6. MTN:MDB:gc Exhibits 1 through 4 Resp fully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Mike Di Blasi Construction Manager G : \PUBWORKS\PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \120704 \extendundrgmd Phase6.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Giyoftilmeda bblicWoiks epartrnent Public Works f Yon! LEGEND: NEW POLE: • POLE TO REMAIN: 0 REMOVE POLE:0 POLE LOCATIONS: 1.491' W/O EVERETT ST 2. 365' W/O EVERETT ST. 3. 177 W/0 EVERETT ST 4. 223' N/O LINCOLN AVE 5. 136' LINCOLN AVE 6. 112' S/O LINCOLN AVE 7. 234' S/0 LINCOLN AVE 8. 30' E/O EVERETT ST 9. 18' W/O GOULD CT 10. 127' N/O LINCOLN AVE 11. 116' E/O GOULD CT 12. 232' E/0 GOULD CT 13. 380' E/0 GOULD CT 14. 79' N/0 LINCOLN AVE 15. 31' S/O LINCOLN AVE 16. 81' S/O LINCOLN AVE 17. 605' W/0 BROADWAY 18. 517' W/O BROADWAY 19. 403' W/0 BROADWAY 20. 290' W/0 BROADWAY 21. 178' W/0 BROADWAY 22. 28' S/O NOBLE AVE * THIS DISTRICT ALSO INCLUDES PARK AVE CENTRAL AVE TO ENCINAL AVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 16, 2004 FL 1-1-LO POLE LOCATIONS: LEGEND: NEW POLE: • POLE TO REMAIN: 0 REMOVE POLE: 1. 76' N/O CENTRAL 2. 66' S/O CENTRAL 3. 169' S/O CENTRAL 4. 269' S/O CENTRAL 5. 120' S/O FAIR OAKS 6. 235' S/O FAIR OAKS 7. 347' S/O FAIR OAKS 8. 155' W/O ST CHARLES 9. 30' W/O ST CHARLES 10. 82' S/O SAN ANTONIO 11. 206' S/O SAN ANTONIO 12. 336' S/O SAN ANTONIO 13. 454' S/O SAN ANTONIO 14. 574' S/O SAN ANTONIO 15. 672' S/O SAN ANTONIO 16. 795' S/O SAN ANTONIO 17. 945' S/O SAN ANTONIO 18. 110 E/0 ST CHARLES 19. 250' E/0 ST CHARLES 20. 30' N/O CENTRAL 21. 618' N/O SAN ANTONIO 22. 534' N/O SAN ANTONIO 23. 384' N/O SAN ANTONIO 24. 235' N/O SAN ANTONIO 25. 131' N/0 SAN ANTONIO 26. 30' N/O SAN ANTONIO 27. 30' E/0 BAY 28. 105' S/O SAN ANTONIO 29. 230' S/O SAN ANTONIO 30. 331' S/O SAN ANTONIO 31. 485' S/0 SAN ANTONIO 32. 606' S/O SAN ANTONIO 33. 740' S/O SAN ANTONIO 34. 842' S/O SAN ANTONIO 35. 942' S/0 SAN ANTONIO 36. 1033' S/0 SAN ANTONIO 37. 1144' S/O SAN ANTONIO 38. 578' W/0 ST CHARLES 39. 456' W/0 ST CHARLES 40. 353' W/0 ST CHARLES 41. 196' W/0 ST CHARLES 42. 64' W/0 ST CHARLES Cal 00TDI 0 n0 A000� X00 OCR 00 Exhibit I LEGEND: NEW POLE: • POLE TO REMAIN: 0 REMOVE POLE: POLE LOCATIONS: 1. 374' W/0 PEARL ST 2. 200' W/0 PEARL ST 3. 77' W/O PEARL 4.40' N/O LINCOLN AVE 5. 55' E/0 PEARL ST 6. 170' E/0 PEARL ST 7. 57' W/0 VERSAILLES AVE 8. 30' N/O LINCOLN AVE 9. 367' E/0 GIBBONS DR 10. 393' E/O GIBBONS DR 11. 480' E/0 GIBBONS DR 12. 595' E/0 GIBBONS DR 13. 732' E/O GIBBONS DR 14. 2' W/0 COURT ST 15. 30' S/0 LINCOLN AVE 16. 172' E/0 COURT ST 17. 24' E/O FOUNTAIN ST 18. 143' E/0 FOUNTAIN ST 19. 231' FOUNTAIN ST * THIS DISTRICT ALSO INCLUDES EIGHTH ST CENTRAL AVE TO LINCOLN AVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 16, 2004 oirmy api IrLiniki In im-DDInancimarD) -0WLL 1©L OW Exhtbti 3 Total in $1.000's 0, 0 ,- 834 1426 CO 513 784 256 1... N cc, 01 N. LO r•- ...-- 1343 1358 547 1 0 r- 441 st n Cost: Traffic Sianls 0 cr co ,- co •,-. 0 01 O ,- 30 0 cr 0 ,- Cost: Comcast co 30 50 Ni. o co co co co co oo 48 18 0 N co Cost: SBC r- .]: co 291 24 o3 162 ,i- co 159 7) 36 364 280 280 co o ,- 0 cr co co Cost - AP &T ..::: ::: I,• • • • 628k E q r r- CO 386k 579k 193k 569k LO N CO 0 CO CO r r W6 E 378k I co 1.7) 332k CD LO %For /Against • • Cr) LL 006 r- r- 100 67 r- co 0 '' # of Parcels LO 47 0 ,r CO 45 CD cs, N CO N 0 56 r 0,1 CD CO City Criteria Met ..... ..... co Le 5, 8 cn 6 •c1". co r i 5, 8 4, 5 4,5,6 4, 5, 8 o o (0 -n 4, : -10 En IUtility Criteria Met CO CO 1,2,3 CO CO 1,2,3 CO 2, 3 CO r N 1, 3 N 1, 2 CO Di 1.-- CO - CO District Location Bav St south of Central Central Ave Webster Sreet all crossings - Central Ave to Union Street south of Clinton Ave Ave Distnct 27: Santa Clara Avenue - Willow St to Oak St District 23: Lincoln Park overhead line from Fernside Blvd Distnct 26: Central Avenue - Willow Street to Oak Street Encinal Ave Noble Ave Otis Dn e - P rk St v a o Broadway and streets south • of Otis • Drive c Sherman St south of Central Ave Distract 28' Otis ie Park Street to Willow Street Eighth Street - Lincoln Ave to Central Ave District 24: Sherman Street - Beuna Vista Ave to Atlantic Ave Eagle Ave west of Constitution Way San Antonio Ave - Sherman St to St Charles St IFinal Priorty Listing - N 11 CI •cr In CO CD CD N. CO t- 1 10 Combine with Waterton St Combine with 1 and 8 EXHIBIT 4, 1 OF 2 8 0 cn 0 OQ • s 0 co a) 0 m it .o, cn O E • o 0 co co (0 i- t' 06 o • < • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • %For /Against 0) isz 00 a. (0 City Criteria Met ,c Utility Criteria Met District Location 0 0 0 0 0 C0 0 65 Final Priorty Listing h. 0) cw3 > • < .17) EO o z 0 > • < c E • o o z Combine with EXHIBIT 4, 2 OF 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS, PHASE 6 WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has an on -going effort to create and develop Utility Underground Districts (UUD). To date, twenty -one UUDs have been completed; and WHEREAS, the City, at the request of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and numerous residential neighborhoods, desires to establish the formation of additional UUDs; and WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 19 -4 provides that property owners within the District shall provide all necessary facility changes on their premises so as to be able to receive such service from the underground lines of the supplying utilities; and WHEREAS, affected property owners in thirty -two proposed locations were notified by mail that they were within a proposed District and that a public meeting was '>. scheduled for August 12, 2004; and