The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-07-19 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - JULY 19, 2005 - - - 6:45 P.M. Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 6:45 p.m. Place: City Council. Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Miraglia Enterprises v. City of Alameda. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - JULY 19, 2005 - - - 6:55 P.M. Time: Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 6:55 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /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 LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Beverly Jo on Mayor Chair, ni y Improvement Commission CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY JULY 19, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:45 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:55 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda (Closed Session) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters and volunteer efforts to install new bus shelters. 3 -B. Presentation by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) on the 21St Annual Art and Wine Faire. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005. 4 -B. Bills for ratification. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall, Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08 -02- 08. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and installation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main Library. 4 -E. Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the $404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a firefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves. 4 -F. Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call for Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles. 4 -G. Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. 4 -H. Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the Contract to August 15, 2005. 4 -I. Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland & Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund reserves. 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 (Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road). 4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Adopting the Findings for the Non - Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. 4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Granting Another Designated Period for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees' Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. 4 -M. Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section 22- 7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I (Streets), Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks). 4 -N. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. 4 -0. Adoption of Resolution Accepting the Findings of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing John W. KnoxWhite and Eric Schatmeier as Members of the Transportation Commission. 5 -B. Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05 -0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, the definition for "replacement -in- kind ", off - street parking regulations and reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures; and • Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). 5 -C. Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment (ZA05- 0002), amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc. Address: All Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1); • Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration for ZA05 -0002; and • Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit within the C -1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). 5 -D. Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy for the Library. 5 -E. Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of September 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding vehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney. [Mayor Johnson] 5 -F. Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance limit. [Mayor Johnson] 5 -G. Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from Outside Counsel Appropriations. 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) 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. Proclamation Whereas, the City of Alameda is a "Transit First City" promoting the use of public transit as a viable alternative to the automobile; and Whereas, the City of Alameda, to encourage transit use, in April 2005 approved certain locations throughout the City for the future installation of bus shelters; and Whereas, Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS), a non - profit organization, raised funds to implement a Non - Advertising Bus Shelter Pilot Program and donated six bus shelters to the City of Alameda; and Whereas, ARTS worked with the City of Alameda staff to select a shelter design to fit the City's transit and environmental needs; and Whereas, the City of Alameda would like to thank the following team of volunteers, organized by ARTS, led by Thomas Means and coordinated with City staff, who volunteered their time and labor to install the shelters: Joe Cloren Anda Daly Charlie Daly Tony Daysog Fire Station #5 Pat Gannon Bruce Gilliat Reyla Graber Jeannie Graham - Gilliat Sue Higbee Mark Irons John Knox White Thomas Means Jim Sweeney Ativ Proclamation 3 -A 7 -19 -05 the City of Alameda would like to thank the following supporters who contributed significant time, energy and/or money to this project to make it a reality: Alameda Food and Wine Society Karl Aube Linda Aube Auctions by the Bay Theatre — (Allan Michaan) Darlene Banda Clara Barton Foundation Chris Buckley Jeff Cambra Chevy's Restaurant — (Amy Cooper Joe Cloren Diane Coler -Dark Lex Collins Anda Daly Charlie Daly Tony Daysog Susan Decker Dianne Emery Patricia Gannon David Graber Reyla Graber Jeannie Graham - Gilliat Bruce Gilliat Harbor Bay Isle Community — (Patti Rowan, CEO) Happy Trails — (Gretchen McMann) Lee Harris Susan Higbee Judy Jacobs Walt Jacobs Tom Jordan Barbara Kerr Michael Krueger Claudia Lewey Frank Matarrese Nancy Mayes Thomas Means Mel Merlin Allan Michaan Dave Needle Pagano's Ace Hardware — (David Giovannola) Dennis Pagones Don Patterson Pat Payne Mary Rabener Valerie Ruma Mary Schaefer Bob Sikora Martha Sikora Starbucks — (Sandy Russell, Manager) Jean Sweeney Jim Sweeney Mary Tigh Trader Joe's — (Robin Terra) Norma Wall John Knox White NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the 19th Day of July 2005 as Appreciation Day for ARTS and for our citizens listed above who helped ac • uire and install the City's new Bus Shelters. UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING THURSDAY- -JUNE 23, 2005- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special joint meeting at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - AGENDA ITEM Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson; Board Members Bonta, Chen, Franz, Flores - Witte, Hanna, Hollinger Jackson, Wasko - 12. [Note: Councilmember Daysog could not stay for the entire meeting due to a conflict.] Absent: None. (05- ) Work Session to discuss 2004 Board accomplishments and goals; workgroup accomplishments and 2005 work plans for the Assessment and Awareness Workgroup, Family Services Workgroup and Sister City Workgroup; and Board directions for coming year. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special joint meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board June 23, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 5:35 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Attorney. (05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator: Acting City Manager; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA); Alameda Fire Management Association (AFMA); Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA): Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), and International Association of Firefighters (IAFF). * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 9:05 p.m. * * * Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City Attorney and requested an open session agenda item; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave permission to waive attorney /client privilege on the July 2000 document and produce as part of the subpoena; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, the Council obtained a briefing from the Acting City Manager; gave direction and requested information. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting was adjourned at 10:30 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 July 5, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:59 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (05- ) Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the Resolution Commending Alameda Police Department Chief Burnham Matthews [paragraph no. 05- ] prior to the Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements. (05- ) The Acting City Manager announced that the report from the Housing Task Force [paragraph no. 05- ] would be continued because the Housing Task Force requested 30 more days to report back to the Council. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (05- ) Resolution No. 13861, "Commending Alameda Police Department Chief Burnham Matthews for His Contributions to the City of Alameda." Adopted. Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Chief Matthews; thanked Chief Matthews for his service to the City. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Chief Matthews thanked the Council for the Resolution; stated that it has been an honor to serve the Council and the community. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was delighted that Chief Matthews plans to stay in the community; noted that Chief Matthews has given a great deal of personal attention to the children of the community. Councilmember deHaan stated that Chief Matthews has done a marvelous job and will leave a legacy. Councilmember Matarrese thanked Chief Matthews for his service; stated he appreciates Chief Matthews making the Police Department Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 5, 2005 an integral part of the community. Supervisor Lai Bitker presented a proclamation on behalf of the Board of Supervisors; stated she has enjoyed working with Chief Matthews and appreciates his work with children. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05- ) Presentation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to the City of Alameda of a Historic Preservation Award for the adaptive re -use of the City Hall West Building at Alameda Point. Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, presented the Award to Mayor Johnson. Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Brady and stated that the Award would be displayed in a prominent place in City Hall. (05- ) Library Project update. The Project Manager gave an update on the Library Project. Mayor Johnson stated the Project is progressing very well. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when the cranes would arrive. The Project Manager responded that the cranes would tentatively arrive on July 25; street closure would be necessary from 6:00 a.m. for about four or five hours for two days. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is being environmentally conscience with the construction of public buildings. The Project Manager stated the bid received a year ago was approximately 20% over budget; thanked the Council for the foresight to allow the Contract to be negotiated. Mayor Johnson noted that the Pentagon is a LEED certified building. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 21% project completion was on time. The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an expanded budget and schedule presentation would be provided every six months; stated that another city received revised bids which came in 25% over budget. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2005 2 Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *05- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 14, 2005, Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on June 21, 2004, and Special City Council Meeting of June 23, 2005. Approved. ( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,377,422,92. ( *05- ) Resolution No. 13862, "Annual Adjustment of the Citywide Development Impact Fee by the Construction Cost Index." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05- ) Resolution No. 13863, "Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Randall S. Miller as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board." Adopted. (05- A) Resolution No. 13864, "Reappointing Edward Depenbrock as a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board." Adopted. (05- B) Resolution Nos. 13865 and 13866, "Reappointing Nancy W. Gormley and Garnetta S. King as Members of the Housing Commission." Adopted. (05- C) Resolution Nos. 13867 and 13868, "Reappointing Ruth K. Belikove and Alan D. Mitchell as Members of the Library Board." Adopted. (05- D) Resolution Nos. 13869 and 13870, "Reappointing Rebecca L. Kohlstrand Parsons and Margaret McNamara as Members of the Planning Board." Adopted. (05- E) Resolution Nos. 13871, 13872 and 13873, "Reappointing Stewart Chen, Karen Hollinger Jackson, and Cynthia Wasko as Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of appointment to Ms. Gormley, Ms. King, Ms. Belikove, Ms. McNamara, and Mr. Chen. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2005 3 (05- ) Ordinance No. 2942, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to Public Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from Recreation and Park Commission to City Council, and Transfer Staffing from the Recreation and Park Department to the Planning and Building Department by Amending Subsections 30 -65.3 (Contribution Requirements), 30 -65.4 (Public Art), 30 -65.5 (Alameda Public Art Fund), 30 -65.7 (Public Art Advisory Committee), 30 -65.8 (Application and Approval Procedures for Placing Public Art on Private Property) , 30 -65.10 (Guidelines for Approval), and 30- 65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of Section 30 -65 (Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Municipal Construction)." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the function of the Public Art Advisory Committee is important and deserves commission status. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05- ) Recommendation to accept report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under California Government Code Section 20903. The Acting City Manager stated the matter was on the agenda to request approval to contribute funding to the PERS Retirement System on behalf of employees who are being laid off and are eligible to retire; employees who retire within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution would be eligible; savings are created by reducing the number of positions in the City and allowing some employees to receive up to two years service credit. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would be a net savings, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the last Golden Handshake occurred, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in 1992 and again in 1995 or 1996. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the savings materialized, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all eligible employees have signed up for the Golden Handshake, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded four employees have expressed interest. Mayor Johnson stated tight fiscal times would continue and that she appreciates the Acting City Manager's creative and least painful way of reducing the work force. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2005 4 Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be any health benefit obligation, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05- ) Reconsideration of acceptance of Management Practice #37. Mayor Johnson stated that restrictions on Council communications should not go beyond the Charter; inquired whether there was a previous management practice on communications. The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; the previous practice stated that the Council could ask questions of any employee; an employee would proceed to respond to the Councilmember if the response would take no more than 30 minutes of the employee's time; the employee would notify the department head and the department head would notify the City Manager; questions that require a lot of research would pull an employee away from their work; that he has requested staff to advise him if the question requires more than 30 minutes to respond; Councilmembers may not realize that the request can turn into direction to do work, which is not allowed under the Charter; the current practice asks for the Council to make a direct inquiry to a department head rather than an employee; the department head responds with a copy to the City Manager. Mayor Johnson stated that defining an inquiry was inconsistent with the Charter; an inquiry should be reasonably brief in nature; noted that she prefers the Acting City Manager's previous management practice. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the request for inquiry is overly bureaucratic and was not anticipated or defined in the Charter; suggested that the Council direct the City Manager to provide a draft of a new management practice; the first action would be to revoke the current practice in favor of a new one; the Council should wait to act on the new practice until the new City Manager is on board to ensure an understanding of the new management practice. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council should not bore too deep; he would prefer a modified policy. Mayor Johnson stated the Council needs to be very conscience of requests; the Council should schedule an appointment to meet with a department head and be courteous to staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2005 5 Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated recognition of staff's workload is common courtesy; the Council's need to dig deep should be directed to the City Manager and raised at Council meetings. Councilmember deHaan stated that his experience with staff communication has been excellent; the Council needs to be respectful; in -depth inquiries need to be directed to the City Manager. Councilmember Daysog stated that improvements should be made when there is an opportunity to do so; his ability to represent residents' interests has not been burdened or hindered by the current management practice; stated he would welcome more information that addresses what is meant by inquiry; the current management practice is sufficient and represents the necessary separation of powers between the City Manager and that of the City Council. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the. Council direction was to have a new management practice drafted for discussion and action at a future date. Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the Acting City Manager would provide some ideas. (05- ) Report from the Housing Task Force regarding strategies to prevent mass evictions and provide for low- income housing. Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (05- ) Randy Watkins, Alameda, stated that the cost to build the garage, renovate the theatre, and build the cineplex is $45 million; there is only $10 million in revenues from the project; the lease is only $7,000 per month for cineplex and commercial lease space; the agreement allows the lessor to purchase a site after five years of leasing at a fair market value or prorated cost; urged the Council to be more fiscally conservative. (05- ) Deborah James, Alameda, thanked the Council for the West End Teen Program; noted that Goodwill offers free on -line computer training; stated there is also a teen center at Alameda High School. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda High School teen center is at the Veterans Building; suggested information on computer courses be provided to the Recreation and Parks Department also. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2005 6 (05- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and Transportation Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lee Perez for appointment to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and John Knox White and Eric Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission. (05- ) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure budget would be presented to the Council, to which the Acting City Manager responded in August. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the 10 -year budget would be presented to the Council. The Acting City Manager responded in August; stated he cannot provide an exact date because the 10 -year forecast model is being prepared in conjunction with the outside auditor; the Public Works Director is preparing the infrastructure budget for the second City Council meeting in August. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:01 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 July 5, 2005 7 July 14, 2005 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 138128 - 138650 E13700 - E13816 Void Checks: 3,890,688.84 70,289.78 130882 (42.00) 138353 (148.90) 138360 (8.00) 138367 (148.90) GRAND TOTAL 3,960,630.82 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley Council Warrants 07/19/2005 BILLS #4 -B 07/19/05 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Clyde G. Steagall, Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 Electrical Upgrades, No. P.W. 08 -02 -08 BACKGROUND On September 16, 2003, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized call for bids for the Alameda Point Pier 3 Electrical Upgrades Project, No. P.W. 08- 02 -08. On December 2, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $650,000, including contingency, to Clyde G. Steagall, Inc. This project was to create four (4) new electrical service points on Alameda Point Pier 3 to accommodate needs of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) cargo ships. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project has been completed in accordance with Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. Six (6) extra work orders were issued. Extra Work Order Nos. 1 and 5, in the total amount of $12,182.65, were for reimbursement of City Permits. Extra Work Order Nos. 2, 3 and 6, in the total amount of $8,573.26, were for the minor addition of bollards, bronze connection lugs, additional services of testing and setting the circuit breakers. Extra Work Order No. 4 was for a no -cost 51 -day time extension to enhance working conditions within the old electrical vaults underneath the Pier 3 deck. The final project cost, including extra work orders, was $609,833.91. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP# 00 -48. Approximately 60% of this project is funded by a Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant No. 07 -49- 04901. Other funding sources include Alameda Point Bonds and Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Association (ARRA) Lease Revenues. Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) furnished the four (4) new transformers, other materials and covered costs incurred by its staff during design and construction. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service elboth ntliS Report 4 -C CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Page 2 July 5, 2005 The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall, Inc., for Construction of Alameda Point Pier 3 Electrical Upgrades, No. P.W. 08- 02 -08. MTN:BH:gc Respec j 9 sub fitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Barbara Hawkins City Engineer G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \071905 \pier3accept.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service e1C � � U � Uepariment Public AWN Work, f Y it CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: William C. Norton Acting City Manager DATE: July 14, 2005 RE: Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for Fabrication and Installation of Public Art Work, Cadence of the Water, at the New Main Library BACKGROUND In January, 2003, the Library Building Team established an Art and Recognition Team. With funding from the Friends of the Library, the Team engaged an Art Consultant to assist in the process of planning art for the new Main Library. The Team sent out an RFQ for artists, reviewed the artists' qualifications and body of work, and interviewed finalists. During the solicitation and selection stage, the Art and Recognition Team was joined by three local artists and art collectors to assist in the evaluation of proposals and artist interviews. The first work selected was Cadence of the Water, a series of eight limestone medallions proposed by Masayuki Nagase for the exterior of the building.' The work was approved on July 21, 2004, by the Public Art Advisory Committee. Funding for Cadence of the Water is in place. DISCUSSION Solicitation and selection of public art for the new Main Library is the result of an extraordinary effort by a citizen -staff committee. Many, many hours were spent by staff and volunteer citizens reviewing proposals, interviewing artists, evaluating finalists and presenting the art to the Public Art Advisory Committee. Moreover, these same individuals worked closely with the Friends of the Library and the Library Foundation to secure the needed funding. Through their actions the members of the Art Team, the Friends and the Foundation have demonstrated the high priority they place on public art at the new library. 1 Five individual works were selected by the Team and approved by the Public Art Advisory Committee. Cadence of the Water, because it is required to be installed during construction, had the highest priority, and is the only work for which funding has been secured. The Library Foundation continues to promote donations for art as one of its fund - raising priorities. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report 4 -D CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 14, 2005 Cadence of the Water was designed to express the changing Tight and form of waves, subtly enhancing the architecture and bringing the viewer's attention and awareness to nature and the beauty of the ocean. Each of the eight limestone medallions will be approximately 3 feet high by 4 feet wide, and will be 6 inches deep. Four medallions will be installed along Lincoln Avenue and four along Times Way. The artist's description of the medallions, their placement and design, and background information about the artist are shown in Exhibit 1, attached. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Sources of funding for the $80,500 contract are as follows: • Friends of the Library $55,000 • Library Foundation $20,000 • Library Construction Fund $3,000 • Donations to the Library $2,500 Total Funding $80,500 MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION The Acting City Manager recommends that the Mayor and Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and installation of Cadence of the Water. Attachments Respectfully submitted, Susan Hardie Library Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service ARTIST TEAM STATEMENT Alameda Free Library Masayuki Nagase & Michele Ku Exhibit 1 Background In our work, our main source of inspiration is the essence of nature and the multiple images and forms which represent universal symbols of life. In public art we want to facilitate the viewers' discovery of their own interconnectedness with nature in their region by the experience of art made of natural material such as stone. We always start our projects by doing site research into the natural environment. We selected two natural features of Alameda in which our design concepts are based upon. The first feature we chose is the bay and water surrounding Alameda. The presence of the bay and the beach is an obvious natural characteristic that we felt very drawn to from the beginning. We visited the Crab Cove visitor center and walked on Crown Beach. While the bay is the one of the most obvious natural features of Alameda, it was interesting to us that when we were in downtown Alameda we didn't feel the presence of the water. The second natural characteristic we chose was the live oak tree. From our site research we discovered that Alameda was once covered with beautiful groves of live oaks. And to this day, we found the residents of Alameda are very proud of their urban forest. They identify their city with their trees. We were struck with the beauty and the presence of huge and mature trees throughout the city. Design Concept for the Medallions Title: "Cadence of the Water" When we contemplated the site for the medallions we felt it was important to integrate with the architectural vocabulary. We wanted the medallions to be seen as a part of the wall but yet have their own character. The ocean and its pattern of movement ;,; u`es of the artwork. We propose to do a series of eight individual reliefs carved with varying patterns that express the changing light and form of waves. Each individual piece will have a unique pattern like the variation in a piece of music. When one views the building from the street, we envision each medallion as a metaphoric window set in the wall. Each relief would have a different rhythm and become a subtle feature in the architecture, bringing the viewer's attention and awareness back to nature, the beauty of the ocean. "lt is no accident that the incessant rhythms of the sea calms us, brings us back into phase, reacquaints us with ourselves.' Drew Kampion Fabrication /Installation We strongly propose to do the medallions in limestone. We believe the beauty of natural limestone is incomparable to concrete. Also Masayuki's skill in carving will greatly enhance the presence of the medallions. He can work with a variety of surfaces, bringing out the color and depth of the stone and relief pattern. Limestone material is durable and will age more beautifully than concrete over a long span of time. The choice of limestone can be selected in consultation with the architects to match the building materials. • If the medallions are done out of stone, Masayuki will fabricate it directly in his studio in Oakland. In consultation with the architects and structural engineer, Masayuki can install stainless steel anchor pins in the reliefs and attach them to the side of the building. We will be responsible for installation of the reliefs. If the medallions are made of concrete, Masayuki can either fabricate some or all parts of the process. Masayuki will first make a positive form out of plaster. The positive form would then be cast to make a rubber mold. After the mold is completed, the concrete positive form would be poured with internal reinforcing metal mesh and anchor pins on the backside. Dimensions: Height 2 ft 111/2 inch Length 4 ft 3 inch Depth: 6 inches MASAYUKI NAGASE I80I Cedar St Berkeley, CA 94703 Tel: (510) 548 -3618 EDUCATION • 1971 -1976 Stone Carving Apprenticeship— Kasama, Japan 1968 -1971 Attended Tokyo Academy of Fine Arts — Tokyo, Japan PUBLIC ART PROJECTS 2002 Capitol Area East End Complex- Sacramento, California (Collaborative design with Michele Ku) 2001 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology — Socorro, New Mexico East Multnomah County Health,Aging and Disability Building -- Gresham, Oregon Sacramento River Water Treatment Intake Plant—Sacramento, California 2000 University of Northern Colorado —Ross Hall— Greeley, Colorado (Collaborative design with Michele Ku) 1999 Ft. Lewis College —Fine Arts Building— Durango, Color-ado Colorado's Ocean Journey —Plaza Sculpture— Denver, Colorado (Collaborative design with Michele Ku) 1998 National Peace Site —Ragle Ranch Park — Sebastopol, California 1996 Forma Viva - .Highway Project–:-Bled, Slovenia ;I 992 Shirai Corporation Garden —Yasu, Japan 1990 City of Koper Market Plaza Fountain — Koper, Slovenia 1989 City of Saskatoon Group Sculpture Project—Saskatchewan , Canada 1987 Isla Negra Sculpture Parke sla Negra, Chile Forma Viva —Group Sculpture Project Lucija, Slovenia Town of Budduso Granite Sculpture Symposium — Sardinia, Italy y 1986 ..__,_.. Ruidell Sculpture Park Monument — Saskatchewan, Canada 1985 Forma Viva---Old Jewish Section- Piran, Slovenia Alme Vivode Square— lzola, Slovenia 1984 Lindabrunn Symposium —Group Sculpture Project — Hospital Garden— Baden,Austria 1983 East —West Forum—Group Sculpture Project--Dordrecht, Netherlands 1982 Kenyukai. Hospital Garden— Nagasaki, Japan Koyagi Townhall— Nagasaki, Japan 1981 City of Hagi Sculpture Park —Group Sculpture Project —Hagi, Japan 1980 Town of Zrece Sculpture Symposium— Zrece, Slovenia Town of Lipica Sculpture Symposium — Lipica, Slovenia' 1979 Lindabrunn Sculpture Symposium —Group Sculpture Project Lindabrunn,Austria 1976 Liberty Hill Bicentennial International Sculpture Symposium— Liberty HiII,Texas, USA ONE MAN. EXHIBITIONS 1999 Fort Lewis College Art Gallery — Durango, Colorado 1 995 Podsreda Castle Gallery— Podsreda, Slovenia 994 Cultural Center— Sezana, Slovenia 1993 Municipal Gallery— Ljubljana, Slovenia Loza Gallery – Koper, Slovenia MASAYUKI NAGASE page 2 1985 I982 1981 1980 Alga Gallery—lzola, Slovenia Umag Gallery—Umag, Croatia Pilonova Gallery— Ajdovscina, Slovenia Tolmin Library—Tolmin, Slovenia Meduza Gallery— Koper, Slovenia Ars Gallery— Ljubljana, Slovenia Mala Gallery— Sezana, Slovenia GROUP EXHIBITIONS 2001 Ascoltare Le Pietra Blanche- GalleriaA +A- Venice, Italy 1994 1986 1985 1984 1981 . Primorski Umetniki— Koprski Museum — Koper, Slovenia Fiera Internazionale de Arte Contemporanea —Fiera del Levante —Bari, Italy Forma Viva `85— Municipal Gallery Piran, Slovenia Japanische Kleinplastik— Fraunbad— Baden, Austria Kornarija —Buje Library—Buje, Croatia Rassena Internazionale del Bronzetto — Rettori Gallery— Trieste, Italy 1978 Group Ookomedoni— Sannomiya Plaza--Kobe, Japan 1976 Sculptors from Symposium — Contemporary Gallery— Dallas,Texas, USA TEACHING EXPERIENCE 2000 Instructor —Ft Lewis College - Durango, Colorado 1 998 Instructor— International SummerAcademy of FineArts — Salzburg,Austria 1997 Instructor — International SummerAcadamy of FineArts— Salzburg,Austria 1988 Instructor — Kornarija Sculpture Summer Program — Marusici, Croatia 1986 Instructor — Ruddell Sculpture Summer Workshop— Saskatchewan, Canada 1981 -1983 Instructor — Kornarija Sculpture Summer Program — Marusici, Croatia BIBLIOGRAPHY 1999 The Durango Herald — September 24, 1999 —p. 1 B —photo & p. 2B— Durango, CO Denver Rocky Mountain News — February 19, 1999 —p. I —photo & p. 23— Denver, CO. 1998 Sonoma West Times & News —May 27, I998—p. 3A— Sebastopol, CA. The Press Democrat —May 24, 1998 —p. 1B to p. 3 B —Santa Rosa, CA 1997 Jana Ambient — September/ October issue 1997 —p. 14 to p. 18— Ljubljana, Slovenia 1990 Primorske Novice — August 31, 1990 —p. 5— Koper, Slovenia 1985 Primorske Novice —May 21, 1 985—p.42—Koper, Slovenia Delo —May 21, 1985— photo— Koper, Slovenia Primorske Novice —May 13, 1985— photo — Koper, Slovenia Danas—January 29, 1985— pg.66— Zagreb, Croatia 1980 Delo— August 25, 1 980— photo— Koper, Slovenia Delo— August 25, 1980— photo— Koper, Slovenia w opa}x :ell in Design Concept for the Medallions Title: "Cadence of the Water" AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION OF PUBLIC ART WORK THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 21st day of June, 2005, by and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City ") and artist Masayuki Nagase, an individual whose address is 1801 Cedar St., Berkeley CA 94703 (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. Contractor is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Contractor possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into an agreement for design, execution, fabrication, and installation of certain public artwork in a public space. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Scope of Contractor's Services. 1.1 Fabrication, Transportation, Installation of Work of Art. Contractor shall fabricate the work of art (the "Work "), or cause it to be fabricated under Contractor's personal supervision, in conformity with the Proposal submitted by Contractor and approved by City on July 21, 2004. The specifications for the Work are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The work shall not deviate in size, design, or material from the Proposal and the specifications as attached, unless the modification is first approved in writing by City. Contractor is responsible for the transportation of the Work to, and the installation of the Work at, the Main Library located at 1550 Oak St., Alameda CA, as more particularly depicted on 1 Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Site "). Contractor shall pay all expenses associated with the fabrication, transportation, and installation of the Work. 1.2 Consultations and Deviations from Proposal. The goal of the parties is a Work which represents the creative talents of Contractor and satisfies the specifications set forth in Exhibits A and B. The parties recognize that they must consult closely during fabrication and installation of the Work to accomplish these goals. 1.3 Modifications. City shall have the right to request that modifications be made to the Work, or to approve modifications requested by Contractor. Contractor shall have the right to negotiate and approve such requested modifications. Should such modifications result in an increase in cost to Contractor, full documentation of such costs shall be submitted to City in writing, and any increase shall be approved by City prior to the modifications being made. Upon City's approval, such increased costs shall be added to the fee to be paid to Contractor pursuant to Section 4 below. In the event the modifications result in a reduction of costs to Contractor, the fees owed to Contractor pursuant to Section 4 below shall be reduced by like amount. 2. Commencement and Performance of Work. Contractor shall commence the fabrication of the Work upon the receipt of a Notice to Proceed from City and as set forth in Exhibit C -2. The Work shall be completed in accordance with the Schedule of Performance contained in the attached Exhibit A. 3. Ownership and Use of Documents and Models. Copies of all drawings, studies, designs, and models prepared by Contractor in connection with the Work shall become the property of City. Contractor shall own all copyright rights to the Work and associated documents, provided that Contractor grants City an irrevocable license to reproduce the Work and/or such drawings, designs, studies, or models in any non - commercial manner whatsoever, including but not limited to promotional materials for City programs and services. In addition, City shall have the right to commercially exploit the Work for fund- raising purposes. 4. Fee and Interim Payments. Contractor shall be paid a flat fee of $80,500 as set forth on the attached Exhibit C -1 with interim payments at the times specified in Exhibit C -2, if any. 5. Hold Harmless. 2 5.1 Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Contractor. However, Contractor shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. 5.2 Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability. As to Claims for professional liability only, Contractor's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will provide such defense costs. 6. Contractor's Warranties/Waivers. 6.1 Defects in Materials or Workmanship. Contractor warrants that the Work will be free of defects in workmanship or materials and that Contractor will, at Contractor's own expense, remedy any defects due to faulty workmanship or materials appearing within one (1) year of the date the Work is accepted by City. This warranty includes any workmanship or materials which cause the Work to deteriorate over time in a manner that is not due to normal wear and tear and is inconsistent with its design, the approved plans and specifications or as would otherwise be expected from products made of similar materials, or from any quality within the materials which compromise the Work which, either alone or in combination, result in the tendency of the Work to deteriorate in a manner that is not due to normal wear and tear. 6.2 Public Safety. City and Contractor shall cooperate to ensure that the Work incorporates no aspects which are a danger to the public, such as sharp edges or points. City may, if it deems necessary for public safety purposes, request modifications relative to public safety pursuant to Section 1.3 above. Should hazards in relation to the design become apparent after installation, Contractor agrees to promptly make adjustments to the Work, as City deems 3 necessary, to eliminate other hazards which become apparent within one (1) year of the date the work is finally accepted by City. 6.3 Title. Contractor warrants that the Work is the result of the artistic efforts of Contractor and that the Work will be installed and ownership of the Work will be transferred to City free and clear of any liens, claims, or other encumbrances of any type. 6.4 Unique. Contractor warrants that the work is unique and an edition of one (1) and that Contractor will not execute, or authorize another to execute, another work of the same or substantially the same design as the Work commissioned pursuant to this Agreement. This warranty and covenant shall be binding on Contractor's heirs and assigns. 7. Time is of the Essence/Excuse or Suspension. Contractor and City agree that time is of the essence in performance of the Agreement. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Contractor actually caused by Acts of God, unusually severe weather, fires, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, or acts of any governmental agency, if Contractor shall, within ten (10) days of commencement of such delay, notify City in writing of the causes of delay. City shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and shall extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if, in the judgment of the parties to this Agreement, such delay is justified. If Contractor is unable to complete and deliver the Work due to serious illness or a debilitating disability and Contractor notifies City within Ten (10) days of the commencement of such illness or disability, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the length of such illness or disability not to exceed a period of six (6) months in the aggregate. In the event that Contractor remains unable to complete and deliver the Work subsequent to such extension, City may, at its option, either (a) cause the Work to be completed and installed utilizing Contractor's original models, plans, and specifications; or (b) terminate this Agreement, in which event Contractor shall return any unexpended amounts to City previously paid pursuant to Exhibit C -1 and Exhibit C -2, if any, within thirty (30) days of such termination. If City elects to complete the Work, City shall pay third parties performing the Work for the actual costs charged by such third parties. In the event of any such delay, Contractor shall not be entitled to recover damages against City for any delay in the performance 4 of this Agreement, however caused. Contractor's sole remedy shall be the extension of the Agreement pursuant to this section. 8. Special Services to be Performed by Contractor. 8.1 Photographs. Within thirty (30) days after the installation of the Work, Contractor shall furnish City with the following photographs of the Work: Two (2) sets of four (4) 35 -mm color slides of the completed Work, one taken from each of four (4) different viewpoints, and one set of digital photographs on CD. 8.2 Dedication Ceremony(ies). Contractor shall be available at such time or times as may be agreed between City and Contractor to attend any dedication ceremonies relating to the transfer of the Work to City. City shall use its best efforts to arrange for publicity for the completed Work in such art publications and otherwise as may be determined between City and Contractor as soon as practicable following installation. 8.3 Other Meetings if Needed. Contractor shall be available at such mutually acceptable time or times as may be agreed between City and Contractor to attend meetings related to the Work before the City Council or other City bodies. 8.4 Instructions for Maintenance/Preservation. Upon Installation of the Work, Contractor shall provide City with written instructions for appropriate maintenance and preservation of the Work. 9. Termination. In the event Contractor fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Contractor shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of ten (10) days after receipt by Contractor from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Contractor written notice thereof. City shall have the opinion, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Contractor as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 10. Insurance. On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with certificates showing type, amount, class of operations covered, 5 effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. Coverage. Contractor shall maintain the following insurance coverage: Worker's Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: (1) (2) $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate — all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (3) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury Property Damage Combined Single Limit $500,000 each occurrence $100,000 each occurrence or $500,000 each occurrence B. Subrogation Waiver. Contractor agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Contractor shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Contractor hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Contractor or City with respect to the services of Contractor herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Contractor may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 6 C. Failure to Secure. If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Contractor's name or as an agent of the Contractor and shall be compensated by the Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. Additional Insured. City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. Sufficiency of Insurance. The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to confer with Contractor's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. 11. Display. City shall, upon acceptance of the Work, be the owner of the Work and shall have the exclusive right to display the Work. 12. Reproductions. City shall have the right to make, and to authorize the making of, photographs and other two and three- dimensional reproductions and models of the Work for educational, public relations, an arts promotion and as otherwise permitted pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement. 13. Credits. 13.1 Label. A label identifying Contractor, the title of the Work, and the year it is completed shall be publicly displayed in the area adjacent to the Work. 13.2 Contractor's Credit. City agrees that unless Contractor requests to the contrary in writing, all references to the Work and all reproduction of the Work shall credit the Work to Contractor. 13.3 City's Credit. Contractor agrees that all formal references to the Work shall include the following credit line: "Commissioned for the Collection of City of Alameda." 7 14. Repair, Restoration, and Relocation. It is the policy of City to consult with Contractor regarding repair, restoration, alteration, or relocation of the Work, which may be undertaken during Contractor's lifetime when that is practical. To facilitate consultation, Contractor will, to the extent feasible, notify City of any change in permanent address. Subject to the above notification provisions, City has the right to repair, alter, modify, relocate, and/or remove the Work in its sole discretion. In the event City modifies the Work in any significant manner not acceptable to Contractor, Contractor shall have the right to remove his or her name from any plaque, advertisement, display, or other use of the Work at the cost of City. Any such request to remove the name of Contractor shall be made in writing. 15. Reputation, Risk of Loss. 15.1 City's Commitment. City agrees that it will not us the Work or Contractor's name in any way which reflects discredit on the Work or the name of Contractor or on the reputation of Contractor as an artist. 15.2 Contractor's Commitment. Contractor agrees that Contractor will not make reference to the Work or reproduce the Work or any portion thereof in a way which reflects discredit on City or the Work. 15.3 Title and Risk of Loss. Title to the Work passes to City when the Work is delivered, installed, an accepted by City. Contractor bears the risk of damage to or loss of the Work until the title passes to City. 16. Prohibition Against Transfers. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Contractor from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Contractor. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, 8 which shall result in changing control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 17. Independent Parties. City and Contractor intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Contractor, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor. 18. Conflict of Interest. Contractor warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Contractor to perform the services required by this Agreement. Contractor may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Contractor to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 19. Waiver. A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether the same or a different character. 20. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Contractor. 21. Compliances. Contractor shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 22. Conflict of Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are 9 subject to all valid laws, orders, rules and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 23. Permits and Licenses. Contractor, at his /her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 24. Alameda Free Library. The Library Director ( "Director ") shall be City's designated representative with respect to this Agreement. It shall be Contractor's responsibility to assure that the Director is kept informed of the progress of the Work, and Contractor shall refer any decision which must be made by City to the Director. Except as otherwise directed by City, the Director shall have the authority to give any approvals or consents required hereunder and to otherwise act on behalf of City in order to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 25. Notices. For Contractor: Masayuki Nagase 1801 Cedar Street Berkeley CA 94703 For City: City of Alameda Attn: Library Director 2200 -A Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 A change in the designation of the person or address to which submittals, requests, notices or reports shall be delivered is effective when the other party has received notice of the change by certified mail. 26. Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Contractor assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor. 10 27. Non - Discrimination. Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Contractor agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Contractor or Contractor's employee or subcontractor on the basis or race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Contractor agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 28. Utilities. Contractor shall pay all charges for fuel, gas, water, electricity, telephone services and any other utility necessary to carry on the operations of Contractor. 29. Standard of Care. Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date first above written. 11 Contractor City: CITY OF ALAMEDA By: City Manager Deputy City Attorney EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK 1 Conformance to Proposal a. Contractor shall fabricate and install a work of art ( "Work ") at the New Alameda Free Library, in accordance with this Agreement and the terms and conditions below. The artwork shall consist of a series of eight carved limestone medallions (see Attachment 1) that will be inset into the building's niches along Lincoln Avenue and Times Way. 2. Schedule of Performance a. Contractor shall complete fabrication and installation of the Work not later than December 29, 2005. Timely fabrication and installation of the Work is an essential element of this Agreement. b. Contractor shall cooperate with the Construction Manager and the Building Contractor to coordinate the support needs and installation of the Work. 3. Design Development a. Contractor shall attend project meetings at mutually agreed -upon dates and times with City and /or City's Consultants or Subconsultants as required to incorporate the Contractor's work into the designated sites on the exterior fagade of the library. b. Contractor shall provide and submit to the City all engineering drawings for the design of the Artwork, including the attachments systems, not later than August 31, 2005. City shall review and comment on the engineering drawings within 15 days of receipt. City may request modifications necessary for the Work to comply with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations governing the project. Contractor shall submit revised engineering drawings that address these concerns within 15 working days after such notice by the City. 4. Fabrication a. Contractor shall fabricate the Artwork in accordance with all Contract Documents approved by City and /or its Consultants or Subconsultants. Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 1 of 6 b. Contractor will give the City notices of the dates of the following milestones for the fabrication of the Artwork: 50% complete, and 100% complete. City retains the right to review and inspect the Artwork in studio and to approve or reject it as fabricated. c. City will review and approve the Artwork as fabricated at each milestone and will determine, in its sole reasonable discretion, that it meets all of the Specifications previously approved by City and that no default by Contractor hereunder has occurred and is continuing. Upon approval of the Artwork as fabricated at 100 %, and at a date and time to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, but not later than December 29, 2005, Contractor may proceed with the transportation and installation of the Artwork. d. The Artwork will be installed not later than December 29, 2005. City will give the Contractor a minimum of two weeks notice if the installation is to be delayed. 5. Transportation, Delivery, and Installation a. Contractor will coordinate with City to survey the site, set the limit of work, determine staging storage requirements, and establish delivery and installation methods and schedules. b. Contractor will submit a preliminary plan ( "Plan ") for the delivery, unloading, on -site storing and installation of the Artwork not later than October 31, 2005. The Plan will include delivery and installation methodologies, a list of equipment and materials to be used, staging and on -site storage needs, and a list of subcontractors and equipment to be used on site. City must review, discuss and approve the Plan prior to installation. c. Contractor shall notify City, in writing, when Contractor is ready to deliver and install the Work at the Site. Arrangement for access to the Site for installation shall be scheduled through City and shall not be scheduled until City has received a certificate proving liability insurance. Contractor shall provide City with a final list of the workers and equipment that will be used in the installation of the artwork at least ten (10) days in advance of installation so that permits may be issued and security and unloading arrangements may be made. d Contractor will be responsible for the labor, material, and equipment necessary to load and transport the Artwork to the site. City will provide a place to store and secure the Artwork during the period of installation. Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 2 of 6 e. Contractor will install the Artwork in accordance with all approved installation plans. 6. Changed Conditions and Constructive Changes a. Changed Conditions. Contractor shall inspect the niches prior to installing the Artwork. In the event that Contractor encounters changed conditions that may affect the Scope of Work and result in an adjustment to the fabrication or installation of the Artwork, and /or in the amount of compensation specified herein, Contractor shall notify City in writing within five (5) days upon identification of such condition and shall provide City with sufficient information and time to make an informed and considered decision on an appropriate course of action to remedy or modify the condition. b. Approval of Site Conditions To the extent that any part of Contractor's Work is to interface with work performed by the General Contractor or its subcontractors performing work on the Site, Contractor shall inspect and measure the in -place work and shall promptly report in writing to City any defect in such in place work that will impede or increase the cost of Contractor's interface unless corrected. City will review the report and respond to the Contractor with its determination. City may issue a Change Order to remedy the defect. If Contractor fails to measure, inspect and /or report defects that are reasonably discoverable, all costs of accomplishing the interface shall be borne by Contractor. The foregoing does not apply to latent defects in another contractor's work. Contractor shall report to City said latent defects in another contractor's work at any time such defects become known to Contractor. City shall promptly thereafter take such steps as may be appropriate. Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 3 of 6 ARTIST TEAM STATEMENT Alameda Free Library Masayuki Nagase & Michele Ku Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 1 Background In our work, our main source of inspiration is the essence of nature and the multiple images and forms which represent universal symbols of life. In public art we want to facilitate the viewers' discovery of their own interconnectedness with nature in their region by the experience of art made of natural material such as stone. We always start our projects by doing site research into the natural environment. We selected two natural features of Alameda in which our design concepts are based upon. The first feature we chose is the bay and water surrounding Alameda. The presence of the bay and the beach is an obvious natural characteristic that we felt very drawn to from the beginning. We visited the Crab Cove visitor center and walked on Crown Beach. While the bay is the one of the most obvious natural features of Alameda, it was interesting to us that when we were in downtown Alameda we didn't feel the presence of the water. The second natural characteristic we chose was the live oak tree. From our site research we discovered that Alameda was once covered with beautiful groves of live oaks. And to this day, we found the residents of Alameda are very proud of their urban forest. They identify their city with their trees. We were struck with the beauty and the presence of huge and mature trees throughout the city. Design Concept for the Medallions Title: "Cadence of the Water" When we contemplated the site for the medallions we felt it was important to integrate with the architectural vocabulary. We wanted the medallions to be seen as a part of the wall but yet have their own character. The ocean and its pattern of movement the ; uges of the artwork. We propose to do a series of eight individual reliefs carved with varying patterns that express the changing light and form of waves. Each individual piece will have a unique pattern like the variation in a piece of music. When one views the building from the street, we envision each medallion as a metaphoric window set in the wall. Each relief would have a different rhythm and become a subtle feature in the architecture, bringing the viewer's attention and awareness back to nature, the beauty of the ocean. "It is no accident that the incessant rhythms of the sea calms us, brings us back into phase, reacquaints us with ourselves." Drew Kampion Fabrication/Installation We strongly propose to do the medallions in limestone. We believe the beauty of natural limestone is incomparable to concrete. Also Masayuki's skill in carving will greatly enhance the presence of the medallions. He can work with a variety of surfaces, bringing out the color and depth of the stone and relief pattern. Limestone material is durable and will age more beautifully than concrete over a long span of time. The choice of limestone can be selected in consultation with • the architects to match the building materials.. - If the medallions are done out of stone, Masayuki will fabricate it directly in his studio in Oakland. In consultation with the architects and structural engineer, Masayuki can install stainless steel anchor pins in the reliefs and attach them to the side of the building. We will be responsible for installation of the reliefs. If the medallions are made of concrete, Masayuki can either fabricate some or all parts of the process. Masayuki will first make a positive form out of plaster. The positive form would then be cast to make a rubber mold. After the mold is completed, the concrete positive form would be poured with internal reinforcing metal mesh and anchor pins on the backside. Dimensions: Height 2 ft 111/2 inch Length 4 ft 3 inch Depth: 6 inches 4P'i cam '' l rte, iC`UlM� ' � . Design Concert for the Morin IIinnc EXHIBIT B 3 1 1 1 3 • o r- Z I;* rri z m UO!Q pOW Jo JO)X :011-1 EXHIBIT C -1: PROJECT BUDGET Item Amount Contractors Design and Project Administration Fee 15,800 Contractor's Labor ($70 /hr for 16 weeks) 44,800 Engineering Fees 2,500 Limestone 4,000 Limestone Shipping 2,500 Tools & Hardware (anchor bolts, flanges, grinder, sander polishing abrasives and bits, diesel etc.) 1,800 Forklift Rental for unloading stone at studio 1,500 Transportation /unloading of sculptures at site 1,500 Forklift rental (for installation purposes) 1,000 Wall Preparation /Installation of Anchors 1,000 Contractor /assistants' labor for installation and finish work on site 2,600 Liability Insurance 1,500 Total Contract Not to Exceed* 80,500 *This is a flat -fee contract with no Contingency. Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT C -2: PROGRESS PAYMENTS All contractual obligations regarding the Work shall begin upon execution of the Agreement and be completed no later than December 29, 2005. The schedule and Contractor's payments for completion of the Scope of Work shall be as follows: 1. Fee. Contractor's fee for fabrication, transportation, and installation of the Work, including all applicable taxes and all expenses relating thereto, whether or not identified in the itemization of expenses included in the Proposal is EIGHTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($80,500). The fee is due and payable by City after the Work has received final acceptance by City and an invoice has been submitted by Contractor. 2. Interim Payments. Subject to Contractor's obligation to repay any installment payment in the event the Agreement is terminated by reason of Contractor's default, City shall make payment to Contractor against the fee to assist Contractor with financing the fabrication, transportation, and installation of the Work. The amount of the payment is based on Contractor's documented needs and shall be made as follows: a. Upon signing of the Agreement and submission by Contractor of an invoice for payment: An initial payment of TWENTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($20,500) to cover the cost of start up, tools, equipment and supplies, stone purchase and transportation and partial labor costs. b. Following 1) City's determination that the Work in studio is at one half completion, 2) submittal by Contractor of photographs or digital images substantiating that the Work is one -half completed, and /or upon City's inspection and approval of the Work in studio and 3) submission by Contractor of an invoice for the second interim payment: TWENTY THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($20,250.00). c. Following 1) City's determination that fabrication of the Work has been completed, 2) submission of Contractor's report on fabrication, 3) review and approval of the fabrication by City, 4) completion of installation of the Work, and 5) submission by Contractor of an invoice for the third interim payment: TWENTY -SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS (26,750) d. Upon 1) final acceptance of the Work by City Council pursuant to Section 3 below, and 2) submission by Contractor of an invoice for 100% interim payment, a final payment of THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($13,000) Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 5 of 6 e. All of the foregoing payments shall be made by City within thirty (30) days of the satisfaction of the conditions therefore. 3. Final Acceptance by City. Final acceptance of the Work shall occur when the City Council passes a motion finding that the installed Work and any modifications approved by City and Contractor conforms to the proposal and specifications set forth herein. The matter shall be scheduled for City Council consideration as soon as practicable following installation, but no later than 30 days following installation. Masayuki Nagase Scope of Work June 20, 2005 Page 6 of 6 :ACORD,,, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILI PRODUCER (415)957 -0600 FAX (415)957 -0577 Maroevich O'Shea & Coghlan Johnson & Anton 44 Montgomery St, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 INSURED Masayuki Nagase 1801 Cedar Street, #A Berkeley, CA 94703 TY INSURANCE DATE (MMIDD/YYYY) 06/20/2005 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERT FICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # AMENDED COVERAGES INSURER A: American States Preferred Ins 37214 INSURER B: INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E: THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. NSR LTR ADD'L INSRD TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE IMMIDD/YYl POLICY EXPIRATION DATE lMM /DD/YYl LIMITS A X GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 010E34339678 02/23/2005 02/23/2006 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 X DADA E TO RENTED $ 200,000 CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY n jECOT- n LOC PRODUCTS - COMP /OP AGG $ 2,000,000 irl A X AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS 010E34339678 02/23/2005 02/23/2006 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT; (Ea accident) 1 $ C. ^, ,�00 , 000 .... BODILY INJURY (Per person) --I-I L -CX3 ~ 1 _T1 0 X C' (Perracciden) INJURY R- X PROPERTY DAMAGE - (Per accident) cn .'T.IT7 -11- n -$'' -:a GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY - EA ACOfOENT $ °i OTHER THAN ACQ AUTO ONLY: • r-fl AGG $ EXCESS /UMBRELLA LIABILITY —I EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNEPJEXECUT:VE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below I TORY I A ITS I IOFR E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/ LOCATIONS/VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS - 'Certificate Holder is hereby named as Additional Insured as respects art project being done by Masayuki Nagase. ,- .Approved as to roar CERTIFICATE HOLDER C ANCELLATION u5CIA City of Alameda Attn: Risk Manager 2200 A Central Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 r.IrY ATTORNEY SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Caroline Wong /CWO Q.,.rste.4....4, ACORD 25 (2001/08) ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988 IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. Approved as to Form CITY ATTORNEY ACORD 25 (2001/08) THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ 17 CAREFULLY. S A F E C O° LIABILITY PLUS ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Alameda ADDITIONAL INSURED - BY WRITTEN CONTRACT,. AGREEMENT OR PERMIT; OR SCHEDULE The following paragraph is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II): 6. Any person or organization shown in the Schedule or for whom you are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional,provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period shown in the Declarations, and must have been executed prior to the "bodily injury," "property damage," "Personal and advertising injury:" b. The person or organization added as an insured _ by this endorsement is an insured only to the extent you are held liable due to: (1) The ownership, maintenance or use of that part or premises you own, rent, lease or occupy, subject to the following additional provisions: (a) This insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which 'takes place after you cease to be a tenant in any premises leased. to or rented to you; (b) This insurance does not apply to any structural alterations, new, construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of the person or organization added as an insured; Includes Copyrighted Material of Insurance services Office, Inc., with its permission. Copyright, Insurance services Minn inn 9nni c. CG 76 35 10 01 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (2) Your ongoing operations for that insured, whether the work is performed by you or for you; (3) The maintenance, operation or use by you of equipment leased to you by such person or organization, subject td the following additional provisions: (a) This insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which takes place after the equipment lease expires; (b) This insurance does not apply to "bodily. injury" or "property damage" arising out of the sole negligence of such person or organization; (4) Permits issued by any state or political subdivision with respect to operations performed by you or on your behalf, subject to the following additional provision: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury," "property damage," "personal and advertising injury" arising out of operations performed for the state of municipality. The insurance with respect to any architect, engineer, or surveyor added as an insured by this endorsement does not apply to "bodily injury," "property damage," "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering. of or the failure to render any professional services by or for you, including: Approved as to Form CITY ATTORNEY (1) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, change, orders, designs or specifications; and (2) Supervisory, inspection or engineering services. d. This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products- completed operations hazard." A person's or organization's status as an insured under this endorsement ends when your operations for that insured are completed. No coverage,will be provided if, in the absence of this endorsement, no liability would be imposed by law on you. Coverage shall be limited to the extent of your negligence or fault according to the applicable principles of comparative fault NON -OWNED WATERCRAFT AND NON - OWNED AIRCRAFT LIABILITY Exclusion g: of COVERAGE A (Section I) is replaced by the following: • O. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, "auto" or watercraft owned or .operated by or rented or :loaned to _ any insured. Use includes operation and '`loading or unloading." This exclusion applies even if the claims against - any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing - in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by .that insured, if the "occurrence" . which caused the "bodily injury" or "property damage" involved the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, "auto" or watercraft that le owned or operated by or rented .or loaned. to any insured. This exclusion does not apply to: -(1) A watercraft while ashore on premises you own dr rent; (2) A watercraft you do not own that is: (a) Less than 52 feet long; and (b) Not being used to carry persons or property for a charge; (3) Parking an "auto" on, or oh the ways next to, premises you own or rent, provided the "auto" is not owned by or rented or loaned to you or the insured; Includes Copyriohted Material of Insurance Services office, Inc., with its permission. CG 76 35 10 61 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY (4) Liability assumed under any "insured Contract" for the ownership, maintenance or use of aircraft or watercraft; or (5) "Bodily injury" or • "property damage" arising out of the operation of any of the equipment listed in paragraph f.(2) or f.