Loading...
2007-06-05 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - -- - JUNE 5, 2007 - - - 6 :40 p.m. Time: Tuesday, June 5, 2007, 6:40 p.m. Place: gttY_S:_cng5ALwgNMN?ArA_g2n1:91:9egeo9P__IL_:!f city Hall, comer of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. . Roll Call - City Council 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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council Beverly o' ion, Mayor /7"‹.- Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, June 5, 2007, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Authorize Change Order and Budget Revision for Repair and Painting Projects. 3. AGENDA None. Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners June 5, 2007 Page 2 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT * * * Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are a vailable on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. 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 JUNE 5, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Council Chimers, 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 6:40 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL --- City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation honoring volunteers for planting King Alfred Daffodils in the Park Street Business District as part of its ongoing revitalization. (Development Services) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 15, 2007. (City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland & Knight, LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative advocacy services. (City Manager) 4 -D. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $320,000, including contingencies, to McNabb Construction, Inc., for Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P.W. 03- 07 -06. Public Works) 4 -E. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $250,368, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related improvements to address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P.W. 02- 07 -04. (Public Works) 4 -F. Recommendation to allocate $100,000 in Sewer Funds and award Contract in the amount of $1,935,000, including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 27, No. P.W. 04- 07 -17. (Public Works) 4 -G. Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent Integrated Waste Management charges for July 17, 2007. (Public Works) 4 -H. Recommendation to reject bids for the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, adopt new Specifications, and authorize Call for Bids for two marked Dodge Charger Police vehicles. (Police) 4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution No. 14000. (City Attorney) 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, State of California, and All Necessary Actions to Purchase Tax- Defaulted Property (APN 74- 955 -91) for Park Purposes Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (Finance) 4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held on November 7, 2000. (Finance) 4 -L. Introduction of Ordinance Containing a Description of the Community Improvement Commission's Program to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain in the Alameda Point, Business and Waterfront, and West End Community Improvement Project Areas. (Development Services) 4 -M. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Planned Development, PD07 -0001, and Parcel Map, PM06 -0005, to Allow the Division of a 25,000 Square -Foot Parcel into Two Lots at 650/700 Grand Street. The property is located within an R -1 (Single- Family Residential) Zoning District. (Planning and Building) 4 -N. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Map 9387, TM06 -0003, for the Purpose of Establishing Up to Eight Commercial Condominiums within One Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue. This property is located within the M -X Mixed use Planned Development Zoning District. (Planning and Building) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008; and • Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. (Finance) 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. (Finance) 5 -C. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007- 2008. (Development Services) 5 -D. Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one -year extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service; I. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a one -year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the associated budgets; II. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one additional year at a cost of $79,159; and III. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five Percent Unrestricted .State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital y p tal Proj ects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into All Agreements Necessary to Secure these Funds for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. (Public Works) 5 -E. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste (Solid waste, Recycling and Organics) Collection Ceiling Rates and Services Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. for Rate Period 6 (July 2007 to June 2008) . (Public Works) 5 -F. Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's action to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Safeway Gas Station Project located at 2234 Otis Drive. [PDA05 -001, DR05 -0010, UP06 -003, UP06 -0010, UP06 -0013] (Planning and Building) 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) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 7-A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission. 