cr WHEREAS, the City held a public meeting on August 12, 2004. After receiving 0 comments and responses from citizens, the Technical Advisory Committee met to determine which districts met the California Public Utility Commission and the City of Alameda criteria for eligibility; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed Public Hearing on November 16, 2004 and adopted Resolution No. 13796 creating Underground Utility District, Phase 6; and WHEREAS, a prioritized list of eight (8) new districts (UUD, Phase 6) and four (4) previously approved districts was approved by Council as follows: 1. Bay Street (south of Central Avenue), St. Charles Street (south of Central Avenue), and San Antonio Avenue (Bay Street to St. Charles Street); 2. Webster Street (all crossings from Central Avenue to Pacific Avenue); 3. Union Street (south of Clinton Avenue), Burbank Street and Portal Avenue; 4. Santa Clara Avenue (Willow Street to Oak Street) — previously approved in Phase 4; 5. Lincoln Park (overhead line from Fernside Boulevard) and Central Avenue (Willow Street to Oak Street) — previously approved in Phase 4; 6. Park Avenue (Central Avenue to Encinal Avenue) and Noble Avenue; 7. Otis Drive (Park Street to Broadway and streets south of Otis Drive including Park Avenue, Roosevelt Drive, Regent Street and Delmar Avenue); 8. Sherman Street (south of Central Avenue) and San Antonio Avenue (Bay Street to Sherman Street); 9. Otis Drive (Park Street to Willow Street/Broadway) — previously approved in Phase 4; 10. Eagle Avenue (west of Constitution Way) and Waterton Street; 11. Eighth Street (Lincoln Avenue to Central Avenue); and 12. Sherman Street (Buena Vista Avenue to Atlantic Avenue) — previously approved in Phase 4; and Resolution #5 -E 12 -7 -04 WHEREAS, the work for the District shall begin in late 2005 or early 2006 and be completed within approximately 10 years; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed Public Hearing on December 7, 2004 to consider amending UUD, Phase 6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that upon holding the Public Hearing and receiving testimony from individual property owners, that the public necessity and welfare require amending UUD, Phase 6 as follows: • Add Fair Oaks Avenue (Caroline Street to St. Charles Street) to the Bay Street (south of Central Avenue), St. Charles Street (south of Central Avenue), San Antonio Avenue (Bay Street to St. Charles Street) District (Priority 1). • Add Lincoln Avenue (Park Street to Broadway), Gould Court and Everett Street (Webb Avenue to Noble Avenue) to the Park Avenue (Central Avenue to Encinal Avenue) and Noble Avenue District (Priority 6). • Add Lincoln Avenue (Broadway to Versailles Avenue and Gibbons Drive to High Street) to the Eighth Street (Lincoln Avenue to Central Avenue) District (Priority 11). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the City Clerk shall notify all affected utilities and all persons who own real property within the amended UUD, Phase 6 that have not been previously notified of the creation of the original UUD, Phase 6, of this action. 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 7th day of December, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS:. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \111604 \undrgrnd6reso.doc City of Alameda Memorandum Date: November 30, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Request for Continuance - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04 -0013 and Variances VO4 -0005, VO4 -0015, VO4 -0016, VO4 -0017 to permit the construction of a rear deck and garage addition that was completed without City permits. The rear deck measures approximately thirty inches in height from grade to the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an expansion of the existing single - family dwelling up to the north (right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is requesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the work completed without permit including: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(2)(6) to construct a rear deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(e)(1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(7) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback is required for rear yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The site is located within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Appellant/Property Owner(s): Fred & Ursula Hoggenboom of 913 Oak Street. BACKGROUND The appellant (applicant/property owner) and City staff are both requesting a continuance of this public hearing to January 04, 2005. The continuance is requested due to scheduling conflicts on the December 07, 2004 City Council agenda. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The City Manager finds that a continuance is appropriate given the scheduling conflict and the additional time this continuance will provide to the City Council to review the Planning Board action Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 5 -F 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and November 30, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 and merits of the appeal. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary relating to Planning activities for this project. Application fees and processing costs are the responsibility of the applicant/appellant. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, acknowledge the request for continuance, and then, by motion, continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 04, 2005. B Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Fuz Planning and Building Director e Bounds anner I Attachment: Continuance request from Fred & Ursula Hogenboom cc: Fred and Ursula Hoggenboom, Property Owners Italo Calpestri, Applicant Andrew Cunningham, Planning Board President G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2005\913 Oak.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 11/19/2994 TA: n7 51 R5?114 97 ! PAM— r i FRED & URSULA HOGENBOOM 913 OAK STREET ALAMEDA, CA 94501 865 -3353 (h) 521-7215 (w) 521 -68103 (fax) November 1St, 2004 Melodie-Bound9, Planning & Building Department City fir Alameda, City Flail .Alameda, CA 94501 7474$75 voice 747 -6853 fax ProYet Variance and Major Design Review VO4 -0005, i)R.04 -0013 913 Onk St, Alameda, CA 94501 Plena oanainue our appeal of the Planning Board decision regarding me Variance until the January Al" 700,4 City Council meeting. j 10 'd C009IZ90IS 3Sf1011ON7i1M.SCIII 144 b1; I 1 1002 61 AON City of Alameda Memorandum DATE: November 30, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Request for Continuance - Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026 for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive. The development projects also include the expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following Variances: 1) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3)(Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 percent; 2) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(a)(Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d)(Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 -feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1)(Rear Yard) /Subsection 30- 2(definitions)(Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7)(Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.14(c)(Barrier Heights) because the wind- screens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board also found that Variance for the Bay window encroachment be withdrawn because this encroachment is currently in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. The site is located within an R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District. Appellant/Property Owner: Rita Mohlen of 3017 Marina Drive. BACKGROUND The appellant and City staff are both requesting a continuance of this public hearing to January 04, 2005. The continuance is requested to allow completion of a review of the code determinations made for this project by an outside third party code expert. The results of this review will be incorporated into the staff report to the City Council for the hearing of the appeal. DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS The City Manager finds that a continuance is appropriate because the additional time is necessary to complete the third party code review for this project prior to conducting the public hearing. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 5 -G 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and November 8, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT There will be no additional funding required in the Planning & Building Department budget relating to Planning activities for this project. Application fees and processing costs are the responsibility of the applicant. The cost of completing the third party outside review will be funded from the Planning & Building Department budget pursuant to the City Manager's direction. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, acknowledge the request for continuance, and then, by motion, continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 04, 2005. By: Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Fuz Planning & Building Director 7 Je. L. ormack Development Review Manager cc: Rita Molhen, Property Owner /Applicant/Appellant Andrew Stoddard, 3011 Marina Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 Andrew Cunningham, Planning Board President Italo A. Calpestri III Laurence Padway Gene Lafollette Greg Fox BCDC Army Corps of Engineers Greg McFann G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2005\3017 Marina_Continuance.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: TRANSMITTAL OF: 1) CITY OF ALAMEDA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2004 2) AUDITOR'S REPORT ON AGREED UPON PROCEDURES ON COMPLIANCE WITH VEHICLE CODE SECTION 40200.3 PARKING CITATION PROCESSING 3) AGREED UPON PROCEDURES REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSITION 111 2003 -04 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT INCREMENT 4) POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PENSION PLANS 1079 AND 1082 AUDIT REPORT 5) METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GRANT PROGRAMS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2004 BACKGROUND Transmitted herewith is the City of Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended June 30, 2004. The Comprehensive Annual Report is intended to be easily readable and efficiently organized. It provides detailed financial information by which market analysts, investors, potential investors and others may assess the relative attractiveness of investing in Alameda as compared to alternative investment opportunities. Also transmitted are the auditors' reports on Agreed Upon Procedures for Compliance with certain vehicle code provisions, the report on our compliance with the Proposition 111 calculation procedures, the Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Program Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2004. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Item 5 -H 12-07-04 Honorable Mayor and November 16, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The CAFR report has three sections: Introductory Section: This section contains the transmittal letter from the Chief Financial Officer, which highlights departmental accomplishments and discusses economic conditions and outlook. This section also contains our awards for excellence in financial reporting from the Governmental Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada and from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. Financial Section: This section includes the auditors' opinion letter, the "Management Discussion and Analysis" (as required by GASB 34), the general purpose financial and supplemental combining statements. Budget to actual comparisons by fund can be found within these statements. Comparisons from one year to the next are also available herein. Statistical Section: This section includes a number of tables concerning city operations, demographic and miscellaneous information. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is on file with the City Clerk and can also be reviewed at Alameda Free Library and its branches. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT The financial statements, supporting schedules, statistical tables and narrative explanations are presented to help assure that all financial data are presented in order to provide interested groups with all necessary information pertaining to City finances. These interested groups include the City Council, boards and commissions, oversight bodies, investors and creditors, grant or resource providers, taxpayers, employees and others. General Fund equity and other credits on June 30, 2004 were $18,716,707. Approximately 32.38% of this amount or $6,061,084 was loaned to other funds, loans receivables and prepaid, i.e., Alameda Point Community Improvement Project $1,258,995, FISC $2,400,000, AP &T $2,200,000, loan receivable $167,271 related to a code violation action and $34,818 for miscellaneous loans receivable and prepaids. RECOMMENDATION These reports are presented for informational purposes only. The City Auditor, a representative from Maze and Associates, our external auditors, and the Chief Financial Officer will be available at the December 7, 2004 City Council meeting to answer questions Dedicated to Excellence Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and November 16, 2004 Councilmembers Page 3 of 3 and /or receive ideas from the City Council as to areas it would like emphasized during the 2004 -05 audit cycle. Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: -Ann Boyer ief Financial Officer JAB:di Attachments cc: City Auditor City Treasurer Maze & Associates G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \120704 \CA F R 04Tra ns. d oc Dedicated to Excellence Committed to Service City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Background Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers James M. Flint City Manager December 1, 2004 Recommendation to appropriate $50,000 for services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland. At the November 16 2004 City Council meeting, Council directed the City Manager to agendize an action to appropriate $50,000 for various services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian Casino in Oakland. Discussion The $50,000 appropriation will be added to the previously approved FY 04 -05 budget for the City Attorney's Office. The funds will be used for various services and supplies necessary to engage the community regarding the proposed casino such as public noticing efforts related to the December 14 2004 Town Hall meeting, held jointly with the City of San Leandro, at 7:OOPM at Grandview Pavillion located at 300 Island Drive in Alameda. In addition, the funds may be used to cover consulting services necessary to analyze potential impacts of the proposed casino in Oakland on the Alameda community. Some of these impacts may include traffic; provision of fire, police and emergency medical services; affordable housing requirements, social and economic. It is anticipated that the $50,000 appropriation of funds will cover only the initial community engagement and education process and that significant additional appropriations may be required if the City Council elects, after the community engagement and education process, to actively oppose the Koi Nation Casino project. Budget Consideration /Financial Impact The City Attorney's Office FY 04 -05 appropriation level will increase by $50,000 and will be funded from the General Fund reserve. Item 5-1 12-07-04 December 1, 2004 Page 2 Recommendation The City Manager recommends the appropriation of $50,000 for services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland. Res ectfull sub , mes M. Flint City Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SUBSECTION 30- 4.2(d)(9), (R -2, TWO - FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS) , SUBSECTION 30- 4.3(d)(10), (R -3, GARDEN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), SUBSECTION 30- 4.4(d)(10), (NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), 30- 4.5(d)(10), (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), SUBSECTION 30- 4.6(d)(10), (HOTEL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), AND SECTION 30 -5.12 (OPEN SPACE; SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE) IN THEIR ENTIRETY, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION 30- 4.2(d)(9), (R -2, TWO - FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS) , SUBSECTION 30- 