(3) of the definition of "mobile equipment." (6) An aircraft you do not own provided it is not Operated by any insured. TENANTS' PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY When a Damage, to Premises Rented to you Limit is shown in the Declarations, Exclusion J. of Coverage A, Section I is replaced by the following: • • Damage To Property "Property damage" to: (1) Property you own, rent, or occupy, including any costs or expenses incurred by you, or any other person, organization or entity, for repair, replacement, enhancement, restoration or maintenance of such property for any reason, including prevention of injury to a person or damage to another's property; (2) Premises you sell, give away or abandon, if the "property damage" arises out of any part of those premises; (3) Property loaned to you; • (4) Personal property in the care, custody or control of the insured; (5) That particular part of real property on which you - or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the. "property damage" arises out of those operations, or That particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because "your work" was incorrectly performed on it. Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of this exclusion do not apply to "property damage" (other than damage by fire) to premises,. including the contents of such premises, rented to you. A separate limit of insurance applies to Damage To Premises Rented To You as described.in Section 111 - Limits Of Insurance. Paragraph (2) of this exclusion does not apply if the premises are "your work" and were never occupied, rented or held for rental by you. Paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this exclusion do not apply to liability assumed under a sidetrack agreement. (6) Approved as to Form CITY ATTORNEY Paragraph (6) of this exclusion does not apply to "property damage" included . in the "products- completed operations hazard." Paragraph 6. of Section III is replaced by the following: 6. Subject to 5. above, the Damage To Property Limit is . the most we will pay under Coverage A for damages because Of "property damage" to any one premises, while rented to you, or in the case of damage by fire,. while rented. to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. The Tenants' Property Damage to Premises Rented to You limit is the higher of $200,000 or the amount shown in the Declarations as Damage to Premises Rented to You Limit. WHO IS AN INSURED - MANAGERS The following is added to Paragraph 2.a. of WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II): Paragraph (1) does not apply to executive officers, or to managers at the supervisory level or above. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - COVERAGES A AND B - BAIL BONDS Paragraph 1.5. of SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - COVERAGES A AND B is replaced by the following: b. Up to $2,000 for cost of bail bonds required because of accidents or traffic law violations arising out of the use of any vehicle to which the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage applies. We do not have to fumish these bonds. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS - HEALTH CARE SERVICES Provision 2.a:(1) d. of WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is deleted, unless excluded by separate endorsement. . EXTENDED COVERAGE FOR NEWLY ACQUIRED ORGANIZATIONS Provision 4.a. of WHO IS AN INSURED (Section I1) is replaced by the following: a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only until the end of the policy period. ' Includes Copyrighted Material of In.¢nrancp S?rvie =s (lffine Inn •4 jt Re nom, iceinn CG76351001 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EXTENDED "PROPERTY DAMAGE" Exclusion a. of COVERAGE A. (Section I) is amended to read: a. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the - standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to- "bodily injury" or "property damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. INCREASED MEDICAL EXPENSE LIMIT The medical expense limit is amended to $10,000. KNOWLEDGE OF OCCURRENCE The following is added to Paragraph 2. Duties In.The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit of COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): Knowledge of an "occurrence," claim or "suit" by your agent, servant or employee shall not in itself constitute knowledge of the named insured unless an officer of the named insured has received such notice from the agent, servant or employee. UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL HAZARDS The following is added to Paragraph 6. Representations of COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): if you unintentionally fail to disclose any hazards existing at the inception date •of your policy, we will not deny coverage under this Coverage Form because of such failure. However, this provision does not affect our right to collect additional premium or exercise our right of cancellation or non - renewal. LIBERALIZATION CLAUSE - The following paragraph is added to COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): 10. If a revision to this Coverage Part, which would provide more coverage with no additional "premium, • becomes effective during the policy period in the state shown in the Declarations, your policy will automatically provide this additional coverage on the . effective date of the revision. Approved as to Form 0)16.12 CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: June 23, 2005 To Honorable Mayor and Council members From: William Norton Acting City Manager RE: Authorize the Fire Chief to Accept the $404,087 Awarding of the "Assistance To Firefighters Grant" for a Firefighting Training Trailer and For Funding the City's Matching Portion of $80,817 From the General Fund Reserve. BACKGROUND The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005 provides $750 million in available grant money this year to fire departments. The grant, known as the "Assistance To Firefighters Grant," is an 80/20 matching grant. Meaning, the Department of Homeland Security awards 80% of the total requested amount and the City must match with 20 %. The program is designed to assist local fire departments in protecting citizens and firefighters against the effects of fire and fire - related incidents. Annually, in May, the application period for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant opens. Over the past two years the Fire Department has been awarded grants of $125,370 for a wellness and fitness program, and $408,752 for new self- contained breathing apparatus under this grant program. This year, the fire department applied for grant assistance for a firefighter- training trailer that would provide for live fire training. The department believes this is a critical need since it no longer has a designated training facility, especially one where live fire training can be conducted. The cost for the training trailer and associated needs is $404,087, which is the total amount requested in the grant application. Since this is an 80/20 matching grant, the city's matching 20% portion would be $80,817. Because this is a competitive grant process and there was no way of knowing whether the Fire Department would be awarded the grant, the matching funds were not requested in the 05/06 budget. It appears from preliminary communication from the Department of Homeland Security that the Fire Department may be awarded the grant and approval from Council for the 20% matching portion of $80,817 is necessary. Report 4 -E CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor Page 2 of 3 And Council Members DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Fire Department strives to provide the finest quality of services by training and educating its personnel to the highest possible level. This is accomplished in many different ways. Live fire training has always been an essential activity in preparing firefighters; however, opportunities for live fire training have been nearly eliminated. In the past, invaluable live fire training has been obtained by conducting the training in abandoned and condemned structures. These opportunities are no longer available due to the environmental restrictions and local codes. Asbestos removal and synthetic construction materials have also made this type of training prohibitive. This situation is not confined to our city; fire departments across the entire state are facing this challenge. The purchase of a trailer- mounted, state of the art, live fire simulator would greatly enhance the fire department's ability to train with live fire. The fire - training trailer burns clean fuels and generates safe, simulated smoke, which will not disturb our neighbors or compromise the environment. Training will also be conducted in a safe and controlled environment by certified trainers. There are no properly equipped training facilities in our county to burn combustibles for live fire training, or that possess a clean burn filtration system before the smoke and gases are released into the atmosphere like this piece of equipment has. Additionally, there are no training structures with built -in safety systems in case of an emergency like this piece of equipment has. This training frailer will not be limited to firefighter training. The fire department will use the training trailer to teach and reinforce the importance of fire safety to our CERT groups, school children, citizen groups, and the community. The training trailer can be used to illustrate the danger of smoke, the importance of smoke detectors, and having a household exit plan. The Fire Department's Training Committee researched current trailers used in the fire service and determined that the Kidde ML -500 Mobile Fire Trainer is the most appropriate for their needs and demands. The Mobile Fire Trainer is a computer - controlled, propane gas - fueled training system that can be used in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The system replicates all types of fires and produces environmentally safe smoke. There will be a one -time purchase of $345,000 for the complete trailer, $30,187 for state and local taxes, $8,000 for shipping from Montvale, New Jersey to Alameda, California, $14,900 for the "Train The Trainer" course for 12 students, and $6,000 for tractor rental fees and associated costs for local transportation bringing the total to $404,087. The Fire Department will also make the live fire training available to all fire agencies in Alameda County. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor Page 3 of 3 And Council Members MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City's 20% matching portion of the $404,087 grant is $80,817. The annual maintenance of the training trailer, which is expected to be minimal, will be absorbed in the department's annual operating budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council authorize the Fire Chief to accept the "Assistance To Firefighters Grant" and fund the City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund reserve. Attachment Respectfully submitted, ames Christiansen Fire Chief Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Mobile Structural FireTrainer Kidde Fire Trainers ❑ Aircraft ❑ Mobile Aircraft ❑ Cabin Crew ❑ Military ❑ Structural ❑ Mobile Structural ❑ Modular Structural ❑ Maritime Mobile Structural FIRETRAINER® The Mobile Structural FIRETRAINER® provides an economical alternative to fixed facilities, and can be shared among numerous fire departments in a region. The Mobile Structural FIRETRAINER® is fully self- contained with on -board propane storage and electrical power generation. Kidde offers a number of mobile versions ranging from 38 -ft (12 m) to 52 -ft (16 m) in length. Interchangeable Fire Mock -ups Smoke Generation Breathing Apparatus Training Retractable Second Story Internal Staircase Movable Interior Walls Doorways and Windows Pitched Roof Ventilation Prop Exterior Fires Extendable Space FIRETRAINER® ML Multiple burn areas, 2nd story room available FIRETRAINER® T -4000 One or three burn areas, removable from trailer Send me more information ❑ Outdoor & Industrial ❑ Portable Fire Pans ❑ Extinguisher Trainer ❑ Design Assistance rage 1 or 1 ESVMTRON ICS ❑ News ❑ Clients ❑ Contact ❑ Home Site Map ©2004 Kidde Fire Trainers http:// www. kiddeft.com/MobileStructural.shtml FIRE Act Grant Eligible Supporting Grant Information Convenient NFPA 1001 Skills Training Within Reach Numerous grants award for Mobile FIRETRAINERR in 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 Disclaimer 6/28/2005 Mobile Structural FireTrainer ►'' Kidde Fire Trainers ❑ Aircraft ❑ Mobile Aircraft ❑ Cabin Crew ❑ Military ❑ Structural ❑ Mobile Structural ❑ Modular Structural ❑ Maritime ❑ Outdoor & Industrial ❑ Portable Fire Pans ❑ Extinguisher Trainer ❑ Design Assistance Mobile Structural FIRETRAINER® ML The Mobile FIRETRAINER® ML is a convenient means of training students in the basic NFPA 1001 firefighting skills . This "turnkey" training system permits live -fire training in a safe, controlled and environmentally sound manner. In addition, having training capability locally results in more frequent and increased emergency preparedness. The ML unit features two burn areas with interchangeable multi -prop capabilities. All interior walls are repositionable and two powerful smoke generators completely obscure vision, allowing for a realistic search and rescue environment. A unique combination of multiple, computer controlled safety systems, provides an unmatched level of safety. Dual- channel air monitoring ensures unburned gas does not reach dangerous levels inside trainer. Inextinguishable pilot flames guarantees each fire ignites on command and emergency stop buttons terminate the training exercise immediately. The ML is environmentally sound and is fueled by clean burning natural gas or propane. Its benign smoke generation will not disturb the community. Other features include: • retractable 2nd floor room • pitched roof ventilation prop • on -board electrical generator • equipment room • on -board propane tank • interchangeable fire mock -ups See also: FIRETRAINER® T -4000 One or three burn areas, removable from trailer http://www.lciddeft.com/FireTrainerML.shtml rage 1 oI L sYM I Ron ICS ❑ News ❑ Clients ❑ Contact ❑ Home FIRE Act Grant Eligilble Supporting Grant Information Convenient NFPA 1001 Skills Traininc Within Reach Numerous grant awarded for Mobile FIRETRAINER ' in 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004 6/28/2005 Mobile Structural FireTrainer Yage 2 of 2 Send me more information Rooftop Hatch Main Fire with Flashover Rollover Effect Site Map Moveable Walls Storage Fire Pitched Roof Prop ©2004 Kidde Fire Trainers Disclaimer http:// www .kiddeft.com/FireTrainerML.shtml 6/28/2005 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 12, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt Specifications and Authorize Calling for Bids for Three (3) Marked Police Vehicles BACKGROUND The City's purchasing policy requires that specifications for materials estimated to cost over $25,000 must first be approved by City Council. The purchasing policy also requires that the purchase be sent out for formal competitive bid. In consultation with the Public Works Department's Senior Fleet Mechanic, the Alameda Police Department has determined a need exists for three (3) replacement marked patrol vehicles (specifications attached). DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Alameda Journal is the official newspaper of the City for legal advertising for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. With Council authorization, the City Clerk will publish a notice in the Alameda Journal stating Council will receive bids up to the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Friday, August 19, 2005, for the purchase of three (3) Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles. The police department has been using the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor since 1991 due to the vehicle's high quality performance. The Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is best equipped to suit the needs of police vehicles. It has also received the government's highest five (5) Star crash safety test rating. Deviating from this vehicle would mean purchasing newer, specialized equipment, program software, and new various auto parts for replacement. Additionally, the Crown Victoria is a rear -wheel drive vehicle. Other police packages are front -wheel drive, which does not perform as well under extreme driving conditions. Lastly, the Crown Victoria is ergonomically suitable for officers and prisoners. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Report 4 -F CC 7 -19 -05 >> Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT July 12, 2005 Page 2of2 Funds for the replacement of marked police vehicles are included in the fiscal year 2005 -2006 budget. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt specifications and authorize calling for bids for three (3) marked police vehicles. WCN /CLO /mn Attachment Respectfully submitted, G o_c_ Craig L. Ocala Interim Chief of Police Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service' c Notice to Proposers SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE The City of Alameda is seeking proposers for the purchase of three (3) marked patrol vehicles. All vehicles must meet the following specifications: 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Vehicle Type Police Interceptor Package Engine 4.6 L SEFI V8 Brake Type Power 4 -Wheel Disc Anti -Lock Braking System Horsepower 250 @ 4000 Altemator 200 -Amp Alternator Interior AM/FM Stereo /Clock Interior extras Air Conditioning Exterior Color Black/White CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Paul Benoit Acting City Manager Re: Supplemental Information for July 19, 2005, Council Report Regarding Agenda Item 4F Council has requested additional information regarding the request for bids to replace three existing marked patrol vehicles. The Police Department is seeking approval to replace Patrol Vehicles #103, #109, and #119. The attached vehicle summaries were submitted to the Finance Department in January 2004. The above - mentioned vehicles currently have 65,358 miles, 71,413 miles, and 79,420 miles respectfully. In consultation with the Public Works Department's Senior Fleet Mechanic, there are other associated concerns regarding these vehicles. Other concerns include the high amount of hours on a vehicle, as well as the increasing amount of oil consumption as a vehicle ages. Marked patrol vehicles often run twenty -four (24) hours a day. The vehicles we are seeking to replace are 2000 -2001 year model Ford Crown Victorias. In speaking with other departments in the surrounding areas, they have similar protocols in replacing vehicles. Their protocols are listed below: Police Department Years /Miles Oakland 4 years or 85,000 miles Livermore 4 years or 85,000 miles Burlingame 75,000 only, regardless of model year San Mateo 90,000 only, regardless of model year San Leandro 100,000 only, regardless of model year "Dedicated to fceCence, Committed to Service" Re: Report 4F 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers CLO:mcn Attachments Respectfully submitted, Craig L. Ojala Interim Chief of Police "(Dedicated to Eve l ence, Committed to Service" July 19, 2005 Page 2 of 2 To: From: Subject: CITY OF ALAMEDA VEHICLE NEW AND REPLACEMENT REQUEST - FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 AND 2005 -06 Equipment Maintenance/ Fleet Supervisor Art Fuentes Lt. Police (name) (title) (department) Replacement of: Z04/ 24-' � � 44' (make) (model) Program No: Requested for 2004 -05 (equipment no.) (license no.) 7/ 7Vr 3 2005 -06 • The following justification is submitted to support the proposed replacement of the above vehicle. (Please list for what purpose the vehicle is used and estimated annual mileage). Marked Patrol Vehicle. Current Mileage is 47,297. Estimated annual mileage is 25,000. SHOP,USE ONLY: Date Acquired: Mileage: Z`I 7 Total past 12 months: Total Cost from: i 1 4,y5 to 2 f� t f o b $ `' Recommendation by Equipment Maintenance/Fleet Supervisor: Check one: Replacement recommended Replacement not recommended Dispose by Trade In / Salvage Auction Transfer to: r Equipment am enanc- F'- - upervisor P Date: / 6- Public Works to forward completed form as follows: One copy to Requesting Department One copy to Finance Due in Finance January 31, 2004 Vehicle ID No: r''* °7 /t '9' / 9 6, Budget Form #10 To: From: Subject: CITY OF ALAMEDA VEHICLE NEW AND REPLACEMENT REQUEST - FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 AND 2005 -06 Equipment Maintenance/ Fleet Supervisor Art Fuentes (name) Replacement of: Lt. (title) Police (department) Program No: 7d24,/ D Ce ,P (4C- (make) (model) (equipment no.) (license no.) 7%);-1/47/9 5217 7 Requested for 2004 -05 2005 -06 k/ The following justification is submitted to support the proposed replacement of the above vehicle. (Please list for what purpose the vehicle is used and estimated annual mileage). Marked Patrol Vehicle. Current Mileage is 54,302. Estimated annual mileage is 25,000. SHOQLUSE ONLY: Date Acquired: Vehicle ID No: .-2,72/7/06"47/4t/V5.44-&C) Mileage:- Total past 12 months: Total Cost from: 11 l /03 to al, f �� `��► Recommendation by Equipment Maintenance/Fleet Supervisor: Check one: Dispose by: Replacement recommended ''/ Replacement not recommended Trade In ✓ Salvage Auction Transfer to: By: Equipment Maintenance /Fleet Supervisor $ so .214- Date: Public Works to forward completed form as follows: One copy to Requesting Department One copy to Finance Due in Finance January 31, 2004 Budget Form #10 v' i To: From: Subject: CITY OF ALAMEDA VEHICLE NEW AND REPLACEMENT REQUEST - FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 AND 2005 -06 Equipment Maintenance/ Fleet Supervisor Art Fuentes Lt. Police (name) (title) (department) Replacement of: Program No: zeoe, 14;20 (make) (model) (equipment no.) (license no.) 7DEO9 4Z Requested for 2004 -05 2005 -06 The following justification is submitted to support the proposed replacement of the above vehicle. (Please list for what purpose the vehicle is used and estimated annual mileage). Marked Patrol Vehicle. Current Mileage is 41,300. Estimated annual mileage is 25,000. SHOP,USE ONLY: Date Acquired: Vehicle ID No: Z f 7/L05>/ Az/ 44,2t, Mileage: 1-725Ort Total • past 12 months: Total Cost from: rt f to to 1711/2( 1 • $ Z7c' . 7 Recommendation by Equipment Maintenance /Fleet Supervisor: Ff, Check one: Replacement recommended Replacement not recommended Dispose by Trade In ✓ Salvage Auction Transfer to: By: Equipment Maintenance /Fleet Supervisor Date: Public Works to forward completed form as follows: _ One copy to Requesting Department One copy to Finance Due in Finance January 31, 2004 Budget Form #10 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Date: July 12, 2005 Re: Appointment of Mr. Lee Perez to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee BACKGROUND On May 21, 2003, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ( "GPA "). Shortly thereafter, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services filed notices with the City of Alameda indicating their intention to challenge the adequacy of the GPA EIR. After several more months of negotiations, the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services executed a four party settlement agreement on April 19, 2004. Per the agreement, the two cities and the Oakland Chinatown Committee agree to establish an Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC) to "serve as an advisory committee to the Alameda City Council and Planning Board and the Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of providing ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues related to the future development and environmental review (CEQA) process for projects within Alameda Point and Downtown Oakland." As stipulated in the agreement, the Alameda City Council is to appoint two representatives and one alternate to represent Alameda on the OCAC. In July of 2004, the City Council appointed Sherri Steig to represent Alameda on the OCAC. For the second seat and the alternate, the City Council requested that the Planning Board select a Planning Board member to serve as the second Alameda representative and a Planning Board member to act as the Alameda alternate. The Planning Board appointed Gina Mariani to fill the second Alameda seat on the OCAC and Margaret McNamera to serve as an alternate for the Alameda representatives. DISCUSSION Due to time constraints and other responsibilities, Ms. Steig is no longer able to serve on the OCAC, and a replacement is needed to represent Alameda. On July 5, 2005 Mayor Johnson nominated Mr. Lee Perez to replace Ms. Steig on the OCAC. Report 4 -G CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT July 12, 2005 Page 2 of 2 The settlement agreement includes a commitment to fund up to $75,000 to support Chinatown staff or technical consultants. The Council appropriated these funds when approving the agreement. No additional funds are necessary. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed action is consistent with the Alameda General Plan and Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council appoint by motion Mr. Lee Perez to serve as the City of Alameda second representative on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Respectfully submitted, aul Benoit, Assistant City Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Date: July 6, 2005 Re: Recommendation Authorizing City Manager to Execute an Amendment to Contract with MV Student Transportation Increasing Budget by $8,000 and Extending Contract to August 15, 2005. Background On April 20, 2004, the City Council approved a Contract with MV Student Transportation (MV) in the amount of $237,270 for the Kids Coach program operations. Subsequently, in February 2005 staff recommended that the pilot program be terminated at the end of Fiscal Year 2004 -05 due to programmatic and financial limitations of the transportation model. However, as the program winds down, it is necessary to extend and increase MV's contract to ensure a complete and accurate closeout. Discussion /Analysis After the decision was made to stop operating Alameda Kids Coach, staff minimized its time on program administration, including volunteer recruitment and management, by shifting those costs to the MV contract. It was agreed to compensate MV for paid aides placed on routes in lieu of volunteers, and to allow MV to bill for scheduling and overhead costs of the paid aides. As a result, the final month of bus service will exceed the total projected contract amount. The additional cost will be covered by the City's LIFT (Low - Income Fund for Transportation) grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). There will be no impact on the General Fund. The contract extension will provide additional time to collect from MV the data that is required as a condition of the MTC grant. A group of Kids Coach parents has been meeting regularly to determine the feasibility of restructuring as a community -based non - profit with a walk -to- school focus. Pending the completion of the feasibility review, we will conclude negotiations with MTC about transferring the funds to this restructured program or returning the balance of the money to the MTC. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report 4 -H CC 7 -19 -05 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Fiscal Impact July 6, 2005 Page 2 There is no impact on the General Fund. The additional cost is estimated at $8,000 for paid aides and closeout activities. The exact amount up to $8,000 will be reimbursed from LIFT grant funds currently reserved in the City's account with MTC. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with MV Student Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000 (to an amount not to exceed $245,270) and extending the term of the contract to August 15, 2005. Respectf, ly submitted, sli - A. Little Development Services Director By: Carol Beaver Community Development Manager LL /CB /EH:sb Attachment Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: TechAssist/Transportation /MV Contract/CouncilExtrend.doc F: P /Kids Coach /Contract AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this day of July 2005, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MV Student Transportation, Inc., a subsidiary of MV Transportation, Inc., a California corporation, whose address is 10275 Shadow Ridge Drive, Suite 102, Olathe, KS 66061, (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On April 20, 2004, an agreement was entered into by and between the City and Contractor (hereinafter "Agreement "). B. City and Contractor desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "The term of this agreement shall commence on the 21st day of April 2004, and shall terminate on the 15th day of August 2005." 2. The following language is added to the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A, as referenced in Paragraph 2 ( "Services to be Performed "): "The Contractor shall pay attendants at a rate of $134 per full day of work in cases when the City is not able to find volunteer staff to fill those positions." 3. Paragraph 3 ( "Compensation to Contractor ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "Contractor shall be compensated up to an additional $8,000 for additional services to be provided by attendants when volunteer staff is not available to perform these services, as set forth in amended Exhibit A "Scope of Work." 4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. MV Student Transportation, Inc. July 2005 Page 1 of 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. MV Student Transportation, Inc. CITY OF ALAMEDA A Municipal Corporation trk Wilkie President William C. Norton Acting City Manager Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Carol Beaver Community Development Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney MV Student Transportation, Inc. July 2005 Page 2of 2 Exhibit "A" SCOPE OF WORK The Contractor will provide program administration and operations for the Alameda Kids Coach ( "Program ") through its existing site in San Leandro, CA, whose General Manager will assist in the on -site operations of this Agreement. Direct operations support, general oversight, monitoring, and primary responsibility for this Agreement will reside with Contractor President, Kirk Wilkie. Additional oversight will be provided by local representatives of Contractor's parent corporation, MV Transportation, Inc. based in Fairfield, CA. Contractor will appoint a "Lead Driver" for program coordination and dispatch activities. All job titles are understood to be as described in Contractor's proposal submitted February. 16, 2004 ( "Proposal "), which is incorporated herein by reference. Additional support for the Program will be provided by existing Contractor staff including but not limited to: Vice President of Human Resources, Vice President of Maintenance, Director of Safety, Division Manager, Safety & Training Supervisor, and Maintenance Supervisor. The specifications detailed in the City's December 10, 2004 Request for Proposal ( "RFP ") are incorporated herein by reference. Nothing in this Scope of Work is intended to imply a lower standard than that presented in the RFP as to the Contractor's responsibilities under this contract. Minimum Responsibilities of the Contractor • Operating Program shuttles according to the scheduling demands outlined by City. • Supplying, maintaining and fueling all vehicles, including the Alameda Point Collaborative vehicle, in accordance with specified City requirements. • Processing all service change requests of enrolled families and revising the routes accordingly. • Providing the volunteer attendants and the Program Coordinator with copies of the daily attendance sheets. • Service monitoring, investigating complaints, and supervising road operations. • Maintaining completed daily driver manifests. The Contractor will maintain a set of completed, readable driver manifests for a three (3) year period, and upon request make them available to the city for planning and auditing purposes. • Recording daily ridership totals by route (including origin and destination). Report both daily and monthly ridership totals by route on a monthly basis. • Providing monthly breakdowns of cancellations, no shows and completed trips; total revenue hours and miles operated; complaints; and the number of in- service vehicle breakdowns and accidents. • Providing the City with input on scheduling, service planning, and policy issues. • Providing for the safety and supervision of the children on the vehicles and during drop -off and pick -up times. • Verifying that children are being received by facilities that are authorized to accept them. (The driver will not proceed on route until the children dropped off have safely entered the childcare building and are under the supervision of a facility worker.) • Providing a first -line response to customer service complaints about the Program. • Invoice subscribers monthly and collect payments, prior to the start of the service month, 1 Exhibit "A" based on the City's fee structure. Membership fees shall be itemized in a monthly report to the City. Subscription revenues shall be retained by the contractor and subtracted from monthly contractor invoices. 'roviding paid attendants at °a rate' f $1 4 per ll iay of work in uses i d volunteer staffto hl t ose pos nod a Program Start -Up Contractor will work with City to plan and implement a strategy that addresses key areas such as personnel, budget, equipment, technology and logistics needed for the June 21, 2004 initiation of shuttle services. Key milestones will be established, reviewed and met as required to achieve the Program's target start date. The City will provide Contractor with information on concept routes, including anticipated pick -up and drop -off locations. These routes will vary depending on demand from families. The City will identify the schools to be served and provide the list of enrolled Program subscribers. The Contractor is responsible for designing routes so that that no child will remain on a vehicle for more than 40 minutes. Contractor's responsibilities will include, but will not be limited to: hiring, training, testing, and supervising all operating and administrative staff including bus operators, dispatch and office staff, mechanics and vehicle service staff. The Contractor must list all job openings related to the Program with East Bay Works. Volunteer attendants will be identified, screened and trained by the City and its partners but will ultimately be selected, scheduled for service, and otherwise supervised by the Contractor. All drivers must complete drug testing, license -pull notification, fingerprinting, health screening, California Child Abuse index checks, and mandated child abuse reporter training. All driver training must meet California Highway Patrol requirements. The Contractor must present documentation to the Program Coordinator that all of the above tests and safety procedures have been completed. Reservations, dispatch and communications center operations will be in accordance with the RFP, as will the handling of customer service and complaints. Driver selection, supervision and training standards will meet or exceed those specified in the RFP, as will vehicle safety and maintenance. The cost of any driver certificates or licenses shall be borne entirely by the Contractor. The Program Rules and Regulations ( "Rules "), which appeared as Attachment F to City's December 10, 2003 Request for Proposal, outline enrollment procedures and is incorporated herein by reference: City, Contractor's IT staff and City's IT consultant will coordinate an automated enrollment system for use with Contractor's record - keeping systems. Initial enrollment is scheduled to begin April 1, 2004. Contractor will provide, fuel and maintain fleet vehicles as needed to service the routes and run- times described in Phases I and II below. One 12- passenger shuttle owned by the Alameda Point Collaborative will be available for Contractor's use. In addition, Contractor will provide 2000 or newer Blue Bird Micro Bird 16 passenger school buses as specified in Section VIII of its Proposal. 2 Exhibit "A" A generic, one color vehicle is preferred, but not required. The City will provide the contractor with a logo wrap for the exterior of each in- service vehicle. The City will make available to Contractor four parking spaces in the Alameda Point Collaborative parking lot located in the primary program service area. Contractor will be responsible for installing appropriate carseats in the vehicles, according to the height and weight information, provided by parents / guardians, on the children who require carseats. City will provide the carseats, which must be maintained and cleaned and stored by Contractor. The Rules outline the projected service hours and miles for both Phase I and Phase II, and is incorporated herein by reference. Actual mileage may vary. The Rules also describe pick -up and drop -off procedures. Contractor's dispatcher will provide volunteer attendants with attendance sheets. The volunteer attendants and the drivers will share responsibility for maintaining the safety of the children on the bus. Parents will have been provided with, and agreed that they and their children will observe the Rules, as incorporated in a Parent Handbook. If students repeatedly violate safety rules, the attendant will contact Contractor to address the problem with the child and his or her parents. Phase I — Morning Transportation Service Beginning June 21, 2004, the Program will offer a morning service, Monday — Friday, to transport children from their homes to childcare and before school care. The service will be provided between 6:30 am and 9:30am. During the morning hours, two shuttles will operate. School and childcare times may change slightly during the course of the contract period. It is the Contractor's responsibility to modify routes and schedules to address these changes. Phase II — Morning and Afternoon Service During the month of July 2004, the City will begin accepting reservations for the Program's after - school service, which will supplement and not replace the morning transportation program. Afternoon service will operate on all days when Alameda Public Schools are in session. The Alameda Unified School District FY 2004/05 schedule appears as Exhibit Al. The list of School Bell Times, which appeared as Attachment D to City's December 10, 2003 Request for Proposal, is incorporated herein by reference, and Contractor is responsible for planning pick -ups in accordance with these times and the Rules. 3 Exhibit "A" Compliance with Local, State and Federal Regulations Contractors must comply with all regulations outlined in the RFP. Local, state and federal regulations governing the transportation of children may change over the course of the contract period. The contractor is responsible for maintaining compliance with both existing regulations, and any new regulations that are implemented during the contract period. In addition, contractors are responsible for following all regulations outlined in ;the Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement. A full copy of the Master Agreement may be viewed online at http: / /www.fta.dot. gov /library./legal /agreements /2003 /ma.html. G: TechAsst \Transport\M V Contract \S copeofW ork. doc 4 City of Alameda Interdepartmental Memorandum July 13, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manage Subject: Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland and Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy and Appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund Reserves. Background On February 1, 2003, Holland & Knight, LLP entered into an agreement with Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to lobby Congress, the Department of Defense, the Navy, the EPA, and other officials in the federal government, to secure funding for environmental remediation and redevelopment at Alameda Point. Holland & Knight assisted in providing access to key congressional and administration officials, including Senator Feinstein, to raise the awareness of Alameda Point and its priority for remediation and conveyance. In June 2004, the City Manager retained the services of Holland and Knight to provide federal government general lobbying services for the entire City organization. Discussion /Analysis In 2004, Holland and Knight's advocacy efforts resulted in an "earmark" of $465,000 in the Federal Transportation- Treasury Appropriations bill to fund transportation planning for Alameda Point. These funds have been appropriated by Congress and received at the regional level. The funds are anticipated to be deposited with the City of Alameda by the end of the calendar year. Holland and Knight staff prepared the attached memo which provides an update on their federal fiscal year 2006 advocacy efforts. The federal fiscal year ends on September 30, 2005. It is recommended that Holland & Knight be retained for a four month period of time, expiring on November 20, 2005. This will allow the firm to demonstrate its effectiveness in securing additional federal funds. At the end of this period, staff will evaluate the Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report 4 -1 CC 7 -19 -05 July 13, 2005 Page 2 effectiveness of Holland and Knight's service, and if warranted, bring another agreement to the Council for consideration. Budget Consideration /Financial Impact The cost to retain Holland and Knight, LLP, to provide federal advocacy will cost $40,000 for a four month period covering July 20, 2005 through November 20, 2005. The funds are not currently budgeted and will be drawn from the General Fund reserves if approved. Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference Not applicable Recommendation Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland and Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund reserves. Respectfully Submitted, WC- • William C. Norton Acting City Manager Attachment WCN: cj Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Holland Knight Memorandum Date: July 11, 2005 To: City of Alameda From: Richard Gold Lynn Cutler Julie Adair Re: Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Advocacy Update INTRODUCTION Tel 202 955 3000 Holland & Knight LLP Fax 202 955 5564 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006- 6801 www.hklaw.com Richard Gold 202 457 7143 rgold @hklaw.com This memorandum outlines our federal advocacy accomplishments and on -going legislative efforts on behalf of the City of Alameda. While the majority of our time is spent campaigning for the City's appropriations and TEA -21 reauthorization priorities, we also provide valuable authorization and regulatory services in support of local initiatives. We are in constant contact with the Congressional offices and federal agencies that matter most to the City and through the years have built a reliable network of support that allows us to help the City with its most pressing needs. I. TEA -21 Reauthorization A. House On March 10, 2005 the House passed H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users otherwise referred to interchangeably as TEA -21 Reauthorization, TEA -LU, SAFE -TEA and TEA -3. As a result of our constant contact with Congressman Stark's office, both of the City's requests were included in the House bill. This puts the City in the best possible position for the House - Senate conference. A lot of time and effort was spent preparing the necessary white papers, committee forms and congressional office forms that were required in order for these projects to be eligible for consideration. To allow for his staff to have time to review each request, Congressman Stark had an internal office deadline of January 28, 2005. In turn, the Congressman's Legislative Assistant for transportation, Bryan Hughes, formally submitted the City's key projects to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on February 7, 2005. Once the projects were submitted to the committee we remained in constant contact with Stark's staff as well as the committee to ensure that the projects received favorable consideration and to remind staff that we serve as the Washington resource for the City. Annapolis • Atlanta • Bethesda • Boston • Bradenton • Chicago • Fort Lauderdale • Jacksonville • Lakeland • Los Angeles Miami • New York • Northern Virginia • Orlando • Portland • Providence • Rancho Santa Fe • Sacramento • St. Petersburg San Antonio • San Francisco • Seattle • Tallahassee • Tampa • Washington, D.C. • West Palm Beach Beijing • Caracas* • Helsinki* • Mexico City • Tel Aviv* • Tokyo • *Representative Office July 11, 2005 Page 2 The projects are as follows: • $2 million to plan, design and construct an intermodal facility at Alameda Point. Note: Formerly the Alameda Tramway Project • New Starts listing for Alameda, California — Fixed Guideway Corridor Project. Note: The committee did not approve our preferred project name of "The Alameda Point Major Transit Investment Study." However this language will accomplish the same project goals. While New Starts listings do not include federal funding, the listing itself is of significant value. Essentially, the listing provides the necessary congressional authorization for the City to carry out its continued design and planning for the project. As the project matures, it will be ripe for federal funding and it will already have one foot in the door as it has received prior congressional approval. In addition, Congress only considers this type of transportation bill every six -years and without the current listing, the City would have to wait for the next bill. As you know, timing is everything and having to wait another six -years runs the risk of severely jeopardizing the project. B. Senate & Conference Keeping in line with last year's TEA -21 process, the Senate elected to wait until conference to include projects. The Senate completed their consideration of the bill in May and Senator Boxer is once again serving as a member of the conference committee. In this capacity, we have asked her staff Laurie Saroff to protect the City's two earmarks should the House allocations be reduced to make way for Senate projects. Laurie has conveyed that the Senator is very supportive of the City's projects and she will work to maintain these projects in conference. At present, TEA -21 is operating under its eighth extension. House and Senate conferees now have until July 19th to either complete their work on the bill or face another unpopular extension. While it remains to be seen, those close to the conference are optimistic that a bill can be completed before August recess now that the largest hurdle, the overall funding level of the bill, has been resolved. Staff worked through the July 4th recess and members are expected to continue their conference meetings this week. II. Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations A. Bill Status In May, Congress began their consideration of the individual appropriations bills and has made great progress. Before breaking for the July 4th recess, the House completed their consideration all 10 of their appropriations bills. Meanwhile the Senate continues to work through their bills having yet to hold subcommittee and full committee markups for several of them. In addition, the Senate has pushed back markup of the Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia (TTHUD) bill on a couple occasions with the most recent delay causing markup to slip until July 19th. However this has not stopped July 11, 2005 Page 3 lawmakers from preparing to conference those bills (Interior and Energy & Water) which have passed both the House and the Senate. You may recall that earlier this year Congress took on a massive reorganization of the appropriations process. Headed by the new House full committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, the reorganization shrunk the number of appropriations committees from 13 to 10 on the House side and from 13 to 12 on the Senate side. As a result a number of popular accounts for earmarks have been moved to new bills and several House Chairman and Ranking Members have lost their seniority. To stay on top of these critical changes and to serve the needs of our clients, we have spent many hours reviewing the new structure, reinforcing existing relationships and building new relationships where necessary. This attention to detail allows us to effectively navigate the new committee organization. B. City Priority Requests For the fiscal year 2006 appropriations cycle, five appropriations requests have been formally submitted on behalf of the City. Much like the project submissions for TEA -21, each of these projects required white papers, committee forms and congressional office forms to make them eligible for consideration. A great deal of time was spent completing these forms as each House and Senate office has their own internal forms and sets individual guidelines, requirements and deadlines for project submission. To comply with all of these separate requirements, each project needed as many as six different forms completed. As you are aware, these priorities were approved by the City after reviewing various project needs within each department, and with our counsel, strategically matching them to historically fruitful appropriations accounts. The projects were presented to the Offices of Congressman Stark and Senators Boxer and Feinstein by the Mayor and Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit during a mid - February trip to Washington. During this trip, we arranged for the Mayor to personally meet with Senator Feinstein on two separate occasions. We also secured an audience with Congressman Stark, but due to an illness he regretfully had to cancel at the last minute. However, the Mayor did have an opportunity to speak with the Congressman regarding these issues when we had the chance opportunity to speak with him the following day in the Rayburn Room of the Capitol. The Congressman was receptive of the requests and very apologetic for not being able to meet with the Mayor the day before. Outside of these meetings, several members of our firm served as hosts for a breakfast honoring Senator Feinstein. We have also actively supported Senator Boxer and Congressman Stark by attending various events honoring these members. Such activity is a direct benefit to the City. The City's priority requests are as follows: • Carnegie Library Building Improvements: $2 million requested from the Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) account within the Senate Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia (TTHUD) and the same amount requested within the Save America's Treasures account within the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Bill (Interior & Environment). Note: This is July 11, 2005 Page 4 the second year that this request has been sought. It was Senator Feinstein's number one priority for the Save America 's Treasures account in FY05. However, the Senator did not receive any funding in this account. In fact, only 3 California projects were funded. Because of this, Senator Feinstein 's office has requested that the FY06 submission be for the EDI account within TTHUD. Status: While the House has passed the Interior & Environment appropriations bill, the Save America's Treasures account will not be earmarked until conference. We have Congressman Stark's support for the House request, which the Congressman's Legislative Assistant for appropriations, Bryan Hughes, shared with the Mayor this past February. On the Senate side, the TTHUD bill will not be marked up in subcommittee until July 19th. However, we are in constant contact with Senator Feinstein's Legislative Assistant for appropriations Chris Thompson. Rich Gold and Julie Adair recently met with Chris to specifically discuss the importance of this project and Chris has conveyed that this is a priority project for the Senator. In addition, we are also working with Senate democratic Appropriations subcommittee staff Bill Simpson, with whom Rich Gold knows personally, to ensure that the project is included in the Senate version of the bill. • Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation Improvements Project: $5.9 million requested from the Transportation and Community System Preservation Program (TCSP) account within the House & Senate TTHUD bill. Status: The House completed their consideration of the TTHUD bill on June 30th, but elected not to include any earmarks until conference. The Senate is scheduled to consider its version of the bill in subcommittee on July 19th and in full committee on July 21st and plans to include earmarks for some, but not all of the accounts. Under likely consideration for earmarking in the Senate are the Economic Development Initiatives Account (EDI), Federal Aviation Administration accounts and some bus projects. While it has not yet been decided, it unlikely that anything under the highway program such as TCSP will be earmarked in the Senate bill. These accounts will wait until conference to be earmarked. Like the Carnegie Project, we have also designated this as a high priority request for Senator Feinstein. Rich Gold and Julie Adair recently met with Senator Feinstein's Legislative Assistant for appropriations, Chris Thompson, to specifically discuss the importance of this project. Chris conveyed that this is a priority project for the Senator. Laurie Saroff with Senator Boxer's office has also shared with us that this is on the Senator's list of priority projects for the TTHUD bill along with the Citywide Bus Shelter Program. In addition, Congressman Stark is also a champion of the project and Rich Gold and Julie Adair have spoken with the Congressman's Chief of Staff, Debbie Curtis, and Legislative Assistant for appropriations, Bryan Hughes, on multiple occasions. Julie checks in with Bryan on a weekly basis to share key information regarding the movement of the appropriations bills and the treatment of various accounts as well as to ensure that the City's projects remain a priority and that the Congressman is weighing in with the July 11, 2005 Page 5 appropriate chairmen and ranking members. This type of constant contact and coordination is essential to ensuring the success of the City's priorities. • Citywide Bus Shelter Program: $96,000 requested from the Bus & Bus Facilities account within the House & Senate TTHUD bill. Status: See above Please note that this project request was made only to Congressman Stark and Senator Boxer as Senator Feinstein asks that we limit the total number of earmarks that we present to her. We have confirmation from Bryan Hughes with Congressman Stark and Laurie Saroff from Senator Boxer that the project has been sent to the TTHUD Appropriations subcommittee for consideration. • Alameda School Safety Program for SRO & DARE: $460,000 requested from the COPS and State & Local Law Enforcement Assistance accounts within the House and Senate Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies (SSJC) bill and the Senate Commerce- Justice - Science (CJS) bill. AND • Wireless LAN Infrastructure: $500,000 requested from the COPS account within the House and Senate Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies (SSJC) bill and the Senate Commerce- Justice - Science (CJS) bill. Note: This project was requested in FY05. It was Congressman Stark's top priority for the bill, but unfortunately not funded. Status: The House completed their consideration of the SSJC bill on June 23rd. Congressman Stark was unsuccessful in his efforts to get either of these projects listed in the bill. Despite the personal request Congressman Stark made to the subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member, the subcommittee allowed for only one project per office for this account. Upon learning that neither project was included in the House bill we made Senator Boxer aware of the situation. Through a high level conversation between Lynn Cutler and the Senator's Chief of Staff Karen Olick the Senator has confirmed that these projects are also a priority for her. Julie Adair has also been in contact with Laurie Saroff, a senior staff member for the Senator and Laurie will weigh in with CJS Appropriations subcommittee staff Paul Carliner. Furthermore, Leigha Shaw, former House appropriations committee staff who has close relationships with House and Senate republican committee staff, is working with republican committee staff to seek their support as well. Unlike the House, the Senate elected to wait until conference to include any earmarks. July 11, 2005 Page 6 We understand the importance of these projects to the City and are in constant communication with our key Senate contacts both in the personal office and the subcommittee level to ensure that the projects are listed in conference. III. Fiscal Year 2005 Successes A. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development — Section 8 Funding Over the summer of 2004, we successfully obtained funds in the amount of $636,161 or 684 unit months from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (Housing Authority). These funds successfully prevented 108 families from loosing their Section 8 housing voucher assistance. Without this critical assistance, these families were at risk of becoming homeless. Given budget considerations, maintaining an adequate level of funding for Section 8 will remain a problem this year. We continue to advocate for measures that will help the City to avoid a future funding crisis and keep families from becoming homeless. B. Fiscal Year 2005 VA -HUD Appropriations — Section 8 Funding As part of the larger omnibus appropriations bill, $14.9 billion was designated for the Section 8 housing voucher program. These funds effectively preserve the program and fund it at a higher rate than the President's budget and the House and Senate versions of the bill. In addition, the omnibus rejected an effort by the President to block -grant the program and cut spending for it. This is a huge win for the Housing Authority as the block -grant proposal would have reduced the number of families served in Alameda by 194 and would have cut the Housing Authority's administrative funding by 17% making it virtually impossible to operate the Section 8 Program. C. TEA -21 Reauthorization — $2 million for the Aerial Tramway Congressman Stark secured $2 million for the Aerial Tramway in the House passed TEA -21 reauthorization bill (H.R. 3550). However, the 108th Congress never completed their consideration of H.R. 3550. The 109th Congress essentially started from scratch and requested that all projects be resubmitted for consideration. As discussed above, the City's two new submissions were included in the newest House version of TEA -21, H.R. 3. D. Fiscal Year 2005 Transportation - Treasury Appropriations Legislative Language for the Aerial Tramway The FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill also included a much needed legislative fix for the Aerial Tramway. As you will recall, a clerical error incorrectly included funds for this project in the Bus and Bus Facilities Account in the FY04 Transportation - Treasury Appropriations bill. Language included in the bill will allow FY04 funds for the project to be made available for the July 11, 2005 Page 7 Fairfield/Vacaville Intermodal Transit Station. In turn, Fairfield will provide Alameda with planning funds to enable to City to continue its work on the project. The legislative language is as follows: Alameda Point Areil Transit Project, California. -- Amounts made available in fiscal year 2004 for Alameda Point Areil Transit Project, California, shall be available for the Fairfield/Vacaville Intermodal Transit Station, California. E. Alameda Channel Maintenance Dredging Project Prior to an agreement being negotiated between the City and MARAD to provide for the much needed maintenance dredging of the Alameda Channel, we pursued a dual authorization/appropriations strategy on behalf of the City. Working closely with Senator Boxer and Congressman Stark, we were successful in adding a project authorization in the House draft version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2004 (WRDA) Conference Report. Unfortunately, the House and Senate were not able to come to a final agreement on the conference and the bill was declared dead for the year. We also obtained the assistance of Congressman Visclosky, the Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee, in exploring an administrative solution for the dredging with the US Army Corps of Engineers. IV. Other Advocacy A. ACET EDA Grant Outside of our appropriations, authorization and regulatory work for the City, we also provided recent assistance in helping the City to assume ACET's EDA grant. We coordinated efforts between the Office of Congressman Stark and EDA to determine the City's options. Unfortunately, EDA has terminated the grant and EDA's own regulations do not permit it to transfer the grant to the City. Should the City wish to submit a new grant to EDA, we would be able to provide support at the federal level. B. Community Development Block Grants We understand how critical CDBG funds are to local governments and have been actively pursuing efforts to restore them in the final FY06 federal budget. Our efforts to date have included educating staff for Congressman Stark and Senators Boxer and Feinstein about how the City has used these funds over the years. Providing congressional staff with tangible examples and the fiscal impacts to Alameda helps them to raise this issue with their respective bosses and work towards their restoration. Recently, a senate amendment restored these funds, but more work must be done to guarantee that they will be fully funded at the end of the day. C. Federal Grants July 11, 2005 Page 8 The nature of the appropriations process precludes the City from requesting all of their immediate project needs. However, our services can be used to explore federal grants for the construction of a new fire house, improvements to facilities at Alameda Point and the like. Should this be an area the City wishes to explore, we'd be happy to discuss it further. CONCLUSION As Congress continues their work on the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process and TEA -21 reauthorization bill we monitor these activities every step of the way. We are a critical extension of City staff working to ensure that federal funds and support are benefiting the most pressing needs of the City. Since federal funds do not become available overnight, we are in constant contact with key personal and committee offices to build support and momentum for these projects. We offer our services and resources to assist staff in any way possible and build long lasting partnerships. # 3054118_v1 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 20th day of July, 2005, by and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and Holland & Knight, LLP, a Washington D.C. corporation, whose address is 2099 Pennsylvaina Avenue NW, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20006 -6801, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for federal advocacy services upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 20th day of July, 2005, and shall terminate on the 20th day of November, 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from the City Manager's Office fund. 06/10/03 CONSULTANT 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 6. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 7. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 8. HOLD HARMLESS: Indemnification: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to 06/10/03 CONSULTANT Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability: As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will provide such defense costs. 9. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: (3) 06/10/03 CONSULTANT Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence (4) Professional Liability: Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000. B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 06/10/03 CONSULTANT 11. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 12. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 13. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 14. REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others; 06/10/03 CONSULTANT (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or (4) Other City projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. 15. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 16. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Christa Johnson, City Manager's Office 06/10/03 CONSULTANT All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Rich Gold Holland & Knight, LLP 2009 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 100 Washington DC, 20006 -6801 17. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required' hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 18. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 19. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 20. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 21. WAIVER: A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 06/10/03 CONSULTANT 22. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or . nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 22. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 23. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS 'WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT 06/10/03 CONSULTANT CITY OF ALAMEDA A Municipal Corporation By: Paul Benoit Title: Acting City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: y: Paul Bengt Title: Assistant City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By Titl be, Cy ; �,' EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 In coordination with the City Manager's Office for the City of Alameda, advise the City of Alameda on potential federal funding that the City or the ARRA could seek for implementation of redevelopment at Alameda Point or other locations within the City of Alameda, which may include, but is not limited to, technology improvements for public safety; transportation planning; transit, roadway, and pedestrian improvements; streetscape projects; the renovation of historic municipal buildings such as the Carnegie Building, the Veterans' Building, the "0" Club, gym and pool at Alameda Point; and aid in appropriation of such funding. In addition, Holland & Knight will assist City efforts to restore federal funding for the City's Section 8 and CDBG programs and other housing related issues. 2. Prepare a written report which sets forth, in reasonable detail, the comprehensive lobbying strategy necessary to achieve the funding goals set forth in Section 1 above. Such written report shall, among other provisions, identify any unique issues /attributes that relate to the City of Alameda that could affect the likelihood /success of achieving the funding goals set forth in Section 1 above. Such report shall be updated each thirty (30) days during the relationship. 3. Obtain information and data from the state and federal government on matters of interest to the City of Alameda that relate to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. 4. Advise the City of Alameda concerning any matters that may be of interest to the City of Alameda with respect to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. 5. Secure and furnish such detailed information as may be available that relates to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. 6. Assist and educate City of Alameda /ARRA's federal and state legislative delegation with respect to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. 7. Provide non -legal advice to the City of Alameda City Manager's Office regarding appearances by City of Alameda /ARRA officials and . staff before federal and state agencies relating to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. 8. Arrange appointments as directed by the City Manager as necessary with state and federal legislative or administrative representatives and City of Alameda /ARRA representatives as requested relating to the goals set forth in Section 1 above. EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES Consultant shall be compensated for the services performed as set forth in Exhibit A in an amount not to exceed $40,000, paid in 4 equal monthly installments. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices not to exceed $10,000 per month. Invoices to be provided to the City Manager's Office within 10 days of start of month for previous month's work. CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 BACKGROUND Parcel Map No. 8574 provides for the subdivision of three (3) parcels (Parcel 13, and adjusted Parcels 8 and 12 from the grant deed recorded June 14, 2002) into sixteen (16) parcels. The parcels are located within the area bounded by Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road, east of the CheeseWorks, Allergy Research and Venture Corporation buildings and west of the Waterfront (former Lucent development) buildings. The site is currently undeveloped. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The parcel map has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved tentative parcel map and conditions of approval. There are no new public improvements required. The existing lighting and landscape improvements within the 25' setback along Harbor Bay Parkway is maintained by the business park association and paid for by the property owners through the City's Landscape & Lighting Assessment District (AD# 84 -2). Existing public utility easement (PUE), pathway easement (PE), and street light easement (SLE) within the property along Harbor Bay Parkway will remain. The owner, Harbor Bay Acquisition, is dedicating a 30' wide emergency vehicle access easement off of North Loop Road for access to Parcels 1 through 6 and 8 through 12. Harbor Bay Acquisition will grant, by separate instrument, easements for AP &T transformers and appurtenances upon development of the parcels. The separate easements will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and AP &T and recorded in accordance with Resolution No. 5328, "Authorizing Mayor or Vice -Mayor to consent to the acceptance of deeds and grants of real property or easements thereon, for the purpose of recordation thereof," May 15, 1956. The property is subject to declaration of easements (similar to covenants, conditions and restrictions) to be recorded concurrently with the parcel map that provide for reciprocal private easements for ingress, egress, parking, drainage, and utilities over common areas, maintenance and repair of common areas. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GlyofAlneda tublicWolis Uepattiiient Public Wrnk. Works. r Foul Re: Reso 4-J CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 5, 2005 The subdivider has posted a $200 cash deposit to guarantee delivery of a mylar copy of the recorded parcel map and has provided a deposit for staff review costs. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. The existing lighting and landscape improvements within the 25' setback along Harbor Bay Parkway is maintained by the business park association and paid for by the property owners through the City's Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (AD# 84- 2). MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION The Acting City Manager recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving Parcel Map 8574. MTN:BH:gc Respect - submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director flia)AAitt r4.4A2A, By: Barbara Hawkins Supervising Civil Eng neeer G: \PUB WORKS \pwadmin\ COUNCIL \2005\071905\adoptpm8574. doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service ora tublicWorks Department Public Works Wr�sf You! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 8574 (HARBOR BAY PARKWAY AND NORTH LOOP ROAD) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. TM04 -004 was approved by the City Council per Resolution No. 13831 on April 19th, 2005; and E WHEREAS, Parcel Map 8574 was found in compliance with the California p Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Harbor I.L. w Bay Business Park, including this site, was approved and pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no .0 Z new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor have mitigation measures O previously found to be infeasible become feasible since the EIR was adopted; therefore, no co H additional review pursuant to CEQA is required; and a WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has reviewed Parcel Map 8574 and 1— has proposed a number of Conditions which have been incorporated as Conditions in City 0 Council Resolution No. 13831; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda pursuant to Section 30 -81.8 of the Alameda Municipal Code, hereto accepted and conditionally approved by the Planning Board and City Council, is hereby approved and permission given to the subdivider to record same, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions set forth in City of Alameda Council Resolution Number 13831. 