8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council • 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. Housing Authority the City 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Authorize Change Orders and Budget Revision for Repair and Painting Projects BACKGROUND On January 2, 2007, the Board of Commissioners approved contracts to make repairs and paint Esperanza and Independence Plaza. The contract for $171,300 for Esperanza was awarded to G & S Painting. The Independence Plaza contract for $351,600, also including repairs to trellises and decks, was awarded to Bayview Painting. Both contracts included a contingency of 20 percent for minor dry rot repairs. On April 3, 2007, the Board of Commissioners approved a revision to the budget for the Esperanza project as more extensive dry rot had been found. The Housing Commission had approved a separate contract to Omega Pest Control for structural repairs up to $67,345. The budget for the Esperanza project, therefore, was increased to $260,000. The budget for the Independence Plaza project is $261,280. DISCUSSION Far more dry rot was found at Esperanza than was anticipated, even after the additional contract was awarded for structural repairs. All repairs are within the ability of Omega and G & S Painting to perform but the costs are beyond the authorization amount provided for in the G & S Painting contract and will exceed the budget. At Independence Plaza, costs were staying within contract and budget until the shingle work started. More damaged shingles were found than anticipated. The damage was found to be most severe on the sides receiving afternoon sun. In the future, cleaning and sealing the shingles will be done more frequently than the overall painting /staining of the complex to prevent this level of damage. Staff is requesting authorization to approve change orders to repair dry rot to complete the Esperanza project and to replace damaged shingles at Independence Plaza. The projected additional cost for change orders is $6,000 at Esperanza and $85,000 at Independence Plaza. The total budget for both projects should be increased to cover HABOC Item #2 -A CC 06 -05 -07 Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 these costs, $266,000 for Esperanza and $335,680 for Independence Plaza, somewhat Tess than the anticipated change order amount. Due to the additional time required to make repairs, both projects may need to be carried over to next fiscal year to be completed. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT In the original budget, the Esperanza project was expected to cost $472,000. A transfer from the Housing Authority's General Fund operating reserve was approved to cover this cost. With changes in the project and the budget, the transfer amount was expected to decrease to $381,300. With the additional amount of $6,000 needed for this project, the transfer is expected to be $387,300, still $90,700 Tess than originally anticipated. For Independence Plaza, a budget increase of $70,320 is requsted to cover the additional cost to replace shingles. POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Housing Authority Resolution No. 689 reserves the right of the Board of Commissioners to approve budgets and all contracts that exceed $75,000. RECOMMENDATON The Chief Executive Officer recommends: 1. Authorizing the Executive Director to issue up to $6,000 in change orders to the contract for Omega Pest Control and G & S Painting to cover additional dry rot repairs at the Esperanza public housing complex; 2. Authorizing the Executive Director to issue up to $85,000 in change orders to the contract for Bayview Painting to cover additional cost for shingle replacement at Independence Plaza; 3. Increasing the budget for Esperanza by $6,000, by HUD - required resolution, and Independence Plaza by $54,400 to cover the additional expenditures on these projects; and 4. Approving the carry over of these two projects to next fiscal year as needed to complete them. Respectfully submitted w Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Lee;,/,-- By: Eileen Duffy Housing Authority anager ED ■Zr■t■e,t__.1 PHA/IHA Board Resolution Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA )/Indian Housing Authority (IHA), as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): v El I Operating Budget Submitted on: Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) 06/05/2007 I certify on behalf of the: (PHA/IHA Name) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low- income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA /IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA/IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA/IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 Exhibit to Agenda Item #2 -A CC 6-5-07 HABOC City of Alameda California WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, PROCLAMATION in the early 1990s, the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) was organized to focus on the revitalization of the Park Street Business District (the District); and in 1991, the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project was created to also assist in the revitalization of the District; and since then, many projects have helped move the District to the goal of being a revitalized shopping district with a full inventory of both goods and services; and PSBA President Lars Hansson, as a result of travel to other cities, began to consider a beautification effort for the District that consisted of planting colorful flowers to greet the spring; and President Hansson researched flowering species and concluded that the King Alfred Daffodil could make a statement of great color in the District and would return annually because it is a bulb-produced flower; and President Hansson recruited volunteers to assist in the planting of thousands of daffodil bulbs in the planter areas of the District; and in 2007, these bulbs made their first appearance in the District, elevating the District with their beauty and complementing the recent streetscape improvements made in the District; and WHEREAS, this selfless volunteerism deserves the highest commendation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby express my thanks to President Hansson and the outstanding volunteers that joined him in this important beautification effort of the Park Street Business District and do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Daffodil Volunteer Appreciation Day in the City and urge Alamedans to join me in thanking President Hansson and the volunteers for their contribution to the revitalization o the Park Street Business District. Office of the Mayor 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538 City Council Agenda Item #3 -A 06 -05 -07 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 15, 2007- -6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Properties: Alameda Gateway, Alameda Marina, Ballena Marina, Encinal Industries, and Encinal Marina; Negotiating parties: City and J. Beery, Pacific Shops, Almar Property, P. Wang and Encinal Marina; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council regarding Property, Council received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding the status of existing leases and gave direction on negotiating parameters for new lease terms; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators and gave direction on negotiating parameters. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 15, 2007- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:46 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE' DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (07 -. ) Proclamation declaring May 17, 2007 as Bike -to -Work Day. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dan Wood, Bike Alameda. (07- _) Proclamation declaring May 13 through 19, 2007 as National Police Memorial Week. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Chief of Police. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar; requested a 10 -year sales tax profile [regarding the recommendation to accept quarterly sales tax, paragraph no. *07- ]. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would abstain from voting on the May 1, 2007 minutes [paragraph no. *07- ]. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *07- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on April 17, 2007, the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 1, 2007, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 May 15, 2007 Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on May 8, 2007. Approved. [Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the May 1, 2007 minutes.] ( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,285,161.40. ( *07- ) Recommendation to set hearing date for June 5, 2007 for establishment of Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for period ending March 31, 2007. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $240,000, including contingencies, to Shaaf & Wheeler Consulting Engineers for Storm Drainage Study, No. P.W. 0 3--0 7 -0 8 . Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Roof Structure for Maintenance Service Center Transfer Pad and Dumpsters, No. P.W. 04- 07 -14. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for pruning of City trees within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2008, No. P. W. 04-- 07-13. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 repair of Portland Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, No. P.W. 03- 06 -06. Accepted. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14086, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted; ( *07- A) Resolution No. 14087, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007 -- Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3." Adopted. ( *07- ) Resolution Na. 14088, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007 - Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove)." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 May 15, 2007 ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14089, "Approving a Second Amendment to the Agreement for Additional Funding from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into All Associated Agreements." Adopted. ( *07- -- ) Resolution No. 14090, "Accepting $138,000 in Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the Signal Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth Street, Park Street, and Otis Drive Projects." Adopted. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14091, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Moss Brothers Dodge, Riverside, California Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for One Dodge Charger in an Amount Not to Exceed $23,470." Adopted. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14092, "Authorizing the City Manager to Complete and Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the State of California Department of Transportation for the Stargell (Formerly Tinker) Avenue Extension Project (CIP No. 04- 105/CalTrans Project No. EA448200)." Adopted. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14093, "Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 and Set a Public Hearing for June 5, 2007." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07- ) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review/Appeal of the Planning Board's appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Planning and Building Director on a Housing Element /Measure A Workshop. The Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Appellant; Pat Bail, Appellant; Dr. Alice Challen, Appellant; Diane Coler -Dark, Appellant; Jim Sweeney, Appellant; former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich, Appellant; "Lil" Arnerich for Norma Arnerich, Alameda; former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Appellant; Robert Pardee, Alameda; Dorothy A. Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard, Alameda; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; David Howard, Action Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; Nita Rosen, Alameda; Noel Folsom, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 May 15, 2007 Alameda; Robert Rodd, Alameda; Robert Todd, Alameda; and Mercedes Milana, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board Member; Ann Cook, Planning Board Member; Kate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda (submitted handout); Michael Schmitz, Alameda; Lois Pryor, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Mark Irons, Alameda; Mi'Chelle Fredrick, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES); Susan Decker, Alameda; Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Lauren Do, Alameda; Dan Wood, Alameda; Helen Sause, HOMES; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Sam Sauce, Alameda; Carl Halpern, Alameda; Liz Rogers, Alameda; Michael. Kruger, Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Laura Thomas, Alameda; and Eve Bach, Arc Ecology. Neutral: Pamela Kurtz, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda. * * * Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and returned at 9:21 p.m. Following the Appellants' comments, Councilmember deHaan stated the City is going through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Station Area Plan; the initial meeting was held; inquired whether the Planning Board submitted information and inquiries for discussion at said meeting. The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that the Planning Board talked about wanting to see design and land usage; inquired what the Station Area Plan is to do. The Planning and Building Director responded the Station Area Plan looks at land development patterns for