4.3(d)(10), (R -3, GARDEN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), SUBSECTION 30- 4.4(d)(10), (NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), 30- 4.5(d)(10), (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), SUBSECTION 30- 4.6(d)(10), (HOTEL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MINIMUM HEIGHT, BULK AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS), AND SECTION 30 -5.12 (DEFINITION OF REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE) OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two - family Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) of Article 1 (Zoning District Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) and adding new Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two - family Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) to read as follows: 30- 4.2(d)(9) Usable Open Space Requirements Usable open space is comprised of private open space and common open space as defined in 30 -5.12. The following are the minimum open space requirements: a minimum 600 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space per ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per non - ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 150 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. There shall be not less than 300 square feet of common open space per lot. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -J 12 -7 -04 Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection Section 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) of Article 1 (Zoning District Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) and adding new Subsection Section 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) to read as follows: 30- 4.3(d)(10) Usable Open Space Requirements Usable open space is comprised of private open space and common open space as defined in 30 -5.12. The following are the minimum open space requirements: a minimum 500 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space per ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per non - ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 120 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. There shall be not less than 300 square feet of common open space per lot. Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (R-4, Neighborhood Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) and adding new Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (R -4, Neighborhood Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) to read as follows: 30- 4.4(d)(10) Usable Open Space Requirements Usable open space is comprised of private open space and common open space as defined in 30 -5.12. The following are the minimum open space requirements: a minimum 400 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space per ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per non - ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 90 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. There shall be not less than 300 square feet of common open space per lot. Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection30- 4.5(d)(10) (R -5, General Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) and adding new Subsection 30- 4.5(d)(10) (R -5, General Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) to read as follows: 30- 4.5(d)(10) Usable Open Space Requirements Usable open space is comprised of private open space and common open space as defined in 30 -5.12. The following are the minimum open space requirements: a minimum 200 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space per ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per non - ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. There shall be not less than 300 square feet of common open space per lot. Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection30- 4.6(d)(10) (R -6, Hotel Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements)) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) and adding new Subsection 30- 4.6(d)(10) (R -6, Hotel Residence District, minimum height, bulk and space requirements) to read as follows: 30- 4.6(d)(10) Usable Open Space Requirements Usable open space is comprised of private open space and common open space as defined in 30 -5.12. The following are the minimum open space requirements: a minimum 120 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space per ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per non - ground level dwelling unit; with a minimum of 30 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. There shall be not less than 300 square feet of common open space per lot. Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Section 30 -5.12 (Open Space) of Article 1 (Zoning District Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations) in its entirety and adding Section 30 -5.12 (Definition of Required Open Space) of Article 1 (Zoning District Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Zoning Districts and Regulations). Usable Open Space is comprised of Private Open Space and Common Open Space. Usable open space is that area of a building site which is landscaped or otherwise developed and maintained for recreation or outdoor living by the occupants. Usable Open Space shall not include yards or other areas having a width of less than eight (8') feet, except for balconies which may have a minimum horizontal dimension of five (5) feet, or areas devoted to automobile access or storage. The following areas shall constitute usable open space as required