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 19th day of July, 2005, 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 19th day of July 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution # 4 -J CC 7 -19 -05 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 6, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Findings for the Non - Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Recommendation to Approve an Agreement for Funding from the State California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures BACKGROUND In 2003 a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was adopted to treat and control non - native Spartina in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. This programmatic document required the preparation of site - specific control plans. The San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), administered by the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy), has prepared control plans for 22 locations, including three (3) along the City of Alameda's shoreline. In order to implement the control plan, the local agency (in this case, the City of Alameda) must prepare and adopt its own environmental findings regarding implementation of the project. California - Federal funds have been appropriated to the Conservancy to implement the control plans on a regional basis. The Conservancy is working with the local agencies to implement the plans. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project area is described as: Alameda/San Leandro Bay Complex, Alameda County (Grantees: East Bay Regional Parks District, City of Alameda, Alameda County Flood Control District, California Wildlife Foundation) - The Alameda/San Leandro Bay Complex includes the entire shoreline of Alameda and all of the marshes and tidal channels surrounding San Leandro Bay. The total site includes 314 acres of tidal marsh and channel, with 89 acres of non - native Spartina. To minimize impacts to highly sensitive California clapper rail habitat and to allow time for public education, control work in this complex will be phased over a number of years. Thirty -seven (37) acres will be slated for treatment in 2005 and up to 100 estimated acres in 2006. Treatment methods at the site will include application of Gtviftre bPcWaks Public Iffsrksfor Wad Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Reso 4-K CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 6, 2005 aquatic herbicide via spray truck, backpack sprayer, amphibious tracked vehicles, boat and helicopter. Potentially significant, unavoidable short-term impacts to the endangered California clapper rail were identified at some sub - sites. All sites will begin implementation in 2005; however, the Alameda sites will be phased over a three to four year period to reduce the impacts to clapper rail habitat. The project falls under the "Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program" ( FEIS/R) prepared for the ISP Control Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Conservancy, through its September 25, 2003 resolution certifying the EIR adopted the FEIS/R. The FEIS/R is a programmatic EIR (Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq., hereafter "Guidelines ") in that it analyzes the potential effects of implementing treatment methods for a regional program, rather than the impacts of a single individual project. This program -level EIS/EIR identifies mitigation measures that will be applied to reduce or eliminate impacts at treatment locations. A subsequent activity that follows under a program EIR that has been assessed pursuant to CEQA must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency proposing the later activity finds that its effects and required mitigation to reduce those effects were already identified and considered under the program EIR, the activity can be approved with no further environmental documentation (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168(c)). Each site - specific project has a prepared site - specific plan, describing the site and identifying the precise treatment activities proposed. The Conservancy has assessed each of these plans by use of a checklist to determine whether the effects of those activities and the mitigation required have been fully considered by the FEIS/R. In each case, the conclusion is that the program FEIS/R did fully consider the effects associated with the site - specific project and that there are no new mitigation measures required. The ISP Control Program methodology is expected to be modified by the addition of a new herbicide, imazapyr, for use in invasive Spartina treatment, as soon as that herbicide is approved by California regulatory agencies for use in an aquatic environment. This approval is anticipated for August 2005. Each of the site - specific projects proposed for funding may utilize this new methodology, if approved. The Conservancy made appropriate findings regarding this change in project in the "San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program Addendum" (Addendum), describing the incorporation of imazapyr as a treatment tool and its anticipated impacts. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service %AMA blkWocks Public *biz far km! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 July 6, 2005 The Acting City Manager has reviewed the FEIS/R, the Addendum, the site - specific treatment plan and project impact evaluation and believes that the environmental impacts related to the area designated Alameda /San Leandro Bay Complex are adequately addressed and no further environmental documentation is required to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. Potentially significant, unavoidable short-term impacts to the endangered California clapper rail continue to exist, even with a phased program, and therefore, necessitate the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A copy of the FEIS/R, addendum, Non - Native Spartina Control Impact Evaluation Matrix, Invasive Spartina Control Plan and the Conservancy Grant Agreement No. 05- 008 are on file in the City Clerks Office. The Conservancy has requested the City to enter into a contract to implement the local control plans and public outreach efforts. The City will be responsible for facilitating public outreach and providing control efforts either using City resources or through subcontractors. Between 2001 and 2003 monitoring efforts found that certain non - native Spartina hybrids have expanded over 300% in the San Francisco Estuary region. If the estuary is over run by Spartina, then storm drain outfalls will be plugged and there will be localized flooding with potential property damage. Spartina meadows accrete sediment, which impacts navigable channels and thus reduces access to marinas, which play an important role to an island city like Alameda. If Spartina takes over the estuary, the diversity of plant life will diminish and the thick vegetation will reduce favorable bird habitat. Reduction in diversity of plant and animal life will in turn also reduce the quality of life for Alamedas. On June 28, 2005, a public meeting was held to inform the public about the proposed spartina control efforts. Attendees were supportive of the proposed project but did express concerns about herbicide usage and the residual habitat effects though overall attendees were in favor of the proposed action plans. All sites will begin implementation in 2005; however, the Alameda sites will be phased over a three to four year period to reduce the impacts to clapper rail habitat. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The Conservancy has approved funding for the City of Alameda for this Spartina program for $38,093. These funds are earmarked for the City to undertake Spartina treatment and eradication activities ($31,103), and public outreach related to these activities ($6,990). The Conservancy anticipates amending the funding agreement to add funding for additional spartina eradication and mitigation effort enhancement work as well. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GmofAlameda uubIicWorks Department Public Md. Works for You! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 July 6, 2005 The City is making in -kind contribution to these efforts through staff time covered by the urban runoff fund. There will be no impact to the City's General Fund for these staffing efforts. The City staffing in -kind contribution for the 2005 control season is estimated at $11,400 and includes: preparing for and facilitating public meetings, preparing for and managing contracts and providing field oversight efforts. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed Resolution is consistent with several implemented policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a Resolution Adopting the Findings for the Non - Native Spartina Eradication Program, Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Recommendation to Approve an Agreement for Funding from the State California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. Respectfully s emitted, the T. Naclerio Public Works Director Barbara Hawkins City Engineer MTN:BH:gc Respectfully submitted, aul Benoit Acting Planning & Building Director Assistant City Manager Attachments: Site Maps and Photographs Site - Specific Project Impact Evaluation/Mitigation G: \P UB WORKS \pwadmin\ COUNCIL \2005\071905'Spartina.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GlyofAlameda PublicWorks Department Public W Is fffAlfir find Site Maps and Photographs Invasive Spartina Control Plan ATTACHMENT 1 May 2005 11!1L14 £ C3 0 n 8 Q o 8 a"- a° O clT ti c � w gg,�: 3 g8 s • • • e N O c S o < j ca. eo�o 3 co N DJ d L D a m D co CD z Z y 5 o if 3 — 01 co d 5. Ei m m O ma N a CD a 0. O O- O — O A m m N ••• o 8 8 8 poo o 8 8 17a Alameda Island South (Elsie Roemer) (w) ialawelP 4aled Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) (w) iagewelP lined o— 8 8 T A W —o V 0 _� O 2 2 g :I 8 al e 0 4 az • g 8 8 • • • • ° 8 ▪ a. 8 8 0 0 D 0--o g OD 174 1 a o g ▪ g 8 000 3.1 0 0 '22 8 ▪ 8 8 w JalawelP *Pled (w) ialawelP (Pled (w) ialawelP 431e d :, •• • o- —o • • • o o - g g g 000 tN 8 8 ° ) O9J3 OJpue01 UBS GL I, z (w),atawelP 'Med Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) S. altemllloradrybrld S. densitlora 1 IL II §. ®® @eye! BQ§ y 7 8 e k- 0 _0 8 k 3 k (w) jalewelp 43led 00° wE §, 8 O -1 0 Cu r to) CD Q0 C A) CLk • _ • E m 2 ■ 0 0 Qo sauepunoq ea,e•grs II ..• e _ ! 0 S 0 8 °g 3 8 8 8 8 • • • O ° 8 w , g 8 000 O -� — o O 17h Martin Luther King Jr. Marsh Restoration N (w) ialawelP (Pied Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) setiapunoq earn -arts \{ at g ( g g s 11111 q. ••• 78,My fO y N_ D N ammo° co 3 co d C 8" a m • ry N`c S� g Z co. 5°.. 3 c co w 1:1 to 5.3 1 fC f) 0 if n N a f/1 V Fr; C a= 0 O — 8 — T — 0 _8 00• o ` o 8 g o 8 leuumi3 pod.gd 3111 Z (w) lalewe!P LPled Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) Patch diameter (m) •• 8 o n 8 m d I •. 1 -z lz a° o b 8 3 < v 3 g e 8 19 • O g 8 o- _o _ 0 'Mffi �' 000 8 0 A g V 3 ET 3 a m y z Q. m W 3 Z Sub -areas 17a -Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary (near shore) and 17b -Bay Farm Island (far shore), Alameda. The entire marsh plain is dominated by S. alterniflora hybrids, with large hybrid clones forming on the tidal flat offshore. (March 2005) IA- Sub -area 17c- Arrowhead Marsh, with Sub -Area 17k- Airport Channel, and 17j -Fan Marsh on the far shore, center and 171- Doolittle Pond on the right before the Channel. (November 2004) Sub -area 17c- Arrowhead Marsh, Oakland. The former pickleweed marsh is now dominated by S. alterniflora hybrids along channels (foreground) and throughout most of the marsh plain. (March 2005) Sub -area 17c_Arrowhead Marsh, Oakland. S. alterniflora hybrids advancing into marsh channels. (March 2005) Sub-area 17c- Arrowhead Marsh is well known for an abundance of bold endangered California clapper rails. (June 2003) _ . -' • stio Sub-area 17c- Browned thatch of previous season's growth of Spartina alterniflora hybrids in spring at Arrowhead Marsh. (March 2005) Sub -area 17h- Martin Luther King Jr. Marsh, Oakland. Senesced S. alterniflora hybrid clones are becoming dominant throughout the marsh, particularly along the engineered channels of this recently restored marsh. Sub -area 17e, San Leandro Creek, flows adjacent to MLK Marsh in the distance. (November 2004) Sub -area 17h- Martin Luther King Jr. Marsh, Oakland. (March 2005) Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 IMPACT CHECKLIST TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 z 0 W H O W^� 1�1 W O Cr) "CJ a czt b cu E c.� z a) Additional Mitigation Required m 0 Z m 0 Z m 0 Z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site NA/NE — Proposed ac- tivities are not ground disturbing and will not elevate erosion above ambient levels. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No excavation within estuarine beaches planned. Any cordgrass treated within this Com- plex on estuarine beaches will be treated with herbicide leaving intact root masses. Root masses will naturally degrade on site. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods a m 0 0 En Q (.j W 0 0 CO m a) Q 0 0 lz Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site NA/NE — Proposed res- toration work will not elevated erosion above ambient levels LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No excavation within estuarine beaches planned. Any cordgrass treated within this Com- plex on estuarine beaches will be treated with herbicide leaving intact root masses. Root masses will naturally degrade on site. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels (-1 0 w 0 Sub -Area Included ti ca`— a) -Q y O Q. O Q w Z Z Q w Z Z Impact* GEO -1: Erosion or deposi- tion of sediment at treat- ment site GEO -2: Erosion or topog- raphic change of marsh and mudflat by vehicles used in eradication GEO -3: Remobilization of sand in cordgrass- stabilized estuarine beaches Cr, 0 Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 Additional Mitigation Required a) o z m 0 z 1 0 z a) 0 Z a) 0 Z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site fa 0) 0 '0 0. `) tq O E. Za) I Ea w . z y a m0 Z c o. No adverse impact (see EIS /R GEO -5 discus- sion). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No mitigation required for work near or in salt marsh pans. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods 0 0 a N 0 O °i Q 0 N 0 O m 8 � ("1 0 'p • Q > c'1 > U •- • Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site _ a) 0' a) �m a) oc , E0 co •__ a O N N CO __ a3 3 m a°) > �. Q CO a0i O CL -1-+ 0 0 .. 3 O 1 E v a -0riE, =a)c)a w c; 0 d O 0 0 N 0 O O v) 0L 1 m m= E 7 aa0 a z 2- 3 f) c°1a2 m° 0) a) 00. - 300c0)'D 5 <0.-VoEwc No adverse impact (see EIS /R GEO -5 discus- sion). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No mitigation required for work near or in salt marsh pans. w a Z w a Z Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels v 0 w 0 Sub -Area Included CO a y aQ All Sub - Areas _6 co as II cn aQ a) CO � CI. Q < < < < a Impact* GEO -4: Increased de- mand for sediment dis- posal and potential spread of invasive cordgrass via sediment disposal. GEO -5: Increased volume and velocity of tidal cur- rents in channels due to the removal of invasive cordgrass. GEO -6: Increased depth and turbulence of tidewa- ters impounded in salt marsh pans. WQ -1: Degradation of water quality due to herbi- cide application splds aplo -Iqpoq o; enp /Ilenb Ja ;enn ;o uogepei6aa :Z -OM 0 0 0 N O N co bA CA E.4 n o v w 0 co o ,-1 a d to 0 g 0 0 471 Ikl' .g +8' 1 O G 0• ....• 0 U z o 0. o E • M • .8 r a. E w . v -d u v z z b vim?' 2 a4 r)w -. '°u) a -0 ° w u 1 E- 10 A m • dZacob Alameda and San Leandro Bav TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 IMPACT CHECKLIST Additional Mitigation Required 0 c 0 z k a) o z a) c o z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No dredging or other sediment - mobilizing activities proposed. NA/NE — This impact only applies to EIS /R Alternative 3. NA/NE — Field surveys found no salt- meadow or English cordgrass within this site. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — Field surveys found no Chilean cordgrass within this site. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods k t $[ 0 0 6q a‘- o / 4 65 m‘" \ j §) t j Ed- a— # §— / c / @ Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — This impact only applies to EIS /R Alternative 3. NA/NE — Field surveys found no salt- meadow or English cordgrass within this site. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — Field surveys found no Chilean cordgrass within this site. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels j \ 6 _ Sub -Area Included � co \< f � k 7< / - 05 Q. < < ± 2 z & 2 z « E z \ o. E WQ -3: Degradation of water quality due to fuel or petroleum spills WQ -4: Degradation of water quality due to con- taminant remobilization WQ -5: Water quality ef- fects resulting from sedi- ment accretion BIO -1.1: Effects on tidal marsh plant communities affected by salt- meadow cordgrass and English cordgrass. BIO -1.2: Effects on tidal marsh plant communities affected by Atlantic smooth cordgrass and its hybrids. BIO -1.3: Effects on tidal marsh plant communities affected by Chilean cordgrass. 0 Cr) en ] Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 Additional Mitigation Required Z 0 z z z z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site NA/NE — Field surveys found no eelgrass or other submerged aquatic plants within site. NA/NE — Field surveys found no special- status plant species within site. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — No sub- areas within site contain harbor seal colonies. NA/NE — Outside of known range of southern sea otters. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods Back- pack M Q m O O> Q C) Q' m Q m V ¢1 M 0 Eli :p N Q M 0 m U M 0 E Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site NA/NE — Field surveys found no eelgrass or other submerged aquatic plants within site. NA/NE — Field surveys found no special- status plant species within site. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels o Fa m Sub -Area Included ` a Q m r cu o ° C). Q w a z w z z Q Q w z z U CO Q E BIO -1.4: Effects on sub- merged aquatic plant communities. 13IO -2: Effects on special - status plants (Soft bird's beak and /or Suisun this- tle) in tidal marshes BIO -3: Effects on shore- birds and waterfowl. BIO -4.1: Effects on the salt marsh harvest mouse and tidal marsh shrew species. BIO -4.2: Effects on resi- dent harbor seal colonies of San Francisco Bay. BIO -4.3: Effects on the southern sea otter. 0 \ ) IMPACT CHE Additional Mitigation Required �k /c) /& •0.c ° < -- //2 2}22 a) k k a) ) Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site 7} \ k26 /2f�k co o =e%= A22#% 2)273 & =02o ±7E8§i §q\\a %r\@ °6 ± «§c$ ZC,)EW < -02C EE=C{) <R®=0. \f / §7f 7 /f&§ LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods /t co \m §J \i =EE7 §n \N =© \@ _° f� _© b ct Q(0 E \[ / §n \@ =n 6@ e° \� =n -45 q 6� § / \2 E \EA §n \5 =e $@ =e 6# m® ) \��$co m\§7 §n \a =© bm �© 6f B© \ & 6 /\ ƒfi EaE) §m )e E 0 OC e� 6f B© Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site /{ � b2f\7 t =g%= =222 w /§§\ § §0@$/ 0) 0 0 - ztaa£W «0.222% %»3873 LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels -Sc,, \ _ 2 a2 \2 __ CV w 6 = CO e \ = • a \ c Sub -Area Included _ciee�� 22222E eaa�� \2222 3ee= \\2\0. w_ /� \� r kq -L_� k�k �� \\ "- 2/ Applicable to Site < < < < \ E BIO -5.1: Effects on the California clapper rail. BIO -5.2: Effects on the California black rail. BIO -5.3: Effects on tidal marsh song sparrow sub- species and the salt marsh common yellowthroat. BIO -5.4: Effects on Cali- fornia least terns and western snowy plovers. 0 ] Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 Additional Mitigation Required c Z c Z c Z c Z Z_ y O S C 7 C N a O c � m E aCi c rt, mR c riff) E o.caa aa> Z-' c Z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — Outside of known delta smelt and Sacramento splittail range. NA/NE — Outside of known range of tidewa- ter goby. LTS /NLTAE with addi- tional mitigation B10- 6.4(b) NA/NE — Outside of known range of Califor- nia red - legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Salinities of areas slated for treat- ment are too high. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods o o CO CO mo_ O `- � O .4. N N CD mCa EENc O) Q m� O v ,C N 2 m m(O E E N._ o 00 m CO 0 N al C m co E E a.— Q m6 m� mcciEEN— c = O� co (6 O�,C_N_`En mci E E — Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site NA/NE- Restoration work will not effect birds of prey NA/NE- Restoration work will not effect anadro- mous salmonids NA/NE — Outside of known delta smelt and Sacramento splittail range. NA/NE — Outside of known range of tidewa- ter goby. NA/NE- Restoration work will not impact these resources NA/NE — Outside of known range of Califor- nia red - legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Salinities of areas slated for treat- ment are too high. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels Sub -Area Included x- _csN �2 a¢ _csN �a) Q aa Applicable to Site a Z a Z a Z ».. U co 4 E B1O -5.5: Effects on rap- tors (birds of prey). BIO -6.1: Effects on ana- dromous salmonids (win- ter -run and spring -run Chinook salmon, steel - head). BIO -6.2: Effects on delta smelt and Sacramento splittail. BIO -6.3: Effects on the tidewater goby. BIO -6.4: Effects on estua- rine fish populations of shallow submerged inter- tidal mudflats and chan- nels. BIO -7: Effects on Califor- nia red - legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. 0 Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 cn V U U U U C. Additional Mitigation Required C o Z C o Z a) C Z C Z a) Z Z C Z C Z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. NA/NE — Access routes paved. NA/NE — No burning proposed. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods Y m o- Z o Q O7 O CD Z m m° Z m C Q c� Q r Z Y U p Z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. NA/NE — Access routes paved. NA/NE — No burning proposed. W Z Z LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. LTS /NLTAE without mitigation. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels m Z Sub -Area Included ti c { T t N- r .s 03 Applicable to Site Q z z z z a z Q z z z z Q 14- N Q E BIO -8: Effects of regional invasive cordgrass eradi- cation on mosquito pro- duction. BIO -9: Effects on tiger beetle species. AQ -1: Dust emissions. AQ -2: Smoke emissions. AQ -3: Herbicide effects on air quality. AQ -4: Ozone precursor emissions. AQ -5: Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions. N -1: Disturbance of sensi- tive receptors O 0 0 r Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 Additional Mitigation Required a) z a) z a) z a) z a) z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site NA/NE — Methods not proposed for this site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts miti- gated to less than signifi- cant. Site conditions consistent with those an- ticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. SU — Impacts addressed in EIS /R and CEQA findings. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods U V Op Q- N I M I I I 5 O Lczo Q N co I M co I I. co I N- U) 5 cs O co N Cl) 2 M U) I U) I U) 5 i° 0 Q N U) I c7 U1 I .7 U) I U) 5 U O 1- N U) 2 M U) 2 V U) 2 cn j Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. w z z w z z LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. SU — Impacts addressed in EIS /R and CEQA findings. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels th 2 d) I uS 5 Sub -Area Included N- N 03 a�0 co co Qm a) d af0 a) CO a' Applicable to Site Q a a a a U N E HS -1: Worker injury from accidents associated with manual and mechanical cordgrass treatment. HS -2: Worker health ef- fects from herbicide appli- cation. HS -3: Health effects to the public from herbicide ap- plication. HS -4: Health effects to workers or the public from accidents associated with treatment. VIS -1: Alteration of views from removal of non- native cordgrass infesta- tions. 0 00 0) Alameda and San Leandro Bay TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 IMPACT CHECKLIST Additional Mitigation Required a) 0 z a) z z a) z a) z a) 0 z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site NA/NE — Applies only to PEIS /R Alternative 3 (No Action) LTS /NLTAE — Limited to less than significant by HS, and N mitigations. NA/NE — Methods not proposed for site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. NA/NE — No erosion - producing activities proposed NA/NE — No restoration projects with the poten- tial to spread Spartina proposed within this Complex during the proposed treatment schedule Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods \/ § 0 0 ƒ \ 0 \ \ 0 ifs K \ —J / \ 0 0 Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site NA/NE — Applies only to PEIS /R Alternative 3 (No Action) \ z LTS /NLTAE — Limited to less than significant by HS, and N mitigations. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels j \ 0 0 Sub -Area Included All sub- areas co � k < ° / CC N- Applicable to Site z z < < < < \ E VIS -2: Change in views from native marsh, mud - flat, and open water to non - native cordgrass meadows and monocul- tures. LU -1: Land use conflicts between herbicide use and sensitive receptors LU -2: Land use conflicts from mechanical and burning treatment meth- ods CUL -1: Disturbance or destruction of cultural re- sources from access and treatment. CUL -2: Loss of cultural resources from erosion. CUM -1- Effects of wetland restoration projects on spread of non - native cordgrass A Alameda and San Leandro Bav TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 U U U U Additional Mitigation Required a) O z Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Treatment Methods at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Mitigations* (by Treatment Method used at Site) Various herbicide Treatment methods U U ca co m 0- O QD N U TO 0 CO To' 0 a) Q Y U Et Comments /Analysis of Residual Impact of Res- toration Work at Site LTS /NLTAE — Potential impacts mitigated to less than significant. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS /R. Applicable Miti- gations* for Res- toration Work Excavation of Channels N 2 D U Sub -Area Included I,- �� Applicable to Site Q Impact* CUM -2- Cumulative dam- age to marsh plain vege- tation Alameda and San Leandro Bay, TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 SITE - SPECIFIC PROJECT MITIGATION MITIGATION CHECKLIST TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 0 U b a) E �JJ m`V 0 S-I a b czt b V V z V Verification Signatures ISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing During treatment c 0 . m C) During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment Prior to Treatment mQ X X X X 0 P.) Q X X X X X o m X X X X N a`) Q X X X X o I- X X X X Restora- tion Work X X X X Sub Area Included 0 � F: T N- r ti All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas ti N- Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Minimize vehicle travel in the marsh and mudflats (GEO -2; CM -1) Restoration activities in- volving digging of chan- nels shall only occur on previously treated stands of cordgrass to minimize dispersal of propagules (GEO -4) Apply herbicide directly to plant at low tide and ac- cording to label. (WQ -1; CM -3 & 4) Apply under supervision of trained applicator (WQ -2; CM -3) Implement spill and con- tainment plan provided or approved by ISP (WQ -2; CM -17) Implement spill and con- tainment plan provided or approved by ISP (WQ -3; CM -17) Review of existing sedi- ment data for site (WQ -2) 0 m E GEO -2: Erosion or to- pographic change of marsh and mudflat by vehicles used in eradi- cation GEO -4: Increased de- mand for sediment dis- posal and potential spread of invasive cordgrass via sediment disposal. WQ -1: Degradation of water quality due to herbicide application WQ -2: Degradation of water quality due to herbicide spills WQ -3: Degradation of water quality due to fuel or petroleum spills WQ -4: Degradation of water quality due to contaminant remobiliza- tion 0 0 0) 00 m TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 0 v v V 0 Verification Signatures ISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing Prior to Treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment mQ x X X x x X 0 L' Q x x x x x x o co x x x x x x 0 Q x x x x x x x 0 0 x x x x x x Restora- tion Work X x x x x x x Sub Area Included m N. All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Evaluation of historical site use and /or proximity to contaminant sources (WQ -2) Minimize entry and re- entry into marsh (BIO -1.2; CM -1) Avoid staging in high, dense vegetation such as gumplant or pickleweed (FWS GL) Avoid herbicide applica- tion to non - target vegeta- tion adjacent to treatment area. (BIO -1.2; CM -3, 4) Avoid working within 1,000 feet of occupied mudflats during peak Pa- cific Flyway stopovers. (BIO -3) Occupy treatment area soon after high tide, be- fore mudflats emerge. (BIO -3) Haze shorebirds to mini- mize potential direct con- tact with herbicide drift. (BIO -3) Helicopters will not be operated within 1000 feet of active major foraging or roosting sites (BIO -3) co co E (9 0 a• :r-a C O N CO o �Q vii 0 O O W CO U O Q N fa ,O _c '� O ry al o"c Do O c� 3 'O U .5 -o C LU (a M N O o co ch N N 4J E 0) a \ R% co • a 5 oO m as o U ba pp o 0 0 ) • a o 5 z� o ▪ t. o U o-� a, E o g3 n 0) c o o E • 0 ' o • V U N cn 110 TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 0 0 \ ) MITIGATION CHECKLIST Verification Signatures IISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing During treatment During treatment During treatment Pre- and during treatment During treatment During treatment k // kk /\ x x x 0 K x x x x X x CO x x x \ •C x x x / it.: x x x Restora- tion Work X x x x x x Sub Area Included 17a, 17d, 17i e 2Q N- All Sub - Areas except 17f All sub- areas 3e a. N-2222e \N-\NN- _ \ / 1a�= 22N-22E aJaN-J� www¥w� Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Use shortest possible access route through any pickleweed habitat. Flag areas of repeated access (BIO -4.1; CM -15) Use protective mats or other covering over pickle - weed in areas of repeated access (BIO -4.1; CM -15) Assume presence of SMHM on all suitable sites (CM 14) Whenever possible, schedule work after mass mortality events caused by extreme high tides (CM 16). For work within the Clap- per Rail breeding season, call counts will be per- formed in the early spring according to FWS proto- cols (CM -18) ti CO E - f C CO CO To /3\ 2% 2 E§\ \ -G2 I$E5 0 m \ Alameda and San Leandro Bay, TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 F-' [iW]i U 0 Verification Signatures IISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing During treatment During treatment During treatment During and post- treatment During treatment C C d m C E o: Pre- treatment and during treatment CO Q X X X X X X X O Q X X X X X X X CO X X X X X X X a) Q X X ' X X X X o I- X X X X X X X Restora- tion Work X X X X X X X Sub Area Included. "a 07) _—.• T T T T T E ImtiNNti �T T T T T T "O O)• -= cc T T T T T C r- ti - ��T T T T T 17a, 17b, 17c, 17d, 17e, 17g, 17k, 171, 17m All Sub - Areas except 17f All Sub - Areas except 17f i T 7 co .., Q =Q U Q X 17a, 17b, 17c, 17h, 17j Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Assure that field person- nel are trained in general CLRA biology and CLRA identification and call de- tection (BIO -5.1) Report any CLRA activity immediately to ISP Field Supervisor and in post- treatment report (BIO -5.1) Implement mitigation and avoidance procedures for California clapper rail (BIO -5.1) Report any SMSS and SCYE activity immediately to ISP Field Supervisor and in post- treatment re- port (BIO -5.3) Avoid spraying or remov- ing Grindelia plants in the marsh (BIO -5.3) Watch for Song Sparrow presence in the work area during early season treat- ment work (pre- August), especially in the smaller, upper reaches of channels (BIO -5.3) Survey levees for terns and plovers prior to treat- ment (BIO -5.4) ()U w E BIO -5.2: Effects on the California black rail. BIO -5.3: Effects on tidal marsh song sparrow subspecies and the salt marsh common yellow - throat. ■ BIO -5.4: Effects on Cali- fornia least terns and western snowy plovers. Alameda and San Leandro Bay, TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 MITIGATION CHECKLIST Verification Signatures ISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing Pre- treatment Pre- treatment and during treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment During treatment '6' E d m oar 0_ 4-, CO Q X X X X 0 a' Q X X X X X X TO CO X X X X fD � a Q X X X X X X o X X X X Restora- tion Work X Sub Area Included 17c, 17h 17c, 17h All Sub - Areas All sub- areas All sub- areas 0 V7 fa Q 6- N _ N- v- ti r- r N- ,- ti • N- r Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Consult qualified biologist to determine possible rap- tor nesting presence (B10- 5.5) Ensure 500 foot buffer around nests for any heli- copter activity (B10 -5.5) Target herbicide applica- tions to minimize herbicide use near channel (610- 6.1). Avoid use of alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants Dec 1 thru April 1 to avoid steelhead spawning. (610- 6.1) Minimize spraying near intertidal mudflats and channels (BI0 -6.4) Avoid use of alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants adjacent to channel to minimize any potential adverse affects on estua- rine fish (BI0 -6.4) Monitor access route for the formation of un- drained depressions in tire ruts or foot trails (B10 -8) Backfill or cut drainage into shallow depressions left in the marsh by control work to minimize standing water where appropriate (BIO -8) Impact* B10 -5.5: Effects on rap- tors (birds of prey). BI0 -6.1: Effects on anadromous salmonids (winter -run and spring - run Chinook salmon, steelhead). B10 -6.4: Effects on es- tuarine fish populations of shallow submerged intertidal mudflats and channels. BI0 -8: Effects of re- gional invasive cordgrass eradication on mosquito production. O a) N rzio CL) • v z o Ui 'a a) � 5 U V •0 aY • pr 0 0 5 V tt • r O o ctl ,J• S 2 1 1--- o bA a) U • o� ^ h p. HI a) o 0 h —Ito 'i V i) .5,22. z Ca ✓ O U U Alameda and San Leandro Bay, TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 MITIGATION CHECKLIST Verification Signatures ISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing During treatment During treatment Pre- treatment During treatment During treatment Pre- treatment m. c c c E -5 E a_ -- c During treatment mco x X X X X X 0 Q X X X X X X o m x x X X X X m a) Q X X X X X x X Y R X X X X X X Restora- tion Work X X X Sub Area Included 17c, 17h All sub- areas CO N- All sub- areas All sub- areas All sub- areas �co _ m Q al All sub- areas Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Implement ISP approved drift management plan (AQ -3; CM -3,4) Comply with all local noise ordinances (N -1) Workers will receive ap- propriate safety training for work prior to treatment activities (HS -1) Follow handling and appli- cation procedures as iden- tified on product label (HS -2; CM -3) Minimize drift according to ISP drift management plan or equivalent (HS -3; CM -3, 4) Post appropriate signage (see attached signage requirements) a minimum of 24 hours pre- treatment (HS -3) Avoid scheduling herbi- cide application near high public use areas during weekends or holidays, or close public access to area 24 hours before and after treatment (HS -3) Maintain ISP or approved equivalent Site Safety and Spill Prevention plan on site (HS -4;CM -3,17) Impact* AQ -3: Herbicide effects on air quality. N -1: Disturbance of sensitive receptors HS -1: Worker injury from accidents associ- ated with manual and mechanical cordgrass treatment HS -2: Worker Health effects from herbicide application. HS -3: Health effects to the public from herbi- cide application. o U 0 0 0 c- m E c� a) a) w o -c ccu m '- lc ai 3 _ 8o d - E -a 0 N 13,E C9 0 0 a) Alameda and San Leandro Bay, TSN: ISP- 2005 -17 MITIGATION CHECKLIST Verification Signatures ISP Field Supervisor Implementing Entity Implementa- tion Timing Pre- treatment, during treatment, post- treatment 0) c c c a>ja) E -0 E c m CL .r co .. Pre- treatment Post- treatment m� 00 Q. X X X 0 °' Q X X X X o CO X X X N `� a Q X X Izz X X X Restora- tion Work X X X X Sub Area Included cn co L QCD CO d L Qa3 ti r CO co L QC0 Applicable Mitigation & Conservation Measures* Post appropriate signage according to ISP signage protocols (VIS -1) Report all discovered pre- historic or historic re- sources to the ISP Field Supervisor and a qualified archeologist or historic resources consultant and suspend all work at site until archaeological miti- gation has taken place (CUL -1) Coordinate treatment schedule with the Mos- quito abatement district in order to minimize cumula- tive impacts (CUM -2) Monitor cleared patches for recruitment of invasive plant species including perennial pepperweed until native vegetation has become dominant (CM -7) U m E VIS -1: Alteration of views from removal of non - native cordgrass infestations. CUL -1: Disturbance or destruction of cultural resources from access and treatment. CUM -2: Cumulative damage to marsh plain vegetation CM -7: Invasive species E 0 U- 0 d CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING THE FINDINGS FOR THE NON - NATIVE SPARTINA ERADICATION PROGRAM CONTAINED IN THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR Lu FUNDING FROM THE STATE CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY TO z IMPLEMENT SPARTINA ERADICATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES cc 0 WHEREAS, the "Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: E-- Spartina Control Program" (FEIS/R) prepared for the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Control V Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was certified by the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) through its September 25, 2003 resolution certifying the EIR; and WHEREAS, this EIS/EIR identifies mitigation measures that will be applied to reduce or eliminate impacts at treatment locations; and WHEREAS, the ISP Control Program methodology is expected to be modified by the addition of a new herbicide, imazapyr, for use in invasive Spartina treatment, as soon as that herbicide is approved by California regulatory agencies for use in an aquatic environment. This approval is anticipated for August 2005; and WHEREAS, the Conservancy has independently reviewed and considered the Addendum to the FEIS /R, dated May 2005, and has found that the change proposed in the ISP Control Project incorporating the use of the herbicide imazapyr and associated surfactants and colorants for invasive Spartina treatment may be appropriately addressed in an addendum under the CEQA because there is no substantial evidence that the proposed change to the Control Program will give rise to: new significant environmental effects not considered under the FEIS/R or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant effects previously identified in the FEIS/R; and WHEREAS, specific environmental and other benefits of the Control Project described in the FEIS/R include long -term environmental benefits of preserving and restoring native habitat for endangered species and for other plant and animal species that otherwise would be threatened by' the continued spread of invasive cordgrass in the Estuary and the avoidance of severe adverse impacts associated with failing to control the continued spread of the non - native cordgrass; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Spartina Control Program analyzed in the FEIS/R are infeasible in that they do not achieve the project objectives of control and eradication of non- Resolution # 4 -K CC 7 -19 -05 native cordgrass, will result in the same or greater environmental impact and will not produce the same environmental benefit as the Control Program; and WHEREAS, the Acting City Manager has reviewed the FEIS/R, the Addendum, the site - specific treatment plan and project impact evaluation and believes that the environmental impacts related to the area designated Alameda /San Leandro Bay Complex are adequately addressed and no further environmental documentation is required to satisfy the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, potentially significant, unavoidable short-term impacts to the endangered California clapper rail continue to exist, even with a phased program, are outweighed by the long -term environmental benefits and therefore, necessitate the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Invasive Spartina Project and implementation of the Spartina Control Program remain consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 31160- 31164; and WHEREAS, On June 28, 2005, a public meeting was held to inform the public about the proposed spartina control efforts. Attendees were supportive of the proposed project but did express concerns about herbicide usage and the residual habitat effects though overall attendees were in favor of the proposed action plans. Staff believes there are control plans and mitigation measures that will be taken to minimize impacts of herbicide usage; and WHEREAS, the Conservancy authorized the disbursement of an amount not to exceed thirty-eight thousand ninety -three dollars ($38,093) to the City of Alameda (grantee) for implementation of invasive Spartina treatment and eradication projects under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Spartina Control Program; and WHEREAS, the funds shall be used by the grantee to undertake Spartina treatment and eradication activities ($31,103) and public outreach related to these activities ($6,990) along the shoreline of Alameda Island within the Alameda/San Leandro Bay Complex for 2005 -2006; and WHEREAS, the grantee shall carry out the project in accordance with the agreement, site - specific plans and a work program to be approved by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy pursuant to the agreement; and WHEREAS, the grantee shall provide any funds beyond those granted under the agreement which are needed to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the Conditions Precedent to Commencement of Project and Disbursement and Additional Grant Conditions shall be met before the grantee shall commence the project and the Conservancy shall not be obligated to disburse any funds under the agreement; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda shall adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the non - native Spartina Eradication Program contained in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy that: The overall environmental benefits of the Control Program as detailed in the FEIS/R, warrant the Conservancy's decision to approve the project even though not all of the environmental effects of the project are fully mitigated. First, unavoidable significant impacts to the four identified biological species (salt harvest mouse, tidal shrew, and rails) are limited and short-term, arising during and only as a result of treatment. Second, with implementation of the Control Program it is anticipated that over the long -term, as the non - native cordgrass is removed, the native cordgrass and other native vegetation will return to the areas from which they have been displaced, thereby creating additional species habitat. In addition, existing native habitat, that would otherwise be overrun, will be preserved. Third, after successful completion of the Control Program, restoration projects planned for the Estuary that will add further native habitat may then move forward without the risk of providing fertile ground for more extensive invasion of non - native Spartina and its hybrids. Fourth, in the absence of the coordinated and comprehensive Control Program, the FEIS/R concludes, based on best available science, that the spread of non - native cordgrass will expand, eventually creating an altered Estuary environment that will be less suitable for these four species and lead to more severe long -term impacts on them and on other species dependent on marsh and tidal areas. Finally, other severe long -term impacts that are associated with failing to control the spread of non - native cordgrass will be avoided, including increased accretion of the Bay, the potential for increased flooding, and the further change from mudflats, marsh and open water to areas vegetated with non - native plants. The unavoidable, significant impact on visual resources is likewise a short-term one. The change in vistas occurs only with and during treatment and the change is one -time. When balanced against the environmental benefits of the removal of an aggressive non - native plant that displaces native plants and impacts biological resources, there is little question that environmental concerns are best served by implementing the Control Program; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda shall adopt the mitigation monitoring reporting program; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Alameda approves an agreement for funding from the State California Coastal Conservancy to implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures. 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 19th day of July, 2005, 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 19th day of July 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: William C. Norton Acting City Manager DATE: July 7, 2005 RE: Resolution to Grant Another Designated Period for Two Years Additional Service Credit, as provided for under contract amendment between the City and the Public Employees' Retirement System, and California Government Code Section 20903 BACKGROUND The PERS Golden Handshake program as provided under California Government Code Section 20903, provides that the City may offer a retirement incentive of two years extra service credit to employees in designated positions because of impending transfers, demotions, and layoffs resulting from the curtailment of, or change in the manner of performing services. The employees must be at least 50 years of age, have at least five years service with PERS, and retire within a window of time that will be established by Council, of not less than 90 and no more that 180 days. The City amended its contract with PERS in the early 1990s to provide for application of Section 20903, which allowed the City to offer Golden Handshakes at that time. With the amendment in place providing for application of the Golden Handshake, subsequent applications require only that the City make public the costs and grant another designated period of 90 to 180 days. The City has previously offered Gold Handshakes in 1992 and 1995. The report giving public notice of current proposed Golden Handshake costs was presented to and accepted by Council on July 5, 2005. DISCUSSION It is recommended that an additional PERS Golden Handshake window period be designated from July 20, 2005 through October 19, 2005. The following positions have been identified for inclusion in this Golden Handshake period. Department/Division /Unit Recreation & Park Department Development Services Development Services Alameda Power & Telecom Alameda Power & Telecom Alameda Power & Telecom, Operations Division, Telecom Optns /Construction Unit Classification 1 Recreation Supervisor 1 Management Analyst 1 Intermediate Clerk 1 Environmental & Safety Program Coordinator 1 Gardener 1 Senior Clerk Re: Reso 4 -L CC 7 -19 -05 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 7, 2005 BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT It is estimated that the total savings will be $290,631 (including $128,756 for AP &T) for the first fiscal year, and $480,681 (including $218,805 for AP &T) in subsequent years. Additional one- time costs will be approximately $190,050 (including $90,049 from AP &T funding). AP &T information may vary according to Public Utilities Board staffing authorization and approval. These costs are for all eligible employees who retire during the specified period. Actual costs will be included in the annual valuation report from PERS for fiscal year 2008/2009. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve this resolution adding another designated period for Two Years Additional Service Credit under government code section 20903. KW:mm Respectful submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" E L O L" " w WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda is a contracting Public .2 cc Agency of the Public Employees' Retirement System; and • JO WHEREAS, said Public Agency desires to provide another designated period for Two Years Additional Service Credit, Section 20903, based on the contract amendment included o_ >- in said contract which provided for Section 20903, Two Years Additional Service Credit, for eligible members; CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. GRANTING ANOTHER DESIGNATED PERIOD FOR TWO YEARS ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20903 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said City Council does seek to add another designated period, and does hereby authorize this Resolution, indicating a desire to add a designated period from July 20, 2005 through October 19, 2005 for eligible members in the Recreation Manager classification in the Recreation & Park Department; Management Analyst classification in the Development Services Department; Intermediate Clerk classification in the Development Services Department; Environmental & Safety Program Coordinator classification at Alameda, Power & Telecom; Gardener classification at Alameda, Power & Telecom; Senior Clerk classification at Alameda, Power & Telecom, Operations Division, Telecom Operations /Construction Unit. * * * ** 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution # 4 -L CC 7 -19 -05 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Date: July 6, 2005 Re: Adoption of a Resolution to Create Special Newsrack Districts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts as Authorized by Alameda Municipal Code §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines BACKGROUND Both the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) are actively revitalizing their respective downtown Districts. Today, major streetscape projects are under construction in each that will upgrade downtown aesthetics and greatly enhance pedestrian safety. In December 2004, Council repealed and replaced AMC §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines. This revised code section allows for the creation of "Special Newsrack Districts" to promote uniform newsracks and a comprehensive plan for their ongoing maintenance. Having attractive, well- maintained newsracks is an important part of overall street appearance. DISCUSSION Each Business Association, working with their respective Design Committees, has selected the same style modular newsrack from Sho -rack, a national vendor of clean - lined, pedestal -based newsracks. The units provide individual cubicles for the insertion of papers. All units will be painted "Alameda Green" to match the color of other street furnishings such as benches, trash receptacles and light poles. Each Business Association has agreed to partner with Contra Costa Newspapers (CCN), a Knight Ridder company located in Walnut Creek. CCN will provide the Sho- rack pedestal bases upon which the individual modular cubicles sit, a service it provides to a number of Bay Area communities. Vendors can then buy their cubicles directly from CCN to assure uniformity. Each Business Association has met the requirements of the revised code regarding the creation of a Special Newsrack District by Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Reso 4 -M CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 6, 2005 Page 2 • Making a written request to the Development Services Director that: ➢ Identifies the Special Newsrack Districts' boundaries and shows the general location of each newsrack on a special newsrack district map on file in the Office of the City Clerk. ➢ Provides a plan for the acquisition and maintenance of newsracks in each respective District. In each District, the local Business Associations, with their maintenance personnel already on the streets, will assume the bulk of the maintenance and monitoring of the newsracks. • Obtaining the Public Works Director approval of both Districts' boundaries and newsrack placement within. A copy of the plan is also available in the Office of the Clerk. The proposed Special Newsrack Districts have also been reviewed by the various City Departments that participate in the monthly Design Review Team (DRT) process. DRT review was favorable and City Departments (Public Works, Building and Planning, Development Services) have had an opportunity to plan for implementation of the proposed projects. Following Council adoption of the Resolution, Public Works' Land Development and Transportation Division will fine -tune each Newsrack Placement Plan, assuring newsracks placed in the public right -of -way comply with all applicable regulations. Additionally, formal agreements will be entered into between each Business Association and the City's Public Works Department to assure smooth operation of the Special Districts. Newsrack vendors are aware of the plans to create Special Newsrack Districts. Prior to the passage of AMC §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines, each Business Association met with vendors several times to discuss the new program and to answer questions. No serious objection has been voiced. Standardizing newsracks is an ongoing trend within the Bay Area, which most vendors both understand and have already experienced in neighboring jurisdictions. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No impact on the General Fund is anticipated. The acquisition of the newsracks will be handled through CCN, which will provide the pedestal bases. Participating inserts will then pay CCN for a standardized cubicle. An annual fee will cover the cost of issuing a yearly renewal and offset each Business Associations' ongoing maintenance and policing of their respective Special Newsrack Districts. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \BUSASSOC \newsrack \staffs reports \staff report to create special districts for WABA & PSBA.doc Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE • AMC §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines July 6, 2005 Page 3 • The Economic Development Strategic Plan (2000), Strategy #2B: Increase the Availability and Quality of Retail Goods and Services, Implementation Plan, Supporting Initiatives, specifically, initiatives supporting the creation of streetscape design plans and their implementation to improve both the Park and Webster streetscapes. • The Downtown Vision Plan (2000) RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council adopt a Resolution to create Special Newsrack Districts in both the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts as authorized by Alameda Municipal Code §22 -7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines. Attachment WCN /LAL /DES /SGR:ry R spec , ly u • i e Leslie A. it I • -velopment Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Busine lopment cc: Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association sell nt Coordinator Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \BUSASSOC \newsrack \staffs reports \staff report to create special districts for WABA & PSBA.doc I CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CREATING SPECIAL NEWSRACK DISTRICTS IN BOTH THE PARK STREET AND THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS DISTRICTS AS AUTHORIZED IN THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 22 -7, NEWSPAPER AND PERIODICAL VENDING MACHINES OF ARTICLE 1 (STREETS), CHAPTER XXII (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) WHEREAS, Section 22 -7.4 of Article I of Chapter XXII, Streets and Sidewalks, of the Alameda Municipal Code authorizes the establishment of "Special Newsrack Districts;" and u. o WHEREAS, City Council adopted legislation to allow for the creation of "Special Newsrack °C Districts" to assure newsrack vending equipment in both the Park Street and the West Alameda en 0 Business Districts would be both attractive, uniform and compliment the current capital investment cc occurring in each District in the form of major streetscape re -design projects featuring curb extensions, new vintage lights, street furniture and those other attributes of a planned downtown p,K t— business district; and, V WHEREAS, the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) have each submitted written plans as required by the Alameda Municipal Code to the Development Services Department of the City of Alameda requesting such Districts be created along with a plan for their creation and continued upkeep; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of each Special Newsrack District in both the Park Street and the West Alameda Business Districts duplicate exactly the boundaries of the Business Improvement Assessment Areas for each, copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has indicated his approval of the "Special Newsrack District" in each business district by signing the "Newsrack Placement Plan" for each; and, WHEREAS, each Business District has called general meetings of those businesses using the newsracks vending equipment in their respective districts to inform same of impending changes to create a new system of uniform and attractive boxes and explaining the procedure to those businesses for obtaining space in the new system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that a "Special Newsrack District" for the Park Street Business District and a "Special Newsrack District" for the West Alameda Business District, which duplicate the boundaries of the Business Improvement Assessment Areas for each, are hereby established. Resolution # 4 -M CC 7 -19 -05 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum July 7, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Filing of a Notice of Exemption For Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line (ABL) BACKGROUND By Ordinance 2817 N.S., adopted Nov. 2, 1999, the City gave notice to Alameda Belt Line (ABL) that it was exercising a contractual option to repurchase the railroad and extensions at "original cost." ABL sued the City contesting the legality of the repurchase option, and the City cross - claimed. The case is currently scheduled for trial in November 2005. As one of its remaining defenses, ABL has asserted that the City's exercise of the repurchase option is federally preempted (i.e., prevented by federal regulation). Federal regulation of freight railroads is pervasive, and under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it preempts conflicting state and local laws, regulations, and actions. The Interstate Commerce Commission authorized the formation and extension of the Alameda Belt Line (ABL) in 1926. Since there is no record that ICC (or Surface Transportation Board, the successor to the ICC) has authorized any portion of the ABL for abandonment, the fact that the ICC specifically authorized ABL suggests that ABL continues to be subject to federal regulatory control as an operating rail line. Since ABL has not been authorized for abandonment, ABL in general cannot be acquired by the City as an operating line of railroad, or abandoned by its current owner, without an appropriate authorization from the STB. It follows that in order for City of Alameda to acquire the ABL pursuant to the City's repurchase option and preserve the rail corridor, the City should apply for appropriate authorizations from STB to acquire the railroad. The Resolution at issue here authorizes the filing of a notice of a class exemption for authorization to acquire ABL as a freight railroad. It should be noted that the notice of exemption, if granted by the STB, should obviate ABL's preemption defense in the pending litigation, because it would constitute federal approval for the acquisition. The City would still have to prevail on other issues in the litigation in order to acquire the ABL property pursuant to its 1924 contract option. Pursuant to a trackage right agreement with ABL and STB authorization, Union Pacific Railroad Re: Reso 4-N CC 7 -19 -05 Mayor and Council July 7, 2005 Page 2 provides rail service on the ABL for both itself and BNSF. If the City prevails in the litigation, the City anticipates that Union Pacific would continue to provide rail service for all freight rail customers (if any) until and unless the trackage rights were lawfully terminated. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The filing fee for a 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 notice of class exemption is currently $1500. The City is eligible for a waiver. Legal costs will vary depending upon a number of factors, but chiefly upon the nature of opposition to the application, if any. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed Resolution does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. The proposed Resolution is consistent with the General Plan, Alameda Long Range Transit Plan (2001), City of Alameda Bicycle Master Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Since the action contemplates merely an application for appropriate authorizations, it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends adoption of the Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a notice of class exemption before the Surface Transportation Board pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit Assistant City Manager PB/cms Attachment cc: City Attorney Deputy City Attorney BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINANCE DOCKET NO. CITY OF ALAMEDA -- ACQUISITION -- ALAMEDA BELT LINE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Filing by State /Local Government Entity No Fee Due Per 49 C.F.R. § 1002.2(f)(1) Charles H. Montange 426 NW 162d St. Seattle, WA 98177 (206) 546 -1936 fax: 546 -3739 Counsel for City of Alameda Dated: 3 May 2005 For filing: ? BEFORE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINANCE DOCKET NO. CITY OF ALAMEDA -- ACQUISITION -- ALAMEDA BELT LINE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION City of Alameda ( "City "), a [ ] of the State of California, submits this Notice of Exemption pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31, et seq., for the acquisition of the line of railroad owned by Alameda Beltline Railroad in Alameda, California. Per 49 C.F.R. § 1150.34, a caption summary is set forth in Exhibit A. City submits the following information in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 1150.33: (a). Name and address of applicant: City of Alameda, Att: [ Name and position], [ address ]. (b). Name, address and telephone number of representative of applicant who should receive correspondence: Charles H. Montange, 426 NW 162d St., Seattle, WA 98177. (c). Statement concerning agreement: Alameda Beltline Railroad and the City of Alameda entered into an agreement dated 2 , and codified in Ordinance No. 259 approved by the Alameda City Council on September 16, 1924. Among other things, the agreement provided that the City would convey [subject to any necessary authorization from the Intestate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Railroad Commission of California (ROC)] its existing rail line on Clement Avenue between Broadway and Grand Streets for $30,000 to the newly organized Alameda Beltline Railroad (owned by Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and Western Pacific Railroad Company). Alameda Beltline Railroad would construct and operate extensions of this line westerly to Webster Street and therefrom westerly as rapidly as possible. provided as follows: "Fourteenth: Said City shall have the right at any time hereafter to purchase said belt line railroad including all extensions thereof, for a sum equal to the original cost, together with the cost of any and all additional investments and extensions made therein by said ALAMEDA BELT LINE, provided that said City shall give at least one year's previous notice of its intention so to do by ordinance to that effect; and provided that at the same time it purchases from the parties of the first part, or either of them as the case may be, the branch railroad, extensions and spur tracks referred to in the twelfth section hereof. "It is agreed that said ALAMEDA BELT LINE will keep an Paragraph 14 of the agreement 3 accurate account of the cost of additional investments and extensions, and file a verified report thereof annually with the city Clerk of said City, similar to the report filed with the Railroad Commission. It is further agreed and understood that the term 'investments' as herein used shall not include the cost of upkeep and repairs." The transactions envisioned under the agreement were authorized by RCC in a decision reported at 26 Cal. RR Comm'n Dec. 801 (1925), attached as Exhibit A, and by ICC in Acquisition and Construction of Line by Alameda Belt Line, ICC F.D. 4682 (and embraced cases), 105 ICC 349, decided Jan. 16, 1926, attached as Exhibit B. Subsequent to the closing of the Alameda Naval Air Station, traffic on the Alameda Belt Line has diminished. Alameda Belt Line, now owned by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), granted local trackage rights to UP over 1.80 miles of ABL's rail line between MP 0.00 near Clement Avenue and MP 1.80 near Sherman Street. According to the STB order authorizing the trackage rights transaction, the intent of the parties was that after trackage rights were effective, UP would handle rail cars as operating agent for BNSF. See Union Pacific Railroad Company -- Trackage Rights Exemption -- Alameda Belt Line, F.D. 33682, served Nov. 24, 1998. Although City is aware of no authorizations for abandonment 4 for any portions of Alameda Belt Line, the latter railroad has offered parcels in or at least contiguous to its line for sale. In response to community interest in preserving all or portions of the line, and in accordance with the agreement between Alameda Belt Line and the City, the City adopted Ordinance 2817 N.S., on November 2, 1999, notifying Alameda Belt Line that the City intended to exercise its option to purchase on December 4, 2000. Alameda Belt Line filed suit contesting the legality of the City's contractual repurchase option. This Board has indicated that contract disputes must be directed to state courts. The initial question in the suit was whether the repurchase option was consistent with the statute of frauds. In Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, 113 Cal.App. 4th 15, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 879 (2003), the California Court of Appeals found that the provision was enforceable under State law. The case has been remanded for trial, which is slated for November 2005. This Board has indicated that disputes between parties concerning the construction of contracts relating to railroad acquisition must be resolved in state court. E.g., D &I Railroad Co. -- Trackage Rights Exemption - - State of South Dakota, F.D. 34646 -1, served Jan. 19, 2005 ( "contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and /or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction "). However, Alameda Belt Line in pleadings in state court has 5 asserted federal preemption as a defense to the City's exercise of its repurchase option. City understands this to mean that Alameda Belt Line intends to assert that this Board's permission must be obtained prior to actual acquisition. In order to address this defense, City of Alameda files this Notice of Exemption to obtain authorization to acquire the railroad line, including all extensions, as provided in its agreement with Alameda Belt Line which undergirds the transactions approved by this Board's predecessor, ICC, in its decision reported at 105 ICC 349. (d). Operator: Union Pacific currently serves all customers pursuant to its already referenced trackage rights authorization. City proposes no change in this arrangement, and anticipates that operations will continue as before. According to City's research, the last rail equipment operated on this line was in 2003. The railroad and adjacent landowners have removed track at several points on the line. In the event Union Pacific lawfully terminates its trackage rights and lawfully ceases to provide service, City either will contract with another operator (with appropriate authority to provide service), or will seek appropriate authorization for abandonment, as the circumstances warrant. (e). Brief summary of proposed transaction: City will acquire the entire Alameda Belt Line, including all extensions, from MP 0.00 near Broadway Street to its westernmost terminus, pursuant to its contractual repurchase option. 6 1. Name and address of transferror: Alameda Belt Line, [ ]• 2. Proposed time schedule. The closing date is in part contingent upon the outcome of the pending litigation, currently scheduled for trial in November. Closing may occur earlier in the event of a negotiated settlement. 3. Mileposts. MP 0.00 near Clement Street to end of line at [ ]. 4. Total route miles. Approximately miles. (f) Map. A map indicating the area served, origins, termini, stations, city, county, county and state, is attached. (g) Certificate of revenue. The required Certificate is attached. Applicant acknowledges that it must preserve intact all sites and structures more than 50 years old until compliance with the requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, is achieved. Environmental thresholds. City's acquisition will not result in significant changes in carrier operations such as would trigger any need for environmental review. More specifically, in reference to stated thresholds, there will not be a diversion of: (1) more than 1000 carloads of rail traffic per year to motor carriage; or (2) an average of 50 carloads of rail track per mile per year 7 for any part of this line to motor carriage. This transaction will not result in: (1) an increase in rail traffic of at least 100 percent or an increase of at least eight trains a day on any segment of the line; (2) an increase of rail yard activity of at least 100 percent; or (3) an average increase in truck traffic of more than 10 percent of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles per day. To the extent City's acquisition relates to a Class I or nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act, the thresholds specified in 49 C.F.R. § 1105.7(e)(5)(ii) will not be exceeded. The transportation of ozone depleting materials is not contemplated. Under 49 C.F.R. § 1105.6(c)(2), further environmental documentation is not required. Since the acquisition is for continued operation, there are no plans to dispose or alter properties subject to STB jurisdiction that are 50 years old or older. No historic report is therefore required under 49 C.F.R. § 1105.8(b)(1). Respectfully submitted, Charles H. Montange 426 NW 162d St. Seattle, WA 98177 (206) 546 -1936 Counsel for Applicant City of Alameda (CA) 8 Atts. cc. [counsel for Alameda Belt Line] Applicant City of Alameda hereby submits the following caption summary prepared in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 1150.34: Surface Transportation Board Notice of Exemption STB Finance Docket No. City of Alameda -- Acquisition Exemption -- Alameda Belt Line City of Alameda, a non - carrier, has filed a notice of exemption to acquire Alameda Belt Line's line between approximately MP 0.0 near Clement Avenue and approximately MP near in City of Alameda, Alameda County, CA. Comments must be filed with the Board and served on Charles H. Montange, 426 NW 162d St., Seattle, WA 98177, telephone (206) 546 -1936. The notice is filed under 49 CFR 1150.31. If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. 9 Certificate in Accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 1150.33(g) I, r of City of Alameda, hereby certify that applicant City's projected revenues as a result of the transaction covered by this notice of exemption will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III carrier. 