Alameda Point; stated as part of the grant MTC awarded the City, the City is required to look at a land use development pattern that would be denser around a multi -modal transit station, which would be a non - Measure A alternative; the land development alternative in the Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) will be compared to something with a different form to see how transit would or would not be supported. Councilmember deHaan inquired why would said avenue not be used as the platform for discussion. The Planning and Building Director responded said avenue is part of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 15, 2007 the discussion. Councilmember deHaan stated the Planning and Building Director's position at the [Planning Board] meeting was that the decision is policy and should be considered at the Council level, which is contrary to the staff report. The Planning and Building Director responded a bigger discussion of Measure A, not in context of the Housing Element update or MTC grant funded project, is a policy discussion in her opinion. Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is going through stages right now; the Alameda Point Master Developer was just selected; the Master Developer will return with various ideas and direction; the MTC Station Area Plan was to set up the dialogue on transportation; there was a very small sub - element on Measure A, which became a prime element at the first meeting; the Housing Element has been under discussion for ages and is an on -going legitimate discussion; the Chinatown Agreement and lawsuits facing the City are important and put certain limitations on the amount of housing that can be built; the Collins property plans rejected by the Planning Board and Council is in a lawsuit; these are the things in which the Council needs to be involved; there is going to be a different disposition of how Coast Guard housing will be handled; said matters are the concerns that require better understanding of how to go forward; the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will come forward; all said matters intertwine together; the Council took a position when the League of Women Voters requested the matter [Measure A amendment] be put on the ballot; density, traffic and number of houses are important issues; in 2000, the Sierra Club and ARC Ecology did a survey of around 300 homes to ask if there was support to change Measure A; the response was not to change Measure A; the other question was whether there would be support to change Measure A for Alameda Point; the study indicated the matter would not pass if it were not brought through the Council; a year later the Chamber of Commerce surveyed its membership regarding changing Measure A; the membership decided not to take any action because the resounding response was the membership did not support changing Measure A; Measure A continues to get good dialogue; there is not good understanding of Measure A; the dialogue has to be out there to ensure people understand why Measure A was put in place; Alameda Landing entitlements increased housing and added retail; that he supports additional retail; however, saturation is being reached; the Tube congestion is getting worse; full build out is not even close; reducing the amount of housing at Alameda Point has been discussed; a rough study indicated that it would take 3,100 homes to make Alameda Point economically viable; there will be further study; 12-15% of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 May 15, 2007 people in Alameda use public transit; the Alameda Point PDC states that the largest percent achievable would be 20% [using public transit]; the matter is how traffic will flow and move in an orderly fashion throughout Alameda, not Measure A; the Council needs further discussion of how to look at Alameda as a whole rather than individual parts; discussion is important and healthy. Following the last public speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:40 p.m. * * * Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciated everyone's civility. Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Attorney to answer the question about whether the Planning Board action was within the Board's legal authority. The City Attorney responded the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over amending or changing Measure A, which would be a Charter amendment and requires a vote of the people; stated the Planning Board also has no jurisdiction over advocating the changing of Measure A; the Planning Board can look at and talk about Measure A as long as it does not take an advocacy position; establishing a subcommittee for the sole purpose of looking at various ways a public forum could be structured is not outside the authority of the Planning Board; under the Brown Act, the subcommittee must report back to the Planning Board at an open meeting with public participation; the action the Planning Board took was within the Board's jurisdiction. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board's action that was appealed was legal; whether the Board cannot take an advocacy position; whether the subcommittee would not make any decisions and would only make recommendations to the Planning Board; and whether the Planning Board would not make any decision about whether Measure A stays or goes because it is outside the Board's purview. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative to all of Councilmember Matarrese's inquiries. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there are any constraints on the direction the Council can give regarding the composition of the subcommittee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 6 The City Attorney responded there are no constraints on the City Council to condition the Planning Board's action; Council can uphold the appeal, deny the appeal or make a different recommendation to the Planning Board and remand the decision for the Planning Board to do in a different way. Councilmember deHaan stated the Council determines how individual elements move forward, which has an impact on the overall development of Alameda; the overall development of Alameda should be reviewed; Measure A is a segment of it [development]; Measure A could be discarded if there were a limit on the number of overall housing units and design were different; there needs to be an understanding of what might be built out and how impacts will affect the City; the Council should look at how the overall growth of Alameda is going to be built out and understand all the segments together and the TMP's impacts; decisions should start being made as a big picture; the Measure A portion is going to be and has been discussed, maybe not in the proper context, in the Station Area Plan; that he has not seen what the Station Area Plan next meeting will look like, which is important to him; the first ,meeting started off on the wrong foot; another three meetings will be held, which is a good starting point; MTC's funding provided a great opportunity since the City'could not afford the staff time and effort; that he would prefer looking at the overall picture and making a determination of how the City will handle this [development] as a whole; the other [formation of a subcommittee] should be put on the side and the appeal should be upheld because the Planning Board has a heavy agenda for the next three or four months. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember deHaan's comments; questioned whether the normal process is to start with the Planning Board and then have the matter come to Council; stated that she 'agrees there should be an overall strategy, which has been done in different areas; there should be a comprehensive review. Councilmember deHaan stated it [comprehensive review] has been done somewhat in the Alameda Point PDC. Mayor Johnson •stated parts have been completed, such as transportation and retail analysis. Councilmember deHaan stated the Northern waterfront and the impact of South Shore have not been done; all of the elements have not been considered together as a whole; the West End has to be one of the most important corridors and is already impacted now; Measure A Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 15, 2007 might not change that [West End corridor] at all and would not effect the numbers being discussed if the intent were not to have more housing units; the transportation corridor has become so much more important; there is a situation with Alameda Landing - -only $400,000 was designated for remediation of transportation corridors; Oakland is developing out which is inundating Alameda's corridors; the Council would be remiss if the proper context is not taken. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is stating that more housing units should not be included if the Planning Board is reviewing, for example, planning at the Base. Councilmember deHaan responded that he is just telling about the impact of traffic itself; stated no more housing started to be discussed when the City lost the last developer; reducing the number of homes started being discussed more; the developer has been told the City wants jobs out there [at Alameda Point]; another developer was just selected; there is time to review and understand; the new developer is a new set of fresh eyes and will bring a new dimension to it [Alameda Point development]; there is no urgency at. this point in time; adaptive reuse has been talked about; individuals have stated adaptive reuse cannot be done under Measure A, but it can; it [development] may not be as good under Measure A as it could be, but it can be done; Cardinal Point is an excellent example; needs can be met under Measure A; Alameda Landing will include building housing above commercial space and is Measure A compliant; Measure A is not the driving force; there is a bigger problem- -the constraints and opportunities facing the City. Councilmember Matarrese stated several of Councilmember deHaan's comments, such as the statement that the impacts are not known, support the Planning Board action; the City is facing the largest development, which is really reuse, in Alameda's history; the development is probably the most important in the Bay Area and every single option is worth review; the ground rules are specifically to establish the facts on the limitations and benefits of Measure A; it [the workshop] is to obtain public input; the deliverable is to provide a written account of the workshop that will include facts that can be used in support of the Housing Element and to provide the City Council with information for making policy decisions; doing it [the workshop] now is fortuitous because Alameda Point development is at least a year away; Measure A has been discussed every two years on a regular basis in the context of political campaigns; taking the discussion outside the context of a political campaign and making it fact based is good; that in addition to the Housing Element, he would like to include the transportation component, which is inextricably intertwined; the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 May 15, 2007 forum should be facilitated by someone outside the City who is independent; having the discussion is timely and must be done. Vice Mayor Tam stated the formation of a committee to plan a public forum has raised the concern that there may be a group that is headed in the direction of amending Measure A; Measure A permeates through the City's land use planning and affects the quality of life as it pertains to dealing with traffic through the Tube, saving open space, and public transit ridership; both sides agreed that institutional knowledge could be conveyed through a public forum that is fair, honest, balanced, realistic and helps define the future, particularly with the Alameda Point development; there is a concern that the committee may not be able to fulfill some of the expectations of the fair, open, transparent debate; therefore, she suggests that the committee be expanded to include three members from the seven Appellants. Councilmember Gilmore thanked the members of the public for participating in the discussion; stated people mentioned that Measure A came to be when there was concern about a large development at one end of town and people were worried about what the density and traffic would do to the rest of the town; now, there will be another very large development at one end of town; the City is facing a situation very similar to the situation that spawned Measure A and there is a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of Measure A; concerns raised at the Planning Board meeting were legitimate; including Appellants on the committee is a good idea; that she was going to suggest that the structure formed by the committee return to the Planning Board for full debate; the committee might come up