by subsections 30- 4.2d.9., 30- 4.3d.10, 30- 4.4d.10., 30- 4.5d.10., and 30- 4.6d.10. (a) Common Open Space Porch, patio, court or other outdoor living area which has common access from more than one (1) dwelling unit and which has a minimum area of three hundred (300) square feet and a minimum horizontal dimension of fifteen (15) feet. Common Open space may include structures defined as patio covers in Section 30 -2 (Definitions) provided that they are accessory to Common Open Space as herein defined. Common Open space may not include required front yards. (b) Private Open Space Private Open Space shall be accessible from only one unit. Private Open Space shall not be within five (5) feet of a side lot line or ten (10) feet of a rear lot line. Private Open Space in the required front yard may not extend more than one -half (1 /2) the depth of the required front yard nor across more than one -half (1/2) of the frontage of the building. Any Private Open Space developed in the required front yard shall be enclosed by a perimeter wall or fence not to exceed three (3) feet in height unless the wall or fence complies with Section 30.5.14 (b) (8) in which case it may not exceed four (4) feet in height. The following will qualify as Private Open Space: 1. Private balcony attached to a dwelling unit with an area of at least sixty (60) square feet and a minimum horizontal dimension of five (5) feet, provided such balcony is unenclosed on at least two - thirds (2/3) of its perimeter except for required railings. A balcony which is used for access to a dwelling unit does not qualify for Private Open Space. 2. Porch, deck, patio, or court on ground level accessible from only one unit with a minimum area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet, and a minimum horizontal dimension of ten (10) feet, and is unenclosed for a least 2/3 of its perimeter except for screen fencing not more than six (6) feet high if not in the front yard. 3 Roof Deck with an area of not less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet and a minimum horizontal dimension of ten (10) feet. Any such roof deck shall have a six (6) foot high wall or screen on at least 2/3 of its perimeter located to provide protection from the wind. Presiding Officer of the City, Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda G:\PLANNING \CC\ORDINANCES\2004 \open space.doc 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 AB 2404 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 1 of 4 BILL NUMBER: AB 2404 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Steinberg FEBRUARY 19, 2004 An act to add Section 53080 to the Government Code, relating to discrimination. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2404, as introduced, Steinberg. Discrimination: athletic programs. (1) Existing law prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, color, religion, mental or physical disability, or any basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. Existing federal law provides that no person on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This bill would prohibit local governmental agencies from discriminating against any person on the basis of gender in the operation, conduct, or administration of community youth athletic programs and activities, or in the allocation of parks and recreation resources that support or enable these programs and activities. The bill would create an independent right to bring a civil action for equitable and monetary relief. The bill would also require local governmental agencies to apportion, among other things, an equitable distribution of public funds among the genders and to ensure that the athletic interests and abilities of both genders are accommodated and assessed pursuant to specified criteria. The bill would also require these agencies to produce an annual report to the Office of Civil Rights of the Attorney General that demonstrates compliance with these provisions. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill would create a state - mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State - mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Item 7 -A 12.07 -04 http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov /pub /03- 04/bill /asm/ab_ 2401 - 2450 /ab_2404_bill_20040219_intr... 12/1/2004 AB 2404 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 2 of 4 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) On June 23, 1972, Congress enacted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This landmark legislation provides that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (b) In 2003, the California Legislature, recognizing the importance of female participation in athletics, enacted Assembly Bill 833 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in California state secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. (c) Title IX has expanded athletic opportunities for girls and women in educational institutions. The dramatic increases in participation rates at both the high school and college levels since Title IX was passed show that when doors are opened to women and girls, they will rush through. (d) Athletic opportunities provide innumerable benefits to girls and young women, including greater academic success, better physical and psychological health, responsible social behaviors, and enhanced interpersonal skills. Athletic scholarships make it possible for some girls and young women to attend college. (e) Despite advances in athletic opportunities for females since 1972, discrimination still limits athletic