10 Verification State of California ) ss. Alameda County I, , being duly sworn, depose and state that I am of the City of Alameda, that I am authorized to make this verification, and that I have read the foregoing Notice of Exemption, and know the facts asserted therein are true and accurate as stated to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me this th day of My commission expires: , 2005. Notary public 11 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING FILING OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE ALAMEDA BELT LINE (ABL) WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (City) in 1924 entered into a contract, subject to approval >. by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), for formation and extension of the Alameda Belt LL. z Line Railroad (ABL), and such contract is set out in Ordinance 259 NS, as amended by Ordinance oc 312 NS; O I- F"' WHEREAS, the transaction, including the extension, was approved by the ICC reported at a) Acquisition and Construction of Line by Alameda Belt Line, 105 ICC 349, decided January 16, 90 >" 1926; WHEREAS, the contract and transaction as authorized by ICC provided that City would retain the right to repurchase the railroad and extensions at "original cost "; WHEREAS, the City can find no record that ABL has sought abandonment authorization for any portion of its line covered by the aforementioned ICC decision; WHEREAS, ABL nonetheless subsequently severed portions of its line from the interstate network, and sold or offered for sale portions of its line for non -rail purposes; WHEREAS, ABL no longer provides rail service on the line; WHEREAS, ABL is currently owned jointly by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), and pursuant to a trackage rights agreement between UP and ABL (approved at Union Pacific Railroad Company -- Trackage Rights Exemption -- Alameda Belt Line, STB Finance Dkt. No. 33682, served Nov. 24, 1998), UP provides rail service over the line from Milepost 0.0 to Milepost 1.8 for UP customers, and for BNSF customers as "operating agent" for BNSF; WHEREAS, UP no longer has active shippers on the line for itself or as operating agent for BNSF; WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has examined the ABL property for potential future public use as a transit (including light rail transit) corridor, and for open space and trail purposes; WHEREAS, the study entitled "Final Report Alameda Transit Plan" dated August 20, 2001, recommends retention of the ABL right of way for possible future light rail use; WHEREAS, City voters on November 5, 2002 adopted Measure E which provide for zoning of the 22 acres of the ABL property (known as the "Beltline Railroad Yard ") as open space, but Resolution # 4 -N CC 7 -19 -05 pursuant to conterminously adopted Measure D, before Measure E becomes effective, a court must determine whether such zoning constitutionally requires the payment of compensation, in which event Measure D remains ineffective until and unless voters approve necessary funding; WHEREAS, existing zoning, or re- zoning pursuant to Measures D and E, is compatible with continued rail use, or with future light rail use, and with other compatible public open space uses; WHEREAS, the ABL property not only constitutes the sole remaining freight railroad in the City of Alameda but also appears highly suitable for future light rail transit and for other compatible open space uses; WHEREAS, joint rail and trail use appears feasible; WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the ABL property remains available for continued current freight rail use so long as economically reasonable to do so; WHEREAS, the City must act now to preserve the property for current and future rail purposes as well as open space purposes; WHEREAS, the City has furnished notice to ABL of its intent to exercise the City's repurchase option as required under the 1924 contract; WHEREAS, ABL has asserted federal preemption as a defense in litigation pending in the California state courts relating to the City's repurchase option; WHEREAS, acquisition of rail property (which has not been authorized for abandonment) is subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) as successor to the ICC; Whereas the City has a contractual right to repurchase the ABL rail line including all extensions; WHEREAS, STB regulations provide for acquisition of such rail property upon the filing of a "notice of exemption" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31, et seq., as well as pursuant to petitions for exemption and applications; and WHEREAS, acquisition by the City should not interfere with the trackage rights currently held by UP over the line from Milepost 0.0 to Milepost 1.8, whereby UP operates on the line for both itself and BNSF, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby authorizes the filing of a notice of exemption or such other petitions or applications, and such other motions or requests for authorization as are necessary or appropriate for the purpose of satisfying any and all STB requirements for the City to be permitted, authorized, or allowed to exercise its repurchase option under its aforementioned contract relating to the formation and extension of ABL. 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: June 30, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Re: Accept the Findings of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study BACKGROUND The City of Alameda was awarded a grant by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to conduct a feasibility study for the Cross Alameda Trail (trail). The proposed trail would enhance bicycle and pedestrian connections to many of Alameda's redevelopment areas and other key destinations utilizing part of the Alameda Belt Line right -of -way, the estuary shoreline and City streets. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (see attached summary) identified routes that would serve a range of trail users, including 1) commuter bicyclists, who may be comfortable riding in traffic with motor vehicles, 2) recreational bicyclists, who prefer off - street paths or low - volume neighborhood streets, and 3) pedestrians, including people with disabilities. Depending on the conditions, the trail would consist of different facility types, including multi -use paths, on- street bike lanes, on- street bike routes or bike boulevards, and sidewalks. The trail would be proposed for inclusion in the adopted Bay Trail alignment. The complete Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study and a map of the trail corridor are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The construction of a multi -use path along the Alameda Belt Line right -of -way would provide the major bicyclist/pedestrian access route to and from Alameda Point. Other significant origin and destination points that will be served by such a path are the Park Street business district and the Webster Street business district, Bayport housing development, College of Alameda, Woodstock Elementary School and the Main Street Ferry Terminal (via a connection along the Main Street Greenway). The trail would also enhance several bus stops on the south side of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway that have poor pedestrian access, as there is no walkway along this side of the street. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service WIC runt& Re: Reso 4 -0 CC 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers There are several key issues that will influence the development of the trail: Page 2 June 30, 2005 • Compatibility with potential transit corridor: The General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan have already recommended the development of a trail or on- street bicycle facilities for some segments of the study corridor. However, the City's Long Range Transit Plan also identified this corridor as a potential route for a light rail or other type of transit service. As a result, a major consideration in the evaluation of the trail was how both facilities could safely be accommodated. The City's consulting attorney on the Alameda Belt Line case has reviewed the Feasibility Study and indicated that it will not adversely impact on the City's legal case. • Development of Northern Waterfront and shoreline to the east: Much of the development of the trail is contingent on new development projects, especially along the shoreline. As the Northern Waterfront area and the shoreline between Grand Street and Tilden Way are redeveloped, the City can work with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to ensure that shoreline access is provided to meet the City's guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The provision of such facilities along the shoreline generally would not require the City to purchase the property or pay for construction or maintenance costs. The extension of the trail alignment along the shoreline from Grand Street to Tilden Way is dependent on if and when these properties are developed. The City will not need to purchase these properties as the trail can be provided by the developer similar to other projects such as Wind River and the Grand Marina. • Completion of Clement Avenue extensions: Clement Avenue is proposed to be extended so that it would provide a continuous route from Atlantic Avenue to Tilden Way. Part of this would be accomplished in conjunction with the Northern Waterfront development. In addition, Clement Avenue would have to be extended east from Broadway to connect with Tilden Way. The adoption of the Feasibility Study by the City Council will help illustrate the City's commitment to the project, and will enhance our ability to access funding resources. ABAG staff has indicated that once they have funded the initial study for a project that they will often commit additional resources to help ensure its completion. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvdNai,da tublic Works uepattnent Public Wala Wo.vvjar Yogi Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT: Page 3 June 30, 2005 There is no cost associated with the adoption of the Feasibility Study. The total cost of constructing the trail has been estimated to be $3.65 million. For the portions of the trail where right -of -way acquisition is required, the acquisition costs have been estimated to be as much as $3.45 million, but it could be significantly less, depending on the outcome of the Alameda Belt Line litigation. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.h. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution adopting the findings of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director r rbaec, By: Barbara Hawkins City Engineer MTN:BH:gc Attachment G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \071905 \crosstrails.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlimeda blicWolits Public Works Worisfor You! CROSS ALAMEDA TRAIL Feasibility Study Prepared for: Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Project Prepared by: City of Alameda Public Works Department July 7, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . Chapter I — Background I -1 Chapter II — History II -1 Chapter III — Relationship to Adopted Plans III -1 Chapter IV — Corridor Land Use and Trail Connections IV -1 Chapter V — Potential Alignment Options and Constraints V -1 Chapter VI — Street Crossings VI-1 Chapter VII — Trail Design Characteristics VII -1 Chapter VIII — Cost Estimates VIII-1 Chapter IX — Trail Management Plan IX-1 Appendix A — Alignment Sheets . A -1 Appendix B — Shoreline Access Areas Connecting to the Trail . B -1 Appendix C — Alternative Pavement Markings for Shared Roadway FacilitiesC -1 Appendix D — Trail Cross - Sections D -1 Appendix E — Public Comments . E -1 PREFACE Much of the corridor studied in this report has been historically utilized by the Alameda Belt Line railroad (ABL). Evaluation of possible alternative public uses of the ABL, including the benefits of preserving the property intact as open space or for other compatible uses, is especially timely. First, much of the ABL has been out of service for a decade or more. ABL granted trackage rights on the remainder to Union Pacific (UP) in 1998 and has otherwise ceased service. UP's last customer no longer uses the line. ABL is offering parcels comprising the line for sale. The remaining property is at risk of fragmentation. Second, as part of the transaction approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1926 which created ABL and authorized its extension, the City of Alameda retained a right to repurchase the railroad at original cost. Finally, there is considerable citizen interest in preserving the ABL property for public use, particularly for uses compatible with open space. Rail, transit, and trail uses are all open space compatible. In order to protect its interests and consonant with citizen interest, the City is actively exploring acquisition of the property, and has duly served notice upon ABL of an intent to exercise the City's option to repurchase. ABL is contesting the vitality of the option in ongoing litigation. It has long been recognized that railroad corridors have many valuable uses in addition to handling freight: "[T]o assemble a right -of -way in our increasingly populous nation is no longer simple. A scarcity of fuel and the adverse consequences of too many motor vehicles suggest that society may someday have need either for railroad or for the rights'of -way over which they have been built. A[n] ... agency charged with designing part of our transportation policy does not overstep its authority when it prudently undertakes to minimize the destruction of available transportation corridors painstakingly created over several generations."' The federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has specifically observed that "Converting railroad rights -of -way to trails is an example of an action that can affect transportation, energy efficiency, natural resources and historic preservation. "2 Not surprisingly, the ABL property has already been recognized as a logical candidate for a variety of public uses. Moreover, preservation of the property for those uses may result in substantial public benefits, now and in the future. The potential benefits of preserving the ABL for passenger rail transit have been examined in other reports and planning documents. These studies have indicated that the ABL line is a major rail transit candidate. Since passenger rail operates on the same gauge as freight rail, preservation of the property for passenger transit is also consistent with freight rail operation. 1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Reed v. Meserve, 487 Fed. Rptr. 2d 646 at pp. 649 -650 (1973). • , 2 Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: 21st Annual Report 188 (1991). 1 The ABL also has potential value as a commuting and recreational trail corridor. Indeed, the purpose of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study is to evaluate portions of the ABL for such use, as well as to examine alternative locations for a Cross Alameda Trail. • Because of the interest in preservation of the ABL for rail (or other transit mode) purposes, the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study also looks at the joint use of the ABL property for both transit and trail purposes. Nothing in this study should be construed to suggest that the City should seek, or is seeking, to acquire ABL property for trail, and most especially solely for trail, purposes. Rather, the Study is designed to evaluate, among other things, whether the property, if acquired, could appropriately be employed for trail use, or for transit and trail use. As the contents of this Study make clear, the authors conclude that the ABL property is appropriate for development of a multi -use trail, or possibly a joint trail/transit corridor, While not otherwise discussed herein, this Study assumes that the ABL is an operating freight railroad, albeit without any active shippers, and that it remains under the jurisdiction of the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). Under that assumption, an acquisition by the City at the current time should be consistent with the continued discharge of all freight rail obligations in connection with the shippers served by ABL and would be subject to STB authorization. H Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study CHAPTER I PROJECT BACKGROUND The north side of the City of Alameda'a main island encompasses a transportation corridor which includes a currently inactive rail line. The rail line was formerly used by the Alameda Belt Line railroad to serve some of Alameda's major industrial sites on the north side of - Alameda's main island during the past 100 years. Because the line is now inactive, it is a candidate for alternative public uses, and its potential availability means that the City of Alameda may have an opportunity to develop a new multi -use trail along the northern side of the City's main island. The proposed "Cross Alameda Trail" would enhance the City's transportation infrastructure and recreational opportunities; provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access to the City's major commercial districts and redevelopment sites; and provide a link to the corridor's historic past by celebrating its industrial history. The multiple uses for the Trail would ensure that there is a strong, diverse constituency in the community to carry the project through to completion and maintain it as a high- quality facility in the future. One of the key challenges of this project would be to meet the needs of all of the potential users of the Trail, including commuters and others making utilitarian trips, as well as recreational users. In some cases, to avoid conflicts between the various types of users, separate "recreational" and "commuter" routes may be required. This corridor has long been identified as a potential trail route, but the growing interest in developing the former rail corridor has brought a new urgency to the project. Opportunities to construct new trails are infrequent in older cities such as Alameda, and the City appropriately must be concerned that by neglecting to act now; this opportunity could be lost. In December 2003, the City of Alameda was awarded a Bay Trail grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to conduct a feasibility study of the Cross Alameda Trail. Shortly before the City was selected for this funding, the Rails -to- Trails Conservancy (RTC), a non - profit organization dedicated to converting abandoned railroad corridors to public trails, received funding from the San Francisco Foundation to develop a concept plan for the Cross Alameda Trail. To maximize the efficient use of resources, the City and RTC coordinated their respective efforts, with the RTC effort serving as the primary mechanism for soliciting public input regarding the City's feasibility study. This framework also enabled the public involvement process to not be constrained by the needs or goals of the City, which would be accounted for as part of the technical analysis. This report focuses on the results of the City's technical feasibility of constructing the Trail. Bay Trail The Bay Trail, once complete, will encircle San Francisco Bay with over 500 miles of trail in nine counties. Portions of the Bay Trail in Alameda are complete, notably the paths along Shoreline Drive and on Bay Farm Island, which are heavily used for recreation. But many other segments have also been completed, including paths in Marina Village and at the Grand Marina. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study While the Bay Trail is generally located as close to the shoreline as possible, much of the northern shore of Alameda's main island has not been available for development, so the Bay Trail alignment adopted by ABAG is further from the shore. In this corridor, the Bay Trail alignment includes Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Atlantic Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, and Tilden Way. Work Scope The work scope of this feasibility study includes the following tasks: 1. Identify legal constraints of acquiring property or easements for the proposed alignment and acquire preliminary information. Current property owners, existing easements, and title /deed restrictions of parcels in the study area will be identified. 2. Prepare a base map, including property ownership, land use types, topography, environmental features, existing infrastructure, and existing roadways, trails, and bicycle facilities. 3. Create trail corridor map. Develop and evaluate three alternative trail alignments, then identify a preferred alignment. 4. Conduct field analysis. • Identify and evaluate constraints to trail development in this corridor. • Identify connections to nearby commercial areas, parks, schools, other trails, parking and other important sites. 5. Identify constraints, including engineering issues, environmental concerns, and community opposition. 6. Develop general trail design standards, including width, access, placement, surface, and grade. 7. Develop typical cross - sections for each segment of the trail. 8. Site - specific standards to illustrate roadway crossings. 9. Estimate costs of right -of -way acquisition, engineering, construction, ongoing operations and maintenance. 10. Determine locations of access points. 11. Develop a trail management strategy. It was recognized early on that the current status of properties along the waterfront made the development of a shoreline path a long -term prospect. In addition, there is the potential for additional development at inland locations in the corridor. Therefore, in addition to looking at the specific characteristics of the proposed trail corridor, a significant product of the study was a set of guidelines to be applied to new development projects in the trail corridor to ensure that sufficient right -of -way is provided to accommodate the trail. This will facilitate proactive long - range planning by the City as development opportunities present themselves. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study Study Area The limits of the Cross - Alameda Trail are from Main Street (westerly terminus) to Tilden Way (easterly terminus). In addition, it is envisioned that the Trail will ultimately continue west of Main Street into Alameda Point, terminating at the Seaplane Lagoon. The study area is divided into five sections: 1. Main Street to Webster Street 2. Webster Street to Constitution Way 3. Constitution Way to Sherman Street 4. Sherman Street to Grand Street 5. Grand Street to Tilden Way To facilitate ease of trail implementation, the proposed alignments took advantage of vacant properties in the corridor. The parcels formerly used by the Alameda Belt Line railroad provide a linear corridor with a limited number of landowners, which reduces the number of potential land acquisition negotiations. This is especially true for the portion of the trail from Main Street to Sherman Street. Since a goal of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project is to promote and advocate implementation of the Bay Trail as a means of maximizing shoreline access, the status of the shoreline properties in this corridor was assessed. A shoreline path would be somewhat circuitous, and would serve a primarily recreational function. By contrast, the former Alameda Belt Line route is more direct and closer to many key destinations in Alameda, potentially providing a viable off -road route for bicycle commuters as well as pedestrians. Public Involvement As noted above, the Rails -to- Trails .Conservancy took the lead on the public involvement component of the project, while the City's Public Works Department managed the feasibility study and conducted the technical analysis related to the development of the Trail. RTC completed the first phase of its public outreach initiatives while the City was conducting the feasibility study. To help guide the process, RTC contacted various groups that had indicated their support for the Cross Alameda Trail to solicit their interest in participating in the project steering committee. While the Public Works Department was not a formal member of the steering committee, staff participated and provided input into its discussions and work products to ensure coordination with the City portion of the project. The City also provided technical support to the Steering Committee throughout the public outreach process. • Brochure /survey: The Steering Committee developed and distributed a brochure about the proposed Cross Alameda Trail to raise awareness about the project. The brochure included a map of the trail corridor and a survey. It was distributed at meetings of numerous community groups, at local businesses, and was made available on RTC's web site. • Community Meeting: On June 2, 2004 the Steering Committee sponsored a public meeting at Coffee for Thought, a local cafe on Webster Street, located a few blocks from the proposed Trail. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study • Tour of Trail Corridor: The meeting was followed up by a tour of the proposed trail alignment on June 5, 2004, which was National Trails Day. This gave residents the opportunity to discuss and visualize what the corridor could potentially look like. • Web Site :. RTC posted project information on its web site (www.railtrails.org). In addition to the brochure and the survey, the site included computer- enhanced photos of the potential trail corridor to help people visualize the completed facility. • Presentations to Community Organizations: RTC staff and steering committee members made presentations on the Trail to the Alameda Point Advisory Committee, Homebase, and the Kiwanis Club. Comments collected in the surveys illustrated a strong preference for an off -road trail, as opposed to on -street bicycle facilities with sidewalks. When asked an open -ended question about what elements of the proposed trail would be most important to them, respondents . emphasized two features: • proximity to nature and the presence of trees or landscaping (86%), and • off -road path, separated from vehicular traffic (75 %). On July 20,' 2004, Melanie Mintz of RTC made a presentation the Alameda City Council to provide them with an overview of their work. Since that time, RTC has been awarded additional funding by the San Francisco Foundation to continue its public involvement work associated with the Cross Alameda Trail. Feasibility Study Goals As described in the work scope above, the Public Works Department evaluated the technical feasibility of constructing a trail in this corridor. Using the information that was collected, the input collected through the efforts of RTC and the steering committee, and existing City policies, the following goals were established for the Trail: • Develop an off -road trail where possible. • The Trail corridor should include landscaping and trees. • Utilize the former alignment of the Alameda Belt Line railroad. • Trail should be a viable transportation corridor as well as a recreational facility. • Provide protection to bicyclists and pedestrians at intersection crossings along the Trail. • Include amenities, such as benches, parking areas, lighting. • Explore ways to link nearby businesses and places of interest to the Trail. Facility Types Based on input from the public and the City's adopted policy framework, there are multiple user groups and purposes envisioned for the Cross Alameda Trail, and the needs of some user groups may sometimes conflict. Therefore, as noted above, it was decided to develop separate facilities in some portions of the corridor so that the Trail could best serve these varied user groups. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study Several different types of facilities have been recommended as an outcome from this study. In discussing bikeway facilities, this report has used the definitions from Caltrans' Highway Design Manual: (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). "Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized." _ (2) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). "Provides a striped lane for one -way bike travel on a street or highway." (3) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). "Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic." Bike routes are generally indicated with signage and may also include pavement markings to help raise the awareness of motorists to the presence of bicyclists. Bicycle "boulevards" may be another option on some low- volume, residential streets. There is no standard definition for a bicycle boulevard, but it is generally similar to a bike route in that motor vehicles share space w ith bicycles; however, a bicycle boulevard may also include enhanced signage, pavement markings, traffic calming devices, and other modifications to improve the street conditions for bicyclists beyond the typical Class III bikeway. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE CROSS ALAMEDA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY W cc WHEREAS, the City of Alameda supports the development of infrastructure to support nonmotorized transportation and recreational opportunities in Alameda; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda supports the ongoing development of the Bay Trail to enhance public access to the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, the development of the Cross Alameda Trail would support the adopted General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Cross Alameda Trail would enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to key destinations including Alameda Point, the Northern Waterfront, Bridgeside Shopping Center, and the Park and Webster Street business districts; and WHEREAS, the Multimodal Circulation Plan within the Transportation Master Plan will address the need to identify a specific alignment for a future transit corridor; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Plan update within the Transportation Master Plan will include the identification of a recommended recreational alignment for the on- street portion of the Cross Alameda Trail; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda accepts the findings of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study and intends to seek funding to implement the Cross Alameda Trail. Resolution # 4 -0 CC 7 -19 -05 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda E 0 LI- 0 co r -; .1CCKNOXWHITE is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Transportation Commission of the O 4 I-City of Alameda for a term commencing on July 1, 2005 and expiring on June 30, 2009 and to serve 0 until his successor is appointed and qualified. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING JOHN W. KNOXWHITE AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to provisions of Section 2 -8 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JOHN 0 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 , 2005 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolutions # 5 -A 7 -19 -05 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REAPPOINTING ERIC SCHATMEIER AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to provisions wof Section 2 -8 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ERIC cc ce.) i. SCHATMEIER is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Transportation Commission of < the City of Alameda for a term commencing on July 1, 2005 and expiring on June 30, 2009 and to • F- U serve until his 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 , 2005 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: 5 July 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05- 0003 — Phase II) Contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more Commonly Referred to as the Zoning Ordinance BACKGROUND In February, 2004 the City Council commenced public hearings on Phase I of the Development Code Revisions and subsequently adopted Ordinance 2920 amending the Alameda Municipal Code to incorporate various revisions. At that time staff advised the City Council that the Planning Board had deferred recommendations on the following items (identified as Phase II Development Code Amendments) pending further discussion: • Projections and Encroachments ((k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) ♦ Definition of "Replacement in Kind" • Parking (tandem parking review referred by City Council) ♦ Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - conforming Residential Structures Each topic addressed in the Phase II draft Code Amendment and specific language for the Code change are described below and in Attachment I. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW During the Planning Board review in 2003/2004 of the Phase II draft Code revisions, each section was discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment would impact the development review process and why the amendment was being recommended for approval by staff Improving clarity, resolving inconsistencies and codifying existing practice, where appropriate, were key objectives. During this time period a Customer Service Improvement Team (CSI) commenced monthly meetings with the Planning & Building Department senior management staff As part of their review of procedures in the department they requested an opportunity to review the Phase II Code Amendments with the Planning Board prior to review of the draft amendments by the City Council. Staff delayed the City Council review and scheduled Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing and Intro of Ordinance 5 -B 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 05, 2005 an additional public hearing for Planning Board review of the draft amendments on February 28, 2005; due to a lengthy agenda this hearing was continued to the March 14, 2005 PB meeting. The CSI participated in hearings with the Planning Board on 3/14/05 and 4/25/05. At the conclusion of the hearings the Planning Board recommended the City Council adopt four of the five draft amendments. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Attachment 1 provides a summary of each proposed text amendment and the analysis considered by the Planning Board. The following provides a summary of each code amendment: Topic l.- Projections and Encroachments (k and 1 findings) The PB recommends that the current subsection 30 -5.7 (k) and (1) which allow second story additions and additions at the rear of an existing building to be in the same plane as the existing buildings walls (ie permits a property owner to "grandfather" existing non - conforming setbacks) to continue; however, the Board is recommending that the variable setbacks for one and two story buildings be amended to no longer require an additional 2' -0" setback for second story additions or two story structures. The 5' -0" setback required for a one story building will also be the requirement for a two -story building. The method by which to calculate yards would remain unchanged. Topic 2. - Building Height Limits (number of stories) The Planning Board recommends that the code regulations on number of stories would be deleted and buildings would be regulated by maximum building height and Design Review regulations. The City would no longer regulate the number of stories in a building. Topic 3. - Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" The Planning Board recommended that the definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" be amended in the Design Review section of the Code to be consistent with the "Replacement -In- Kind" in the recently adopted "Guide to Residential Design ". Topic 4. — Parking The Planning Board recommends that the code be amended to provide for a use permit process when parking is proposed on a site other than the parcel on which the use is located. Currently the code does not allow parking to be located on a parcel separate for the use. The Planning Board did not recommend any revisions to the code related to tandem parking or parking within the front yard — the first 20' -0" of the driveway. Topic 5. — Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - Conforming Residential Structures. The Planning Board recommends that the valuation of a building on which the non - conforming regulations apply should be based on the appraised value rather than the current practice of basing it on the assessed value. In addition, the Planning Board recommends that an application for a building permit to reconstruct a non - conforming building may be applied for within one Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers July 05, 2005 year from the date of destruction rather than the current practice which requires a permit to be applied for within six months of the destruction. The Customer Service Improvement Team supported all of the revisions to the Code recommended by the Planning Board. It should be noted that the CSI also recommended revisions to the tandem parking regulations and to allow parking in the front 20' -0" of a driveway as outlined in the April 25, 2005 Planning Board staff report. However, these recommendations were not supported by the Planning Board. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE The proposal amends Municipal Code Chapter XXX. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary for this amendment. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council review the Phase II Development Code Amendments recommended by the Planning Board and provide direction on any section of the proposed amendments which needs clarification or further revision. After discussion, the City Council should introduce the ordinance with any desired revisions and direct staff to finalize the Ordinance incorporating all of the revisions to the Development Code. The hearing should then be continued to 2 August 2005 at which time the Ordinance can be scheduled for adoption by the City Council on the Consent Calendar. Respectfully submitted, Gregor Acting nd Building Director Attachments: 1. Summary of Proposed Text Amendments 2. Staff Report without attachments and Minutes of the 23 February 2004 Planning Board Meeting 3. Staff Report without attachments and Minutes of the 26 April 2004 Planning Board Meeting 4. Staff Report without attachments and Minutes of the 24 May 2004 Planning Board Meeting 5. Staff Report without attachments and Minutes of the 28 February 2005 Planning Board Meeting 6. Staff Report without attachments and Minutes of the 25 April 2005 Planning Board Meeting 7. Parking Plot Map SK -1 to SK -6 prepared by the Customer Service Improvement Team Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 July 05, 2005 8. Memorandum from the Customer Service Improvement Team to the Planning Board dated 2/18/05 9. Letter from Ken Gutleben dated 16 June 2004 10. Summary of Tandem Parking Regulation from other California Cities 11. Letter from Italo Calpestri, AIA, dated 24 May 2004 12. Letter from Italo Calpestri, AIA, dated 10 February 2005 13. Graphic prepared by Italo Calpestri, AIA, relating to "K & L Findings" Cc: Planning Board Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Board of Realtors G: \PLANK IN G\ZO U \523 05 C CRe port. doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY of ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Council Chambers, City Hall July 19, 2005 POSSIBLE CHANGES TO ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PHASE II WHAT ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ?: "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" REGULATE THE LOCATION, HEIGHT AND SIZE OF STRUCTURES, LANDSCAPING AND ON -SITE PARKING. WHY ARE CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BEING CONSIDERED? TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND STREAMLINE REVIEW PROCEDURES BY IMPROVING CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER CODES, CLARIFYING TECHINICAL ISSUES, AND CODIFYING PRACTICES AND DECISIONS REGARDING CODE INTERPRETATIONS. WOULD THESE PROPOSED CHANGES AFFECT LAND USE? GENERALLY, NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO EXISTING "USE REGULATIONS," NOR ARE CHANGES PROPOSED TO ZONING DISTRICTS (i.e. "R -1," "R -2," ETC.) AND ZONING MAP. THE GOAL is to PROVIDE BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE AND EFFICIENCIES IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES THIS GOAL CAN BE REACHED by STREAMLINING the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS to the GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE WHILE RETAINING the HIGH LEVEL of PUBLIC SCRUTINY and INPUT the COMMUNITY CURRENTLY ENJOYS. ATTACHMENT #1 Page 1 of 15 Attachment #1 TOPIC I of 5: PROJECTIONS & ENCROACHMENTS WHAT ARE "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS ?" Although zoning regulations typically create "required minimum yards" that are generally to be kept free of structures, certain types and portions of structures are permitted to encroach into required minimum yards, and these items are currently addressed in the A.M.C. in section 30 -5.7 ( "Permitted Encroachment in Yards "). Examples include: ■ Additions to existing residences (existing Code provisions allow additions to encroach into minimum required yards under certain circumstances and are commonly referred to as the "k" and "1" provisions). SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS:" ❑ Simplify, and establish consistency for additions to existing residences. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "PROJECTIONS and ENCROACHMENTS:" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ✓ Some minor and routine variances (such as second story additions to conforming residences) could become administrative exceptions under a refined and expanded administrative review process. ANALYSIS: The current code provisions allow staff to utilize existing setbacks when approving additions to an existing building which encroach into a required yard provided the following finding can be made: "No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties." This code amendment would continue this practice and expand it to include additions to existing residences which are currently conforming. For example, a single -story building with conforming setbacks requires a five -foot sideyard and a two -story building requires a seven -foot sideyard. Currently a building with a non - conforming sideyard could be expanded with the same nonconforming sideyard by using the (k) and (1) findings while a single -story building with conforming five foot sideyards could not expand upward to include a second story unless the additional two feet sideyard is provided. This inequity would be resolved by removing the requirement for two feet of additional setback for the second story or for a new two -story building. The requirements for determining the required sideyard of a property based on the Zoning designation and the lot width would not change under this proposed amendment. Page 2 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 CURRENT ZONING TEXT Section 30 -5.7 Permitted Encroachments in Yards. k. In exception to the setback requirements of this article, one (1) and two (2) story room additions may be approved that observe the same sideyard setback as the existing main building, or none if none exists, on lots where the existing main building is constructed with conforming or nonconforming sideyard setbacks, if the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties. 1. In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the ground floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with exterior walls in the same plane as the walls of the existing building below if the finding of paragraph k. above can be made. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES Section 30 -5.7 — Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes,'; Permitted wa Encroachments, nd Treatments of Minimum Required Yards k. Exceptions to allow additions with less than the required minimum side yards. in the approval of additions to existing dwellings, the Planning & Building Director may grant exceptions subject to the findings required in paragraph 3 below, to allow additions with less than this Article's requirements for minimum required side yards and street side yards of corner lots (i.e. a setback from a side or street side property line that is less than otherwise prescribed by the subject zoning district). 1. In exception to setback requirements of this chapter, additions which are to be above an existing first story may be approved that observe the same sideyard setback as the existing main building, or none if none exists, on lots where the existing main building is constructed with noncomplying sideyard setbacks, if the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties. 2. Additions which are to be built to the front or rear of the existing building, or to the front or rear of a portion of the existing building, may be approved with the existing building's setbacks, providing that the length of such addition does not exceed the length of that portion of the existing building with the non- conforming setback. r leyard . t-I a( .. New cantilevered projections above the, first story which are to have the same or less horizontal area as an existing first story projection,' may be approved with the existing projection's setbacks. Page 3 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 4. To approve ° an exception, the Planning & Building Director must be able to make the following finding: . ' _ ' - - : ., - .. No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties. 5. If necessary to make the above finding, or to address Design Review or building code concerns, the Director may require a setback greater than those existing, but still allow a setback(s) that is less than the minimum required side yard '. or and street side yards of corner lots prescribed by the subject zoning district In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the ground floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with exterior walls in the same plane as the walls of the existing building below if the finding of paragraph k. above can be made. Section 30 -4.1 d. 6, R -1 District. . Section 30 -4.2 d. 6, R -2 District. Section 30 -4.3 d. 6, R -3 District. . Section 30 -4.4 d. 6, R -4 District .. Section 30 -4.5 d. 6, R -5 District .. more th ntcn(10')seet Section 30 -4.6 d. 6, R -6 District .. sesend Section 30 -4.7 d. 6, Admin/Prof District .. Section 30 -4.8 d. 4, C -1 District .. Section 30 -4.9 d. 5, C -2 District .. (3). ATTACHMENT #1 Page 4 of 15 TOPIC 2 of 5: BUILDING HEIGHT /STORY LIMITS HOW IS "BUILDING HEIGHT" LIMITED NOW ?" The A.M.C. currently restricts both maximum number of "stories," and how tall a building can be, as measured by maximum number of feet. WHAT CONFLICTS COULD ARISE BY LIMITING HEIGHT TO A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF "STORIES "? While limiting the number of stories seems like a simple way to control the height of buildings, it is in fact only simple when the limit is applied to new construction. However, the questions of "number of stories" in Alameda is more often applied to existing residences, where applicants seek permission to convert an existing "attic" space into a possible third "story." The conflict arises as the restriction to a maximum number of "stories" limits the possible uses of existing interior spaces in the building rather than the height of the building. The proposal to convert an existing "attic" into a usable "story" currently could make a residence exceed the "story limit" — even if the conversion would not change the physical height of the residence. In cases where a proposed attic conversion would not include any exterior additions, the need for a variance to exceed the "story limit" of a building that would not physically change seems unnecessarily burdensome. It should be noted that the Planning Board has routinely approved such variances. Please see graphics on next four pages for illustrations. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS:" ❑ Delete regulations limiting "number of stories ". ❑ Remove calculation of "average height" to simplify measurement of maximum permitted building height. ❑ Allow applicants to change the use /building code "status" of an interior level (e.g. converting attics and basements into what the building code would define as "stories ") as permitted construction, providing that there is no new exterior construction exceeding the established maximum building height. HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING "BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS" WOULD HELP IMPLEMENT OUR GOAL: ■ Deleting zoning regulations on maximum number of "stories" eliminates conflicts with building code's definitions of "story" "basement" and "attic ". ✓ Some minor and routine variances (such as allowing an "attic" to become a "third story ") would no longer be necessary. Page 5 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 z. 1 et t a in a el r * a o� t a 3 z 4 la a )4 I Id E z J e eik "ol 141% V �Z i Q a1 2 c say °3r y- ;E--- 1 111111 t y A r Q =� • I amew* ,it 4 16 5 i i ....3 Z 7 3 s J d d z • �_ • U 'I 54 10 js tz i= ANALYSIS: A. Introduction, and Purpose of building height limitations: The purpose of building height limitations is to set the maximum height a building may be constructed within a certain zoning district. In Alameda, these height limitation are currently prescribed by establishing for each zoning district: a) a maximum building height, as measured in feet from the "highest and lowest points" of the building, and b) the maximum number of stories a building can have. The following discussion on the topic of building height limits will illustrate the shortcomings of the current approach, and outline an alternative. B. Outline of current height limitations: TABLE OF CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS CURRENT ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS • "Story shall mean that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six (6') above grade at any point, such a basement shall be considered a story." (see "basement" definition below). NOTE: an "attic," which is not defined in the zoning code, is considered a "story" by the Alameda Building Code if such an attic space has both: a) an internal access and b) a floor which can carry a live load. An attic space which does not meet both of the above criteria is determined to be an "attic" as defined by the building code, and therefore is not considered a "story." • "Basement shall mean a space partially or wholly underground and having more than one half ('/2) of its height measured from its floor to its finished ceiling below the average adjoining grade. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six (6') feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story." Page 6 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 R -1 R -2 R -3 R -4 R -5 R -6 maximum number of stories; but... 2 2 2 2 3 4 "not to exceed a height of:" 30 feet 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 40 feet 50 feet CURRENT ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS • "Story shall mean that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six (6') above grade at any point, such a basement shall be considered a story." (see "basement" definition below). NOTE: an "attic," which is not defined in the zoning code, is considered a "story" by the Alameda Building Code if such an attic space has both: a) an internal access and b) a floor which can carry a live load. An attic space which does not meet both of the above criteria is determined to be an "attic" as defined by the building code, and therefore is not considered a "story." • "Basement shall mean a space partially or wholly underground and having more than one half ('/2) of its height measured from its floor to its finished ceiling below the average adjoining grade. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six (6') feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story." Page 6 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 • "Building height shall mean the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof ridge or parapet wall." C. Shortcomings of current height limitations: • ATTICS: A proposed change to the use of an existing attic space (e.g. conversion of void space to habitable space) can require variance to height limitation, because the improved attic would now be considered a "story," possible exceeding the "2 story" limitation (even though building height, as measured in feet, would remain unchanged). Assuming the main purpose of enacting "height limitations" is to limit the vertical mass of structures, and not to limit the use of interior spaces, the limitation on number of "stories" places an "unrelated restriction" on the use of existing structures. In cases where there are to be no exterior expansions (e.g. new dormer windows) as part of the proposal to improve the attic, the required variance application process could appear to be the antithesis of "user friendly" zoning regulations. • BASEMENTS: A proposed change to the use of an existing basement space (e.g. sub - excavating to provide a point of exterior access in order to create habitable space or a garage) can require variance to height limitation, because the improved basement would now be considered a "story," possibly exceeding the "2 story" limitation (even though building height, as measured in feet from existing grade would remain unchanged). As discussed above, the limitation on number of "stories" can be seen as placing a similar "unrelated restriction" on the use of existing structures. While under a literal application of the current definition of "basement," a small portion of the "story" above would be more than 6' above (finished) grade, it should be noted that the vertical mass of the structure, when viewed from off -site, would remain largely unchanged. In such a case, the roof ridge elevation would not be raised, again making the need for a variance to "exceed height limitations" appear unwarranted. Acknowledging that there may issues regarding the aesthetic /historic character regarding "improved" basements, these issues exist whether the existing home is one story (where no variance would be required) or two story. In either case, the design review process, rather than the variance review, would more appropriately address such concerns. • EXISTING vs. FINISHED GRADE: By measuring the height as "the vertical distance of that portion... covered by the building to the highest point," it is the project's finished grade, as opposed to the pre- existing grade, that becomes the base datum. Such a process unfairly penalizes those who would excavate from existing grade, to reduce the visual mass of the building from off -site. Page 7 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 As an extension of the proceeding discussion regarding "basements," it should be stressed that height limitations are generally intended to reduce the vertical mass of structures, as viewed from off -site. Heights are restricted to both preserve the scale of structures when viewed from the street, and to prevent structures from looming over each other. "Height" is relative to both existing grade (i.e. the ground elevation before construction) and neighbors. Therefore a measure of height taken from existing grade would be a more appropriate measure in whether a structure would appear "too tall" in its context." PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES Section 30 -2 Definitions • "Building height, maximum shall be established by an assumed plane, as measured, perpendicularly from the existing grade, and as prescribed by the zoning district. Except as provided for under section 30 -5.8 (Height Exceptions), no portion of the structure, including any part of the roof, may project above the assumed plane. the building to the highest point of the roof ridge or parapet wall." Grade . Existin Ad ace\ g ( � nt Ground Elevation) new definition], is the . lowest point of elevation of the 'finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet, from the building, between the building and a line 5 feet from the building. (Note, under the approach outlined above, "story ", "attic" and "basement" would no longer be terms necessary to determine compliance with the building height limitation. It may be appropriate however, to amend such definitions to be consistent with Building Code definitions, as these terms may be used elsewhere in the Zoning Code) DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSAL: Ease of documenting compliance [can be made code requirement, or part of application completeness]: To document compliance the current submittal requirements will be amended to require applicants to illustrate the proposal's height by providing no less than two sectional views, drawn through the proposed structure and perpendicular to existing contours, one of which shall illustrate the tallest point of the structure (i.e. where the structure would be at it's maximum height above existing grade), and the other being drawn at approximately the center of the structure. Examples include: ❑ So long as no new exterior structures exceed the height of the "assumed plane" (e.g. 30' above exiting grade in the R -1 and R -2 Districts), the proposal Page 8 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 is in compliance, regardless of the use of interior spaces. Conversely, a proposal for new dormers on a non - conforming building would be seen as a new structure exceeding the "assumed plane," and a variance would be required. ❑ By using the "existing grade" as the base datum, any sub - excavation done to provide access to a "basement" would, by definition, not alter the height of the "assumed plane," and therefore would not trigger the need for variance review. TABLE OF CURRENT and PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS Sections 30 -4.1 (d) (4), 30 -4.2 (d) (4), 30 -4.3 (d) (4), 30 -4.4 (d) (4), 30 -4.5 (d) (4) and 30 -4.6 (d) (4). R -1 R -2 R -3 R -4 R -5 R -6 2 of stories; but... 2 2 2 3- 4 "not to exceed a height of:" maximum ... _...._.. ............... permitted height of building, as measured from existing grade (see proposed definition below) 30 feet 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet 40 feet 50 feet Page 9 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 TOPIC 3 of 5: DESIGN REVIEW: MODIFYING DEFINITION OF "REPLACEMENT -IN- KIND" WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ Redefine projects that are "replacement -in- kind" (which do not require design review) to be those that are "Identical to the original structure in terms of location, size and shape, and is made of materials that outwardly have the same dimensions, proportions, details and textures of the original and that outwardly appear unchanged from the original. ❑ HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: ✓ The exact duplication of "materials" on historic homes may either be impossible, or simply undesirable from a building code and /or energy conservation criteria. The important criterion for Design Review should be the appearance of the structure, and if modern materials can outwardly have the same dimensions, proportions and textures of the originals. The modified definition of "replacement -in- kind" will allow those projects that outwardly appear as "unchanged from original " to proceed without design review, facilitating historic preservation and restoration as a visual resource. ANALYSIS: Currently the Code requires the use of identical materials when replacing elements of a structure. Technology has developed materials that have substantially the same appearance as the original materials, however, may not be made from the same materials. This Code amendment would allow for the use of other materials provided the outwardly appearance of the building would be "unchanged from the original ". The visual resource would remain protected by use of alternative products. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES ARTICLE II. STRUCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS Section 30 -37 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS Section 30 -37.1 Definitions a. Additions shall mean the expansion of an existing structure, affixed to real property. b. Improvements shall mean the construction of a structure or alteration to the exterior of a structure affixed to real property, which require a building permit. c. Major Design Review shall mean an improvement subject to review under subsection 30 -37.2. d. Minor Design Review shall mean an improvement subject to review under subsection 30- 37.2b. Page 10 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 e. Replacement -in -kind shall mean the replacement of any structure or architectural element which is identical to the original structure in terms of location, size, and shape; and is made of materials that outwardly have the same dimensions, proportions, details and textures of the original and that outwardly appear unchanged from the original. f. Structure shall mean a building or facility of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite matter. (Ord. No. 1716 N.S.; Ord. No. 1801 N.S.; Ord. No. 1873 N.S.; Ord. No. 2340 N.S.; Ord. No. 2487 N.S.; Ord. No. 2599 N.S. §1) Page 11 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 ZONING - TOPIC 4 of 5: PARKING WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ Permit required parking for a use on one parcel to be provided on another parcel via the Use Permit process. ❑ HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES HELP: This amendment would allow a property owner to provide either required parking or excess parking on a parcel other than the one which generates the demand allowing flexibility in development. For example, properties along a commercial street like Park Street, could be redeveloped in a pedestrian friendly manner (ie the buildings immediately adjacent to the sidewalk) or an existing building could be added to while the required parking could be provided by a lot located on a side street. The Use Permit process, which requires a public hearing before the Planning Board would ensure that the parking lot is not too far distant from the use or would have no other adverse impacts. PROPOSED ZONING CODE REGULATIONS 30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas All parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, shall be provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand. A use permit shall be required if parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, are proposed on a separate parcel than the use which is generating the parking demand. Except as provided by subsection 30 7.6, Parking spaces provided in compliance with this :'section are and subject to the following additional requirements: a. Residential Zones, and Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones: 1. No parking space may be located in any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot. Parking spaces may be located within minimum required side and rear yards, subject to the requirements of subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter Landscaping Required. 2. The parking of vehicles within any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot, is prohibited. (a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide access to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking provided the parking is not located in the required front yard or the street side yard of any corner lot. Driveways used for such ancillary parking may not exceed the maximum permitted widths as prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f.1.(a). Such ancillary parking shall not be considered toward meeting the requirements of Subsection 30 -7.6; Schedule of Page 12 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces. 3. See subsection 30 -5.7.h for additional provisions related to the located of garages. b. Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones. Parking spaces may be located between the main building(s) and the street frontage(s), subject to the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter Landscaping Required. c. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone. Section 30 -7.9 Parking Dimensions and Access a. Regular Spaces (unchanged) b. Compact Spaces (unchanged) c. Adjustments to Parking Dimensions (unchanged) d. Vertical Clearance (unchanged) e: Tandem Parking. Tandem parking is only permitted to satisfy parking requirements for residential uses in which the tandem spaces serve the same unit. (unchanged) f Driveways (unchanged) g. Handicapped Parking (unchanged) h. Ingress and Egress (unchanged) i. Backup Area (unchanged) Page 13 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 ZONING - TOPIC 5 of 5: SIMPLIFYING RECONSTRUCTION OF NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES: ❑ This amendment would change how the valuation of a building on which the non- conforming regulations apply is calculated. Currently it is based on the appraised value. Valuation should be based on the more equitable assessed value (which has been the practice for some time due to Proposition 13 poses some inequities among similarly situated properties). In addition, the Planning Board recommends that an application for a building permit to reconstruct a non- conforming building may be applied for within one year from the date of destruction rather than the current practice which requires a permit to be applied for within six months of the destruction. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGES 30 -20 NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS and USES • 30-20.3 Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses. Change Permitted Nonconforming buildings, with conforming residential uses in Residential zoning districts, may be reconstructed, with an equal or lesser nonconformity to the Development Standards of this Chapter, subject to the approval process for improvements, as :outlined in Section 30 -37; Design Review Requirements. Such reconstruction may occur to repair damage as defined by sub- section 30.20 .4 below, or, as. part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or replace an existing non-conforming structure. For reconstruction of nonconforming, buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts, the value limitations prescribed by subsection 30 -20.4 do not apply. • 30 -20.4 Changes to, and Restoration of N onconforming: Buildings and Uses. Restoration of Damaged Buildings Notwithstanding the provisions in 30.20.3 to allow reconstruction of nonconforming buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts, the regulations apply to nonconforming uses and buildings: . __....._ ............. . a. Changes Permitted No nonconforming building or use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless it is changed to conform to the regulations specified by this section, provided that routine maintenance and repairs required by applicable health and safety codes shall be permitted in an aggregate amount during a five (5) year period of Page 14 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 not to exceed one hundred (100 %) percent of the total appraised assessed valuation as „verified by a certified appraiser selected by the City, and conducted at the property ow net's expense. according to the assessment thereof by the City Assessor. b. Restoration of Damaged Buildings If at any time any nonconforming use or building shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy to the extent of more than seventy (70 %) percent of the value thereof, then, and without further action by the City Council, the building and the land on which said building was located or maintained shall from and after the date of such destruction be subject to all the regulations of the district in which such land and/or building are located. For the purposes of this section, the value of any building shall be the estimated cost of the replacement of the building in kind, as determined by the Building Official. Where any nonconforming building shall have been destroyed less than seventy (70 %) percent, as specified above, a building permit for its restoration shall be secured not later than six (6) months one. (1) year from the date of such destruction and the restoration shall be completed one (1) year from the date of issuance of the building permit. G:\ PLANNING \ZOU \701905CCReportPhaselI. doc Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT #1 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: [ ] APPLICATION: ZA03 -0001 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments /City -wide. Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code. GENERAL PLAN: City -wide amendment ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15060. STAFF PLANNER: Jerry Cormack, Development Review Manager Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. ACRONYMS: AMC — Alameda Municipal Code CBC — California Building Code ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. 2/17/04 Letter from Christopher Buckley, Chair, Preservation Action Committee of AAPS I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY This hearing is scheduled for review of amendments to various sections of the Development Code. During review of the proposed draft amendments each section will be discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment will impact the development review process and why the amendment is recommended for approval by staff. II. BACKGROUND In April, 2002 the PB reviewed a proposed work program to modify various sections of the Development Code in need of clarification, or minor revisions, to eliminate inconsistencies and to allow for the more efficient implementation of the Code. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 23, 2004 Attachment #2 Subsequent to PB authorization to proceed with the Code update City staff reviewed several drafts of the proposed revisions toward achieving the objective of streamlining the development review process. Particular attention was given to establishing consistency to the extent possible with the California Building Code. The internal staff level review has been completed and a public workshop was held on Thursday, December 12, 2002 from 6:00 — 9:00 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. After the public workshop staff continued to work with the building division of the department and the City Attorney's office to further refine the draft amendments. The PB conducted public hearings in 2003, completed review of the draft amendments and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council commenced their review on 2/03/04 and continued the hearing to 3/16/04. During review of the Code Amendments the Planning Board deferred the following items for future consideration in conjunction with the review of revised Residential Design Guidelines: ♦ Projections and Encroachments ((k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) ♦ Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" Review of these three items has been scheduled for public hearing on the 2/23/04 PB agenda after discussion of the draft Residential Design Guidelines. III. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The description and analysis for each of the three remaining amendments in Phase II are include in the attachment to this report. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 which exempts projects which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Phase II Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. G: \PLANNING\ZOU\223 04PBReport. doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 23, 2004 2 8 -C. ZA03 -0001 - City of Alameda — City Wide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences and provide a definition for "replacement -in -kind Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Sweeney noted that he agreed strongly with the idea of equity in the projections, and that conforming lot lines should have equal treatment with existing lot lines for the second story. He generally agreed with staff's recommendations, with the exception of the method with respect to streamlining: "This goal can be reached by streamlining the development review process to the greatest degree possible, while retaining the high level of public scrutiny and input the community currently enjoys." He did not believe the Planning Director should make the decisions regarding shading or view blockage, which had a very substantial effect upon property values. He would rather see the Planning Board make those decisions. He did not believe that the process should be made more difficult by drafting and paying for appeals to City Council. He agreed with AAPS that the second story requirement should be retained, and would not like to encourage jacked -up second stories. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, advised that they submitted a letter addressing replacement -in -kind and the height limit changes. With regard to replacement -in -kind, he suggested a revised definition: "Replacement -in -kind shall mean the replacement of any structure which is identical to the original structure in terms of location, size, and shape, and is made of materials that outwardly have the same dimensions, proportions and textures of the originals, and that outwardly appear unchanged from the originals. " He noted that was taken from the staff introduction, but not the actual ordinance text, and added that other members of AAPS had not seen that revised definition. He believed that may accomplish staffs goal with respect to replacement -in -kind. He suggested that when staff exempts projects from Design Review, that it be documented. With respect to height changes, Mr. Buckley stated that AAPS did not have a conceptual problem deleting the regulations limiting the number of stories. He noted that the way that it was drafted that would allow lifting a two -story building to create an additional third story of habitable space at the basement level, or also create an enlargement of the roof envelope to create a new third floor, or the possible construction of a new third floor on top of an existing building. He suggested that it be worded in such a way with respect to existing buildings that the creation of the additional floor would not involve any outward expansion of the building envelope. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 February 23, 2004 Mr. Don Patterson agreed with Mr. Buckley's suggested modifications. He noted that under replacement -in -kind, the discussion dealt with numbers, which did not address architectural issues in a complete manner. He believed that the notification should remain at 300 feet, not at 100 feet. He believed that application submittals should be very thorough, and should require not only examples of building materials, but details of the structures. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Altschuler advised that staff took a very conservative approach to replacement -in -kind. She noted that this would allow some amount of flexibility. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Piziali noted that he would like replacement -in -kind for repairs. Ms. Altschuler advised that it was important for residents to realize that a 20 -by -20 -foot redwood deck is not a replacement -in -kind of a 3 -by -4 -foot landing. She gave a PowerPoint presentation of four examples of conforming and non - conforming buildings with respect to height limits and increases. She noted that in every situation, there was still the necessity to meet the Alameda Building Code. She noted that she would answer the Board members' questions about the Code's requirements with respect to Case 1 of the exhibit. After an extensive discussion of Case 2 of the exhibit, Ms. Altschuler noted that the Board seemed to desire a combination of stories and height limits. President Piziali noted that if the building envelope was not broken he was not concerned about the number of interiors stories, as long as it conformed to Code. He agreed with what staff had presented with respect to the interior of the existing building. Vice President Bard agreed with President Piziali's assessment, and added that dormers were not inside the existing building, and should be subject to a Variance. Vice President Bard believed that this would radically affect the parking regulations. Ms. Altschuler noted that if any room exceeded 500 square feet, a secondary means of egress was required. She inquired whether the owner of a 28- foot -wide house with two living levels and an attic, who wished to add a dormer to the roof would be required to obtain a Variance. She noted that it currently required a Variance. President Piziali believed that no Variance should be required. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 February 23, 2004 Mr. Cunningham believed that there should be no Variance, but that a Major Design Review should be required. Ms. Altschuler noted that the owner of a high basement house wished to do a combination of digging down to enlarge the basement to become a habitable space, as well as raising the house above the 30 -foot, would need to get a Variance. The Board members agreed that requirement should remain. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether that owner wished to raise the house to the 30- foot - limit, and dig down a sufficient depth to create habitable space in the basement, should require a Variance. Mr Cunningham believed that some review should be performed, but that if a Variance was not absolutely necessary, it should not be required. Vice President Bard noted that when a house was raised, it completely changed the look of the house and its relationship to the porch and stairs. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Altschuler, Vice President Bard confirmed that this would apply to existing buildings, but not new construction, which would be handled with a Major Design Review. President Piziali noted that he liked the height limit, and as long as the interior changes conformed to the Building Codes, he was not concerned how those interior changes were designed. He did not have any objections to the height restrictions. Ms. Altschuler suggested that the matter to be continued, and that staff develop the language in question to be brought back before the Board on March 22, 2004. M/S Bard/Cunningham and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:20 p.m. AYES — 4 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN - 0 In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Altschuler noted that with respect to the (k) & (1)' s, the most difficult issue for staff to explain to the applicant is for a person who has a one -story house with fully compliant setbacks, who wishes to add a second story in the same plane as the existing structure. Currently, that would require a Variance, and it would be difficult to make the findings because it would be possible to pull the second story in to the seven feet required for two -story houses. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 February 23, 2004 hi response to an inquiry by Vice President Bard, Ms. Altschuler detailed the history of the (k) & (1)'s, which were created in 1988 as an extensive revision of the Zoning Code. She noted that these findings were memorialized to respond to Variances that had repeatedly been granted by a previous Board over many years. Vice President Bard suggested that the (k) & (1)'s were not necessarily the best solution, and would not object if they were withdrawn. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff attempted to resolve an inequitable situation. President Piziali noted that he would like to have a full Board to discuss this matter. At the Board's request, Ms. Altschuler noted that staff would provide alternative language that would remove the (k) & (1). M/S Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 22, 2004. AYES — 4 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning. Board Minutes Page 18 February 23, 2004 ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ZA03 -0001 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments /City -wide. Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code. GENERAL PLAN: City -wide amendment ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15060. STAFF PLANNER: Jerry Cormack, Development Review Manager Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. ACRONYMS: AMC — Alameda Municipal Code ABC — Alameda Building Code ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. 4/19/04 Letter from Tracy Cote, Chair Pro Tem, AAPS Preservation Action Committee 3. 2/17/04 Letter from Christopher Buckley, Chair, Preservation Action Committee of AAPS 4. February 23, 2004 Planning Board Minutes 5. March 22, 2004 Planning Board Minutes I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY This hearing is scheduled for review of amendments to various sections of the Development Code. During review of the proposed draft amendments each section will be discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment will impact the development review process and why the amendment is recommended for approval by staff. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 26, 2004 Attachment #3 II. BACKGROUND In April, 2002 the Planning Board reviewed a proposed work program to modify various sections of the Development Code in need of clarification, or minor revisions, to eliminate inconsistencies and to allow for the more efficient implementation of the Code. Subsequent to Planning Board authorization to proceed with the Code update City staff reviewed several drafts of the proposed revisions toward achieving the objective of streamlining the development review process. Particular attention was given to establishing consistency to the extent possible with the Alameda Building Code. The internal staff level review has been completed and a public workshop was held on Thursday, December 12, 2002 from 6:00 — 9:00 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. After the public workshop staff continued to work with the building division of the department and the City Attorney's office to further refine the draft amendments. The Planning Board conducted public hearings in 2003, completed review of a portion the draft amendments (Phase I) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council commenced their review on 2/03/04, approved and gave first reading to the ordinance on 3/16/04 and adopted the ordinance with second reading on 4/06/04. The City Council deferred adoption of the Landscaping and Open Space Code Amendments until a subcommittee of the City Council has studied alternatives. At the completion of the Committee level review this portion of the Phase I amendments will be rescheduled for Council consideration. During review of the Code Amendments the Planning Board deferred the following items (Phase II) for future consideration in conjunction with the review of revised Residential Design Guidelines: ♦ Projections and Encroachments ( (k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) ♦ Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" At the 23 February 2004 hearing, the Board discussed possible revisions to the height and number of stories development regulations. At that time the four Board members present advised Staff that they were inclined to remove the number of stories limitations and is not in favor of the recommended changes to subsection 30- 5.7(k) and (1). Further, the Board expressed concern about the concept of these subsections, and wished to consider elimination of these development code exceptions. The Board then acted to continue the matter to a future meeting so that all Board members could comment on these items. In addition to these items the City Council requested further review by the Planning Board of the tandem parking regulations in the code. Staff also has scheduled the subject of location of parking spaces for Planning Board consideration in response to a request to locate parking off -site from the parcel on which the use is located. The section of the Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 26, 2004 2 code regulating the method of valuation of non - conforming structures and allowing non- conforming residential buildings to be reconstructed with equal or lesser non - conformity were inadvertently not included in Phase I previously reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. These two items have been added to the Phase II review and identified as follows: ♦ Parking ♦ Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - conforming Residential Structures The Planning Board previously discussed the first three items at the February 23, 2004 meeting. A new public notice has been prepared to include all five items for Planning Board consideration at the 4/26/04 meeting. III. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The description and analysis for each of the five amendments in Phase II are include in the attachment to this report. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 which exempts projects which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Phase II Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. G : \PLANNING\ZOU \42604PBReport. doe Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 26, 2004 3 8-D. A03 -0001 -- City of Alameda -- City Wide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter )00C of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement -in- kind ", off -street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report, and noted that since the last meeting, City Council requested that staff examine issues of tandem parking with Phase II. He noted that there was also a case of a parcel that was separate from the parcel in which the use was located. Under the current rules, the residents were prevented from using that as parking, and staff believed that it could be regulated by use permit. He noted that reconstruction of nonconforming residential structures would be addressed, and staff recommended that the method in which the valuation was determined be changed to the appraised valuation from the assessed valuation. Staff requested input from the Board from all items in the packet, and that the Board make a recommendation to City Council. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Tracy Cote, AAPS, noted that she wished to address the replacement -in -kind and height limits issues. She noted that AAPS was concerned about "identical" versus "substantially similar" guidelines with respect to replacement -in -kind, and was pleased that the City has recommended AAPS's recommended language of "identical." She expressed concern about height limits, and noted that as long as the outside of the building looked the same, it would be acceptable, however, eliminating number of stories should not be allowed when the building envelope is changing. Mr. Woody Minor, AAPS, supported the issues identified by Ms. Cote, and noted that many remodels in town do not respect the original models. He believed that Alameda's large stock of historic houses was a special attribute of Alameda, and added that they should be treated with care. Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson Avenue, noted that he was a general building contractor in Alameda. He expressed concern about the accessory parking ordinance that was recently passed, which would affect the remodeling and repair of older homes in Alameda. He noted that he has spent 20 years making older homes stronger and noted that the building and repair incentives would be lost if the residents will not be able to expand if they cannot provide the required parking. He objected to the preference of cars over health and safety. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Planning Board Meeting Page 12 April 26, 2004 President Piziali suggested that the Board address each section separately. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook with respect to the impact of expansion, Ms. Altschuler replied that staff looks at the difference between the effect that a fully complying second story would have, and one that would be in the same plane as the existing building. She noted that the increment between the two setbacks was examined by staff. A discussion and clarification of the (k) & (1) regulations ensued. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Bard, Mr. Fuz advised that he had always considered a nonconforming setback condition was not a bonus, but a constraint placed on the development. He noted that the City's unique circumstances brought a number of applications that requested these exceptions, which also placed a heavy burden on the Planning Board over time to consider individual Variances for these items. He noted that there was a track record of approving these Variances, and it was recommended that the Planning Board be relieved of this burden. Staff would be allowed discretion in allowing exceptions under the (k) & (1) findings. Ms. Altschuler noted that the 1988 Planning Board believed that by requiring the two -foot setback some odd - looking architecture was created, also known as a "wedding cake" design. Vice President Bard noted that every second story addition application within the past two years have brought out complaints from the neighbors about shading. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Bard regarding adding space underneath a house, Ms. Altschuler replied that the Golden Mean (0.621 ratio) would apply. Mr. Cunningham noted that the method of measuring building heights would be determined by the existing grade. He inquired how far out a window recess or a stair going down to a basement could be pushed out. In response to Mr. Cunningham's question about subgrade patios with respect to the definition of a story and grade level, Mr. Ken Gutleben noted that the existing ordinance had been one of their biggest issues, and that it stated that anything from the finished floor to anything on the outside of the house that exceeded six feet would be considered a story. He noted that a roof over the basement stairway to avoid consideration as a story may not be accepted because it may not comply with the historical content of the building. Ms. Altschuler provided the history and clarification of the ordinance w ith respect to the definition of a story. Ms. Altschuler inquired how cutting a driveway into the ground along the side of a residence would change the grade. Planning Board Meeting Page 13 April 26, 2004 Vice President Bard believed that as long as no habitable space would be created, it would become an egress issue. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff rarely received requests for very deep driveways because of the water table. They generally received requests for driveways two to three feet below grade. If the landscaping is done properly, the grade is almost imperceptible. President Piziali noted that the City had removed the Variance for an attic that did not come outside the building envelope, as well as the Variance for a basement that did not extend past the building envelope. In addition, the stories had been removed, because it referred to the interior of the building; the building height restrictions had been retained. He believed that remodeling inside the building envelope would not have an exterior effect. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff often received requests for stairs from the basement because basements are typically used for family rooms and similar uses. If the home is raised, it is easier for people to access the backyard. Mr. 'Cunningham noted that the Board preferred that stairs were internal to the house to be sure that the lower level was part of the house. Placing an external stair with a door at its head could create an independent unit. President Piziali noted that he did not like to take that option away from people, and expected that those designs would come to the Planning Board. He was not especially worried about illegal second units in that case. Ms. Altschuler agreed that if someone was intent upon breaking the rules, they would, and that most residents wanted to use their home in a legal manner. Ms. Cook believed that in changing from stories to feet in measuring building height, that more homes would be raised up, especially one -story Craftsman bungalows. She had some objection to the new parking regulations. Mr. Cunningham advised that the bungalows could be raised now. President Piziali advised that if the bungalows were raised by even six inches, the building envelope would be changed. He advised that the item could be discussed again by the Board. With respect to replacement-in-kind, President Piziali noted that AAPS had agreed to the language, and that he had no objection to it as well. Planning Board Meeting Page 14 April 26, 2004 President Piziali noted that with respect to proposed location of parking spaces and prohibited parking areas, he had a significant problem with tandem parking not being allowed "for the purposes of satisfying the parking requirements on any property in the City." He did not believe that language should be included, and he did not believe the parking requirements should be changed. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Altschuler explained the history of the tandem parking provisions, and noted that occasionally, people will park on the street if it was difficult to manage the tandem parking arrangements. Vice President Bard noted that given the small lots in Alameda, a fair percentage of the garages in town do not have room for cars in them. He did not believe that tandem parking should be disallowed. Mr. Cunningham noted that the prohibition of tandem parking may result in the replacement of landscaping with hard surfaces. Ms. Cook inquired whether the language could distinguish between older neighborhoods and new developments. She believed that new construction should provide appropriate parking. Ms. Altschuler noted that most applications for additional units, including new developments, have some proposal for tandem parking. Mr. Cormack advised that new subdivisions generally include two- and three -car garages in the plans. Vice President Bard suggested that in future PDs or subdivisions, that tandem parking should not be allowed. Ms. Altschuler advised that those applications would come to the Planning Board, and the Board would have the opportunity to address the parking at that time. President Piziali noted that he was very concerned about the tandem parking prohibition. Mr. Cormack advised that the other part of that section proposed allowing parking on a separate parcel by use permit. the Code still required that the separate lot must be in the same district as where the use is permitted. Staff did not suggest that commercial parking be allowed in a residential zone. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Altschuler advised that changes were permitted to nonconforming buildings and uses in certain situations. She noted that the situation that has caused the most conflict dealt with the adoption of Proposition 13. She Planning Board Meeting Page 15 April 26, 2004 noted that two identical buildings built in 1895 could be located next to each other, and one sold in 1968 to the property owner under the protection of Prop 13, and the other one was sold within the last week without Prop 13 protection. The ordinance states that within any five -year period, the repairs may be made up to 100% of the assessed value of the building. Building A would be assessed at $100,000 under Prop 13, and Building B, which was identical, may be assessed at $700,000. Therefore, the owner of the Prop 13- protected home could barely put a new roof on the building, whereas the owner of Building B could make much more extensive changes to the house. Staff believed that using the appraised value of the house was more equitable. Mr. Cormack inquired whether this item should be brought back before the Board on the Consent Calendar; if the language was acceptable, it could stay there, and if not, the Board could move it to the Regular Agenda. He advised the item would be scheduled for the May 24, 2004 meeting. The Board agreed with that suggestion. No action was taken. Planning Board Meeting Page 16 April 26, 2004 ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT I ZA03 -0001 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments /City -wide. Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code. City -wide amendment Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15060. Jerry Cormack, Development Review Manager Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code ABC — Alameda Building Code 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. April 26, 2004 Planning Board Minutes I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY This hearing is scheduled for review of amendments to various sections of the Development Code. During review of the proposed draft amendments each section will be discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment will impact the development review process and why the amendment is recommended for approval by staff. II. BACKGROUND In April, 2002 the Planning Board reviewed a proposed work program to modify various sections of the Development Code in need of clarification, or minor revisions, to eliminate inconsistencies and to allow for the more efficient implementation of the Code. Subsequent to Planning Board authorization to proceed with the Code update City staff reviewed several drafts of the proposed revisions toward achieving the objective of Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 24, 2004 Attachment #4 streamlining the development review process. Particular attention was given to establishing consistency to the extent possible with the Alameda Building Code. The internal staff level review has been completed and a public workshop was held on Thursday, December 12, 2002 from 6:00 — 9:00 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. After the public workshop staff continued to work with the building division of the department and the City Attorney's office to further refine the draft amendments. The Planning Board conducted public hearings in 2003, completed review of a portion the draft amendments (Phase I) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council commenced their review on 2/03/04, approved and gave first reading to the ordinance on 3/16/04 and adopted the ordinance with second reading on 4/06/04. The City Council deferred adoption of the Landscaping and Open Space Code Amendments until a subcommittee of the City Council has studied alternatives. At the completion of the Committee level review this portion of the Phase I amendments will be rescheduled for Council consideration. During review of the Phase I Code Amendments five amendments were either deferred for further discussion or added for further code clarification. The following items (Phase II) were considered by the Planning Board on February 23, 2004 and again on April 26, 2004: ♦ Projections and Encroachments ((k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) • Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" • Parking ♦ Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - conforming Residential Structures At the April 26, 2004 meeting the Planning Board concurred with all of the proposed code amendments with the exception of "Tandem Parking" and "Projections and Encroachments ". The Board advised that they were not in favor of eliminating the ability to provide two spaces in tandem to serve a residential unit. Staff has revised the previous draft amendments to eliminate this proposed change and retain the current regulation allowing for tandem parking serving the same unit. During review of the "Projections and Encroachments" amendments the Board directed staff to prepare a draft amendment which continues to allow for established nonconforming sideyard setbacks, however, second story additions must have a sideyard which is 2' -0" wider than the established setback on the first story. Staff has drafted this recommended amendment and included it in the attachment for the Phase II amendments. III. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The description and analysis for each of the five amendments in Phase II are included in the attachment to this report. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 24, 2004 2 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 which exempts projects which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Phase II Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. G: \PLANNING\ZOU \52404PBReport. doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 24, 2004 3 8 -B. ZA03 -0001 — City of Alameda — City Wide (JC /JA). The City of Alameda is considering revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum sideyard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement -in- kind ", off - street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of April 26, 2004.) Mr. Cormack noted that this item was not placed on the Consent Calendar because staff is requesting further discussion of the tandem parking issue. Staff understood that the tandem parking section should remain as written so that tandem parking will remain as allowed, but had questions with respect to new Code changes that were adopted by Council the previous month. He noted that Council approved the change in a residential application so that one parking space was required for every 500 square foot addition. For a home of 3,000 square feet or less, the maximum parking requirement was two spaces, and for a home over 3,000 square feet, three parking spaces were required. The City's previous practice was not to count tandem parking in the driveway unless they complied fully with Code (8% feet wide, plus 3 feet of landscaping on either side for a 14% foot -wide driveway). Most driveways had not previously met those standards. Staff requested direction from the Board with respect to what should be grandfathered into the Code, especially when a tandem space could be counted as a required space. Vice President Bard viewed the issue as how many cars could be taken off the street and still count as a legal space. President Piziali believed that when three or more cars are parked in tandem, the cars would eventually end up on the street. He was inclined to stick with two as a workable tandem parking solution. Mr. Cunningham inquired whether there was any designation between an R -1 and an R -2 zoning. Mr. Cormack advised that the tandem parking had to function for one unit, and not be split between several units. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali with respect to tandem parking and duplex units, Mr. Cormack replied that there could be multiple situations of tandem parking on a parcel, as long as the tandem only pertained to one unit. He added that backup and turnaround space must be included. Mr. Lynch wished to identify the goals with respect to parking and landscaping, and whether they were in conformance with the Code changes. He believed that the answers to those Planning Board Meeting Page 12 May 24, 2004 questions would determine the answers to tandem parking for two or three cars. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, noted that the project referred to by Mr. Cormack was one of his projects, and he had raised the tandem parking question with him the previous week. He noted that there are many houses in Alameda that had the garage in the rear of the property, and that there were many driveways between 8'A -9 feet wide. He noted that the older houses on the smaller 30 -35 -foot lots had driveways that were too narrow to allow a modem vehicle to reach the rear yard. He requested that the Board consider retaining the tandem parking, and allowing the existing driveways to meet the landscaping requirements. He asked that the landscaping requirements to apply to the houses with a greater sideyard that can comply. Mr. Ken Gutleben noted that he was a building contractor in Alameda, and expressed concern about the incentive that would be lost regarding retrofitting and restoring older homes. He noted that the many older homes in Alameda were very vulnerable to a major earthquake. He believed the City should encourage homeowners to make their homes safe, and noted that most of his work had been related to home enlargements, improvements, and renovations. He noted that he rarely received calls to increase the safety of the home. He did not want the parking requirement to prevent a homeowner from renovating their house for increased safety. He would like the City to consider that factor when the Ordinance becomes finalized. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Cormack advised that the City doesn't regulate tandem parking by a permit process such as a Use Permit or Design Review process; he added that the Code did not specify a process, and therefore, there were no records of how many tandem spaces had been acknowledged or grandfathered in. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Bard, Mr. Cormack replied that staff did not believe that a formal Design Review or Use Permit would be necessary, but that a process similar to a sign permit that could be done on an administrative level should be implemented to specify in the file the staff determination regarding tandem parking. He noted that there would be a notation in the record that there was a tandem parking place, and that staff did not wish to bring Use Permits before the Board simply for a tandem parking question. Ms. Cook noted that she owned a home that was similar to the example, and added that it was difficult to rehab a home with a substandard driveway and a back garage. Ms. Harryman confirmed that this item would not be a conflict of interest for Board member Cook. Planning Board Meeting Page 13 May 24, 2004 Mr. Cormack noted that past practice has been to count the tandem space as required parking when located in front of a garage which was grandfathered. Staff has required that the tandem space be in compliance with the full width and landscaping requirements. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook whether parking credit would be given to the parking space in the front portion of the driveway, Ms. Altschuler replied that previous Planning Boards had been adamant in not recognizing that space as a parking space. She noted that the opposition was mainly due to aesthetic and safety concerns. Ms. Cook noted that the realities of living in the older homes often do not square with the Code. Ms. Altschuler noted that if the Board determined that tandem spaces in front of garages would satisfy the requirement for the additional parking under the new rules, those property owners that had homes smaller than 3,000 square feet would be at a distinct advantage because every property would meet the two off-street parking requirement because of the tandem space in front of the garage. She noted that anyone who wished to develop a house larger than 3,000 square feet would be at a disadvantage because they could not provide three off - street parking spaces. Mr. Cunningham inquired whether a double garage could have two tandem spaces in front of it. Vice President Bard believed that would work as long as only one car had to be moved to get any of the cars out. Mr. Lynch inquired whether the new tandem parking definition should be applied in every circumstance. President Piziali replied that he did not wish to apply the new definition to every circumstance. He noted that they were not allowed in new developments. Ms. Altschuler noted that in Marina Cove, a new development, some of the garages were located at the rear of the lot. She inquired whether the age or the configuration was the determining factor. Vice President Bard noted that the newer developments tended to be planned developments, and he believed that the rule should be applied forr a new house that was not in a planned development. He added that tandem parking should not apply to the new planned development. Ms. Altschuler noted that in the past, staff has allowed residents to avail themselves of Planning Board Meeting Page 14 May 24, 2004 existing tandem parking as long as it served one unit. However, that space must comply with all of the location and landscaping requirements. Mr. Lynch noted that any increase in the number of bedrooms in an addition is more of an economic issue. He noted that the question for the neighborhood was when the children grow to be driving age, where the extra cars would park. He inquired whether the City Council answered the question linking parking spaces and the number of bedrooms. Ms. Altschuler replied that it had not, and that many communities require additional parking as bedrooms were added to a property. She noted that the difficulty with that requirement was the people stopped adding bedrooms, and that they added computer rooms, studies, family rooms, and so forth. She noted that those rooms often had egress windows, closets and doors, and were de facto bedrooms. She noted that when that issue was brought before the Planning Board, staff initially recommended that if two bedrooms were added, a parking space must be added. After much discussion, it was decided that rather than tying the number of parking spaces to bedrooms, they would be tied to square footage; 500 square feet represented approximately two bedrooms and a bathroom. President Piziali noted that in San Francisco, parking spaces were being created in every possible place because they had run out of parking spaces. He noted that Alameda was also running out of parking places, and that it was important to get the cars back on the property. In response to Vice President Bard's question about the minimum allowed driveway width, Ms. Altschuler replied that the minimum width allowed by the City was 8'/2 feet of pavement, with one foot of landscaping on either side, or alternatively, an existing historic driveway. Mr. Cormack noted that staff recommends that an existing conformity not be further reduced. Vice President Bard noted that an existing driveway should be able to be used as a tandem driveway, but that it should be recorded so that during construction or some future time, the situation would not be made worse. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Altschuler replied that a driveway was defined by the presence of a curb cut, and if the area was developed with an impermeable surface that a reasonable person could define as a driveway. Mr. Cormack advised that staff would use the direction from the Board as a guide to go through the sections, and decide what should be revised before returning it to the Board. Ms. Altschuler summarized the Board's direction: 1. That tandem parking be permitted; Planning Board Meeting May 24, 2004 Page 15 2. That a definition of tandem parking be stated; 3. That tandem parking may not occur in planned developments; and 4. That a space in front of an existing garage could be counted toward required parking, regardless of the width or landscaping. President Piziali noted that allowing a parking space in front of an existing garage should be handled carefully so that there were no unintended consequences. In response to Ms. Cook's question, Ms. Altschuler replied that the purpose of the landscaping was to allow water to infiltrate into the soil and to replenish the aquifer. Mr. Lynch noted that this was an opportunity for people to enhance the value of their home, which the community would benefit from as well,. and suggested that part of the Building Code allows for recharged surface for the entire driveway. Ms. Altschuler noted that staff tried to encourage that practice through brochures, and added that there had not been much response. Mr. Lynch would like to see more consistency m what the City asked the public to do, and in the policies and goals. Ms. Altschuler inquired whether Mr. Lynch was suggesting the use of tandem spaces that do not provide the existing landscape requirement, and that those tandem spaces be developed in such a way that it still allowed for some water intrusion so that Grasscrete could be used. Mr. Lynch noted that he was, and that consistency for the public and professionals was very important. President Piziali noted that the goal was to help supply parking on existing properties that have narrow driveways, and to help get cars off the street. Ms. Altschuler suggested that this program be tried for a while, and if it turned out that people were not using the tandem spaces, the issue could be revisited. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Altschuler whether the (k) &(1) changes were acceptable, the Board agreed that they were. She noted that they would be used for a time, and if they did not work, the matter would be returned to the Board. The public hearing was reopened. Mr. Calpestri thanked the Board for a positive action on behalf of his applicants. The public hearing was closed. Planning Board Meeting Page 16 May 24, 2004 Mr. Cunningham inquired whether a building under 30 feet high could have a dormer window added without presenting an issue to the existing attic. Ms. Altschuler replied that as long as the building was under 30 feet high, it would be allowable. M/S Cunningham/Bard and unanimous to adopt Resolution No. PB -04 -37 recommending City Council approval of revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum sideyard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement -in- kind," off - street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures. AYES — 7; NOES — 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Meeting Page 17 May 24, 2004 ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: 8 -D ZA05 -0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments /City -wide. Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code. City -wide amendment Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15060. Jerry Cormack, Interim Planning Director Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code ABC — Alameda Building Code 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. 2/23/04, 4/26/04 and 5/24/04 Planning Board Minutes 3. Survey of California jurisdictions regarding tandem parking 4. 5/24/04 Letter from Italo A. Calpestri, AIA 5. 2/10/05 Letter from Italo A. Calpestri, AIA 6. 2/18/05 Letter from Marilyn Schumacher, Customer Service Committee I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY This hearing is scheduled for review of amendments to various sections of the Development Code. During review of the proposed draft amendments each section will be discussed to identify the proposed amendment, how the amendment will impact the development review process and why the amendment is recommended for approval by staff. II. BACKGROUND In April, 2002 the Planning Board reviewed a proposed work program to modify various sections of the Development Code in need of clarification, or minor revisions, to eliminate inconsistencies and to allow for the more efficient implementation of the Code. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 28, 2005 Attachment #5 Subsequent to Planning Board authorization to proceed with the Code update City staff reviewed several drafts of the proposed revisions toward achieving the objective of streamlining the development review process. Particular attention was given to establishing consistency to the extent possible with the Alameda Building Code. Staff conducted public workshops in 2002 and the Planning Board conducted public hearings in 2003, completed review of a portion the draft amendments (Phase I) and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council gave first reading to the ordinance on 3/16/04 and adopted the ordinance with second reading on 4/06/04. During review of the Phase I Code Amendments five amendments were either deferred for further discussion or added for further code clarification. The following items (Phase II) were considered by the Planning Board on February 23, 2004, April 26, 2004 and May 24, 2004: ♦ Projections and Encroachments ((k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) ♦ Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" ♦ Parking ♦ Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - conforming Residential Structures At the April 26, 2004 meeting the Planning Board concurred with all of the proposed code amendments with the exception of "Tandem Parking" and "Projections and Encroachments ". The Board advised that they were not in favor of eliminating the ability to provide two spaces in tandem to serve a residential unit. Staff has revised the previous draft amendments to eliminate this proposed change and retain the current regulation allowing for tandem parking serving the same unit. During review of the "Projections and Encroachments" amendments the Board directed staff to prepare a draft amendment which continues to allow for established nonconforming sideyard setbacks, however, second story additions must have a sideyard which is 2' -0" wider than the established setback on the first story. Staff has drafted this recommended amendment and included it in the attachment for the Phase II amendments. Subsequent to the Planning Board review of Phase II the Planning & Building Department commenced a process to meet with a Customer Service Committee who had expressed interest in how the Permit Center is managed, implementation of City fees, and regulatory amendments to the AMC such as the Phase I and Phase H code amendments outlined in this staff report. Staff agreed to conduct an additional public hearing with the Planning Board on the Phase II amendments so the Customer Service Committee could have a forum in which to address the Planning Board with any comments or issues. Off - street Parking Requirements is of particular concern to the Customer Service Committee. The Committee will present comments and recommendations on parking standards, location of parking spaces in the front 20' -0" of a driveway and tandem parking regulations. Planning Board recommendations on these code amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and adoption. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 28, 2005 2 III. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The description and analysis for each of the five amendments in Phase II are included in the attachment to this report. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 which exempts projects which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Phase II Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. GAPLANNING\ZOU\22805PBReport.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 28, 2005 3 8 -B. ZA05 -0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City -wide (JC /JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05 -0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement - in- kind ", off - street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Mr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the Development Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He noted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service Committee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being important and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the Mayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council had not yet seen the Board' s previous recommendations on Phase II. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, advised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had submitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off - street parking requirements for single - family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the first 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently prohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing required one- to five - foot -wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences, buildings and streets; many existing driveways do not have such landscaping at this time because it is difficult to maintain. Those landscaping provisions make it difficult to provide off - street parking, and additional areas often must be paved. AAPS reviewed the proposals and found them to be acceptable. Ms. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton Avenue, Customer Service Improvement Committee, noted that she was a real estate broker. She noted that many people who wished to make additions to their property were unable to meet the requirement for an additional parking space. AAPS suggested that the first 20 feet of the driveway be allowed to be used as parking; the current ordinance dated from the 1950s and was no longer practical for current -day Alameda. She displayed several examples of parking scenarios on the overhead screen. She supported an effective parking ordinance that allows people to improve their homes. Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, supported the work performed by the Customer Service Committee and had written a letter to the Planning Board to bring the issue to the Board's attention. He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the Planning Board Minutes Page 5 March 14, 2005 insurance company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item. President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two -foot setback. Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this proposal was to still require the 7' -0" setback for the second floor and two -story structures. Mr. Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that. Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's. Customer Service Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its citizens. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that this item would have to be advertised for public hearing. Ms. Altschuler confirmed that this item was included in Phase II and could be acted on by the Planning Board. Regarding projections and encroachments, Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about requiring the second story additions to be set back two feet; she was also concerned about the resulting aesthetics of that setback. She noted that some earlier second story additions had been unattractive, but that many more recent additions were more sensitive and responsive to the original character of the house. She was uncomfortable supporting that particular text amendment, requiring that all houses have the second story two -foot setback. President Cunningham advised that of a house had an existing seven -foot setback, the wall could go straight up. A general discussion of the setback requirements as they relate to the (k) & (1) findings ensued. Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five -foot minimum sideyard for one story could also be the standard for a two -story building. Anything less than five feet that was nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1). Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow Planning Board Minutes Page 6 March 14, 2005 setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line. Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story would impact the neighbors. Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a second -story setback that matched the first -story setback. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board. The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement -in- Kind. Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20 -foot parking restriction requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10 -foot requirement in order to increase parking. President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the City's parking pressures and minimize the amount of hardscape on a lot. Ms. Altschuler advised required parking may not be developed in a front yard, and believed the Board supported parking in a driveway that led to the rear of the lot. President Cunningham suggested that new construction not be allowed to utilize this parking scheme. Ms. Altschuler advised that tandem parking was currently allowed to serve one unit, but the parking space must be developed in accordance with the ordinance with respect to landscaping and setbacks. President Cunningham advised he opposed removing garages and using the front yard as a parking lot. Vice President Cook did not want to encourage people to park numerous cars all along a driveway. Ms. Kohlstrand requested that staff draw up a document reflecting the concerns of the Board. Ms. Altschuler stated that the Board generally supported some kind of tandem parking, and allowing required parking in the front 20 feet. The Board did not support paving over the front of the lot to Planning Board Minutes Page 7 March 14, 2005 provide parking. President Cunningham believed that relaxing the landscaping requirement of three feet on either side is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one -foot strip was sufficient. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of Replacement -in -Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the Planning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee. AYES — 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8 -B. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 March 14, 2005 ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8 -C ZA05 -0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments /City -wide. Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code. City -wide amendment Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15060. Jerry Cormack, Development Review Manager Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code ABC — Alameda Building Code 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. 2/28/05 Staff Report and attachments 3. 3/14/05 PB Minutes 4. 4/05/05 transmittal from Italo Calpestri — setbacks 5. 4/08/05 plans from Buestad Construction — tandem parking I. BACKGROUND The following items (Phase II) were considered by the Planning Board at the March 14, 2005 meeting (see attached staff report): ♦ Projections and Encroachments ( (k) and (1) ) ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) ♦ Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" ♦ Parking ♦ Simplifying Reconstruction of Non - conforming Residential Structures After discussion the Board recommended the City Council adopt the following two portions of the draft document: ♦ Building Height Limits (number of stories) Alameda Planning Board Attachment #6 Staff Report Meeting of April 25, 2005 ♦ Definition of "Replacement -In- Kind" The Board also agreed to the proposed revision to Reconstruction of Non - Conforming Residential Structures to allow for one year instead of six months to obtain a building permit. This change has been made to the attached draft document. The Planning Board continued discussion on the following two items to provide additional time for staff to meet with the Customer Service Committee: ♦ Projections and Encroachments ( (k) and (1) ) Points made during discussion at prior meeting: o Require a minimum sideyard setback of 5' -0" and delete the requirement to increase the setback for a two -story building. o If the existing building has a non - conforming setback any addition can maintain the same non - conforming setback by using k and 1 findings. • Parking There appeared to be Planning Board consensus on the following: o Tandem parking allowed in the front 20' -0" setback for single - family homes regardless of the Zoning District. o Only one .parking space in tandem is allowed within the front 20' -0" setback. These revisions have not been incorporated into the draft document pending further discussion at the April 25, 2005 Planning Board meeting. Staff met with the Customer Service Committee to review these two items. The attached diagrams were prepared by the committee to facilitate discussion at the PB meeting. Staff recommends that the representatives from the committee be allowed to present these diagrams without the 3 -5 minute time limit and then remain at the podium for interactive discussion. In this case the committee is functioning as an applicant on these two items so the time limits on speaking should be applied as we do with other applicants. Planning Board recommendations on these code amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and adoption. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The description and analysis for each of the five amendments in Phase II are included in the attachment to this report. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has determined that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15060 which exempts projects which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 25, 2005 2 V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Phase II Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. If more discussion is desired on the two items discussed in this report the Planning Board could direct staff to forward the three completed items to the City Council for review and adoption while the PB continues to work with the Customer Service Committee and staff on the remaining two items. G:\PLANNING\PB\Reports\2005\h -Apr 25 \42505PBReport.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 25, 2005 3 8 -C. ZA05 -0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City -wide (JC) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05 -0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement - in- kind ", off - street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non - conforming residential structures. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report. Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two -foot setback for a second story. Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet. President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in the future. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two -foot subject, it could be looked at from the perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K &L findings for encroachments into yards. Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two -foot requirement for the second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five -foot setback. Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five -foot side yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction. Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a disincentive to those goals. Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing an extensive rebuild from the existing foundation. Mr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the Code. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He inquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 25, 2005 like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed that was a major issue. Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard. President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix. Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts. President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public. Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform. Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go back two feet. M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K &L findings for any projects that needed a variation for all districts. AYES — 6 (Cook absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead screen and summarized that part of the staff report. Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem. Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the regulations. He was not in favor of SK -2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK -1. He expressed concern about SK -3, where cars would park within the 20 -foot front yard setback; he believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the front lawn. Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the street. Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood Mr. Piziali's point of view. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 April 25, 2005 APR -08 -2005 FRI 12:08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC FAX NO, 15105232085 P. 02/07 I 1 1 1 ANI■■ - - ----� rr.M.......1 I 1 I I I I I I I I CAR 1 CAR 1 I I I I I I I - - -- 1 ,- - -- --J 1 1 I I i 1 1. CAR 1 CAR I I 1 I •1 • • 3,000 S.F. SFD F'A'KING PLOT MAP SK -1 SCALE: NTS Attachment #7 APR -08 -2005 FRI 12 :08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC FAX NO, 15105232085 P, 03/07 • CAR : I. I I •CAR • • J 3,000 S.F, SFD 44 W PARKING PLOT MAP SK--? APR -08 -2005 FRI 12:08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC .AI FAX NO, 15105232085 P. 04/07 - MOMMININI OM/ 3,000 S.F. SFD HALF OF EXISTING GARAGE CONVERTED TO FAMILY ROOM 1, // / / //A CAR '/ / / / / //I - I. / / / / / //I / � / / / /// / / / / / //I I / / / / /// 1 / / / / / /// ..._ .._ • / // / / / / /I / / / / / / /1 / / / / //,.1 HALF OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY REMOVED . PARKING PLOT MAP SK-3 SCALE: NTS APR -08 -2005 FRI 12:08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC N to W FAX N0, 15105232085 P. 05/07 1 1 AMP 3,000 S.F. SFD — - - - - - - 1 -- — -ry 1 CAR .I CAR L r iI CAR CAR I tialr PARKING PLOT MAP SK-4 SCALE: NTS APR -08 -2005 FRI 12:08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC 0 a x' -x' FAX NO. 15105232085 P. 06/07 AM CAR /1■11111111, 1 CAR 3,000 S.F. SF!) '1 PARKING PLOT MAP SK-5 SCALE; NTS.,�,.__._— ��'_,__ 2,000 S.F. SFD 1 APR -08 -2005 FRI 12:08 PM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC i' ZDI NO PARKING x' -x' FAX NO, 15105232085 P. 07/07 • ■P._ ...wim, -. PARKING; PLOT MAP SK-6 SCALE: NTS Marilyn Schumacher Broker Associate, Realtor® - Certified Technology Specialist (e -PRO), Residential Specialist (CRS), Seniors' Residential Specialist (SRES) Results Exceeding the Challenges Harbor Bay Realty • 885 Island Drive Suite 200 • Alameda CA 94502 Voice mail 510.814.4709 Reception 510.523.1144 Home office fax 510.865.1989 Email mwsa,are4s.com www.AlamedaRealEstate4Sale.com TO: Alameda Planning Board FROM: Alameda Building and Planning Department Customer Service Improvement Committee (CSI) RE: Development Regulations (AZ05 -003 within Chapter XXX of the AMC (Zoning Ordinance) 2/18/05 PARKING (Secton 30 -7) — Residential On the Feb. 28th agenda, the Planning Board will discuss possible changes to the Zoning Ordinances as well as review the impact of modifications implemented in last year's modifications. At one of our recent meetings, it was the consensus of the CSI that the Planning Board consider the following. As the zoning amendments adopted in early 2004 began to be applied to various projects in the city, members of the committee had either customers and /or contact with other local contractors, engineers, architects, and Realtors who had customers who were adversely affected and restricted by the parking requirement. (Please see the attached letter from a local contractor) Please note that this ordinance impacts all single family homes in both the 94501 and 94502 zip codes, regardless of the age of the home. The discussions began to widen and the realization that the existing parking ordinance of 1957 is not, cannot, and will not be enforced evolved to the following. - For existing driveways the first 20' in from the property line should be allowed to be counted toward required parking spaces. Under no circumstance can parking into the sidewalk be counted. Delete Section 30 -5.7G -For existing driveways ALL tandem parking places should be allowed to be counted toward required parking spaces. - The standard size for a parking space in driveways shall be the same as used for commercial parking lots. 18' x 8.5'. Attachment #8 The landscape requirement on each side of the driveway should be deleted. The requirement to have landscaping on each side of the driveway eliminates the usefulness of having a driveway. Drivers are not able to open their doors, passengers cannot enter or exit, and as a result, homeowners park on the street. The landscape requirement prohibits owners from modernizing their property without an approved variance. The landscape requirement encourages water next to the foundation when all building professionals state that such a condition should be avoided. Delete Section 30- 7.9f(1a), and delete Section 30- 7.10 a, 1,2,3 - The above should apply to ALL single family homes in the city limits, regardless of the zoning. - Curb cuts to the driveway are to be existing in order to maintain street parking. - Owners of properties that do not have any parking at this time have the variance procedure available to them. Thank you for your consideration. Alameda Planning and Build ng Department Customer Service Improvement (CSI) Committee Citizen members: Italo A. Calpestri, AIA Architect & Associates Ken Carvalho, Chief Estimator, Buestad Construction Denise Brady, Realtor Associate Kane & Associates, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Thomas Means, Thomas Means Construction Vincent Wu, P.E., Baseline Engineering Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Jane Friedrich, Realtor Associate, Harbor Bay Realty Marilyn Schumacher, Broker Associate, Harbor Bay Realty City Staff members: Paul Benoit, Assistant City Manager Greg McFann, Building Official Jerry Cormack, Development Review Manager FROM : GUTLEBEN CONSTRUCTION June 16, 2004 Kenneth Gutleben 3021 Thompson Ave. Alameda, Ca, 94501 Alameda City Council 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, Ca, 94501 To Whom It May Concern: FAX NO. : 5108650611 Jun. 17 2004 12:05PM P2 The newly adopted ordinance, 30 — 7.2 Accessory Parking Spaces Required, favors cars over health and safety issues and will furthermore cause a decrease in city revenue. This ordinance is particularly inappropriate given the city's current budget problems and Alameda's position near one of the most dangerous earthquake faults in the United States. This new ordinance prevents homeowners from making home improvements because most older homes in Alameda cannot meet the requirement of additional, off-street parking spaces. It will in turn prevent them from making their homes earthquake safe. Horne improvements require earthquake safety measures and bring in critical revenue for schools and the city through permit fees and higher taxes. This parking ordinance was created in response to community resident complaints about a lack of parking space once a neighbor increases their living space. As a community resident I am making a plea to the council to overturn this new ordinance which promotes more cars to the detriment of the city, the schools, and earthquake safety. Sincere enneth Gutleben Attachment #9 Original Question: The City of Hayward is interested to see if or under what circumstances other cities allow tandem garages. I'll post a summary of results. Thanks for your time! City • 'Comments Ron Bendorff Senior Planner City of Rohnert Park The City of Rohnert Park allows tandem garages as follows: • 17.16.080.0 Tandem parking arrangements for required parking spaces may be allowed in the Mixed Use Residential (M -U) District as approved by the planning and community development director with a finding that the tandem spaces result in a more efficient site plan or are necessary to accommodate affordable housing. David Brantley Senior Planner City of Yorba Linda Our Code does not specify how the required 2 covered spaces per dwelling are configured. Thus, we allow them, generally. Nevertheless, if a developer were to propose a tandem garage configuration on a house model to be built within a new tract, we would discourage it, unless it were a three -car garage and two of the spaces were standard side -by -side, with the third space in tandem to the rear. Jean Hasser City of Napa We allow tandem garages for 5+ BR homes where we require 5 parking spaces (in garage and driveway) which would otherwise require a 3 car wide garage. JH Tim Foy City of Glendale Glendale does not allow it. We are considering allowing it for commercial uses only, under a discretionary permit. I used to work for West Hollywood and there it was allowed subject to approval of a plan, and the rule was that, to access any car, you would have to move only one other car. I hope that makes sense, it's hard to word. Tom Sullivan City of Saratoga We have on rare occasion when the lot is very narrow and the dwelling is owner occupied. Albert Lopez Planning Division Manager City of San Pablo We allow it with a use permit, although it makes for a long hallway in the bottom floor usually. But on small lots you get a better looking front facade. Maria Carrasco City of Dublin See attached section 8.76.60 — L: L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more Attachment #10 parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single - family dwelling unit attached garages. This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. Teresa Gianos City of Redondo Beach Planning Department In most cases, we do not allow tandem spaces as required parking in Redondo Beach. They may be included as additional parking, but do not count. One exception: senior housing. Paul Spence Principal Planner City of Livermore We allow tandem parking downtown. This is to accommodate our higher density and infill projects. Larry Longenecker, AICP, Senior Planner City Of San Clemente San Clemente only allows tandem parking for residential duplex projects on substandard Tots (width of 50 feet or less where a minimum of 60 feet is currently required). • Charles Jany AICP Principal Planner Redwood City Not at this time. STEVE HALLAM City of Oakdale The City of Oakdale permits them on " infill residential lots" where the garage is placed a minimum of 40' feet behind the front setback line. This allows a deeper driveway to truly accommodate one or two parked vehicles in front of the garage door if the garage happens to be used for storage instead of vehicle parking. Bill Nebeker, Community Development Director City of Susanville The City of Susanville disallows tandem parking, as shown below from our Municipal Code: 17.100.090 Tandem parking. Except in mobile home parks, or as provided by a use permit, tandem parking (parking where a car or cars have to be moved in order to allow a car to back from a parking space) shall count only as one parking space. To meet off- street parking requirements, each car must be able to enter and exit a parking space independently of the movement of any other vehicle. (Ord. 00 -866 § 2 (part), 2000) Steve Lustro, AICP City Planner City of Montclair The City of Montclair only allows a tandem space when it is the third covered space. In fact, we have been encouraging developers to do three -car garages in this manner rather than doing a single- and two -car garage side -by -side. Staci Pereira City of Milpitas The City of Milpitas permits tandem parking (covered or not) in our R4 (multifamily very high density) and MXD (mixed use) districts. Belle Newman Principal Planner City of Claremont Claremont's Code has the following provision: On residential property with existing development where current parking requirements are not met, and it is not feasible or practical to provide required parking spaces that are independently accessible, the required parking may be provided through tandem parking with the approval of the Director. In determining whether it is practical to provide independently accessible parking spaces, the Director shall consider if such required parking will result in an inefficient site plan, a development pattern that is inconsistent with surrounding development, or the loss of the property's only available private outdoor living area. Colette Meunier AICP Community Development Director City of Benicia The City of Alameda allows residential units to meet their parking requirements by tandem parking. The Marina Village development - 172 ?? unit development located just east of the WebsterPosey Tubes was developed using tandem parking. Charles LaClaire Town of Apple Valley The Town of Apple Valley has allowed tandem parking, but only when providing parking above and beyond the two car parking spaces required by the Code (i.e., third or fourth optional parking spaces). Matthew C. Bassi Planning Manager City of Pomona The City of Pomona allows tandem parking within a garage for residential projects provided the tandem space is an extra space above the minimum required spaces for any given project. David Petrovich, AICP City Planner Community Development Department City of Millbrae, CA In Millbrae, we allow tandem garages as the last resort way of meeting the 2 -car garage minimum parking requirement for single - family homes. It's usually the only thing feasible on the narrow lots in the older portion of the city. At the present time, we have no minimum required garage depth for tandem parking,'but we apply the 10' minimum width per ' garage parking space that we have in our code. The lack of a minimum depth provides the flexibility usually needed to lengthen an existing 1- car garage into a tandem; typically, we approve depths of at least 35'. Laura Zingg Senior Planner In Service to The City of Walnut The City of Walnut will allow them as long as the minimum requirement of 2 garages (side by side) has already been satisfied. Brenda Chase, AICP Senior Planner City of Dana Point Dana Point does not allow required spaces to be tandem. If parking spaces are provided beyond what is required, they can be tandem. Don Lauritson City of Santa Cruz We allow them if they meet standard setbacks. We have allowed tandem uncovered parking in one or two affordable projects. :Jerry Cormack - Tandem parking_standards0.doc ,,Page 1 Davis — original request How do other jurisdictions deal with tandem parking for multifamily projects? We've approved a few apartment complexes lately with a small portion of the required parking in tandem arrangement (one space stacked behind another). We've allowed it only when the spaces are assigned to the same unit, and near enough to the apartment that the inevitable jockeying seemed practical. The question is whether this arrangement is acceptable, or whether the tenants wilt just park on the street and impact the neighborhood. Comments from other jurisdictions with experience or threshold standards would be very helpful. Berkeley Tim Stroshane Senior Planner City of Berkeley Housing Department In Berkeley, we are almost entirely built out, so this comes up all the time with multi- family housing. Except that instead of tandem parking, developers employ parking lifts that make the 'tandem" parking vertical in design. Costs are higher, of course, and its possible that these solutions are only possible in places like Berkeley where rents and land values are high relative to the cost of construction. The trade- off, of course, is that there is more room on the site for housing units, thereby also increasing revenue potential for the developer. The question is whether the costs of the lifts outweigh the revenues gained from added housing. Buena Park "Warsinski, Rick" We have never permitted this type of an arrangement for multi family apartment projects. We have had success in single family and in comdo projects where the owner has control over both spaces at all times. I would like a copy of the results of your survey. Carpinteria Allison De Busk Assistant Planner In the City of Carpinteria tandem parking is not allowed. 