opportunities for girls and women in community youth athletics. The Legislature declares that there is a need to expand athletic opportunities for girls in the context of community parks and recreation. (f) California community youth athletics have historically been enjoyed disproportionately by male youth. It is the intent of the Legislature to expand female participation in youth athletics programs and activities and to ensure compliance under state antidiscrimination laws. SEC. 2. Section 53080 is added to the Government Code, to read: 53080. (a) No city, county, city and county, or special district, including, but not limited to a community services district, recreation and park district, regional park district, regional park and open -space district, regional open -space park district, or resort improvement district shall discriminate against any person on the basis of sex or gender in the operation, conduct, or administration of community youth athletic programs and activities or in the allocation of parks and recreation resources that support or enable these programs and activities. (b) As used in this section, "youth athletics program or activity" means any recreational or sports program or activity in which youth solely or predominantly participate. (c) As used in this section, "parks and recreation resources" include, but are not limited to, park facilities, including, but not limited to, athletic fields, athletic courts, gymnasiums, recreational rooms, restrooms, concession stands and storage space; sports and recreation equipment; devices used to promote athletics such as scoreboards, banners, and advertising; and all moneys used in conjunction with youth athletics. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section that girls shall be accorded opportunities for participation in community youth athletic programs equivalent to those accorded to boys. (e) In apportioning public funds for community youth athletics, the entities specified in subdivision (a) shall apportion amounts to http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov /pub /03- 04/bill/asm/ab_ 2401 - 2450 /ab_2404_bill_20040219_intr... 12/1/2004 AB 2404 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 3 of 4 ensure equitable distribution among genders, except that allowances may be made for differences in the costs of various athletic programs. The factors considered when determining whether equivalent opportunity has been provided include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (1) Whether the selection of sports and athletic programs and activities offered effectively accommodate the athletic interests and abilities of members of both genders. (2) The provision of equipment and supplies. (3) Scheduling of games and practice times. (4) Selection of the season for a sport. (5) Location of the games and practices. (6) Locker rooms. (7) Practice and competitive facilities. (8) Publicity. (f) Whether the local governmental agency has effectively accommodated the athletic interests and abilities of both genders shall be assessed in any one of the following ways: (1) The community youth athletics program opportunities for boys and girls are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective residents. (2) Where the members of one gender have been and are underrepresented in community youth athletics, the local governmental agency can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion and allocation of resources that is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that gender. (3) Where the members of one gender are underrepresented in community youth athletics and the local governmental agency cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion and allocation of resources as required in paragraph (2), the agency can demonstrate that the interests and abilities of the members of that gender have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program and allocation of resources. (g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate any existing consent decree or any other settlement agreement entered into by a local governmental agency to address gender equity in athletic programs. (h) If a local governmental agency is required to cut its funding and other support of community youth athletics, it shall do so consistently with its legal obligation to comply with state and federal gender equity laws and this section. (i) The assessment required in subdivision (f) shall be interpreted pursuant to the policies and regulations of the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education in effect on January 1, 2004. (j) This section and any ordinances, regulations, or resolutions adopted pursuant to this section by a local governmental agency may be enforced by a civil action for equitable and monetary relief, which shall be independent of any other rights and remedies. (k) The local governmental agency specified in subdivision (a) shall be charged with producing an annual report to the Office of Civil Rights of the Attorney General demonstrating their compliance with this statute. The Office of Civil Rights of the Attorney General shall be charged with making these reports available to the public online. SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov/ pub /03- 04/bill /asm/ab_ 2401 - 2450 /ab_2404_bi ll_20040219_intr... 12/1/2004 AB 2404 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED Page 4 of 4 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. http: / /www.leginfo.ca.gov /pub /03- 04/bill/asm/ab_ 2401 - 2450 /ab_2404_bill_20040219_intr... 12/1/2004