7/17/04 C: \Documents and SettingsbkabcI Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKD\tandem parking standards from LCC.doc Jer Cormack - Tandem .,.,ry _parking_standards04.doc Page 2 Carson Sheri Repp Loadsman Planning Manager The City of Carson only allows tandem parking for affordable housing developments and projects located in the Mixed -Use Overlay District. There is both a perceived and real issue with tenants parking on the street if there is any inconvenience regarding parking. We allow a maximum of 25% of the parking to be provided as tandem for qualifying projects. Colton "Andy Soto" Just wanted to let you know that the City of Colton, located in San Bemardino County does not permit tandem parking. Tandem parking becomes a complex situation among occupants and guests that do not abide by parking requirements. Even when you think that an arrangement is practical, the fact of the matter is that you're going to have problems. It's best to have parking standards that accommodate a proposed development. Coronado Ed Kleeman, City of Coronado For residential, we allow tandem only for single family or duplex development. Glendora David Chantarangsu, AICP City Planner Glendora has allowed the same arrangement but we also have ovemight on- street parking restrictions. It has forced tenants to make sure their parking areas are available for parking and not storage. We typically don't allow larger projects to use tandem spaces but for smaller in -fill projects we will. These are typically lots under 50 feet in width. Jerry Corrnack - TandemJarkilig_standards04.doc _ Page 3 Oakdale I try to prevent tandem whenever I can cause invariably it causes problems. It's STEVE HALLAM the smaller projects (duplex orfour -plex on an infill lot) that typically prompt builders to want to propose an enclosed one -car garage with the second "required" space in front of the garage on the driveway (in a tandem configuration). Tenants then fill the garage with storage, next thing you know only one practical parking space per unit with a second car parking over the sidewalk partially into the street. I liberally use the Muni. Code's general parking definition that each space must be accessible from the street. I interpret this very narrowly and say that the second "tandem" space effectively causes the front space to violate code requirements since it is not clearly accessible without crossing another required parking space. In our Multi- Family Design Expectations we have special standards for "infill situations" that may allow tandem when both required parking stalls are behind the front yard setback. In practice this would then allow an enclosed garage, a tandem space in front of it, and both are still behind the 20 -foot setback so a "third" parking space becomes useable without blocking the public sidewalk. If you want to take a look at our MFR Design Expectations, here is the link: http: / /www.cLoakdale.ca. us /CommDev /Pla nninq /Documents /MFRDesion %20Expe . c tations %20 %20 & %20Checklist.pdf The infill expectations are on page 24. Pacifica In Pacifica, we don't allow tandem parking to satisfy code requirements under any Michael Crabtree circumstances. The only way it is allowed is through a Parking Exception. In City Planner essence, the second tandem space is not considered a parking space. erry Eormack - Tandem_parking standards04.doc Page 4 Redwood City Charles Jany AICP Principal Planner Redwood City does not recognize tandem parking as a way to comply with parking requirements. ... "every required parking space shall be directly accessible from the public right of way"... Rohnert Park Ron Bendorff Senior Planner The City of Rohnert Park allows tandem parking in its Mixed Use District if approved by the Planning Director, provided the spaces would "result in a more efficient site plan or are necessary to accommodate affordable housing." To date, only one project has been approved with such an arrangement: a townhouse project in our City Center area that features some tandem garage arrangements. The project has yet to be constructed, so the jury's still out on performance. Hope this helps, Santa Cruz Don Lauritson We reluctantly ok'd one for a large affordable apartment complex. It opens in Sept - March and we'll see how it works. Watsonville "John Doughty" We do not permit for apartment projects only SF projects. Westminster Bonny Lay Planning Director Long Beach has bad experiences with tandem parking. You may want to call Long Beach to get more information (562 - 5706194). Italo A. Calpestri, AIA, Architect & Associates May 24, 2004 Planning Board City of Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: New Zoning Ordinance: Member of the American Institute of Architects i RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2004 P ER � I`c r Nr ER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 Residential Parking, Section 30 -7 This letter is to request your review of the off-street parking requirements. In over 30 years of Architectural practice in the City of Alameda, I have worked with many different styles of buildings on parcels of varying sizes and shapes. The bulk of my residential design work has been for either small first story additions or larger second story additions. In many cases, the parcels are smaller than the 5,000 sq.ft. which is considered standard by the Zoning Ordinance. Denying the use of tandem parking in existing driveways would prevent homeowners from improving their property. The imposition of 3' landscaping areas on each side of the driveway in order to qualify the tandem parking places will result in homeowners submitting Variance applications which is contrary to the objective of the Ordinance revision. For example, many Fernside area homes have one parking place in the garage and the second one in • the driveway in front of the garage. .In this neighborhood, many lots are narrow, the driveway widths are ten feet (10') or less right along one side of the property. One 3' landscaped area is impossible much less two. It is unwise to revise the Zoning Ordinance to limit the options for homeowners in older neighborhoods who wish to improve their homes by arbitrarily removing approval of existing tandem parking. Requiring the landscaped area eliminates acceptance of the tandem parking solution for many existing homeowners. I note that the Planning Board, in discussing the parking ordinance language, agreed that there are differences between older neighborhoods with existing lot sizes, housing configurations, 'and— unusually narrow drive 'ays compared to a new development where garages are provided. I sincerely encourage the Planning Board to not penalize the majority of existing homeowners in Alameda by preventing them from fully enjoying their property because the Zoning Ordinance doesn't recognize tandem parking or insists on a landscaping setback which is impossible on narrow lots. Thank you �. nside . tion of my concerns. Italo . iippestri, AIA Attachment #11 1504 Park St. Suite 7 Alameda, CA 94501 510 -522 -6769 (Fax) 521 -1427 * 02/10/2005 12:38 5105211427 Italo A. Calpestri, AIA Architect & Associates Planning Board City of Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 PAGE 02 Member of the American Institute of Archneds February 10, 2005 Re: Proposed Changes to Development Regulations (ZA05 -003 within Chapter XXX of the AMC (Zoning Ordinances) Dear Planning Board Members I am a participant in the Customer Service Improvement Committee which as been reviewing proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 1 would like to bring to your attention the wording of Section 30- 20.4(b), Restoration of Damaged Buildings, attached. This paragraph includes a time limit for a building permit to be secured not later than six (6) months from the date of destruction and completed within.one year of the permit being issued. In my experience, six months may be an insufficient period for Building Permit issuance when older buildings have suffered severe fire damage and extensive design work is required to create the drawings for reconstruction. The building owners are often still negotiating with the insurance company about settlement of the claim. One costly item such as bringing the building up to current Building Codes often takes months of negotiation with the insurance company. This delays design decisions until resolved. I suggest that the time limit for securing the Building Permit be extended to one year rather than six months. I also suggest deleting from the Zoning Ordinance the wording about completion within one year of the permit being issued since the California Building Code contains a procedure for extending Building Permits when required. Ita Cc: tri, AIA Jerry Cormack, City Planning Dept. 747 -6853 - fax Greg McFann, City Building Official, 747 -6804 - fax Marilyn Schumacher, Harbor Bay Realty 865 -1989 — fax Attachment #12 • 02/10/2005 12:38 5105211427 • 30.20.4 Changes to, and Res. orationaof Nonconform1ng Buildings and Notwithstanding the provisioirs iii 30.ZQ. to�illowrrecoii.4iruction of, nonconforming buitdings with 'residenb t uses ;'in Residential zoning.districtss; ihe11allowing regulations: apply tanoneonforming irses,and buildings; a: `7Changes Permitted No nonconforming building or use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless it is changed to conform to the regulations specified by this section, provided that routine maintenance and repairs required by applicable health and safety codes shall be permitted in an aggregate amount during a five (5) year period of not to exceed one hundred (l00 %) percent of the total appraised assessed valuation as verified by a cei tified appraiser selected by the City, and conducted at the property owner's expense., t ereef by eCity A revs b. Restoration of Damaged Buildings If at any time any nonconforming use or building shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy to the extent of more than seventy (70 %) percent of the value thereof, then, and without further action by the City Council, the building and the land on which said building was located or maintained shall from and after the date of such destruction be subject to all the regulations of the district in which such land and/or building are located. For the purposes of this section. the value of any building shall be the estimated cost of the replacement of the building in kind, as determined by the Building Official. Where any nonconforming building shall have been destroyed less than seventy (70 %) percent, as specified above, a buildin permit for its restoration shall be secured not later than . ix 6 months omn the date of such destruction and the restoration shall be comp eted one (1) year from the date of issuance of the building permit. G \P L. ANNING1ZQU122805PBRepoRhhasell .doc [END — 730.2003] PAGE 03 = - - -- P2/C17 ...FAQ.. _ _V\l''PD) G C r- '='4?"--Icg_ -N C.0 DATE: Pfi S l TO: s FLAN N 1 0 VC—Fr • COMPANY: FAX:"' VOICE: -& PROJECT: 14' 4 L GF = . Vor1& fir; - Ltk-s Oct NCB 1 0 rvP TRANSMITTAL FROM: ITALO A. CALPESTRI, AlA 1504 Park St. #7 Alameda, CA 94501 FAX: 510-521 -1427 VOICE: 510-522 -6769 3V1-0/Nc 9 ;i 7o S Attachment #13 APR -12 -2005 TUE 10:30 AM BUESTAD CONSTRUCTION INC <&L FINDINGS SCALE: NTS E O Ii CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. Section 30 -2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) are hereby amended by adding or revising the following definitions: cc Building Height (maximum), shall be established by an assumed plane, as measured perpendicularly from the existing grade, and as prescribed by the subject zoning district. Except as provided for under section 30 -5.8 (Height Exceptions), no portion of the structure, including any part of the roof, may project above the assumed plane. Grade, Existing (Adjacent Ground Elevation) is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet from the building, between the building and a line 5 feet from the building. Story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under -floor space is more than 6 feet above grade, as defined in the Alameda Building Code, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade, as defined in the Alameda Building Code, at any point, such usable or unused under floor space shall be considered as a story. Section 2. Section 30 -2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) are hereby amended by repealing the following definition: Basement shall mean a space partly or wholly underground and having more than one -half (1/2) its height measured from its floor to its finished ceiling below the average adjoining grade. If the finished floor level directly above a basement is more than six (6') feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story. Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.1, (R -1, One - Family Residence District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses Introduction of Ordinance # 5 -B 7 -19 -05 and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.1(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty (30') feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width (as defined in Section 30- 2-- Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.2 (R -2, Two - Family Residence District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.2(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty (30') feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- - Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.3 (R -3 Garden Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.3(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty five (35') feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30 -2 - -. Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.4 (R -4, Neighborhood Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.4(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed thirty five (35') feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- - Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 7. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -5, (R -5, General Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.5(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed forty (40) feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- - Defmitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 8. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.6 (R -6, Hotel Residential District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.6(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Building Height Limit: not to exceed fifty (50) feet. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30-2- - Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than five (5') feet or be required to be more than ten (10') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 9. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.7 (AP, Administrative- Professional District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.7(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 6. Side Yard: Side yards shall total not less than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width as measured at the front yard (as defined in Section 30 -2 -- Definitions), and no side yard may either be less than seven (7') feet or be required to be more than twenty (20') feet. The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than ten (10') feet. Section 10. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.8 (C -1, Neighborhood Business District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.8(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 4. Side Yard: No setback shall be required, except where the side yard of a lot abuts an R District, then a minimum side yard of five (5') feet shall be maintained. Section 11. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.9 (C -2, Central Business District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30- 4.8(d) Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements. 5. Side Yard: No setback shall be required, however if a setback is provided, then it shall be a minimum of twelve (12') feet. As to lots with side yards that abuts an R District, a minimum side yard of five (5') feet shall be maintained. Section 12. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -5.7 (k) of Subsection 30 -5.7 (Projections from buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: k. Exceptions to allow additions with less than the required minimum side yards. If a main building has less than the required side yard setback, additions may be approved with existing setbacks, or none, if none exist, if the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage will occur on adjoining properties. 1. New cantilevered projections above the first story which are to have the same or less horizontal area as an existing first story projection, may be approved with the existing projection's setbacks. 2. If necessary to make the finding in the section above, or to address Design Review or building code concerns, the Director may require a setback greater than those existing, but still allow a setback(s) that is less than the minimum required side yard or street side yards of corner lots prescribed by the subject zoning district. Section 13. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -5.7 (1) of Subsection 30 -5.7 (Projections from buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 1. In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the ground floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with exterior walls in the same plane as the walls of the existing building below if the following finding can be made: No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage will occur on adjoining properties. 1. If necessary to make the finding in the section above, or to address Design Review or building code concerns, the Director may require a setback greater than those existing, but still allow a setback(s) that is less than the minimum required side yard or street side yard of corner lots prescribed by the subject zoning district. Section 14. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -7.8 (Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas) of Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas All parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, shall be provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand. A use permit shall be required if parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, are proposed on a separate parcel than the use which is generating the parking demand. Parking spaces provided in compliance with this section are subject to the following additional requirements: Residential Zones, and Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones: 1. No parking space may be located in any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot. Parking spaces may be located within minimum required side and rear yards, subject to the requirements of subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter Landscaping Required. 2. The parking of vehicles within any minimum required front yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot, is prohibited. (a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide access to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking provided the parking is not located in the required front yard or the street side yard of any corner lot. Driveways used for such ancillary parking may not exceed the maximum permitted widths as prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f.1.(a). Such ancillary parking shall not be considered toward meeting the requirements of Subsection 30 -7.6; Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces. 3. See subsection 30 -5.7.f for additional provisions related to the location of garages. b. Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones. Parking spaces may be located between the main building(s) and the street frontage(s), subject to the requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: Perimeter Landscaping Required. c. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone. Section 15. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -37.1 (Definitions) of section 30 -37 (Design Review Regulations) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) Article II (Structural Design Review Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: e. Replacement -in -kind shall mean the replacement of any structure or architectural element which is identical to the original structure in terms of location, size, and shape; and is made of materials that outwardly have the same dimensions, proportions, details and textures of the original and that outwardly appear unchanged from the original. Section 16. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection 30 -20.3 (Changes Permitted) of Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its entirety. Section 17. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection 30 -20.3 (Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses) to Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30 -20.3 Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses. Nonconforming buildings, with conforming residential uses in Residential zoning districts, may be reconstructed, with an equal or lesser nonconformity to the Development Standards of this Chapter, subject to the approval process for improvements, as outlined in Section 30 -37; Design Review Requirements. Such reconstruction may occur to repair damage as defined by sub - section 30.20.4 below, or, as part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or replace an existing non - conforming structure. For reconstruction of nonconforming buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts, the value limitations prescribed by subsection 30 -20.4 do not apply. Section 18. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Subsection 30 -20.4 (Restoration of Damaged Buildings) of Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its entirety Section 19. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection 30 -20.3 (Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Residential Uses) to Section 30 -20 (Nonconforming Buildings and Uses) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows: 30 -20.4 Changes to, and Restoration of Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. Notwithstanding the provisions in 30.20.3 to allow reconstruction of nonconforming buildings with residential uses in Residential zoning districts, the following regulations apply to nonconforming uses and buildings: a. Changes Permitted No nonconforming building or use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless it is changed to conform to the regulations specified by this section, provided that routine maintenance and repairs required by applicable health and safety codes shall be permitted in an aggregate amount during a five (5) year period of not to exceed one hundred (100 %) percent of the total appraised valuation as verified by a certified appraiser selected by the City, and conducted at the property owner's expense. b. Restoration of Damaged Buildings. If at any time any nonconforming use or building shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, or act of God to the extent of more than seventy (70 %) percent of the value thereof, then, and without further action by the City Council, the building and the land on which said building was located or maintained shall from and after the date of such destruction be subject to all the regulations of the district in which such land and/or building are located. For the purposes of this section, the value of any building shall be the estimated cost of the replacement of the building in kind, as determined by the Building Official. Where any nonconforming building shall have been destroyed less than seventy (70 %) percent, as specified above, a building permit for its restoration shall be secured not later than one (1) year from the date of such destruction and the restoration shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of issuance of the building permit. Section 20. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Acting City Manager Date: July 5, 2005 Re: Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment (ZA05- 0002), Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., Address: All Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1) within the City of Alameda. The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." BACKGROUND In Fall 2004 the applicant opened a theater at 842 Central Ave. and began showing movies to the public. AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7) currently allows theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses, in C -1 districts. The proposed theater is similar but not entirely consistent with the uses currently allowed under AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7). Consequently, City staff determined that a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would be required. The applicant filed a separate Use Permit application for 842 Central Ave. (UP05- 0009). A separate Staff Report and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for UP05 -0009. On June 13, 2005, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. No additional action is required by the City Council for UP05 -0009. DISCUSSION The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would apply to all C -1 zoning districts. These are all existing Neighborhood Business Districts. The proposed amendment does not change any land use classifications. Boutique Theaters would be defined as: "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." Similar existing allowed uses include, but are not limited to, music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants, and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. Re: Public Hearing, Reso, and Intro of Ordinance 5 -C 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 5, 2005 Page 2 of 3 Each C -1 district is unique. Thus, it is not feasible to anticipate all conceivable future impacts or to establish impact thresholds that would be universally applicable. It is, however, possible to quantify some of the anticipated impacts. Both the Initial Study and the Planning Board Staff Reports include extensive discussion of land use compatibility and the scope of likely impacts. (Attachments 1 and 2). No potentially significant impacts were identified that could not be adequately mitigated through the Use Permit process. Additionally, it was determined that Boutique Theaters, would not be more intensive uses than many of the uses currently allowed in C -1 districts. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT This Action will have no effect on the City budget. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -2 (Definitions) will be amended to include "Boutique Theater," which shall be defined as: A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater. Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) will be amended to include "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 Zoning District, subject to Use Permit approval. This Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has been evaluated for consistency with the Alameda City General Plan and it has been found to relate favorably to the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to CEQA §21080(c)(1) and 15183, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate potential adverse impacts that could result from adopting the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Attachment 1). Potential impacts to visual and historic resources, the potential to cause a substantial increase in noise, traffic and parking requirements, and consistency with adopted land use plans and regulations were evaluated. A Negative Declaration was prepared and provided to the public and government agencies for review from April 29, 2005 to May 19, 2005. Staff prepared written responses to comments and submitted these responses to the Planning Board, as required under the Alameda City EIR Guidelines (Attachments 3 and 4). Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation has been proposed. As noted in the Initial Study, however, it is reasonably foreseeable that individual projects could potentially cause significant impacts, due to site - specific circumstances. Feasible mitigation of these potential impacts has been identified in the Initial Study (limiting hours of operation, seating capacity and show times, requiring sound proof construction, etc.). The Zoning Ordinance will require that all Boutique Theaters proposed for C -1 districts would be subject to the granting of a Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 5, 2005 Page 3 of 3 discretionary Use Permit. At the time of Planning Board review of a Use Permit, project impacts would be evaluated and mitigation required, and conditions imposed when applicable. RECOMMENDATION The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Declaration and the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. Y B: to gOs Garriso Respectfully submitted, Greg ®ice n Inter' ning and Building Director 0 Planner III Attachments: 1. May 23, 2005 Planning Board Staff Report and Resolution (with attachments) 2. June 13, 2005 Planning Board Staff Report and Resolution (with attachments 3. Staff Response to Comments 4. CEQA Comment Letter, submitted by Barbara Thomas G: \PLANNING \CC \REPORTS\2005\n -Jul 19 \Boutique TheaterZA.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Attachment #1 May 23, 2005 Planning Board Staff Report and Resolution (with attachments) CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: 8 -B Application No. ZA05 -0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., Address: All Neighborhood Business Districts (C- 1) within the City of Alameda. The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." Neighborhood Business District Negative Declaration — finding of less than significant environmental impact [CEQA §21080(c)(1) and 15183]. Douglas Garrison, Planner III Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Adopt Negative Declaration and Recommend Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the City Council. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act C -1 — Neighborhood Business Zoning District 1. Draft Resolution 2. C -1 Zoning Districts Location Map 3. Initial Study / Negative Declaration 4. Public Comment Letter Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 Council Report Attachment #1 1 I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The Applicant proposes an amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 Zoning District, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." II. BACKGROUND A. History In Fall 2004 the applicant opened a theater at 842 Central Ave. and began showing movies to the public. This theater is located on property that had been used as a Multicultural Center. The Multicultural Center operated under Use Permit No. UP99 -48. This Use Permit allowed live cultural and musical performances, performance of cultural dances, educational meetings, seminars and similar events. The Multicultural Center still leases a small office in this building. All other operations have ceased. AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7) currently allows theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses, in C -1 districts. The proposed theater is similar but not entirely consistent with the uses allowed under UP99 -48 and with AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7). Consequently, City staff determined that a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is required to include "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C- 1 Zoning District. Furthermore, to avoid a potential spot zoning problem, it was determined that this amendment should apply to all C -1 Districts. The applicant has filed a separate Use Permit application (UP05- 0009). A separate staff report and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared addressing UP05 -0009, which has been scheduled as a separate agenda item. Approval of UP05 -0009 would be contingent upon the City Council adopting the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. B. Environment The Alameda City General Plan provides four major classes of retail land uses. Listed in descending order from most to least intensive uses, these are: Regional Shopping Centers, Main Street Business Districts, Community Shopping Centers and Neighborhood Business Districts. There are seventeen Neighborhood Business Districts. Many of these districts are located at former Red Train stops. These districts are tightly integrated into residential areas often with no transitional buffers separating businesses from residents. Businesses are generally small, independently operated shops and their target market is often, but not always, neighboring residents. Common businesses found in these districts include convenience stores, used bookstores, repair shops, drycleaners, restaurants and taverns. Off - street parking is typically very limited or nonexistent at these businesses. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 2 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to CEQA §21080(c)(1) and 15183, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate potential adverse impacts that could result from adopting the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. Potential impacts to visual and historic resources, the potential to cause a substantial increase in noise, traffic and parking requirements, and consistency with adopted land use plans and regulations were evaluated. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation has been proposed. As noted in the Initial Study, however, it is reasonably foreseeable that individual projects could potentially cause significant impacts, due to site - specific circumstances. Feasible mitigation of these potential impacts has been identified in the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study (limiting hours of operation, seating capacity and show times, requiring sound proof construction, etc.). The Zoning Ordinance will require that all Boutique Theaters proposed for C -1 districts be subject to the granting of a discretionary Use Permit. At the time of Planning Board review of a Use Permit, project impacts would be evaluated and mitigation required, and conditions imposed when applicable. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS DISCUSSION: General Plan / Zoning The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would apply to all C -1 zoning districts (see Attachment 2, C -1 Zoning District Map). These are all existing commercial areas. The proposed amendment does not change any land use classifications. Boutique Theaters would be defined as: "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." Similar existing allowed uses include, but are not limited to, music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants, and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. Boutique Theaters, as defined above, would be no more intensive uses than many of the uses currently allowed in C -1 districts. Land Use Compatibility Each C -1 district is unique. Thus, it is not feasible to anticipate all conceivable future impacts or to establish impact thresholds that would be universally applicable. It is, however, possible to quantify some of the anticipated impacts. The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study provides guidance on the scope of likely impacts associated with increased traffic, noise and parking demand. Traffic Using widely accepted trip generation factors (Institute of transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed.) A Boutique Theater would be expected to generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie screening. This scenario is likely to overstate impacts, because these trip generation factors were developed for a typical theater. In this case, a more realistic assessment of trip Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 3 generation may be found in the recent traffic study performed for the Downtown Alameda Theater Complex, which accounted for the pedestrian oriented nature of Alameda (EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and International Parking Design Inc.). In that study, trip generation factors ranged from 0.14 to 0.23 trips per seat. Using these factors, maximum trips would be from 7 to 11 trips per movie screening. Potentially affected intersections are typically, operating at level of service (LOS) A or B. Theater peak traffic hours would not usually coincide with citywide peak traffic hours. The addition of Boutique Theater trips would not cause a change in LOS and would not cause a substantial increase in traffic, relative to existing levels. Parking As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and hours of operation. The parking demand factors established in the Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Traffic Study, are 0.19 / seat (weekdays) and 0.26/ seat (weekends). Applying these factors, a Boutique Theater would be expected to require from 9 to 13 parking spaces. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific parking demand is determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, movie showing times to prevent overlap demand between screenings, maximum occupancy, or requiring offsite parking. If mitigation was determined to be infeasible, the project could be denied. Noise Boutique Theaters could potentially increase ambient noise levels. Noise sources could include movie screenings, amplified music and people congregating outside. Depending on proximity to sensitive receptors and hours of operation, this could be a significant impact. If, during the Use Permit application process, project - specific noise were determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: Soundproofing of the building, restricting hours of operation, prohibiting amplified live music, or outdoor events. Aesthetics All of the affected sites have supported commercial uses for many years. Due to the limited capacity of Boutique Theaters (49 seats or less), these theaters would typically be of similar physical proportions to existing buildings. In most cases, economics would dictate that existing buildings be used. If new construction were proposed, any alterations to existing structures, new signage or lighting would be subject to review through existing City Design Review and Use Permit processes. This would ensure that aesthetic impacts would be minimized. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 4 Conclusion: Boutique Theaters are commercial uses. Occupancy is limited to less than 50 seats. The scale of these projects and intensity of use would be consistent with existing allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. Boutique Theaters would serve local neighborhoods. Additionally, it would be reasonable to expect that they would also attract some vehicular traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. However, due to the limited capacity of these theaters, traffic and parking impacts would also be limited. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit which means it would be subject to neighborhood notification, public review and hearings and the City could impose operational limitations on the permit. Consequently, projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Design Review Guidelines. Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. In this case, there appear to be feasible mitigation measures that could adequately reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that Boutique Theaters would be consistent with the Neighborhood Business District land use designation and with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, these projects would be compatible with surrounding uses. V. FINDINGS: 1. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the Alameda City General Plan and will not create incompatible land uses. Evidence: General Plan consistency and land use compatibility have been evaluated. Boutique Theaters, as proposed, are consistent with applicable General Plan Policies (2.5.f, & k, 8.7.a, b, c & h), and would be of similar size and intensity of use as other allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) 2. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA and it has been determined that this action will not cause changes to the physical environment that could cause significant adverse impacts to people, biotic resources or historic resources. A Negative Declaration and Notice of Availability were prepared and circulated to the public and other agencies for comment. (Source: General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) Evidence: All reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Potential impacts have been determined to be less than significant. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 5 3. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not adversely affect public health, safety, welfare or community moral standards. Evidence: Potential exposure to natural and manmade hazards, interference with emergency access and the potential to increase traffic and ambient noise levels has been evaluated and determined to be less than significant. (Source: Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, and then recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, based upon the findings and evidence contained in the attached Draft Resolution. G:\PLANNING \PB\Reports\2005 \j -May 23 \Theater Ord Amend vl.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 23, 2005 6 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and a proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and provided to the public and government agencies for review from April 29, 2005 to May 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, an application was made on February 2, 2005 by Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project Inc.) to amend Section 30- 4.8(c) of the Alameda Zoning Ordinance to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater;" and WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on May 23, 2005, and has examined pertinent maps, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to this proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: 1. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the Alameda City General Plan and will not create incompatible land uses. 2. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA [Public Resources Code §21080(c)(1) and 15183] and it has been determined that this action will not cause changes to the physical environment that could cause significant adverse impacts to people, biotic resources or historic resources. A Negative Declaration and Notice of Availability were prepared and provided to the public and other agencies for comment. (Source: General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) 3. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not adversely affect public health, safety, welfare or community moral standards. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZA05 -0002 subject to the following conditions: 1. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, Attachment #1 an approval of the City concerning the subject properties. The City of Alameda shall cooperate promptly, notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 2. All Time and Material charges for this application shall be paid in full prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment. G:\ PLANNING \PB\Resolutions\2005 \j- May23\ Zoning Ord Resolution 11113,1111111112111111111111 21111111111,1111:1112111111111111 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment ZA005 -0002 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project sites are currently designated Neighborhood Business by the City of Alameda General Plan and zoned C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial District) by the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance. Locations are: Maitland & Beach Road, Atlantic & Main Street, Central & 5th, Lincoln & 9th Santa Clara & 9th, Central & 9th, Lincoln & Bay Street, Lincoln & Stanton, Encinal & Benton, Encinal & Chestnut, Lincoln & Willow, San Jose & Central, Encinal & Versailles, Park Street & San Jose, Encinal & High Street, Santa Clara & High Street and High Street & Fernside Boulevard. NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Based on the Initial Study report dated April 27, 2005, the Cit of Alameda staff has determined that: X This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor to substantially reduce, threaten or eliminate plant, fish or animal communities, or important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. X This project will not have impacts that are individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable. X This project will not have environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effect upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. X This project will not adversely impact wildlife resources, and is therefore exempt from the fee requirements of Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE LISTS: The previous presence of a registered underground storage tanks (UST) on at least one potential project site has been identified in City files. Should this site or similar sites meeting Section 65962.5 of the Government Code apply for a Use Permit, the analysis will include information about remediation and the advisability of this site at the proposed location. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or wishing to comment on the project may submit written comments to the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department at the address set forth above, attention: Doug Garrison, Planner III. All comments received at this address on or before May 18, 2005, will be considered by the City. Documents are available for public review at the City's Planning and Building Department on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM (except Thursdays until 3:00 PM) at the address set forth below and at any of the City's three libraries. REVIEW PERIOD: April 29, 2005 to May 18, 2005; 5:00 p.m. HEARING DATE: May 23, 2005; 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 390, Alameda, CA 94501 PREPARED BY: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190, Alameda, CA 94501 CONTACT PERSON: Doug Garrison, Planner III Phone No.: (510) 747 -6800 CERTIFYING OFFICER: Jerry Cormack, Interim Planning Director G:\ PLANNING \PB \Ads\2005\Boutique Theater - NOA.doc Attachment #3 CITY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY FOR ZA04 -0002 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND: A. Project Sponsor: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 C. Contact People and Phone Numbers: Jerry Cormack, Interim Planning Director, Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner or Douglas Garrison, Planner III (510) 744 -6800 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Project Title: ZA04 -0002 B. Type of application(s): Zoning Text Amendment, Initial Study C. Project Locations (Areas zoned C -I): Maitland & Beach Road, Atlantic & Main Street Central & 5th Lincoln & 9th Santa Clara & 9th Central & 9th Lincoln & Bay Street Lincoln & Stanton Encinal & Benton Encinal & Chestnut Lincoln & Willow San Jose & Central Encinal & Versailles Park Street & San Jose Encinal & High Street Santa Clara & High Street High Street & Fernside Boulevard D. Assessor's Parcel Number: Various E. General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Business F. Zoning Designation: C -1 Neighborhood Business District G. Environmental Setting: Alameda is an island city of approximately 12.4 square miles, located in the San Francisco Bay. It is 12 miles east of San Francisco, and separated from the City of Oakland by an estuary. Approximately 10.1 square miles of the City is very dense and largely developed and approximately 2.3 square miles is occupied by former federal facilities. H. Project description: Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or Tess for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." This amendment would apply to all existing C -1 Zoning districts (Attachment 1, C -1 Zoning District Locations). I. Other Required Discretionary Approvals None J. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geological Hazards Hazards Recreation Hydrology and Water Quality X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services X Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. i. vv1 -1/116 %t 1 a5Qf \ Printed Name `1- a8 5 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenllauy Patontlally LesSTRau No X X Significant Significant Signtticant Impact ISMS $nleMS Impact Maul Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 & 7 X X X X The City Design Element of the Alameda General Plan does not designate any of the sites designated for neighborhood commercial as important viewsheds or vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway 1 & 7 & 7 X X Alameda is not located near any designated Scenic Highways. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 & 7 & 7 X 2 The architectural integrity of historical buildings, that may be located within these districts, is protected under General Plan Policies 3.3.c, d; e, and k. Additionally, General Plan Policy 3.3.f preserves Neighborhood Business Districts as pedestrian oriented districts with most structures built to the property line, with entrances facing sidewalks. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment allows Boutique Theater operators to apply for a Use Permit for properties located in C- 1 zoning districts. Any proposed alteration to existing buildings would be subject to review and would be required to comply with City Design Guidelines and policies. d) Create light or glare? 1, 2 & 7 & 2 X Any proposed signage for a boutique theater would be subject to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 30 -6.6 Illumination of Signs, which prohibits directing of light or reflecting glare onto any adjacent property or public right -of -way. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment does not alter this requirement. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Result in a conflict with agricultural uses or impacts to important farmlands? 1 & 2 X The City of Alameda does not contain lands designated for or currently in agricultural use. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessWM No X the applicable air quality plan Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Yldpatlon Ineorperated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 3, 4, 5 4, 5 X X the applicable air quality plan &7 The San Francisco Bay Area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants except for ozone. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will not cause an increase in population, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or create a new source of criteria pollutants. Consequently, amending the Zoning Ordinance, in this case, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ozone Attainment Plan administered by the BAAQMP. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3, 4, 5 &7 3, &7 4, 5 X See 3 (a) above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 3, &7 4, 5 X X The cumulative effect of creating boutique theaters in designated Neighborhood Business Districts would not affect the VMT assumptions used in the regional air quality plan and would not result in increased regional emissions of criteria air pollutants. [See also 3(a) above] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 3, 4, 5 &7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, subject to Use Permit approval, in the C -1 zoning district will not cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollution concentrations. Theaters are not typically a source of air pollutants. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3, 4, 5 8,7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, subject to Use Permit approval, in the C -1 zoning district will not cause substantial numbers of people to be exposed to objectionable odors. Theaters are not typically a source of objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soirees Potentially Potentially tessiaan No &7 X Significant Issues Significant bless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporatcl 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: &7 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species? 1, 2 &7 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. Special- status species are not known to nest, breed or forage on these sites. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, future use is not anticipated. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. b) Have a substantial adverse affect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the Califomia dept. of fish and Game or the U. S. fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2 &7 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. Future development that may result from adoption of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment would not directly or indirectly affect riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. c) Have a substantial adverse affect on federally protected wetlands? 1, 2 &7 X See 4(b) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 2 &7 X See 4(a) and (b) Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sauces Potentially Peteatlail➢ less man No X X SlgnIllcant Slgolflcant Onion Slgnflleant Impact Impact Mltlgatle■ IncaruratCO e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 2 &7 &7 X X The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment only applies to existing C -1 zoning districts. As noted above, in 4(a -d), these areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. The intent of the existing General Plan and Zoning designation is to preserve and promote neighborhood- serving businesses. Landmark trees are on the Historic buildings Study List and are protected under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The proposed action does not alter this existing policy. f) Conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 1, 2 &7 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations. Consequently, these areas have limited habitat value and are not well suited for inclusion in Habitat Conservation Plans. None of these sites are currently included in a Habitat Conservation Plan. It is not reasonably foreseeable that they ever will be. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. 1, 2 &7 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially affect buildings of historic significance would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. Demolition of historic structures would be subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5. 1, 2 & 7 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soirees Potentially Potenilally Lannon Ni X X Significant Significant • Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mltlgatlog Incorperatei There are no known archaeological resources that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. If archaeological resources did exist under existing buildings, converting to a different use would not result in impacts to these resources. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 1, 2 &7 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? X X There are no known paleontological or unique geologic resources that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. If paleontological resources did exist under existing buildings, there would be no affect on these resources. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 1, 2 &7 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? X There are no known human remains, that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? 1, 2 & 7 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Motontlally Significant Issas PeteMall, SIgDMNCaot unless Lesslban Significant Impact No Impact X Mltlgatlo■ Incorporated No potentially active faults have been mapped in the immediate vicinity of the sites. The sites are, however, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and nearby active faults including the Hayward and San Andreas Faults are likely to cause severe seismic shaking. Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated loose granular soils near the ground surface undergo a substantial loss of strength due to increased pore water pressure resulting from reversing cyclic stresses associated with vibrations induced by earthquakes. Much of Alameda would be susceptible to liquifaction if a strong seismic event occurred on nearby regional faults. The owners of commercial structures, located within the C -1 zoning districts, have typically been required, under State and Local laws, to retrofit older structures to withstand expected seismic events. Any proposed Boutique Theater would be subject to the granting of Use and Building Permits and would be required to meet applicable seismic design and construction standards. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with exposure to seismic events. All neighborhood commercial areas where boutique theaters could locate are located several feet above mean sea level, and typically several hundred feet or more from the existing bay coastline. One area, centered at Central Ave and Fifth St., is located near the bay coastline. There are no enclosed bodies of water adjacent to the sites. There are no known active volcanoes near the sites. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic activities. The potential for these sites to be impacted is low. There are no steep slopes, in the vicinity of the C -1 zoning districts, that would be susceptible to mass wasting, landslides or mudflows. b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. In the event that new construction were proposed, grading and drainage improvements for each project would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate soil erosion conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposal, and potentially result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquifaction or collapse? 1, 2 &7 X See 6(a) above. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Motontlally Significant Issas PeteMall, SIgDMNCaot unless Lesslban Significant Impact No Impact X Mltlgatlo■ Incorporated No potentially active faults have been mapped in the immediate vicinity of the sites. The sites are, however, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and nearby active faults including the Hayward and San Andreas Faults are likely to cause severe seismic shaking. Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated loose granular soils near the ground surface undergo a substantial loss of strength due to increased pore water pressure resulting from reversing cyclic stresses associated with vibrations induced by earthquakes. Much of Alameda would be susceptible to liquifaction if a strong seismic event occurred on nearby regional faults. The owners of commercial structures, located within the C -1 zoning districts, have typically been required, under State and Local laws, to retrofit older structures to withstand expected seismic events. Any proposed Boutique Theater would be subject to the granting of Use and Building Permits and would be required to meet applicable seismic design and construction standards. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with exposure to seismic events. All neighborhood commercial areas where boutique theaters could locate are located several feet above mean sea level, and typically several hundred feet or more from the existing bay coastline. One area, centered at Central Ave and Fifth St., is located near the bay coastline. There are no enclosed bodies of water adjacent to the sites. There are no known active volcanoes near the sites. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic activities. The potential for these sites to be impacted is low. There are no steep slopes, in the vicinity of the C -1 zoning districts, that would be susceptible to mass wasting, landslides or mudflows. b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. In the event that new construction were proposed, grading and drainage improvements for each project would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate soil erosion conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposal, and potentially result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquifaction or collapse? 1, 2 &7 X See 6(a) above. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Seances PetendaIIY Ps suUaIIy LOSS Than NS X Significant Issues Significant lniess Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incerperated d) Be located on expansive soils? 1, 2 &7 A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1, 2 X See 6 (a) above. 7. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 1, 2, 7 & 8 a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1, 2 &7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not cause substantial increase in the potential for exposure to hazardous materials or explosions. Theaters typically do not produce or utilize hazardous materials, other than small quantities of typical cleaning supplies that may be stored on site. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 2, 7 & 8 5, X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, would not interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Using widely accepted traffic generation factors, it is anticipated that Boutique Theaters would generate from 2 to 19 trips per screening (see Section 15 of this Initial Study). This small increase in vehicle trips would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Lessrnaa No X X Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Onions Impact Mitigation incorporated c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 1, & 2, 7 6 X X The previous presence of registered underground storage tanks (UST) on at least one potential project site has been identified in City files. Should this site or similar sites meeting Section 65962.5 of the Government Code apply for a Use Permit, the analysis will include information about remediation and the advisability of this use at the proposed location. d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area? 1, 2 &7 X Alameda is adjacent to Oakland International Airport. Only the C -1 District located on Bay Farm Island is located within an Airport Impact Area. Should development of a Boutique Theater be proposed within this district, the Use Permit application will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal result in: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water and sewer service are available for all sites. Theaters are not typically a major source of water pollutants. In the event that new construction were proposed, waste discharge, grading and drainage improvements for each project would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation. Appropriate waste discharge and drainage conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Mennen less Than lio X X Significant Issues Significant finless Significant Impact Impact 4, 5, 6, Mitigation existing land uses? 7 Incorporated 8 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table. Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 1, 2 &7 1, 2, X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water and sewer service are available for all sites. Allowing boutique theaters would not cause an increase use or substantial change in recharge capacity. b) Exposure of people or property to water hazards such as flooding? 1, 2 &7 &7 1, 2, X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. There would be no change in flooding hazards. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1, 2 &7 1, 2, 3 X See 8(a) above d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body, or in currents, or the course or direction of water movement? 1, 2 &7 1, 2, 3 X See 8(a) above 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with General Plan or Zoning 1, 2, 3 X Designations, or be incompatible with 4, 5, 6, existing land uses? 7 & 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PatonUatly PetengeHy Lessner' No Significant Significant Significant Impact Isseee Mniess iilUgatiee tocerperatel Impact The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment only applies to lands designated in both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1 on Zoning Map). Background The Alameda City General Plan, provides four major classes of retail land uses. Listed in descending order from most to least intensive uses, these are: Regional Shopping Centers, Main Street Business Districts, Community Shopping Centers and Neighborhood Business Districts. The General Plan provides the following description of Neighborhood Business Districts: The 17 compact corner business districts, 10 of them at former Red Train stations, are important components of the city's traditional ambience. Most have a small grocery, a Laundromat one or two other stores or a bar, and little or no off - street parking. Zoning Ordinance Section 30- 4.8(a) provides the following description of Neighborhood Business Districts: It is intended that this district classification be applied on properties suitable to serve residential areas with convenient shopping and services. The General Plan provides policies to guide land use decisions. The following policies are relevant to this evaluation of General Plan consistency: Guiding Policy 2.5.f Maintain neighborhood business districts for small stores that attract mainly pedestrian traffic and can be acceptable neighbors for nearby residents. Grocery stores, launderettes /cleaners, and small restaurants can rely mainly on customers who walk from their homes. Implementing Policy: 2.5.k Limit the size of stores in Neighborhood Business Districts in order to avoid traffic and parking demand inconsistent with residential character. To avoid transforming pedestrian -scale business districts into auto - oriented shopping centers, businesses that outgrow the existing small retail spaces should be encouraged to find sites elsewhere in Alameda where adequate off - street parking can be provided. Where only small stores are permitted, a lower ratio of parking spaces to floor area than is required in larger commercial areas may be reasonable. Consistency Analysis The primary purpose of these districts is to provide commercial and retail services for nearby residents. The primary constraint to commercial development in the Neighborhood Business District is compatibility with adjacent residential uses. As discussed in previous sections, of this Initial Study, theaters are typically not sources of hazardous materials or pollutants. Thus, the main compatibility concerns are aesthetics, traffic, parking and noise. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soarees Patentlallg Potentially toss Than Ns Significant Isstios Significant Unless Significant impact impact Mitigation Incorparatel Aesthetics: As discussed above, all of the affected sites have supported commercial uses for many years. Due to the limited capacity of Boutique Theaters (49 seats or less), these theaters would typically be of similar physical proportions to existing buildings. In most cases, economics would dictate that existing buildings be used. Any . proposed new construction, alterations to existing structures, signage and lighting would be subject to review through the City design review and Use Permit process. Clearly, aesthetic impacts could be adequately controlled and would not preclude inclusion of Boutique Theaters as allowable uses, in Neighborhood Business Districts, subject to Use Permit approval. Traffic and Parking: The intent of the General Plan is clear on this subject. Commercial uses that would draw extensive vehicular traffic are not appropriate in Neighborhood Business Districts. Neither the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance provide a clear threshold for determining what level of traffic generation would clearly be inconsistent with this land use designation. Boutique Theaters would be expected to draw some traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. Conversely, there could be a slight reduction in trips originating from the immediate neighborhood, as those people would otherwise have to drive to a more distant theater. Using widely accepted trip generation factors, it is anticipated that Boutique theaters would generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie showing (see Section 15 of this Initial Study for additional documentation). Relative to existing baseline conditions in most parts of Alameda, this would appear to be a relatively low impact and would not adversely affect intersection Levels of Service (LOS). Parking may be a somewhat more contentious issue. As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and degree of compliance with residential parking requirements. Actual traffic and parking impacts would vary somewhat from site to site; thus, the requirement that Boutique Theaters be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, regulating movie showing times, or maximum occupancy. Potential traffic and parking impacts do not appear to preclude amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district (Neighborhood Business Districts), subject to Use Permit approval. Noise: Boutique Theaters would generate noise. Other uses currently allowed in this zoning designation include: music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. It is anticipated that Boutique Theater noise levels would generally be similar to these uses. The General Plan provides thresholds for noise compatibility (see Section 11 of this Initial Study). All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, requiring soundproofing, or prohibiting amplified live performances. Potential noise impacts do not preclude amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district (Neighborhood Business Districts), subject to Use Permit approval. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sums Peteotlally PatentlalIv toss Than No &7 X Significant isms Significant anless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation DICOrperatei Conclusion: Boutique Theaters are commercial uses. Occupancy is limited to Tess than 50 seats. The scale of these projects and intensity of use would be consistent with existing allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. Boutique Theaters would serve local neighborhoods. Additionally, it would be reasonable to expect that they would also attract some vehicular traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. However, due to the limited capacity of these theaters, traffic and parking impacts would also be limited. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit. Consequently, all projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. In this case, there appear to be feasible mitigation measures that could adequately reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that Boutique Theaters would be consistent with the Neighborhood Business District land use designation and with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, these projects would be compatible with surrounding uses. b) . Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? 1, 2 & 7 Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Consequently, these projects would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 1, 2 &7 X X There are no known mineral resources on the site. 11. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2 &7 X Issues and Supporting In!ermation Sources Sources Pater aaIry PatenSalty Less Than No SlptlICant SlpnMeant Signlncant Weaet Issues Unless Impact MlaeatIu Incsrperatel From a noise compatibility standpoint Neighborhood Business Districts are somewhat unique, due to the close proximity and integration into residential neighborhoods. Typically higher noise levels are acceptable in commercial areas. Table 8.1 of the General Plan provides guidance on acceptable noise levels by land use. In residential areas, 50 to 60 dB (Ldn) is considered acceptable and 60 to 70 db (Ldn) is considered conditionally acceptable. In commercial districts 50 to 70 dB (Ldn) is acceptable and 65 to 80 dB (Ldn) is conditionally acceptable. Noise compatibility will vary from site to site, depending on proximity to sensitive receptors, type of construction, existing ambient noise levels and proposed uses. The General Plan provides the following guidance in accessing noise compatibility: Policy 8.7.a: Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources, and noise emanating from temporary activities. Policy 8.7.b Require site and building design to achieve noise compatibility to the extent feasible. Policy 8.7.c Recognize that residential, school, hospital, church, or public library properties in commercial areas and commercial development in industrial areas will be subject to noise levels associated with noisier permitted uses. Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, Community Noise, sets noise level standards for receiving land uses and requires noise sources to submit a noise reduction plan where the standards are violated. Policy 8.7.h In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider the following impacts to be "significant": • An increase in noise exposure of 4 or more dB if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use, as indicated in Table 8 -1. • Any increase of 6 dB or more, due to the potential for adverse community response. Boutique Theaters would generate noise. New noise sources could include short -term construction activities and long -term operational activities. Other uses currently allowed in this zoning designation include: music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. It is anticipated that Boutique Theater noise levels would generally be similar to these uses. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit. Consequently, all projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, requiring soundproofing, or prohibiting amplified live performances. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Searees Peteoflally Patenflally tessipaa 111 X X Significant Issues Slpnfllcant finless Significant Impact Impact MIUgaueo Incorporated b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or noise? 1, 2 &7 6 X X See 11 (a) above c) A substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2 &7 6 X X See 11 (a) above d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? 1, 2, & 7 6 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not cause substantial increase in the potential for exposure to air traffic noise sources. e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? 1, & . 2, 6 7 X See 1 1(d) above 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? 1, 2 &7 X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or population levels. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sauces Potentially Petegtlaliy lessaan Ni X b) Significant Isspes Sigaincant finless Slggmcant Impact Impact X Mitigation Incorporate. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? 1, 2 &7 • X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or population levels. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? . 1, 2 &7 • X The potentially affected properties are all zoned for commercial uses. 13.. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the followi n areas: a) Fire protection? 1,287 X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional population or traffic levels. Consequently, there will be no effect on public services. See 13(a) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 1, 2 &7 • X b) Police protection? 1, 2 &7 X See 13(a) See 13(a) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 1, 2 &7 X C) Schools? 1, 2 &7 See 13(a) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 1, 2 &7 X See 13(a) See 13(a) X e) Other governmental services? 1, 2 &7 See 13(a) Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Petenilally Petontlally tessidan Ne X Significant Issues Significant bless Significant Impact Impact MINatlai Incerperated 14. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Affect existing recreational opportunities? a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 1, 2 &7 X X X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or local population levels. Consequently, there will be no effect on recreational facilities. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 1, 2 &7 X X See 14(a) 15. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 X Using widely accepted trip generation factors (Institute of transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed.) A Boutique Theater would be expected to generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie screening. This estimate is based on trip generation factors ranging from 0.04 to 0.38 trips per seat. Thus, the expected worst -case scenario would be 19 trips per screening. This scenario is likely to overstate impacts. It assumes full occupancy and also ignores the unique characteristics of Alameda's Neighborhood Business Districts. The integration of these districts into residential neighborhoods and relatively small geographic area of Alameda is more conducive to walking and bicycling than most suburban cinemas. A more realistic assessment of trip generation may be found in the recent traffic study performed for the Downtown Alameda Theater Complex (EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and International Parking Design Inc.) . In that study, trip generation factors ranged from 0.14 to 0.23 trips per seat. Using these factors, maximum trips would be from 7 to 11 trips per movie screening. Potentially affected intersections are typically, operating at level of service (LOS) A or B. The addition of Boutique Theater trips would not cause a change in LOS and would cause a substantial increase in traffic, relative to existing levels. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leann to X Significant Issues Significant finless Significant Matt Meet Lntigatien Incorporated b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or . highways? 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 1,2,5, & 8 7 X X The minimum LOS established in the General Plan is LOS D. Allowing Boutique Theaters would not cause an exceedance of this threshold [see 15(a) for further documentation]. Improvements and mitigation would be imposed when applicable. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 7 1,2,5, & 8 7 X X Allowing Boutique Theaters would not affect air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 7 1,2,5, & 8 7 X No new roadways or improvements are proposed. Individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation. Improvements and mitigation would be imposed when applicable. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5, & 8 7 X Allowing Boutique Theaters would not affect emergency access. [see 15(a) and (b) for additional documentation]. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Petenually potentially Less Than Ne X 1,2,5, 7 Significant Significant Significant Impact transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle & 8 Imes Unless Impact racks)? Mitigation interpreted f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5, & 8 7 X X 1,2,5, 7 As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and degree of compliance with residential parking requirements. Actual parking impacts would vary somewhat from site to site. The parking demand factors established in the Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Traffic Study, are 0.19 / seat (weekdays) and 0.26/ seat (weekends). Applying these factors, a Boutique Theater would be expected to require from 9 to 13 parking spaces. Parking requirements are Tess than anticipated trips because not all cars wil be parked at the theater. For example, parents would drop off children at the theater and then leave. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project - specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, regulating movie showing times, maximum occupancy, or requiring off - street parking. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 7 X programs supporting alternative 1,2,5, 7 X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle & 8 racks)? Allowing Boutique theaters would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Most Neighborhood Business districts are located on existing mass transit lines. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water, sewer, electricity and gas service are available for all sites. Allowing boutique theaters would not cause an increase in use of any utilities. b) Communications systems? 7 X See 16a. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Slpam cant Issues Potentially SlpMeant Unless MiNpatlen incorporated tessrnan Sloelllcant impact Na impact c) Local or regional water treatment or 7 7 a) Does the project have the potential to X distribution facilities? X See 16a. d) Sewer or septic tanks? 7 7 a) Does the project have the potential to X See 16a. e) Storm water drainage? 2,4 7 a) Does the project have the potential to X See 16a. f) Solid waste disposal? 7 7 a) Does the project have the potential to X See 16a. g) Local or regional water supplies? 7 a) Does the project have the potential to 1, X See 16a. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 1, 2 & X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 7 • The potentially effected areas have all supported high - density commercial uses for many years. These areas are not important habitat for biotic resources. Some of these areas may contain historic resources. In most instances existing structures would be reused for the proposed projects. In which case, there would be no impact to resources that may exist. In the event that new construction or demolition is proposed, These actions would be subject to Use Permit approval and additional review under CEQA. Alameda General Plan Policies and Design Regulations protect historic resources, any proposed development would have to comply with these policies and regulations. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site- specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. b) Does the project have impacts that are 1, 2, 3, X individually limited, but cumulatively 4, 5, 6, considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 7 & 8 Cumulative air quality, traffic and noise impacts have been evaluated in this Initial Study and determined to be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental 1, 2, 3, X effects which will cause substantial 4, 5, 6, adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 7 & 8 Direct and indirect potential affects have been evaluated in this Initial Study and determined to be less than significant. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan, City of Alameda, 1991 2 Zoning Ordinance, City of Alameda 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Website, 11/23/2004 4 Alameda General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, December, 2002 5 Institute of transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed. 6 Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County, Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, 1986 7 Application Materials 8 EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and Parking Design Inc., Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parkin • Structure Parkin. and Traffic Stud , December, 2004. Attachments: 1. Map of C -1 Zoning Districts RECiIVD MAY 422005 RMIT C TER d� tr-rit 7e. 'U ct7 dm / h v yes ki l ?ly/ar.,Y Oh 71167,0717 ASA tv ese lj c°i I t- / Poc/ aJ '7»05 te57c4ii/ / neie,/,/i, 9 z d�� €7r /ie LA V/4//1 ,4a vt a yi e�1 �e ik 0 � 1�e� �e 'gee eitty.S. /,1 tic li.feete 6074*i] e, 4 oeGt ..Y 71- / 7v L✓ eO / Grp %: /> e' are /(177 u!r '7s et. rre-iir WM& JJ _4g 71> l✓/ // a /)e,„,„4. � 7G. l Ij je t?/'e'0 / .� ams I 7Je e 1,1 /4 4kvad .-e , -- 7 se/mss Se Ci 1 /1404 .h'' 76 c./.0fie-nliia or/WAY. W(1-44/-e LvA View ti,s 1410V /cI >11 ti/Le 447 !`i ea -,,Se • /0ke l 14 /,i s Yee/P14/* ail/ /a >77 ///0-107e4- "_s lcie-a_ • feryde .1,9141 pea ceI a% /aca. 177 .. /~ ` e 1.v g i0 vs� s U )577/ a.,,`e 9-x)5 rke is A ON 3 p V"hese h c2 `7,7 6=4-r 7. hi q $%D /I be e 7t d /71 / s p C r/l' kg / L %e-- %s . a. rice v: Gt/lIC //)PC, //et-cc prh7s- s �€ 5 /57447 7( s;22 dare > 323 ''-oi s. 9 VS-2,/ Attachment #2 June 13, 2005 Planning Board Staff Report and Resolution (with attachments) CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.: 8 -A APPLICATION: Zoning Text Amendment ZA05 -0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., Address: All Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1) within the City of Alameda. The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." GENERAL PLAN: Neighborhood Business District ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration — finding of less than significant environmental impact [CEQA §21080(c)(1) and 15183]. STAFF PLANNER: Douglas Garrison, Planner III Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Negative Declaration and Recommend Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the City Council. ACRONYMS: AMC — Alameda Municipal Code CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act C-1 — Neighborhood Business Zoning District ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. C -1 Zoning Districts Location Map 3. Initial Study / Negative Declaration 4. Public Comment Letters Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Council Report Attachment #2 Page 1 L PROPOSAL SUMMARY The Applicant proposes an amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 Zoning District, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." II. BACKGROUND A. History In Fall 2004 the applicant opened a theater at 842 Central Ave. and began showing movies to the public. This theater is located on property that had been used as a Multicultural Center. The Multicultural Center operated under Use Permit No. UP99 -48. This Use Permit allowed live cultural and musical performances, performance of cultural dances, educational meetings, seminars and similar events. The Multicultural Center still leases a small office in this building. All other operations have ceased. AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7) currently allows theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses, in C -1 districts. The proposed theater is similar but not entirely consistent with the uses allowed under UP99 -48 and with AMC Section 30- 4.8(c)(7). Consequently, City staff determined that a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is required to include "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C- 1 Zoning District. Furthermore, to avoid a potential spot zoning problem, it was determined that this amendment should apply to all C -1 Districts. The applicant has filed a separate Use Permit application (UP05- 0009). A separate staff report and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared addressing UP05 -0009, which has been scheduled as a separate agenda item. Approval of UP05 -0009 would be contingent upon the City Council adopting the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. B. Environment The Alameda City General Plan provides four major classes of retail land uses. Listed in descending order from most to least intensive uses, these are: Regional Shopping Centers, Main Street Business Districts, Community Shopping Centers and Neighborhood Business Districts. There are seventeen Neighborhood Business Districts. Many of these districts are located at former Red Train stops. These districts are tightly integrated into residential areas often with no transitional buffers separating businesses from residents. Businesses are generally small, independently operated shops and their target market is often, but not always, neighboring residents. Common businesses found in these districts include convenience stores, used bookstores, repair shops, drycleaners, restaurants and taverns. Off - street parking is typically very limited or nonexistent at these businesses. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 2 M. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to CEQA §21080(c)(1) and 15183, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate potential adverse impacts that could result from adopting the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. Potential impacts to visual and historic resources, the potential to cause a substantial increase in noise, traffic and parking requirements, and consistency with adopted land use plans and regulations were evaluated. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation has been proposed. As noted in the Initial Study, however, it is reasonably foreseeable that individual projects could potentially cause significant impacts, due to site - specific circumstances. Feasible mitigation of these potential impacts has been identified in the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study (limiting hours of operation, seating capacity and show times, requiring sound proof construction, etc.). The Zoning Ordinance will require that all Boutique Theaters proposed for C -1 districts be subject to the granting of a discretionary Use Permit. At the time of Planning Board review of a Use Permit, project impacts would be evaluated and mitigation required, and conditions imposed when applicable. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS DISCUSSION: General Plan / Zoning The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would apply to all C -1 zoning districts (see Attachment 2, C -1 Zoning District Map). These are all existing commercial areas. The proposed amendment does not change any land use classifications. Boutique Theaters would be defined as: "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." Similar existing allowed uses include, but are not limited to, music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants, and theaters with live performances. that are in combination with other permitted uses. Boutique Theaters, as defined above, would be no more intensive uses than many of the uses currently allowed in C -1 districts. Land Use Compatibility Each C -1 district is unique. Thus, it is not feasible to anticipate all conceivable future impacts or to establish impact thresholds that would be universally applicable. It is, however, possible to quantify some of the anticipated impacts. The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study provides guidance on the scope of likely impacts associated with increased traffic, noise and parking demand. Traffic Using widely accepted trip generation factors (Institute of transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed.) A Boutique Theater would be expected to generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie screening. This scenario is likely to overstate impacts, because these trip generation factors were developed for a typical theater. In this case, a more realistic assessment of trip Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 3 generation may be found in the recent traffic study performed for the Downtown Alameda Theater Complex, which accounted for the pedestrian oriented nature of Alameda (EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and International Parking Design Inc.). In that study, trip generation factors ranged from 0.14 to 0.23 trips per seat. Using these factors, maximum trips would be from 7 to 11 trips per movie screening. Potentially affected intersections are typically, operating at level of service (LOS) A or B. Theater peak traffic hours would not usually coincide with citywide peak traffic hours. The addition of Boutique Theater trips would not cause a change in LOS and would not cause a substantial increase in traffic, relative to existing levels. Parking As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and hours of operation. The parking demand factors established in the Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Traffic Study, are 0.19 / seat (weekdays) and 0.26/ seat (weekends). Applying these factors, a Boutique Theater would be expected to require from 9 to 13 parking spaces. If, during the Use Permit application process, project - specific parking demand is determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, movie showing times to prevent overlap demand between screenings, maximum occupancy, or requiring offsite parking. If mitigation was determined to be infeasible, the project could be denied. Noise Boutique Theaters could potentially increase ambient noise levels. Noise sources could include movie screenings, amplified music and people congregating outside. Depending on proximity to sensitive receptors and hours of operation, this could be a significant impact. If, during the Use Permit application process, project - specific noise were determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: Soundproofing of the building, restricting hours of operation, prohibiting amplified live music, or outdoor events. Aesthetics All of the affected sites have supported commercial uses for many years. Due to the limited capacity of Boutique Theaters (49 seats or less), these theaters would typically be of similar physical proportions to existing buildings. In most cases, economics would dictate that existing buildings be used. If new construction were proposed, any alterations to existing structures, new signage or lighting would be subject to review through existing City Design Review and Use Permit processes. This would ensure that aesthetic impacts would be minimized. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 4 Conclusion: Boutique Theaters are commercial uses. Occupancy is limited to less than 50 seats. The scale of these projects and intensity of use would be consistent with existing allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. Boutique Theaters would serve local neighborhoods. Additionally, it would be reasonable to expect that they would also attract some vehicular traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. However, due to the limited capacity of these theaters, traffic and parking impacts would also be limited. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit which means it would be subject to neighborhood notification, public review and hearings and the City could impose operational limitations on the permit. Consequently, projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Design Review Guidelines. Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. In this case, there appear to be feasible mitigation measures that could adequately reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that Boutique Theaters would be consistent with the Neighborhood Business District land use designation and with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, these projects would be compatible with surrounding uses. V. FINDINGS: 1. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the Alameda City General Plan and will not create incompatible land uses. Evidence: General Plan consistency and land use compatibility have been evaluated. Boutique Theaters, as proposed, are consistent with applicable General Plan Policies (2.5.f, & k, 8.7.a, b, c & h), and would be of similar size and intensity of use as other allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) 2. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA and it has been determined that this action will not cause changes to the physical environment that could cause significant adverse impacts to people, biotic resources or historic resources. A Negative Declaration and Notice of Availability were prepared and circulated to the public and other agencies for comment. (Source: General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) Evidence: All reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Potential impacts have been determined to be less than significant. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 5 3. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not adversely affect public health, safety, welfare or community moral standards. Evidence: Potential exposure to natural and manmade hazards, interference with emergency access and the potential to increase traffic and ambient noise levels has been evaluated and determined to be less than significant. (Source: Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, and then recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, based upon the findings and evidence contained in the attached Draft Resolution. G:\PLANNING \PB\Reports\2005\k -Jun 13 \Theater Ord Amend v2.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 6 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and a proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and provided to the public and government agencies for review from April 29, 2005 to May 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, an application was made on February 2, 2005 by Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project Inc.) to amend Section 30- 4.8(c) of the Alameda Zoning Ordinance to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater;" and WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on May 23, 2005, and continued this item to June 13, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board has examined pertinent maps, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to this proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: 1. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the Alameda City General Plan and will not create incompatible land uses. 2. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA [Public Resources Code §21080(c)(1) and 15183] and it has been determined that this action will not cause changes to the physical environment that could cause significant adverse impacts to people, biotic resources or historic resources. A Negative Declaration and Notice of Availability were prepared and provided to the public and other agencies for comment. (Source: General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) 3. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not adversely affect public health, safety, welfare or community moral standards. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZA05 -0002 subject to the following conditions: 1. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Attachment #1 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 properties. The City of Alameda shall cooperate promptly, notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 2. All Time and Material charges for this application shall be paid in full prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment. G:\ PLANNING \PB\Resolutions\2005 \j- May23\ Zoning Ord Resolution _LuX 'JijJiiifl1 3ijJ4 I,II1 i . 11J1iiiJ1i,k!4jI11 •l 1 ijLJJJ 1 1 Ji!;i ifl 1 t IV IIiuilBii 1 i ij ! ' 1 J il "1 iJ U UJDJ lii1i1iJ!tIIiiJI ih 1I1J LI II IUH NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment ZA005 -0002 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project sites are currently designated Neighborhood Business by the City of Alameda General Plan and zoned C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial District) by the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance. Locations are: Maitland & Beach Road, Atlantic & Main Street, Central & 5th, Lincoln & 9th, Santa Clara & 9th, Central & 9th, Lincoln & Bay Street, Lincoln & Stanton, Encinal & Benton, Encinal & Chestnut, Lincoln & Willow, San Jose & Central, Encinal & Versailles, Park Street & San Jose, Encinal & High Street, Santa Clara & High Street and High Street & Fernside Boulevard. NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Based on the Initial Study report dated April 27, 2005, the Cit of Alameda staff has determined that: X This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, nor to substantially reduce, threaten or eliminate plant, fish or animal communities, or important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. X This project will not have impacts that are individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable. X This project will not have environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effect upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. X This project will not adversely impact wildlife resources, and is therefore exempt from the fee requirements of Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE LISTS: The previous presence of a registered underground storage tanks (UST) on at least one potential project site has been identified in City files. Should this site or similar sites meeting Section 65962.5 of the Government Code apply for a Use Permit, the analysis will include information about remediation and the advisability of this site at the proposed location. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or wishing to comment on the project may submit written comments to the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department at the address set forth above, attention: Doug Garrison, Planner III. All comments received at this address on or before May 18, 2005, will be considered by the City. Documents are available for public review at the City's Planning and Building Department on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM (except Thursdays until 3:00 PM) at the address set forth below and at any of the City's three libraries. REVIEW PERIOD: April 29, 2005 to May 18, 2005; 5:00 p.m. HEARING DATE: PREPARED BY: CONTACT PERSON: CERTIFYING OFFICER: G:\ PLANNING \PB \Ads\2005\Boutique Theater - NOA.doc May 23, 2005; 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 390, Alameda, CA 94501 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190, Alameda, CA 94501 Doug Garrison, Planner III Phone No.: (510) 747 -6800 Jerry Cormack, Interim Planning Director Attachment #3 CITY OF ALAMEDA INITIAL STUDY FOR ZA04 -0002 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND: A. Project Sponsor: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 C. Contact People and Phone Numbers: Jerry Cormack, Interim Planning Director, Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner or Douglas Garrison, Planner III (510) 744 -6800 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Project Title: ZA04 -0002 B. Type of application(s): Zoning Text Amendment, Initial Study C. Project Locations (Areas zoned C -I): Maitland & Beach Road, Atlantic & Main Street Central & 5th Lincoln & 9th Santa Clara & 9th Central & 9th Lincoln & Bay Street Lincoln & Stanton Encinal & Benton Encinal & Chestnut Lincoln & Willow San Jose & Central Encinal & Versailles Park Street & San Jose Encinal & High Street Santa Clara & High Street High Street & Fernside Boulevard D. Assessor's Parcel Number: Various E. General Plan Land Use Designation: Neighborhood Business F. Zoning Designation: C -1 Neighborhood Business District G. Environmental Setting: Alameda is an island city of approximately 12.4 square miles, located in the San Francisco Bay. It is 12 miles east of San Francisco, and separated from the City of Oakland by an estuary. Approximately 10.1 square miles of the City is very dense and largely developed and approximately 2.3 square miles is occupied by former federal facilities. H. Project description: Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30- 4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C -1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." This amendment would apply to all existing C -1 Zoning districts (Attachment 1, C -1 Zoning District Locations). Other Required Discretionary Approvals None J. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geological Hazards Hazards Recreation Hydrology and Water Quality X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services X Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. C\lv\4t/1c . aSof\ Printed Name Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier El R or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2 X Signiticant Significant Sigelticaot Impact Issues Unless Impact Mello Incerperated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 & 7 X 2 X X The City Design Element of the Alameda General Plan does not designate any of the sites designated for neighborhood commercial as important viewsheds or vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway 1 & 7 7 X 2 X Alameda is not located near any designated Scenic Highways. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 & 7 & 7 X 2 The architectural integrity of historical buildings, that may be located within these districts, is protected under General Plan Policies 3.3.c, d; e, and k. Additionally, General Plan Policy 3.3.f preserves Neighborhood Business Districts as pedestrian oriented districts with most structures built to the property line, with entrances facing sidewalks. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment allows Boutique Theater operators to apply for a Use Permit for properties located in C- 1 zoning districts. Any proposed alteration to existing buildings would be subject to review and would be required to comply with City Design Guidelines and policies. d) Create Tight or glare? 1, 2 & 7 & 2 X Any proposed signage for a boutique theater would be subject to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 30-6.6 Illumination of Signs, which prohibits directing of light or reflecting glare onto any adjacent property or public right -of -way. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment does not alter this requirement. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Result in a conflict with agricultural uses or impacts to important farmlands? 1 & 2 X The City of Alameda does not contain lands designated for or currently in agricultural use. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Spumes PotentlaIIv Potontlallg LessT6an No X the applicable air quality plan Significant Significant Significant Impact Issgos Mess Impact Midgatlon Incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 3, 4, 5 5 X X the applicable air quality plan &7 The San Francisco Bay Area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants except for ozone. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will not cause an increase in population, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or create a new source of criteria pollutants. Consequently, amending the Zoning Ordinance, in this case, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Ozone Attainment Plan administered by the BAAQMP. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3, 4, 5 &7 3, 4, &7 5 X See 3 (a) above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 3, 4, &7 5 X X The cumulative effect of creating boutique theaters in designated Neighborhood Business Districts would not affect the VMT assumptions used in the regional air quality plan and would not result in increased regional emissions of criteria air pollutants. [See also 3(a) above] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 3, 4, 5 &7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, subject to Use Permit approval, in the C -1 zoning district will not cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollution concentrations. Theaters are not typically a source of air pollutants. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3, 4, 5 &7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, subject to Use Permit approval, in the C -1 zoning district will not cause substantial numbers of people to be exposed to objectionable odors. Theaters are not typically a source of objectionable odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soirees Petenually Potentially toss Than lie &7 X Slgnillcaot Issaes Slgnincant finless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: &7 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species? 1, 2 &7 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. Special- status species are not known to nest, breed or forage on these sites. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, future use is not anticipated. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. b) Have a substantial adverse affect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California dept. of fish and Game or the U. S. fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2 &7 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. Future development that may result from adoption of this Zoning Ordinance text amendment would not directly or indirectly affect riparian or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site- specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. c) Have a substantial adverse affect on federally protected wetlands? 1, 2 &7 X See 4(b) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 2 &7 X See 4(a) and (b) Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No X X Significant Issues Significant finless Significant Impact Impact Minos Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 2 &7 &7 X X The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment only applies to existing C -1 zoning districts. As noted above, in 4(a -d), these areas have all supported neighborhood commercial uses for many years. The intent of the existing General Plan and Zoning designation is to preserve and promote neighborhood- serving businesses. Landmark trees are on the Historic buildings Study List and are protected under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The proposed action does not alter this existing policy. f) Conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 1, 2 &7 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations. Consequently, these areas have limited habitat value and are not well suited for inclusion in Habitat Conservation Plans. None of these sites are currently included in a Habitat Conservation Plan. It is not reasonably foreseeable that they ever will be. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. 1,_ 2 &7 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially affect buildings of historic significance would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. Demolition of historic structures would be subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5. 1, 2 & 7 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soirees PatentlaHy Potentially less Than Ile X X Significant Slgalficant • Significant Impact Issues MESS Impact Mingatlon Incorporated There are no known archaeological resources that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. If archaeological resources did exist under existing buildings, converting to a different use would not result in impacts to these resources. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 1, 2 &7 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? X X There are no known paleontological or unique geologic resources that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. If paleontological resources did exist under existing buildings, there would be no affect on these resources. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 1, 2 &7 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? X There are no known human remains, that would be affected by this Zoning Ordinance amendment. The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Any demolition or new construction, that could potentially disturb resources would be subject to Use Permit approval and would be subject to project specific CEQA review. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault; Strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic - related ground failure (including liquifaction or landslides)? 1, 2 & 7 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources SO■rces • rotenllally Significant Issaes Patentlally Slainleant bless MItlpatlou lacorparated Mullah Significant Impact Ns Impact No potentially active faults have been mapped in the immediate vicinity of the sites. The sites are, however, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and nearby active faults including the Hayward and San Andreas Faults are likely to cause severe seismic shaking. Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated loose granular soils near the ground surface undergo a substantial loss of strength due to increased pore water pressure resulting from reversing cyclic stresses associated with vibrations induced by earthquakes. Much of Alameda would be susceptible to liquifaction if a strong seismic event occurred on nearby regional faults. The owners of commercial structures, located within the C -1 zoning districts, have typically been required, under State and Local laws, to retrofit older structures to withstand expected seismic events. Any proposed Boutique Theater would be subject to the granting of Use and Building Permits and would be required to meet applicable seismic design and construction standards. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with exposure to seismic events. All neighborhood commercial areas where boutique theaters could locate are located several feet above mean sea level, and typically several hundred feet or more from the existing bay coastline. One area, centered at Central Ave and Fifth St., is located near the bay coastline. There are no enclosed bodies of water adjacent to the sites. There are no known active volcanoes near the sites. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not increase the potential impacts associated with seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic activities. The potential for these sites to be impacted is low. There are no steep slopes, in the vicinity of the C -1 zoning districts, that would be susceptible to mass . wasting, landslides or mudflows. b) Result in substantial erosion or Toss of topsoil? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. In the event that new construction were proposed, grading and drainage improvements for each project would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate soil erosion conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposal, and potentially result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquifaction or collapse? 1, 2 &7 X See 6(a) above. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sums Potentially Potemlalty less Than Ns X Significant Isms Significant unless SIealf>eam Impact Impact Mallon Incorporated d) Be located on expansive soils? 1, 2 &7 A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1, 2 X See 6 (a) above. 7. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 1, 2, 7 & 8 a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 1, 2 &7 X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not cause substantial increase in the potential for exposure to hazardous materials or explosions. Theaters typically do not produce or utilize hazardous materials, other than small quantities of typical cleaning supplies that may be stored on site. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 2, 7 & 8 5, X Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, would not interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Using widely accepted traffic generation factors, it is anticipated that Boutique Theaters would generate from 2 to 19 trips per screening (see Section 15 of this Initial Study). This small increase in vehicle trips would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Seances Petentlally Poteetlally LOSS Than Na X X SIOelncaet Shelncant SIUNINCaet Impact Issees Unless Impact MlUOatlan Incorpsratel c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 1, & 2, 7 6 X X The previous presence of registered underground storage tanks (UST) on at least one potential project site has been identified in City files. Should this site or similar sites meeting Section 65962.5 of the Government Code apply for a Use Permit, the analysis will include information about remediation and the advisability of this use at the proposed location. d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area? 1, 2 &7 X Alameda is adjacent to Oakland International Airport. Only the C -1 District located on Bay Farm Island is located within an Airport Impact Area. Should development of a Boutique Theater be proposed within this district, the Use Permit application will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal result in: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited seating capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water and sewer service are available for all sites. Theaters are not typically a major source of water pollutants. In the event that new construction were proposed, waste discharge, grading and drainage improvements for each project would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation. Appropriate waste discharge and drainage conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Seeress Petenttally Petemlatle tessnum Ile X X SI1nIBCant Slpplfcaot Significant Impact • Issas MOSS Impact Iltltllatlee Ipcerperatel b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such 1, 2 &7 X X X 4, 5, 6, that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table. Change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? • 7 & 8 The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water and sewer service are available for all sites. Allowing boutique theaters would not cause an increase use or substantial change in recharge capacity. b) Exposure of people or property to water hazards such as flooding? 1, 2 &7 &7 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. There would be no change in flooding hazards. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1, 2 &7 X X See 8(a) above d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body, or in currents, or the course or direction of water movement? 1, 2 &7 X X See 8(a) above 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with General Plan or Zoning 1, 2, 3 X Designations, or be incompatible with 4, 5, 6, existing land uses? 7 & 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Patendally Menlo de Stpofllcaot Issues Slpolflcaat finless elroaanea lacerperated SlyuINcant Impact Impact The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment only applies to lands designated in both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1 on Zoning Map). Background The Alameda City General Plan, provides four major classes of retail land uses. Listed in descending order from most to least intensive uses, these are: Regional Shopping Centers, Main Street Business Districts, Community Shopping Centers and Neighborhood Business Districts. The General Plan provides the following description of Neighborhood Business Districts: The 17 compact corner business districts, 10 of them at former Red Train stations, are important components of the city's traditional ambience. Most have a small grocery, a Laundromat, one or two other stores or a bar, and little or no off - street parking. Zoning Ordinance Section 30- 4.8(a) provides the following description of Neighborhood Business Districts: It is intended that this district classification be applied on properties suitable to serve residential areas with convenient shopping and services. The General Plan provides policies to guide land use decisions. The following policies are relevant to this evaluation of General Plan consistency: Guiding Policy 2.5.f Maintain neighborhood business districts for small stores that attract mainly pedestrian traffic and can be acceptable neighbors for nearby residents. Grocery stores, launderettes /cleaners, and small restaurants can rely mainly on customers who walk from their homes. Implementing Policy: 2.5.k Limit the size of stores in Neighborhood Business Districts in order to avoid traffic and parking demand inconsistent with residential character. To avoid transforming pedestrian -scale business districts into auto - oriented shopping centers, businesses that outgrow the existing small retail spaces should be encouraged to find sites elsewhere in Alameda where adequate off - street parking can be provided. Where only small stores are permitted, a lower ratio of parking spaces to floor area than is required in larger commercial areas may be reasonable. Consistency Analysis The primary purpose of these districts is to provide commercial and retail services for nearby residents. The primary constraint to commercial development in the Neighborhood Business District is compatibility with adjacent residential uses. As discussed in previous sections, of this Initial Study, theaters are typically not sources of hazardous materials or pollutants. Thus, the main compatibility concerns are aesthetics, traffic, parking and noise. Issues and Supporting Information Sources seances PoteouaIIY Poteotialiy LOSS MID Ni Significant issues Significant Nnicss Significant Impact Impact MINOR Incorperated Aesthetics: As discussed above, all of the affected sites have supported commercial uses for many years. Due to the limited capacity of Boutique Theaters (49 seats or less), these theaters would typically be of similar physical proportions to existing buildings. In most cases, economics would dictate that existing buildings be used. Any . proposed new construction, alterations to existing structures, signage and lighting would be subject to review through the City design review and Use Permit process. Clearly, aesthetic impacts could be adequately controlled and would not preclude inclusion of Boutique Theaters as allowable uses, in Neighborhood Business Districts, subject to Use Permit approval. Traffic and Parking: The intent of the General Plan is clear on this subject. Commercial uses that would draw extensive vehicular traffic are not appropriate in Neighborhood Business Districts. Neither the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance provide a clear threshold for determining what level of traffic generation would clearly be inconsistent with this land use designation. Boutique Theaters would be expected to draw some traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. Conversely, there could be a slight reduction in trips originating from the immediate neighborhood, as those people would otherwise have to drive to a more distant theater. Using widely accepted trip generation factors, it is anticipated that Boutique theaters would generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie showing (see Section 15 of this Initial Study for additional documentation). Relative to existing baseline conditions in most parts of Alameda, this would appear to be a relatively low impact and would not adversely affect intersection Levels of Service (LOS). Parking may be a somewhat more contentious issue. As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and degree of compliance with residential parking requirements. Actual traffic and parking impacts would vary somewhat from site to site; thus, the requirement that Boutique Theaters be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, regulating movie showing times, or maximum occupancy. Potential traffic and parking impacts do not appear to preclude amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district (Neighborhood Business Districts), subject to Use Permit approval. Noise: Boutique Theaters would generate noise. Other uses currently allowed in this zoning designation include: music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. It is anticipated that Boutique Theater noise levels would generally be similar to these uses. The General Plan provides thresholds for noise compatibility (see Section 11 of this Initial Study). All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, requiring soundproofing, or prohibiting amplified live performances. Potential noise impacts do not preclude amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theaters and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district (Neighborhood Business Districts), subject to Use Permit approval. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Thai . Me &7 Significant Issges Significant bless Significant Impact Impact Mttigatisa Incergoratei Conclusion: Boutique Theaters are commercial uses. Occupancy is limited to less than 50 seats. The scale of these projects and intensity of use would be consistent with existing allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. Boutique Theaters would serve local neighborhoods. Additionally, it would be reasonable to expect that they would also attract some vehicular traffic from outside of the immediate neighborhood. However, due to the limited capacity of these theaters, traffic and parking impacts would also be limited. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit. Consequently, all projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. In this case, there appear to be feasible mitigation measures that could adequately reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that Boutique Theaters would be consistent with the Neighborhood Business District land use designation and with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, these projects would be compatible with surrounding uses. b) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? 1, 2 & 7 1, 2 &7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Consequently, these projects would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 1, 2 &7 X X There are no known mineral resources on the site. 11. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2 &7 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Petentlally Poteulalty Less Than Ile SUdllcant Issues SIlnlncant lnless Sllnlllcant Impact Impact MIUlatton Incorporated From a noise compatibility standpoint Neighborhood Business Districts are somewhat unique, due to the close proximity and integration into residential neighborhoods. Typically higher noise levels are acceptable in commercial areas. Table 8.1 of the General Plan provides guidance on acceptable noise levels by land use. In residential areas, 50 to 60 dB (Ldn) is considered acceptable and 60 to 70 db (Ldn) is considered conditionally acceptable. In commercial districts 50 to 70 dB (Ldn) is acceptable and 65 to 80 dB (Ldn) is conditionally acceptable. Noise compatibility will vary from site to site, depending on proximity to sensitive receptors, type of construction, existing ambient noise levels and proposed uses. The General Plan provides the following guidance in accessing noise compatibility: Policy 8.7.a: Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources, and noise emanating from temporary activities. Policy 8.7.b Require site and building design to achieve noise compatibility to the extent feasible. Policy 8.7.c Recognize that residential, school, hospital, church, or public library properties in commercial areas and commercial development in industrial areas will be subject to noise levels associated with noisier permitted uses. Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, Community Noise, sets noise level standards for receiving land uses and requires noise sources to submit a noise reduction plan where the standards are violated. Policy 8.7.h In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider the following impacts to be "significant: • An increase in noise exposure of 4 or more dB if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use, as indicated in Table 8 -1. • Any increase of 6 dB or more, due to the potential for adverse community response. Boutique Theaters would generate noise. New noise sources could include short-term construction activities and Tong -term operational activities. Other uses currently allowed in this zoning designation include: music and dancing studios, taverns without live music, restaurants and theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses. It is anticipated that Boutique Theater noise levels would generally be similar to these uses. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. The Use Permit is a discretionary permit. Consequently, all projects would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, significant impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, requiring soundproofing, or prohibiting amplified live performances. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Perentlally Significant Potenually Significant tessma■ Significant 111 Impact X X Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorperatel b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or noise? 1, 2 &7 6 X X See 11 (a) above c) A substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2 &7 6 X X See 11 (a) above d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? 1, 2, & 7 6 X X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. Amending the Zoning Ordinance text to provide a definition of Boutique Theater and to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use, in the C -1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval, will not cause substantial increase in the potential for exposure to air traffic noise sources. e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? 1, & . 2, 6 7 X See 11 (d) above 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? 1, 2 &7 X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or population levels. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PmentlaIIV PeteetlaIIY tessnan 1e X b) SIlelllcam Issues Significant bless SIlelticant Impact Impact X Nitteatteu Incsrparatei b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? 1, 2 &7 • X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or population levels. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? . 1, 2 &7 • X The potentially affected properties are all zoned for commercial uses. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the followi n areas: a) Fire protection? 2 8,7 X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional population or traffic levels. Consequently, there will be no effect on public services. See 13(a) C) Schools? 1, 2 • X b) Police protection? 1, 2 &7 X See 13(a) C) Schools? 1, 2 &7 X X See 13(a) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 1, 2 &7 X See 13(a) See 13(a) X e) Other governmental services? 1, 2 &7 See 13(a) Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potendelly Less Than No X Significant Issues Significant finless Significant Impact Impact NWganeo laminated 14. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Affect existing recreational opportunities? a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 1, 2 &7 X X X Boutique theaters will have no effect on regional or local population levels. Consequently, there will be no effect on recreational facilities. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 1, 2 &7 X X See 14(a) 15. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 X Using widely accepted trip generation factors (Institute of transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed.) A Boutique Theater would be expected to generate from 2 to 19 trips per movie screening. This estimate is based on trip generation factors ranging from 0.04 to 0.38 trips per seat. Thus, the expected worst -case scenario would be 19 trips per screening. This scenario is likely to overstate impacts. It assumes full occupancy and also ignores the unique characteristics of Alameda's Neighborhood Business Districts. The integration of these districts into residential neighborhoods and relatively small geographic area of Alameda is more conducive to walking and bicycling than most suburban cinemas. A more realistic assessment of trip generation may be found in the recent traffic study performed for the Downtown Alameda Theater Complex (EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and International Parking Design Inc.). In that study, trip generation factors ranged from 0.14 to 0.23 trips per seat. Using these factors, maximum trips would be from 7 to 11 trips per movie screening. Potentially affected intersections are typically, operating at level of service (LOS) A or B. The addition of Boutique Theater trips would not cause a change in LOS and would cause a substantial increase in traffic, relative to existing levels. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soarces PetentiiIIy rotenially Less Than No X SIgelncaat Slpniflcant SIOalllcant Impact Issues Males Impact Malin Incorporated b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 1,2,5, &8 7 X X The minimum LOS established in the General Plan is LOS D. Allowing Boutique Theaters would not cause an exceedance of this threshold [see 15(a) for further documentation]. Improvements and mitigation would be imposed when applicable. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 7 1,2,5, &8 7 X X Allowing Boutique Theaters would not affect air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 7 1,2,5, &8 7 X No new roadways or improvements are proposed. Individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation. Improvements and mitigation would be imposed when applicable. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5, &8 7 X Allowing Boutique Theaters would not affect emergency access. [see 15(a) and (b) for additional documentation]. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Ne X 1,2,5, 7 Significant Significant Significant Impact transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle & 8 Isms Unless Impact . Milinlien Incerperateti f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5, & 8 7 X X 1,2,5, 7 As noted in the General Plan, many of the Neighborhood Business Districts do not provide off - street parking. Actual impacts would vary from site to site, depending on the existing mix of businesses, and degree of compliance with residential parking requirements. Actual parking impacts would vary somewhat from site to site. The parking demand factors established in the Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Traffic Study, are 0.19 / seat (weekdays) and 0.26/ seat (weekends). Applying these factors, a Boutique Theater would be expected to require from 9 to 13 parking spaces. Parking requirements are Tess than anticipated trips because not all cars wil be parked at the theater. For example, parents would drop off children at the theater and then leave. All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. If, during the Use Permit application process, project- specific impacts are determined to be significant, feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce these impacts. These might include: limiting hours of operation, regulating movie showing times, maximum occupancy, or requiring off - street parking. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 7 X programs supporting alternative 1,2,5, 7 X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle & 8 racks)? Allowing Boutique theaters would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Most Neighborhood Business districts are located on existing mass transit lines. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 7 X The potentially affected areas have all supported commercial uses for many years. In most cases, due to the limited capacity of the Boutique Theaters, existing buildings would be used. Municipal water, sewer, electricity and gas service are available for all sites. Allowing boutique theaters would not cause an increase in use of any utilities. b) Communications systems? 7 X See 16a. Issues and Supporting Information Sources soatees rsten lally Petetltlalli lessrnaa is distribution facilities? 7 Slgal scant Slgalticaot Slgelllcant Impact Issues Euless Impact MItlgatlau lacsrperatel c) Local or regional water treatment or 7 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 X distribution facilities? 7 X See 16a. d) Sewer or septic tanks? 7 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 X See 16a. e) Storm water drainage? 2,4 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 X See 16a. f) Solid waste disposal? 7 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 X See 16a. See 16a. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 X g) Local or regional water supplies? 7 X See 16a. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7 2 & X The potentially effected areas have all supported high- density commercial uses for many years. These areas are not important habitat for biotic resources. Some of these areas may contain historic resources. In most instances existing structures would be reused for the proposed projects. In which case, there would be no impact to resources that may exist. In the event that new construction or demolition is proposed, These actions would be subject to Use Permit approval and additional review under CEQA. Alameda General Plan Policies and Design Regulations protect historic resources, any proposed development would have to comply with these policies and regulations. Additionally, individual applications for development would be subject to site - specific design review and environmental evaluation and appropriate conditions and mitigations would be imposed when applicable. b) Does the project have impacts that are 1, 2, 3, X individually limited, but cumulatively 4, 5, 6, considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 7 & 8 Cumulative air quality, traffic and noise impacts have been evaluated in this Initial Study and determined to be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental 1, 2, 3, X effects which will cause substantial 4, 5, 6, adverse effects on human beings, either 7 & 8 directly or indirectly? . Direct and indirect potential affects have been evaluated in this Initial Study and determined to be less than significant. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan, City of Alameda, 1991 2 Zoning Ordinance, City of Alameda 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Website, 11/23/2004 4 Alameda General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, December, 2002 5 Institute of transportation Engineers, Tri • Generation, 6th Ed. 6 Airport Land Use Commission of Alameda County, Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, 1986 7 Application Materials 8 EnviroTrans Solutions Inc. and Parking Design Inc., Downtown Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Parking and Traffic Study December, 2004. Attachments: 1. Map of C -1 Zoning Districts MAY I 12005 9 z dam_ g f - 11 0,4)) 1 i '1 (1,2-ileilcb,1 401: / 1 ei;ei/G r4s V.! // ,4a vt ,a_ A e ,X.f-e / Zn Oh ,0,0 to, G/ 10 i � fie ilea-1` e aft -//d w Veie w ,//4° i r ese /' eh,- A 9atis- a .. ig ir/, >s ? 7 most wes; AV 'e:d d s ode clop-. /pa, V t . e. x / A/e e )dee iri- / /0701.) i� /e Lt. A.# Ace.._ p A ee are e r c7/0)_s. gI'r e7nem". -11 - /lJJ , al/ Y/4-ie. $ PI r` r -kyr /1 .3 Ph! pc ~ % ,A.,``rc -1 k'/ // a /%ei72,* j e 42//e ti40 Ave /J (7_,! a lo,l' > 7L7 fr e c1 I d / cad `7/e :e 4 i se' /mss cria 5/4e C� y W,4' ,t i� / / I `Y„,47..4 °//phi ,,,,,/,,ny, a=/ 91iese cz 14)0V Id (?-n ei,ie 47 1-eedtkfrieSer / a 6.6o4p,,s., • 1 /,‘&174, J acye-ef,/,_... 0�%-1 -sue, l WP-44/-e-P- wtio /0 ve Attachment #4 vrAardi %27 /1407e4- bi-x)..5 % a AF-61 ?cle-et_ Pei77 sLa t; wiicA /0 Pre ".• A y_x t/ee-r-c4- 2zik peel ce G% /ac 17, 14/0.,„ tae J1(-1 /4 9 vs-e s- ilk �J )s 54- is A0r 3 0 9he-Se i4 a- .7, o-t -ter C / be !1_,7 74,h 465' tes%ii #4/( 1 11, 7Z // i in. /1 /s o >; 26 -‘1fro sic 4zp2e4 a Attachment #3 Staff Response to Comments CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: To: From: June 13, 2005 President Cunningham and Planning Board Members Douglas Garrison, Planner III Items 8 -A and 8 -B Re: Supplemental Staff Report for ZA05 -0002 and UP05 -0009 BACKGROUND A lengthy comment letter concerning the Negative Declaration prepared for ZA05 -0002 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for UP05 -0009 was received after printing and distribution of the May 23, 2005 Staff Reports for these projects. When comments concerning environmental impact evaluations are submitted to the City, within the legally mandated comment period, the City of Alameda EIR Guidelines require Staff to submit written responses for consideration by the Planning Board. To allow Staff time to respond to these comments and allow Planning Board members time to review the comments and responses, both ZA05 -0002 and UP05 -0009 were continued to the June 13, 2005 Planning Board meeting. However, due to the large number of people in attendance, at the May 23rd meeting, it was decided to open the hearings for public comments. At the May 23rd meeting 29 people spoke in favor of adopting the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Use Permit and 2 people expressed opposition to these items. Additionally, the Applicant submitted a petition in support ofthe projects. The Applicant also requested that Condition No. 8, requiring a minimum interval of 20 minutes between movie showings, be modified to apply only to evening showings. Written comments are summarized below and responses provided. Previous written comments received by the Planning and Building Department were reproduced and forwarded to the Planning Board prior to the May 231'd meeting. Since then, three additional letters have been submitted, they are attached to this Supplemental Report (Attachment 1). Additionally, one Planning Board member requested additional project documentation including a floorplan. In response to this request, the original application is attached (Attachment 2). Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Council Report Attachment #3 Page 1 DISCUSSION Seven Commenters have submitted letters to the Planning and Building Department concerning the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Use Permit. Most of these comments were general in nature, and either expressed support or opposition. Areas of concern that Commenters raised included the potential for showing pornographic films, increased noise levels and parking demand. Under the Alameda Municipal Code, Adult Businesses would not be allowed in C -1 Zoning Districts. Potential traffic and noise impacts have been evaluated in the Initial Studies and Staff Reports and determined to be mitigatable to a less than significant level. Comments that are general in nature; or, that only express support or opposition have been forwarded to the Planning Board but will not be responded to in this report. The 160 page letter, submitted by Barbara Thomas, Esq., was the only written submittal that specifically addressed the adequacy of project review and CEQA environmental impact determinations. Consequently, the following Response to Comments Section focuses on this letter. The letter, dated May 18, 2005, submitted by Barbara Thomas, consisting of a single 160 page letter including attachments, expresses opposition to both ZA05 -0002 and UP05 -0009. Often the comments have been intermingled and cannot be addressed separately. Consequently, a single written response concerning comments on ZA05 -0002 and UP05 -0009 is provided. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Applicant Comments The Applicant has requested that Condition No. 8 (Mitigation Measure Traffic -1) be modified to not include daytime movie screenings, due to the lower attendance at daytime screenings. This Condition currently requires a minimum 20- minute interval between moving screenings. The intent of this condition is to allow cinema patrons to leave the theater before new patrons arrive for the next screening; thus, reducing potential parking impacts. Under CEQA, the City may substitute equivalent mitigation measures prior to project approval, without recirculating the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City must, however, hold a hearing and find that the new mitigation measure will not cause a significant impact. The Applicant has asserted that a 15- minute interval between daytime movie screenings would facilitate scheduling requirements and that due to the lower attendance during daytime showings that this would not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The Applicant must demonstrate with substantial evidence that a 15- minute interval between showings is adequate to mitigate potential impacts. Other options could include limiting daytime attendance to less than 49 people or requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 2 Barbara Thomas Comments Page 1, paragraph 1 Comment 1. Response 1. Planning Staff previously submitted this PROJECT to the Planning Board stating that it was Categorically Exempt from CEQA. Only after receiving my written response did staff admit the exemption did not apply. ZA0005 -02 was scheduled for hearing before the Planning Board on February 18, 2005. At that time, the Applicant was requesting the Planning Board to consider two options: 1) Find that Boutique Theaters were allowed under AMC Section 30- 4.8(c); or, 2) If that finding could not be made to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that would add Boutique Theaters as allowable uses, subject to the granting of a Use Permit. That Agenda Item was not heard and was eventually resubmitted as the current Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Use Permit Applications. In the February 18, 2005 Planning Board Staff Report, Staff determined that the project as described at that time was Categorically Exempt, under CEQA Section 15303(c). This Categorical Exemption applies to new construction or the conversion of existing structures where only minor structural modifications are proposed. Specifically, this exemption applies to commercial projects, located in urbanized areas, consisting of up to four buildings not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft offloor area. The project, in this case, is located in an existing structure of approximately 4,850 sq. ft. that has been used for commercial purposes since 1952. Additionally, previous uses allowed higher occupancies and were more intensive uses than that currently proposed. The original CEQA determination, concerning the Central Cinema Project was and still is appropriate. However, in considering the current proposals which now include amending the Citywide Zoning Ordinance Text for all C -1 Districts, Staff has conservatively prepared Initial Studies for both ZA05 -0002 and UPO5 -0009. This was done, in part, due to public interest in this project and to provide more thorough documentation of the scope of potential impacts. Page 1, paragraph 2 The Commenter asserts the following: Comment 2. The Initial Study fails to describe adequately the environmental effects of the Project. Response 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Under CEQA (§15146), the degree of specificity required in a Negative Declaration for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment may be less than that required for subsequent construction project that may follow from the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The Initial Study prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 3 Comment 3. Response 3. Comment 4. Response 4. Comment 5. Response 5. Amendment evaluated the full range of reasonably foreseeable impacts. As noted in the Initial Study and the StaffReport, however, it is reasonably foreseeable that future projects could potentially cause significant impacts, due to site - specific circumstances that cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Feasible mitigation of these potential impacts has been identified in the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Initial Study. The Zoning Ordinance will require that all Boutique Theaters proposed for C -1 districts be subject to the granting of a discretionary Use Permit. At the time of Planning Board review of a Use Permit, project impacts would be evaluated and mitigation required, and conditions imposed when applicable. Use Permit: The Initial Study prepared for the Use Permit evaluated the full range of reasonably foreseeable impacts based on review of site - specific conditions. Although the City does not provide specific thresholds for parking impacts in C -1 Districts and no evidence of exceedances of existing established noise levels has been documented, Staff conservatively determined that this project could potentially cause significant noise and parking impacts. Staff also identified feasible mitigation ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The Initial Study fails to address the cumulative impact of the Projects and other reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Initial Studies evaluated cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biotic resources, historic and cultural resources, noise, traffic and water quality. As noted in the Initial Studies and the Staff Reports, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment only applies to existing Neighborhood Business Districts (C -1 Zoning District). This Amendment does not create new C -1 Districts or increase the area of exiting C -1 Districts. The maximum allowed seating in Boutique Theaters is 49. This intensity of use is consistent with other allowed uses in C -1 Zoning Districts. In the case of Central Cinema, the proposed Boutique Theater would actually be .a less intensive use of this property than previous uses. The Initial Study fails to describe feasible mitigation measures. See Response 2 above. The Initial Study fails to evaluate alternatives to lessen adverse impacts. The full scope of potential impacts were evaluated and either determined to be less than significant or feasible mitigation was identified that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require Project Alternatives Analysis when preparing a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 4 Comment 6. The Initial Study fails to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Response 6. The full scope of potential impacts were evaluated and either determined to be less than significant or feasible mitigation was identified that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, when an Initial Study has been prepared and it has been determined that impacts will be less than significant. Comment 7. The Initial Study is not based on factual evidence. Response 7. The Initial Study evaluated the full range of potential impacts. Potential impacts were quantified, to the extent feasible using widely accepted data and methodologies. A complete list of sources used in evaluating potential impacts is included in Section 19 of the Initial Study. Comment 8. Those specific impacts that have been identified cannot be expected to be realistically mitigated. Response 8. Feasible mitigation has been identified in the Initial Studies. If the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is adopted, all Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval. Any appropriate mitigation measures would be included as fully enforceable conditions of the Use Permit. Comment 9. There is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Response 9. CEQA [PRC §21080(e)] defines substantial evidence as: [s]ubstantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation unsubstantiated opinion, or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. The full range of reasonably foreseeable impacts has been evaluated in the Initial Studies. Impact evaluations were based on substantial evidence. Impact evaluations were based on widely accepted data and methodologies (facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon fact, and expert opinion supported by facts). A Negative Declaration for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Use Permit application and Notices of Availability have been prepared. These documents have been provided to the public and to other agencies. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 5 To date, no substantial evidence has been submitted that identifies any new reasonably foreseeable impacts that have not been evaluated and appropriately mitigated. Approximately seven residents have submitted written comments to the City. Commenters have expressed concerns about the potential for noise and traffic impacts. As noted in the Initial Studies and StaffReports, feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. No substantial evidence has been provided that contradicts the findings contained in the Initial Studies and the Staff Reports. (see also Response No. 7 above) Page 2, Theater Demand Comment 10. No theater demand study has been prepared for the Alameda Theater, Multiplex Cinema and Parking Garage. Response 10. This is a different Project. The Alameda Theater, Multiplex Cinema and Parking Garage Project is not located in a C -1 Zoning District. Additionally, market demand is not subject to impact evaluation under CEQA. Page 3, Second Paragraph Comment 11. Staff now proposes to ignore CEQA again. Response 11. See Responses 1 through 10 for substantial evidence of documentation and compliance with CEQA. Page 3, Third Paragraph Comment 12. The Initial Study admits there is no available off - street parking in any of the C -1 Zones. It admits that there can be no new construction in the C -1 Zones to create new Boutique Theaters. Response 12. This comment is incorrect. See the Traffic Section of the Initial Studies prepared for both ZA05 -0002 and UP05 -0009 for the correct text. It has been noted in these two Initial Studies that parking is typically limited in Neighborhood Business Districts and that due to the economics inherent in operating a small 49 seat theater, Boutique Theaters would typically be located in existing buildings. All C -1 Districts have some off - street parking and there is no regulatory prohibition against new construction in these districts. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 6 Pages 3 through 5, First Impact Comment 13. California Law requires the AMC to be consistent with the General Plan. Response 13. The Initial Studies and the StaffReports include extensive evaluations of General Plan consistency and land use compatibility. The proposed addition of Boutique Theaters to the uses allowed in C -1 Districts, subject to Use Permit approval has been determined to be consistent with General Plan Policies for Neighborhood Business Districts. Maximum seating in the proposed use is limited to 49. This is consistent with other allowed uses in these districts, which include, but are not limited to, taverns, restaurants, and dance studios. Page 5, Zoning Ordinance (First Impact continued) Comment 14. Response The AMC requires one off - street parking space for every 50 square ft. of building area. 14. The Commenter's assertions are based on AMC Section 30 -7.6. However, this section of the AMC only applies when a project falls within the parameters established in AMC Sections 30- 7.2(a -e). In this case, UP05 -0009, the project does not fall within the parameters established in AMC 30- 7.2(a -e). AMC 30- 7.2(a) only applies to new buildings. UP05 -0009 is located within an existing building, constructed in 1952. AMC 30- 7.2(b) only applies to dwelling units when floor area is added to existing buildings. UP05 -0009 is for a commercial use. There is also an existing residential unit in this building. The residential unit will remain with existing floor area. No expansion is proposed. AMC 30- 7.2(c) only applies to the expansion of floor area in existing nonresidential buildings. UP05 -0009 does not include any expansion of floor area. AMC 30- 7.2(d) only applies to a change of use, number of employees, or seating capacity of an existing building less than ten (10) years old. The Central Cinema is located in a building that was constructed in 1952 and is therefore over 10 years old. AMC 30- 7.2(e) applies to any change from residential to nonresidential use. UP05- 0009 will not result in a conversion from residential to nonresidential use. Additionally, the Commenter's interpretation of the AMC is inconsistent with Implementing Policy 2.5.k of the Alameda City General Plan which states, "[w]here Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 7 only small stores are permitted, a lower ratio of parking spaces to floor area than is required in larger commercial areas may be reasonable." Boutique Theaters would, by definition, be limited to 49 seats. In many cases, this would be substantially less than the building occupancy that would otherwise be allowed. For example, using standard Alameda Building Code floor area / occupancy calculations, the theater portion ofthe Central Cinema building would be allowed a maximum occupancy of approximately 120 people. The maximum occupancy for the entire building would be well over 200 people. Applying AMC parking requirements for commercial uses, as proposed by the Commenter, in this case, is not appropriate for the following reasons: 1) It would be inconsistent with the requirements of AMC 30 -7.2; and 2) It would be inconsistent with The General Plan (see Comment 12). Page 7, First Paragraph Comment 15. Response 15. The AMC precludes parking in residential zones for non - residential, or commercial parkers. As noted in the Initial Studies and StaffReports, Neighborhood Business Districts are tightly integrated into residential areas. Boutique Theaters would be subject to the granting of a Use Permit. Project- specific impacts would be evaluated at the time an application is submitted. For example, parking demand and availability for the Central Cinema has been evaluated in the Project Initial Study and Staff Report. It has been determined that adequate parking spaces exist within this C -1 Zoning District to accommodate anticipated parking demand. That said, there is nothing to preclude nearby residents from parking on streets in the C -1 District or for customers of businesses in the C -1 District from parking on streets in nearby residential areas. These are public roadways, parking is not restricted by use. Page 7, Second Impact Comment 16. Response 16. A second impact not addressed is how the project will interact with the adopted and proposed Specific Plans for the new Webster District Strategic Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. The cited Specific Plan for the Webster Street District is actually a market study. Project market demand is not subject to environmental impact evaluation under CEQA. The Transportation Master Plan is still being developed and has not been adopted. Attempting to evaluate project compatibility with Plans that have not been adopted would be overly speculative and is not allowed under CEQA. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 8 Page 8, Third Impact Comment 17. The Project would clearly draw traffic to all C -1 areas. No C -1 is cited as able to provide adequate parking in any C -1 zone. The Initial Study concludes that although no C -1 zone has off- street parking, and that some vehicular traffic from outside the immediate neighborhood would occur and that these impacts would be limited. Response 17. Amending the Zoning Ordinance will not increase traffic in all C -1 Zoning Districts. As noted in the Initial Studies and Staff Reports, the seventeen Neighborhood Business Districts are existing commercial centers that have been in continuous use for many years. Boutique Theaters would typically be expected to utilize existing structures. For example, the Central Cinema project is located in a building that has been used for commercial purposes since at least 1952. The proposed Boutique Theater would actually be a less intensive use than previous uses. Thus, there would potentially be a decrease in traffic. The Initial Study does not contain the conclusion that no C -1 Zone has off-street parking. It does note that some vehicular traffic from outside the immediate neighborhood would occur and that these impacts would be limited due to: 1) The limited size of Boutique Theaters which would be consistent with other allowed uses that have typically occupied these sites historically; 2) The fact that some people who currently must drive to a more distant theater would now be able to walk; and 3) All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval and CEQA review. Page 8, Fourth Impact Comment 18. The Study blindly and erroneously states that the Zoning Amendment will not cause an increase in vehicle miles traveled. The fourth inadequately studied impact is the degradation of ambient air quality and resultant increase in pollutants. Response 18. As discussed above in Response 17, Boutique Theaters would not cause an increase in vehicle miles traveled that could adversely affect regional ozone levels. Additionally, all potentially affected intersections are currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) A or B. Project traffic will not cause a decrease in LOS. Consequently, projects would not create pollutant concentrations that would exceed State or Federal ambient air quality standards. Comment 19. Noise pollution is ignored. Response 19. Noise pollution has been evaluated in the Initial Studies and Staff Reports. Feasible mitigation is available to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. On May 23, 2005, Planning staff contacted the Alameda Police Department and Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 9 confirmed that no noise complaints have been reported for the Central Cinema, located at 842 Central Ave. See also Response 17 above. Page 10, First Paragraph Comment 20. Response 20. The yard is unkept, weeds abound, the operators routinely push large objects on to the sidewalk. During numerous site visits by City Code Enforcement and Planning Department staff the yard appeared reasonably well maintained and was consistent with City requirements. Review of photographs submitted by the Commenter, confirms this finding. City records have been reviewed and no record of unlawful dumping of debris exists. The photographs (taken over a period of several months) submitted by the Commenter show a shopping cart, an automotive battery and a display case. All of these items have been removed. Page 10, Second Paragraph Comment 21. Another impact not addressed is that there is a serious public controversy concerning the environmental effect of the project indicating that preparation of an EIR is desirable. Response 21. The CEQA Guidelines [PRC§ 15064(f)(4)] states: The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a signcant effect on the environment. By itself, controversy is not enough to trigger the preparation of an EIR nor is it evidence of significant impacts. This is not a marginal case. No substantial evidence, as defined in CEQA, has been provided that indicates that the project would have significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the Courts have held that the opposition of a few neighbors did not rise to the level of serious public controversy (Perely v. County of Calaveras). To date, less than ten residents have submitted comments opposing the project. The overwhelming majority of comments have been in support of the Project- not opposed to it. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 10 Page 10, Paragraph 3 Comment 22. The Study ignores the impacts to historical aspects in the C -1 zones and adjacent residential districts. Response 22. Potential impacts to historic resources have been evaluated in the Initial Studies. Page 10, Paragraph 4 Comment 23. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is improperly defined. There will be a permanent and unstudied exemption for any theater to comply with parking requirements under AMC that currently apply to all zones including residential and commercial. Response 23. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment does not provide a parking exemption for all Boutique Theaters, in C -1 Zoning Districts. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study specifically notes the following: 1) All Boutique Theaters would be subject to Use Permit approval; 2) The granting of a Use Permit is contingent upon making specific findings. These include compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; and 3) All Use Permit applications are subject to review under CEQA. This ensures that project impacts would be evaluated on a case by case basis, taking into account existing baseline conditions. If potentially significant impacts are identified, CEQA requires that these impacts be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. Page 10, Paragraph 6 Comment 24. The Study makes several false findings of fact to avoid significant impacts. One of these is that 842 Central will only require off - street parking for 9 to 13 cars. Using the Study's figures at six showings per day, a minimum of 114 additional trips are being made into the residential neighborhood each day. Response 24. The Initial Studies evaluated traffic and parking impacts. The conclusion that Boutique Theaters could generate 2 to 19 trips per showing was reached using standard trip generation factors (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Ed. These trip generation factors represent a typical theater. As noted, in the Initial Study, this approach is conservative and is likely to overstate impacts due to the pedestrian oriented nature of Alameda when compared to a typical suburban commercial center. The Commenter, in concluding that the correct trip generation number is 114 has apparently assumed that the customers for all 6 daily showings will arrive at the same time. This is not a valid approach to impact evaluation. The traffic and parking impact is the number of vehicles that would be on the road at any one time. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 11 It was not concluded in the Initial Study that 842 Central Ave. will require off - street parking for 9 to 13 cars. The Initial Study and the Staff Report state that the theater would require 9 to 13 spaces and that other tenants of this building would require an additional 2 to 4 spaces. Thus, the worst -case scenario would be 17 total spaces. There are 3 off - street spaces and 5 on- street spaces along the building frontage. Leaving a net deficit of 9 spaces. There are 32 additional on- street spaces within this C -1 district. It has been determined that due to existing intensity of use, business schedules, proposed mitigation and observed conditions during numerous site visits, that this will be adequate to accommodate C -1 parking demand. Pages 11- 13 Comment 25. Parking factors that were used in the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Garage Mitigated Negative Declaration simply do not apply to areas not served by mass transit. No mass transit serves Central & 9th evenings and weekends. Response 25. As noted in the Initial Study and Staff Report, the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Garage is a much larger project. Boutique Theaters would have a maximum seating of 49. The Alameda Theater and Multiplex would potentially have seating for over 1,500 people, along with various retail stores. This would draw greater numbers of people from greater distances. Using the same parking demand factors, for Boutique Theaters is a conservative approach that is likely to overstate actual impacts. Additionally, Santa Clara Ave., two blocks to the north, is served by AC Transit during evening and weekend hours. Page 13, Unique Impacts to 842 Central Comment 26. Response 26. The analysis must go back to before the operation began. The building has been altered, a sign without permit has been added, exterior lights have been added. The applicant has continued the use of an existing sign frame. Condition No.. 10 of Use Permit No. UP05 -0009 requires the applicant to obtain a sign permit and comply with City Design Guidelines. No substantial alterations to the exterior of the building have been observed or documented. Page 13, Paragraph 6 Comment 27. The requirements for parking are set forth in the AMC... in this case 30 or more off- street spaces would be required for 842 Central. Response 27. See Response 14 above. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 12 Page 14, Paragraphs 3 -5 Comment 28. The Conditional Use Permit for the previous use, noted significant impacts on the surrounding residential environment. Operations at the AMCCC could not exceed 40 persons between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM except for twice monthly events. Staff ignored the facts or the need staff found previously for mitigation. Response 28. The Staff Report for UP99 -48, noted that routine occupancy by forty people would not cause a significant parking impact. Rather, the concern was for proposed special events for 75 to 150 people. The proposed Boutique Theater daily maximum occupancy is consistent with the previously approved use and significantly less intrusive than the larger special events (accommodating up to 75 people) allowed under UP99 -48. Previous mitigation focused on the impacts of large special events and activities such as dances, amplified concerts and drumming classes. None ofthese activities are currently proposed and previous mitigation is not appropriate. Page 15, Other Costs Comment 29. The City cannot allow theaters to operate seven days a week until after midnight without reducing the livability of those homes. Response 29. Boutique Theaters are subject to Use Permit approval and environmental review. Under CEQA, potential impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Condition No. 11 limits the operating hours of UP05 -0009 to 8:00 AM to midnight. It should also be noted that 842 Central is located in a Commercial Zoning District and has been used for more intensive uses, than the proposed Boutique Theater, since at least 1952. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed all submitted comments. The comments do not include substantial evidence of new impacts that have not been previously evaluated. Staff recommends that the Planning Board take the two following actions: 1) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment; and 2) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Use Permit UP005 -0009. Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 13 Attachments: 1. Public Comment Letters 2. Use Permit Application G:\ PLANNINGEPB \Reports\2005\k- June131Central Ave_842 UP05- 0009Final.doc Alameda Planning Board Supplemental Report Meeting of June 13, 2005 Page 14 .■1N6, //r G .4 lrb� g:/e_ D / -/G- /Dr",T `1;s0 vG fer r- l'v. -' n.iij -1A :tom s-r :10°4-e- cr v � David E. & Beverley Ober. PO Box 85 Lafayette, CA 94549 -0085 "HZ LEADS DOB TO QUM POOLS OF PAM WATER.' Panty 23.2. Win Support Our Troops -' Remember Our Veterans T6039 Attachment #1 832 Centennial A Alameda, CA 94f June 1, 2005 Planning Division City of Alameda --City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Rm 190 Alameda, CA 94501 RE: Central Cinema e )1 RECEIVED I JUN 0 32005 PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 We write in support of the continued operation of Central Cinema, at 842 Central Ave. We are nearby neighbors, just around the corner, and we have experienced no negative consequences of having the theatre in operation. In fact, we have viewed films there several times and, as film buffs, we greatly appreciate the option of a neighborhood, small-house theatre within easy walking distance of many homes in the area (less than a 60 second walk for us!). In our experience, many families with small children take advantage of the theatre. We find no merit in the arguments against the theatre made by one of our neighbors. Cordially, • Elizabeth and Jay Mechling From: "John Corbally <jcvilla75@alamedanet.net> To: <celiason COcLalameda.ca.us> Date: ` 5/23/2005 5 :22:58 PM Subject: Central Cinema http: / /www.ci.alameda.ca.us /news /public notices .htmi ?id = 050429 boutique_tht public notice I would like to comment that I wholeheartedly support the zoning of this part of town so that Central Cinema can operate legally. It is just what this city needs, and does no harm to the neighborhood. I see no reason why this would be a problem for people who live In the area. I sincerely hope the cinema will be able to operate. Thanks and regards, John Corbally 544 Lincoln Ave Alameda, CA 94501 %my ug Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Room 190 Alameda. CA 94501 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning and Binding Department TEL 510- 747 -6850 TTD. 510422 -7538 Project Address: 8 42 Central , Alameda Is the property subject to a Homeowners Association? CJYes iliNo Association Names Please check all applicable permits D Major Design Review D Minor Design Review El Historical Advlsory Board ® Sign Permit M Use Peniit O Variance O Planned Development Q General Plan Amendment Permtt requires supplemental application. Please describe the application request (Please attach addltional sheets 'necessary). See attachment. R Zoning Text.Amendment O Subdivision O Rezoning Q Other Please read tonne on teuerse before proceeding Property Ownerfs): Dennis Keefe Address: 842 Central Avente Phone (w):....5,1121_6.81;,- 0000 . City ki aro etia State: cA Zip: 94501 Phone (h): Appllcarit (ifdifferent than property owner): Mark Haske t (Alameda Theatre Pro-iect . In . ) Address: 842 Central Phone (w): 510/ 710- -2055 City: Alameda State: CA Zip: 945 01 Phone (h): Agent Of different their eppJcant): Peter Ma no a 1 r7 _ Ir..iqr S Address: 4QQ Main Street. Suite 210 Phone(w): 925/ 02 -01,91 City :_.,,,,__„D]-easantanStr7te r Zip: 94566 Phone(h): To Be Completed !3y City Staff Case Planner: Date Received; Over the Counter? Yesa No0 Initial Application #: a) b) Received By: Amount Paid: HO e'er I Receipt #: 2"G Q5 ` p17QZ/_ GP: 0 079 APN: Zoning: Attachment #2 Attachment to Planning Permit Application: Central Cinema, 842 Central Avenue Zoning application of Mark Haskett, Owner's Representative of Alameda Theatre Project, Inc. for Central Cinema at 842 Central Avenue: 1. We request a zoning interpretation and finding that a "boutique theatre" defined as "A theatre for live performances or motion picture presentations to audiences of 49 persons or less" is sufficiently similar to a listed use in the C -1 Zoning District ( i.e. theatre for live perfonnances that are in combination other permitted uses) that the use can be deemed a conditional use in the C -1 District. 2. [If the City prefers an explicit amendment to the Zoning Code to the interpretation and finding proposed in #1 above,] we request an amendment to the zoning text at Subsection 30-4 -8 (c) 9 to add as a conditional use: "9. Boutique theatre for live performances or motion picture presentations to audiences of 49 persons or less." 3. We request a conditional use permit for a boutique theatre for Central Cinema at 842 Central Ave. Remaining uses in the building to be continued — permitted in C -1 District already The significance of 49 persons is that for assemblies of 50 persons or more the building code imposes substantial additional requirements, including full compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements which would be difficult and expensive to achieve with an existing structure.] Proposed Reclassification Front: To: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ZONING RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT Residential Commercial Industrial Open Space Other Total Square Total Square Footage of Footage of Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Classification Classification Describe the reason for the proposed reclassification: What is the ultimate development which is planned for this property? gArarnwflrgomntagt sup CITY Of ALAMEDA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HASARDQDs WABTE AND SUBSTANCE SITEB LIST Note: PLEASE READ. SIGN AND RETURN_ WITH_.2 _ _ P� pr, XCA ON Attached is a copy of the Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List consolidated by the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to Gov-ernm t Co g Seatiorig59_ 62.5. The data sources for the list include the State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), the California Waste Management Board (CNMB), and the State Department. of Health Services (DHS). Before a local agency accepts as complete an application for any development project, the applicant shall consult the list and sign a statement indicating whether the project is located on a site which is on the list. 1, Mark Haskett have consulted the attached list. (Name) The development project, located at 842 Centra , (Address) XX._. is not on the list. is on the list. Signature of Applicant: i!�. _ _ —= ^� —�-- -- -�� Date: ` ENWEO N NTAL ASSESSMENT Date Filed: Fgbruary 14_205 erg Taformation • Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Mark Haskett, $42 Central Ave. Alameda CA 94501 Address of project: ame . Assessor Parcel Number: Apo 73- 402 -5 Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Mark Haskett 510 710 -2055 List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required. by City, regional, state and federal agencies: i .ldins permits Existing zoning district: C-1 Proposed use of site (Project for which this assessment is filed) : Boutique theatre protect Dgscrigtion Site size: Square footage:- 111 4850 sg2 ft. Number of floors of construction: Existing buildinq,� Amount of off - street parking provided_, Proposed scheduling: OngQ.a,ng_Dsgza lam r--- Associate project(s): None Anticipated incremental development: None 1 If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: N•8- If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: Arterial Street If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N.A._, If institutional, indicate the major function. estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the fzoj ect : For theatre seating area - • — • e Snack bar `__j,_gers n If the project involves- a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly-why the application is required: CoWitiopal use rmmit Zoning text amendment to add "boutique theatre" to C -1 Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any-cultural, historical or scenic aspects. indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one- family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.) . Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. . Commercial on Central _Res( a ial slang side streets as I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the . a taehed exhibits present the data and information required for t.is initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the f =cts, statements, and information presented are true and correct c- the best of my knowledge and belief. Q Date [--C9 4 Name of Applicant /Owner Are the following items applicable to the project or its affects? .Discuss below all items checked yes ;attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No A change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. A change in scenic views or vistas from existing X residential areas or public lands or roads. A change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. A significant amount of solid waste or litter. X A change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the vicinity_ A chance in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water X quality or quantity, or altera..:.on of existing �".. drainage patterns. A substantial change in existing noise or vibration X levels in the vicinity. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. IIse or 'disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal, services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). Substantially increase fossil fue]. consumption (Elec- X tricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). Cause or have a relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Ep ironmez:tal Setting Describe the project site as is exists before the• project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Saapshocs or polaroid photos will be accepted. X X X X X X Urban built up area 2 APPLICATION CERTIFICATION, AUTHORIZA'T'ION, AND AGREEMENT PROPERTY OWNER (Person(s) who own(s) the property). t hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that I am the owner of record of the property described herein and that 1 consent to the action requested herein. Further, l hereby authorize City of Alameda employees and officers to enter upon the subject property, as necessary to inspect the premises and process this application. Property Owner's Signature X Data APPLICANT (Person seeking the permit). 1 hereby certify that f have read this application form and that to the best of my knowledge, the information in this application and all the exhibits are complete and correct. I understand that any misstatement or omission of the requested information or of .any information subsequently requested may be grounds for rejecitng the application, deeming the application incomplete, denying the application, suspending or revoking a permit issued on the basis of these or subsequent representations, or for the seeking of such other and further rabies may seem proper to the City of Alameda. For applic a ons subject to a time and materials charge, I hereby agree to pay the City of Alameda ail Incurred costs for staff time and materials associated with review and processing ofthe subject project even If the application is withdrawn or not approved. I understand that one or more deposits will be required to cover the cost noted herein at such time as required by the Planning Director to ensure there are adequate funds to cover anticipated time and materials costs. 1 expressly acknowledge and agree that failure to pay a written invoice for additional funds within 14 days of date of invoice shalt constitute the applicant's withdrawal of the appiicatfon• Applicant's Signature — c:4 AGENT (Person representing the applicant in the permit process). I hereby certify that 1 am the designated representative of the applicant during the permit process. Agent's Signature X Date Please Note 1. if ibm7 is not completely filled out, application will be considered incomplete. 2 Fees are not refundable and payment In no way guarantees approval of application. a Please make checks payable to the City of Alameda. GAP LANNI NG1FORMSICOUNI VRAParmItApplrCatIonfi mtIOC Revised: December 24, 2008 rippu %auvn 1 ypa Planned Developmen. • Planned Development Planned Development Amendment ,..'Final Development Plan •r' Development Agreement Development Agreement Periodic Review of Development Agreement Subdivision Applications Preliminary Plan Parcel Map/Tentative Map Parcel/Tentative Map Amendment Parce(i entative Map Extension Parcel Map Waiver Lot Line Adjustment . Condominium Conversion Certificate of- Compliance . . G Plan and Zoning Application • -Gen = : - _ , .a , endment : ext or Dia ram ezon r o a . a - ®• erlay All other Rezonings . • Master.Plan/Developmentplan • - Master Plan Master Plan Amendment . Development Plan • . - . Development Plan Amendment Extension of Development.Pian not yet vested - Environmental .Revievir- -• - • • . • • - Environmental Review Determination Filing (Cat ;Ex.) -- Initial Study DeMinimus Finding . .Negative Declaration.... . Environmental Impact Report. • Admin. Charge-for outside preparation of IS,. ND, EIR Mitigation Monitoring Fee 1. Deposit - �• I required $285 + T &M $285 + T &M, $285 + T &M $500 ' $500 $300 I$570 +T &M • $285 + T&M • $750 - • $500. $285 + T &M $57e+ T &M $285+ T &M $142.50 + T &M $285+ T &M . - $500 $750 • $500 $142:50 + T&M $570 + T &M . $142.50 +T&M $250 . $500 $250 $750 . '''..$250 : = - $570. +• T&M . $570 +T$M' • $570 • +•T&M $285+ T &M' - -• .$285+ TAM.. $750... • $750' :•_ ..•.$!7750' ••$500 • • $500 $120 +T&M $570 + T &M $250 $25. - -- $750 •$1;275 $875 • 25% of ContractCost. Investigative Fee Filing Fee Technology Fee Community Planning Fee • T&M . 1.. $1,500 4x Application Fee $39 - 5% 0.3% Records Management Fee .. T &M = Time and Materials billed at $95.00 per hour. The deposit is in addition to the basic fee. Any unused portion applied to your building permit. . GAPlanning1Fomuff. manta- Budgetplanning fees 0405.xls $3:40 Per-Page. of the deposit will be refunded or 2 Attachment #4 CEQA Comment Letter, submitted by Barbara Thomas ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZA05- -0002 WHEREAS, an application was made on February 2, 2005 by Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project Inc.) to amend Section 30- 4.8(c) of the Alameda Zoning Ordinance to add w"Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in C -1 zoning districts. "Boutique Theater" z would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater;" and t— aWHEREAS, the subject properties are designated as Neighborhood Business Districts on the General Plan Diagram; and ); and WHEREAS, The subject properties are located within Neighborhood Zoning Districts (C- WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and provided to the public and government agencies for review from April 29, 2005 to May 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, comments were submitted by Barbara Thomas concerning the adequacy of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, Planning and Building staff has provided a written response to the comment letter in the staff report which is incorporated here by reference, and found that the comments did not identify new significant impacts associated with this project, did not identify new mitigation measures and the comments did not challenge the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on June 13, 2005, and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt this Negative Declaration and Zoning Text Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 19, 2005 and examined pertinent documents, application materials, public comments and the recommendation of the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to this proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: 1. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is consistent with the Alameda City General Plan and will not create incompatible land uses. General Plan consistency and land use compatibility have been evaluated. Boutique Theaters, as proposed, are consistent with applicable General Plan Policies (2.5.f, & k, 8.7.a, b, c & h), and would be of similar size and intensity of use as other allowed uses in Neighborhood Business Districts. (Source: Alameda Resolution # 5 -C 7 -19 -05 City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005.) 2. Adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not adversely affect public health, safety, welfare or community moral standards. Potential exposure to natural and manmade hazards, interference with emergency access and the potential to increase traffic and ambient noise levels has been evaluated and determined to be less than significant. (Source: Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) 3. The Zoning Text Amendment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of California history. All reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Potential impacts have been determined to be less than significant. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) 4. The proposed amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals because the Zoning Ordinance is a long -term document that implements the goals and policies established in the General Plan. 5. The proposed amendment does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.). All reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Potential impacts have been determined to be less than significant. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) 6. The proposed project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. All reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Potential impacts have been determined to be less than significant. (Source: Alameda City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and attached Negative Declaration, dated April 27, 2005) 7. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and any and all other evidence before the City Council and finds and determines that there is substantial evidence that the adoption of the Zoning Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ZA05 -0002 subject to the following conditions: 1. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject properties. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim,, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 2. All Time and Material charges for this application shall be paid in full within 30 days of the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY DECLARING BOUTIQUE THEATERS TO BE USES PERMITTED BY USE PERMIT WITHIN THE C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT ® , REGULATIONS) i tr BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: en Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following new definition to Section 30 -2 (Definitions): Boutique Theater: A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding to Section 30- 4.8(c) (Uses Requiring Use Permits) Subsection 9 as follows: 9. Boutique Theater Section 3. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the Council Introduction of Ordinance # 5 -C 7 -19 -05 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: William C. Norton Acting City Manager DATE: July 14, 2005 RE: Approval of Revised Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy for the Library BACKGROUND On June 7, 2005, the City Council considered a Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy for the Library, as recommended for adoption by the Library Board and the Library Foundation. Following the discussion, the Mayor and Council requested that the policy be returned with changes. The revised policy is included as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION a. Declining Gifts. Council members asked that the language be revised to strengthen the City's ability to decline inappropriate gifts. In response, the City Attorney's office drafted a new section, section 3: "The City Manager shall have sole discretion in determining the appropriateness of any gift and whether to accept the gift. This discretion shall not be exercised in an unlawful manner." b. Design, Wording and Placement of Plaques. Council members asked for examples of the design, wording and placement of donor recognition elements similar to what our library will have. Images of donor plaques from other libraries are included as Exhibit B. The actual design, wording and placement of donor recognition signage and the donor wall will be governed by the Donor Recognition Program document, which will be developed with the Library's signage consultant. Donor recognition signage will be specifically designed to harmonize with the interior of the building tastefully and unobtrusively. Standardized wording will be established, such as "In Memory of... ", "In Honor of..." or "A Gift from... ". While the names of corporate donors will be included, corporate logos or slogans will not be accepted. The intent of the Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy is that everyone who gives $5000 or more will be named on the donor wall. This applies to lifetime giving; several smaller gifts could aggregate and earn the donor a spot on the wall. Larger gifts will earn larger plaques. In addition to donor wall recognition, the individual item or space -- Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report 5 -D 7 -19 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 14, 2005 garden bench, study room, table, or bookshelf, for example - -would also be named with an appropriately -sized and tasteful plaque. To insure that donors are aware of the restrictions, they are referenced in the Policy; please refer to a new section, section 9, "Design, placement and wording of recognition plaques shall be as set forth in the Donor Recognition Program." Council members do not want the library to be visually cluttered, and wondered whether plaques on the donor wall would suffice. Following the Council meeting, the Library Director met again with the Library Foundation and their fund - raising consultant, J.S. May of the Metropolitan Group. After thorough discussion, the consultant's recommendation continues to be that donor plaques can be tasteful and unobtrusive, and that the library will raise more money by offering naming opportunities to $100, which in our case is the "named shelf" level. Mr. May particularly emphasized that with naming as low as $100, the capital campaign can become the Every Cardholder Campaign, increasing visibility and enthusiasm for the fund raising. For example, a named shelf at a cost of $100 would be within the reach of almost everyone, and could be used to honor friends, grandchildren, etc. A copy of Mr. May's letter about the advantages of named gifts is included as Exhibit C. This proposal was developed with the assistance of the Library Art and Recognition Team, and was reviewed and approved by the Library Foundation Board on June 20. On July 13 it was approved by the Library Board with a recommendation for Council adoption. All participants are aware and respectful of the Council's concerns; all are hopeful that this further explanation may dispel them. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT It is important for the City to encourage private donations to the Foundation's capital campaign, by adopting a policy of donor recognition, which will assist in fund raising. The donor recognition and naming levels provide the Library Foundation with the ability to speak directly with potential donors, and show them the recognition they will receive. These potential private donations will have a very positive impact upon the Library's ability to deliver services to our community. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION The Acting City Manager recommends that the Mayor and Council approve the revised "Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy ", attached as Exhibit A. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 July 14, 2005 Attachments Respectfully submitted, Susan Hardie Library Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service EXHIBIT A Alameda Free Library Donor Recognition and Named Gifts The City of Alameda is very appreciative of private contributions, which are essential to the development and operation of the facilities and services of the Main Library and its branches. The purpose of this policy is to encourage and recognize donors and to ensure that donors and taxpayers are recognized appropriately. Contributions for the Main Library and its branches be given directly to the Alameda Free Library Foundation, which is the preferred recipient for private gifts because it has established the infrastructure to track, acknowledge and recognize these gifts. Consistent with this policy the specific recognition accorded to donors may include named spaces, furnishings or fixtures within the library, letters of acceptance and appreciation, press releases, public events, mementos, certificates, placement on a donor wall, and other items that commemorate the gift. The recommendations below for named gift opportunities in the new Main Alameda Free Library and branches have been developed as of April, 2005. Because of the evolving nature of the design process for the new Main Library, these opportunities may be refined and changed with the Library's design. Upon approval of this policy by the City Council, the Library Board, in partnership with the Foundation, will develop a process for directing gifts to the Library with the following goals and outcomes in mind: 1. The taxpayers of Alameda will be recognized in a prominent location and manner within the new Main Library for their support of this project. 2. All gifts must meet the goals of the Library. 3. The City Manager shall have sole discretion in determining the appropriateness of any gift and whether to accept the gift. This discretion shall not be exercised in an unlawful manner. 4. Gifts will be accepted and managed in accordance with the type of fund (current, endowment) and with the uses or objectives specified by the donor. 5. Multi year pledges up to three years are encouraged. Five -year pledges are negotiable on a case by case basis. 6. Programmatic, endowed and planned gifts will be welcomed and recognized. 7. Named gifts will encompass all levels of giving and are available to individuals, foundations, corporations and profit or non - profit organizations. The donor and the Foundation will work together to finalize wording to ensure appropriateness "Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 2 of the gift and that it is possible to meet any specified terms and conditions of the gift. 8. Final approval on naming rests with the City Council or its designee. The Library Board and the Foundation will act in partnership and in accordance with this policy to ensure appropriate management of this process. 9. Design, placement and wording of recognition plaques shall be as set forth in the Donor Recognition Program. 10. Individual plaques may be placed on specialized furniture and equipment. These items are dedicated only for the life of the item and not for the life of the building. 11. The Recognition wall in the new library will be designed to recognize donors to the capital campaign, and it will continue to grow and to recognize donors post - campaign. Donors will be recognized on the wall when lifetime giving exceeds $5,000. 12. Donors to the branches will be recognized in an appropriate manner in each facility. Recognition Levels $500,000 • Children's Library • Community Meeting Room (2 each) • Grand Central Staircase $250,000 • Children's Story Hour and Craft Room • Computer Lab • Cafe $175,000 • Stained Glass Lunette (3 each) $100,000 • Outdoor Courtyard/Garden • Circulation Desk • Preschool Reading and Play Area • Young Children's (grades 1 -6) Homework Center - first floor $50,000 • Quiet Reading Room • Library Conference Room • New Books Section • Teen Homework Center - second floor • Family Study Room - 12 person • Granite Bench in Garden, engraved with donor's name (3 each) Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service "Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 3 $35,000 • Standing Bronze Sculpture by Michael Carey (at foot of stair) $30,000 • The Oracle of the Tree, granite mural by Masayuki Nagase (above Circulation Desk) $25,000 • Carved Wooden Trellis sculpture by Michael Carey (in children's area) • Group Study Rooms (2 each) • Reference Study Rooms (2 each) • Reading Nook w /Bay Window — second floor (large — 3 each) • Children's Services Work Room • Reference Desk • Children's Services Desk • Reception Desk • Computer Area /room • Precast Bench near entrance $10,000 • Library Director's Office • Children's Librarian's Office • Book Return • Friends of the Library Workroom • Self Check Out Center • Reading Nook w /Bay Window — second floor (small — 3 each) • Reading Nook (w /o bay - 4 each) • Maps Section • Microform & Clipping Files • Library Admin and Reception $5,000 • Donor wall recognition (for all donors at this level and above) • Carved Rabbit sculpture by Michael Carey (for Children's area) • Catering Kitchen (associated with the meeting rooms) • Staff Room • Copier Alcove (2 each) • Elevator • Children's Play Area Table with Chairs (5 each) • Children's Story /Craft Room Table with Chairs (6 each) • Local History Section (10 each) $2,500 • Table and 4 chairs (27 each) Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service "Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 4 $1,500 • Bike racks $1,000 • Table • Stack $500 • Chair $100 • Named Shelf Planned Gifts • Contributions to endowed collections start at $10,000. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service , • I f I ( , ' (re-re r ccrr er rr ( ( i ( (' ( ( ( ' rirrr(rr-rr rr r i' I ( (rirrrr( r ( r C( r r. r r , ,,r I ■ ( ( ( l''' j I e i ' f lIl r r r r r ((rcc-r- , ( ( rrrrc(C-Cr r r c c c- • '' ( , ( ( (. C ( rcr-C c, r c'' cl. r r , , r r ( ( ( , r( r c (... r ,, ( , ( ( ( ( ( ( ( C r c C r c e' C''.'C; . r r r r r r r r r r r. r (r(r(rrrrrrrrc(cC-Cc•C r ryr:,..4-'....i, r r r r r I. r r r r r r r' c C C, C C C CiLri', , , r r i . , ,(.(rrrCCC.CC.C5; ( r r « r , r « r ■ r ■ (r rl(r r ( r r , , , , , , „,.((rcrccc:--(' , „ , , , , , , , , r ( r :" 1 ' ( (- ( (.. i' C:' (1 ( ( r r (r ( r '-(C(-1,1C,c1 f , ( ( ■ ( ( r ( ( c C C.- C (-.- rj. r ( r t « r , “ • ( 1 C c C'''t; ( ( . C C-• (''•.C' rrr',C r( r( r ( r r ,". _., : ( C c C:- ti .. r r r ' ( , ( ,. '-'' ■ r , r r r ( r r:, r ( C C.-. C., C:'-'0.,,(.; ( ( ( ( ( r ( r (" r c , - C C 0 c'. CTt r ■ r r r r r c r rr ( c ' . C C C' r', C .C.t, ( r r ( ( ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( c_( k ( ( r ( r r r r (.. ( r ( ( r , ■ ( - C ( C C C C C .C.:CC. ( r ( r r r r r ( r ( ( r C ( C ( C ( C., C. • C ,C' c'•.,:t ■ r r I ' I , « ( ( ( ("- ( ( '' « r ( C ( ( C CCe.'' (...':t-‘,4 r r « r ((Cr ■( cr rc( (Cc( (C(CC(CC C' c• ,C1 ( ( (CC CC(C(CC(''.CrC'('47 I ( I ( ( C ( ( ( C ( ( C ( C ( I C C C C C C C• C.. `C0 I ■ ( I ( ; ( ( I ( ( ( ( (- C ( ( . r C c C C. ( C '(' C C.'c (.. (7/..e': C.',' ' 0 e 7 ' ra'r ( • • I • r ' • ( ( " ( ( r r ( ( , r ( r r t , , • rrirr 1. , • ' ( r r (if r CC rrrc: • r Cr ci(C.: c ( C C ( a r rr Cr r c r ( r I rcr Crr « rr"c((- rrrrirc(rc.(--• • ( r r r r r,««rrrrrrr-c-r rcrc-c'f-- • r rrrr ( rrrrrr « r ( rr(CCCC(C-': • « r icci(Cf;.(..1:r ,r•rrrfrrl(r((((et—e r C C r r (l((((((( rrr-r7! ((trt,'/(r(((,(( r • • r r c ( ( " « ( (-CC-CC-Cr • ((cc cr C,"-• Livermore P.L Bench; San Leandro P.L. Auditorium C Metropolitan Group Communications that make a difference. MEMO To Susan Hardie, Library Director, Alameda Free Library From JS May, CFRE Date June 23, 2005 Re Further Background on the Named Gift Process EXHIBIT C There is a saying in philanthropy that states "everyone wants to get caught doing something good." Named gift recognition helps achieve this goal. Recognizing named gifts in the fundraising process is critical to creating success in private philanthropy and is very common within library fundraising. Indeed, Andrew Carnegie set the precedent for named gifts in libraries with his legacy of Carnegie Libraries across America. The Alameda Free Library and its Foundation will raise significantly more money utilizing named gifts than without. Additionally, named gifts inform library patrons that others have supported the library through private philanthropy and this helps set the stage for future gifts. A goal of all your library campaign is to not only raise the money needed for this current project, but to build a base of private giving that will support collections, technology, programming, endowment, etc. Named gifts also help achieve this goal. Recognition plaques can be tastefully done using the way - finding /ADA signage consultant that is working with the building's design team. Metropolitan Group has worked dozens of libraries including: Association of Research Libraries Benton City Library Brooklyn Public Library Eugene Public Library Vancouver Public Library Indianapolis Public Library King County Public Library Oregon Library Association New Jersey Library Association Laramie County Public Library Maryland Public Library System Multnomah County Library Minneapolis Public Library Milton Freewater Public Library San Jose Public Library Santa Clara City Library Stayton Public Library Tillamook County Public Library IJOHN STUART MAY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT /PRINCIPAL 519 SW Third Avenue Suite 700 Portland OR 97204 503 223 3299 telephone 503 223 3474 fax www.metgroup.com City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum To: Senior Management Team From: Robert L. Wonder Assistant City Manager - Operations Date: March 13, 2001 Re: Policy Guidelines Regarding Automobile Allowance 1. Policy The City has adopted provisions to compensate certain senior management employees and certain other management employees approved by the City Manager for the use of their private vehicles for the conduct of City business. 2. Purpose The purpose of these guidelines is to establish conditions under which non - vehicle expenses such as parking fees, bridge tolls and BART /ferry tickets are reimbursable while conducting City business. It is understood that the use of private vehicles for use on official City business is based upon need and represents an economic benefit to the City. 3. General Policy Provisions a. Said employees shall be paid a monthly allowance of $250.00. b. Retention of a valid driver's license is a condition of continued eligibility to receive an automobile allowance. c. No vehicle allowance payments shall be made without the employee having first provided proof of insurance to the satisfaction of the City's Risk Manager. d. All maintenance and operating costs shall be at the expense of the employee. Re: Agenda Item # 5 -F 7 -19 -05 To: Senior Management Team Automobile Allowance Policy March 13, 2001 Page Two e. Occasional automobile travel within the nine Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) is considered to be covered by this policy. Travel outside this area shall be reimbursed at the City's current mileage rate. Non - vehicle expenses such as parking fees, bridge tolls, etc., associated with conducting City business are reimbursable according to normal City policy. f. Car allowances are reported as income and tax implications are the responsibility of the employee. h. Employees assigned a City vehicle, but choosing to take a private vehicle to attend a conference, are eligible to submit for reimbursement. cc: City Manager H:\HMEMOS\AUTOPOL. WPD MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: July 14, 2005 Mayor Beverly Johnson Members of City Council Carol A. Korade City Attorney Proposal for Council Oversight on Expenditures from Outside Counsel Appropriations The City Council has requested a proposal from the City Attorney which would provide for more Council oversight for expenditures on outside counsel. In addition, Council has requested a competitive process for the hiring of outside counsel. This memorandum addresses these concerns. Background and Current Procedure The City Attorney's Office provides total legal services to the City of Alameda including Alameda Power & Telecom, the Community Improvement Commission, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. These legal services include both transactional and litigation, and are provided through a "hybrid" system of five in -house attorneys employed by the City, and contracted outside counsel for some specialized transactional work, such as tax and bond advice, and litigation services. By Charter, all in -house attorneys and contracted outside counsel attorneys report to the City Attorney, and the City Attorney reports to the Council. The City Attorney's Office currently provides approximately 10,000 hours annually of in -house legal services to the various City entities, through five full -time in house attorneys. This work load is representative of that of a large private sector law- office. Because these legal services are provided to the City entities by salaried employees, as opposed to paying for the same legal services by the hour at market rates, currently approximately $250/hour, the City realizes significant annual budgetary savings for in -house legal services.a The City Attorney's office is co- counsel for all litigation matters involving the City and all City entities, thus performing some litigation services in house, such as preparation of discovery responses, additional research, investigation and co- preparation of some motions and declarations, and court appearances. The City Attorney's Office does not employ sufficient in- house attorney staff to provide dedicated litigation services for the approximately 20 cases the City defends or initiates each year. Litigation is a full time commitment, with an average a Given the daily legal work load, night meetings, weekend work and travel on behalf of the City entities, it is estimated that each of the five attorneys in the City Attorney's Office work an average of 50 hours per week (approximately 10,000 hours annually). The value of these legal services, if charged by the hour at an average market rate of $250/hour is $2.5 million. REPORT 5 -G 7 -19 -05 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council July 14, 2005 Page 2 expenditure of 140 hours per case for routine litigation matters. This 140 hours /case does not include the hours spent in -house by the City Attorney's Office as co- counsel. Assuming 20 routine defense cases per year, this averages to a minimum of 2,800 hours of outside counsel attorney time. Providing all litigation services in house would require the hiring of at least two additional full -time attorneys who would be dedicated to litigation work, a law clerk or paralegal and at least one additional legal secretary, including the provision of office space, equipment and salary and benefits. The hiring of outside counsel on a case by case basis by the City Attorney is the most cost effective means of providing City legal defense, given the number of suits the City is served with each year.b The City Council annually appropriates an outside counsel budget for use by the City Attorney's Office for each fiscal year. The Council appropriated this funding on June 7, 2005 for fiscal year 05/06. This budget is used to fund litigation, both City- initiated and litigation defense of the City, through the hiring by the City Attorney of outside co-counsel.c Currently, all City- initiated litigation is first authorized by the City Council, in closed session, in accordance with the Brown Act (Govt. Code Section 54956.9(c)). Once authorized to initiate litigation, the City Attorney hires appropriate outside co- counsel and then prepares a confidential litigation summary and draft litigation budget within the first 30 days of the City - initiated lawsuit. This information is presented to the Council in a confidential written report. When the City is served with a new lawsuit (where City will be defending, not initiating the matter), the City Council is notified by the City Attorney of the new suit within 24 -48 hours of service. The confidential litigation notice also identifies the outside counsel to be employed by the City Attorney as its co- counsel in the defense. Council receives periodic updates of the progress of individual litigation and comprehensive litigation status reports bi- annually. Proposed Changes to Litigation Procedures for City Based on Council direction for additional oversight on expenditures from outside counsel appropriations, the attached proposal has been prepared. This proposal contains a $35,000 spending limitation per matter, competitive bid process and other procedures. The median cost b At a market rate of $250/hour, the cost of routine defense averages $525,000 to $700,000 (15 to 20 cases per year). The City Attorney's Office currently provides routine and complex litigation defense, as well as significant City- initiated litigation, through a "hybrid" of outside counsel and in -house co- counsel, on a budget of $465,000. (e.g.,ABL and 15 Group). By contrast, providing all litigation defense services in house would be estimated to cost in excess of $500,000 in personnel costs and equipment/supplies; the cost of providing additional office space where none presently exists is an unknown additional expense. The outside counsel budget has remained relatively constant for over 15 years, despite the rising cost of legal fees ($425,000 in FY 1991/92, $465,000 in FY 2005 /06). The City Attorney's Office has been able to continue to provide high quality, cost effective legal defense to the City with this level budget by performing significant litigation services in -house as co- counsel. Additionally, amounts paid on all claims, settlements and judgments has remained low, (i.e., $198,000 in FY 04/05). Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council July 14, 2005 Page 3 of litigation in the City of Alameda is currently $35,000. This means that 50% of cases will cost less than $35,000 and 50% of cases will cost more. For expenditures over $35,000, prior authorization from the legislative body would be required. A copy of the City Attorney Proposal for Council Budgetary Oversight is attached. These limitations will provide the City Council, including the various entities in which they act, with additional budgetary oversight over outside counsel costs on a case by case basis, without impairing the ability to provide high quality, cost effective legal services and timely responsive pleadings and strategy for the City's defense. In litigation defense work, responsive pleadings must be filed within 20 days in federal court, and within 30 days in state court, so it is important to hire outside co- counsel as soon as possible. A spending limitation or threshold equivalent to the median cost of $35,000 should be sufficient to avoid the "Catch -22" of being unable to timely hire outside co- counsel without first requesting Council authorization to spend any amount from the outside counsel budget—an amount which will be unknown until the matter is discussed with the hired co- counsel. A lower spending limit will require either 1) an immediate closed session every time a lawsuit is served, which will impair the City's ability to timely hire co- counsel and file responsive pleadings, or 2) public meetings to request additional spending authority, which will impair the City's ability to keep its legal advice regarding liability matters and litigation strategy confidential. Note, that while legal advice and strategy is an appropriate matter to be discussed in closed session, budgetary matters and City expenditures are presented in open session. In order to avoid the need to discuss confidential City legal matters in public session, which would certainly disadvantage the City in both litigation and transactional matters, any spending limitation should be sufficient to enable the City to receive confidential legal services on a case by case basis. Fewer routine matters will cost more than $35,000 within a fiscal year, thus the need to risk public disclosure of confidential legal advice and litigation strategy accompanying a request for additional spending authority will arise less often. Finally, the City Attorney's Office will be issuing Requests for Qualifications in the Fall 2005 for outside legal counsel in the various areas of specialty and litigation that the City and its legal entities require, in order to have an available panel of outside counsel on an as needed basis. This process will continue to provide the most cost effective outside counsel services to the City by encouraging competition among qualified law firms. The City Attorney's Office will limit its use of outside counsel to this legal panel, and as a result the City Council will know which outside counsel are assigned to work on City matters. Any new attorney contracts can be subject to a $35,000 limitation per matter, with any requests for expenditures to exceed this limit being first presented to the City Council for approva Attachment Carol A. Korade Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY ATTORNEY PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL OVERSIGHT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL EXPENSES Limitations on Spending Outside Counsel Budget • * City Attorney is authorized by Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from appropriated budget without prior Council approval o $35,000 authorization protects the City from revealing confidential legal advice regarding liability and/or litigation strategy in open session o Protects the City's ability to hire outside counsel quickly in order to meet Court deadlines: • 20 days to file Answer /responsive pleading in federal court, plus additional attorney meet and confer requirements • 30 days to file Answer /responsive pleading in state court o Protects the City from the "Catch -22" of not hiring outside counsel until an initial outside counsel budget is approved by Council • Outside counsel participates in the strategy of the City defense /legal project in order to prepare a budget • Outside counsel works with City staff /witnesses to prepare defense • Changing outside counsel after initial work has begun is not cost effective, and is problematic for witness preparation/investigation, particularly for police defense matters o Consistent with estimated legal fees for current open cases, $35,000 is the median for litigation costs per case • City- initiated litigation requires prior City Council authorization o City Attorney presents matter, including proposed legal budget, to City Council in closed session before hiring outside co- counsel • * For matters estimated to cost less than $35,000, City Attorney hires outside co- counsel from legal panel selected through RFQ process *Proposed changes to current procedure Page 1 • * City Attorney meets with Council in closed session within 35 days and provides an analysis of the litigation, including litigation costs, as a confidential document if any of the following apply: o Estimated to exceed $35,000 in defense costs o Involving policy questions o Having significant ramifications for the City o If requested by City Council Limitations on Settlement Authority • City Attorney's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters; settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by City Council Reporting Requirements • The City Attorney keeps the Council apprised of the status of the litigation through periodic confidential reports • * Quarterly financial reports provided to City Council on costs of outside counsel • City Attorney provides confidential bi- annual litigation status reports to Council in January and July, with updated budget and analysis o Litigation status reports identify outside co- counsel for each case o Litigation status reports summarize the proceedings for each City initiated and defense case, including all "closed" cases for the current fiscal year and the preceding five (5) fiscal years o Litigation status reports include more detailed, separate confidential analysis provided for each litigation matter as attachments to the litigation status report o Litigation status report includes costs of litigation and any settlements /payments made by the City • City Attorney meets periodically in closed session with Council to discuss any pending litigation matter * Proposed change to current procedure Page 2 Limitations on Hiring of Outside Counsel • *City Attorney will seek Requests for Qualifications ( "RFQ ") for outside counsel legal services for legal panel and City Attorney use of outside counsel will be limited to legal panel o Will advertise by RFQ in Fall 2005 to create the following four outside counsel panels: 1) Bond Counsel 2) Litigation Defense (Tort, Public Safety, Construction Contract) 3) Real Property /Condemnation/Unlawful Detainer 4) Miscellaneous Specialty (such as Tax, Labor, Federal/BRAC, Environmental /CEQA/land use, Airport) o City Attorney selects most qualified attorneys for each legal panel, based on qualifications, experience, specialization, references and competitive rates • *All new contracts for the outside counsel legal panel will be subject to the $35,000 spending limitation, without express authority to exceed the budget; City Attorney may not exceed this limitation on budgeted appropriations without seeking Council authorization in open session * Proposed change to current procedure Page 3