with a structure that does not include any Planning Board members; a method might be to choose members of the public. Mayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the City is advocating; having no members of the Planning Board might be good; the Council appoints other committees that do not involve members of boards, commissions or Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated good suggestions were made tonight, such as having Woody Minor present a history of Measure A; that she does not know enough about what the structure will be to decide whether it [the forum] will be good or bad; on a personal basis, she does not like to tell anyone that they cannot talk about something; open meetings are held in order to allow people to talk; a fair, unbiased forum that would allow people to give viewpoints and be educated would be good for the City; that she likes the fact that it [the forum] will be done in a non - election year and is not being done while there is a signed agreement with an Alameda Point Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 May 15, 2007 developer; not having a signed developer should eliminate concerns that the forum is developer driven; the development at Bay Farm gave rise to Measure A; the discussion on Alameda Point development might give rise to a tightening of Measure A, which will not be known until the discussion is held. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that the leadership which the Planning Board would bring to the debate would be lost if the committee is made up of members of the public; the Planning Board is the Council's land use advisory body and has a significant amount of expertise that should not be lost; combining the Planning Board members with people on the other side of the debate brings a richer framework for how the public forum would be shaped, as well as inviting Woody Minor to be a panelist at one of the workshops. Councilmember deHaan stated similar thoughts were raised at the Planning Board meeting; adding other parties to the committee was discussed and was not pursued; starting with Woody Minor was brought up a couple of meetings prior; understanding pros and cons that have occurred during the last 34 years has to be done to make the forum meaningful; the forum is not needed to address design and land usage issue, which are already being addressed at the MTC; there has to be much more to the dialogue. Mayor Johnson recognized Planning Board Member Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the three subcommittee members met after the Planning Board appointed the subcommittee and prior to the Appeal/Call for Review; at said meeting, one of the first names that came up as a good starting point was Woody Minor; that she takes copious notes and no one expressed a desire to overturn Measure A; the discussion was about what the Council would want as a deliverable, probably at least three alternatives; the subcommittee also discussed wanting to hear from people in as many different areas as possible and how to do as much as possible on a very limited budget; urged Council to give the subcommittee 30 days to come up with something and return to the Planning Board or Council; the subcommittee is looking for a way to have a full, fair discussion. Mayor Johnson recognized former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich. Mr. Arnerich inquired whether the Council has the right to select the committee members; stated the rooster is guarding the hen house; people think the three Planning Board members selected for the subcommittee are anti-Measure A; the subcommittee should be made up of unbiased people who would look at the matter Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 15, 2007 objectively. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Arnerich would support the Council adding him, former Councilmember Barbara Kerr and Woody Minor to the committee. Mr. Arnerich responded that he did not want to serve; stated Golf Commissioner Bob Wood would be good. Councilmember deHaan stated Woody Minor should give a presentation [at the forum]; actual Appellants should be added to the committee. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellants could select three designees. Mr. Arnerich responded man y excellent people could serve; going to people outside the Planning Board to carry out the Council's wishes is the most appropriate way to go. Mayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the subcommittee members have a preference. Councilmember Gilmore stated the three subcommittee members along with three the Appellants, selected by the Appellants, could get together and come up with structure for going forward with the Measure A discussion; inquired whether putting more people on the subcommittee means that the meetings would have to be noticed; stated the group would meet to set up a forum; the six people should be able to meet and bring a recommendation back to the City Council or Planning Board at which time the public could comment on the structure. The City Attorney stated the Planning Board set up a subcommittee composed of less than a quorum of the Board; the Council is entertaining the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, which is slightly different; meeting outside a noticed, public hearing would be permissible since the officials involved are still less than a quorum of the legislative body because no action will be taken; the group would have to return to the Planning Board or City Council and report on its findings and recommendations; the Planning Board or Council would make a decision on the context of the forum after the public has an opportunity to provide input. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council could give direction to notice the meetings, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated the public should be able to attend the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 May 15, 2007 meetings. The City Attorney stated the Brown Act does not constrain the Council from setting up a meeting that has more public participation than is legally required. Councilmember Gilmore stated a Task Force set up to address Harbor Island [apartment evictions] allowed members of the public to attend the meetings and listen to deliberations, but not provide input. Mayor Johnson inquired whether said meetings were noticed, to which Councilmember deHaan responded the meetings were announced at Council meetings. Councilmember Matarrese stated said idea is good; the Ad Hoc Committee will work on the structure that would return to the Planning Board for consideration; the Planning Board would make a decision on the structure of the forum and there would be discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Board's decision to assign an Ad Hoc Committee to work on a structure for a public forum on Measure A with the following conditions: that it includes in the context of the housing element and transportation issues, that it is limited to establishing the facts on limitations and benefits of Measure A and prohibits advocacy, that it obtains public input and a written record of the workshop and its deliberations be provided, that its intent is to be used as a basis for the upcoming housing element as well as other decisions related to future development in Alameda, and that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include three members of the Appellant group to be determined by the Appellants. Mayor Johnson suggested the motion be kept simple since structuring the forum itself is being discussed; stated the end result should not be set. Councilmember Matarrese stated the end result can be struck from the motion, but knowing the goal is important to know the work product. Mayor Johnson stated the goal is getting to the workshop itself. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Ad Hoc Committee would report back to the Council or Planning Board. Councilmember Matarrese responded the Ad Hoc Committee would report Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 May 15, 2007 to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have public deliberation and make a decision; then, the forum would occur; there would be a work product; there would be a record of what happened [at the forum], including what people said and what was discussed; the discussion should be written down and memorialized. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese; the Planning Board had a lengthy discussion several years ago and the only record was that a meeting was held to discuss Measure A; that she would not want to take time and effort to establish a structure to have an impartial forum and not have a record of the forum; that she supports having full minutes of the discussion written down and memorialized. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the discussion would be limited to Alameda Point only, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Ad Hoc Committee should determine the parameters. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact on any lawsuits, to which the City Attorney responded that she would prepare a confidential opinion for the Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated regardless of the Ad Hoc Committee's structure or its decisions, Measure A is still the law in Alameda; unless citizens circulate a petition to have the matter placed on the ballot and voted upon, Measure A remains the law. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion with the clarification from Councilmember Gilmore. Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be restated. Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Board with the following conditions: that the context is both the Housing Element and transportation; that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include three members of the Appellant group to be determined by the Appellants; workshop deliverables are establishing facts, limitations, and benefits of Measure A, to obtain public input and to provide a written account of deliberations and outcomes of the workshop. Mayor Johnson inquired how people would be informed of the Ad Hoc Committee's Meetings; stated the motion should include direction that the Ad Hoc Committees meeting schedule be made public. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 May 15, 2007 Councilmember Gilmore stated the meetings could be announced at Council or Planning Board meetings. Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion included Councilmember Gilmore's comments that Vice Mayor Tam included when she originally seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Tam stated Councilmember Gilmore's clarification on the process in which the deliverables come back to the Council was articulated when Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion. Mayor Johnson stated the comments were that there should be a written record. Councilmember Gilmore stated the main point was that there be a written record of what was discussed, how it was discussed, and what conclusions, if any; there needs to be a full record, not just one line that a meeting was held. Councilmember deHaan stated that Councilmember Gilmore alluded to Measure A itself being the will of the people and would come back through said means via the will of the people. Mayor Johnson stated the statement could be made for the record. Councilmember Gilmore stated the statement could be made for the record; however, it [statement] did not have anything to do with the motion. Mayor Johnson stated the statement should be made as part of the record: that the Council recognizes Measure A is part of the Charter and can only be changed by a vote of the people; further stated that she personally, and she has heard a majority of the members of the Council state, that they do not believe that the Council should put Measure A on the ballot; the discussions are not leading towards a campaign; Measure A was originally a grassroots effort; if there is support to change Measure A, it should be through the same grassroots effort; the matter can be made very clear as part of the record. Councilmember deHaan stated Councilmember Gilmore had stated the same thing, which he was reiterating. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 14 Councilmember Gilmore stated that she meant her statement, but does not think it needs to be stated as part [of the motion]. Councilmember deHaan stated that he thinks it does. Mayor Johnson stated people need to understand that Measure A can only be changed by the voters. Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification [to the motion] of whether the three additional Ad Hoc Committee members selected by the Appellants would be Appellants or designees; stated that she would prefer the actual signed Appellants, not designees. Mayor Johnson concurred that three of the Appellants should be selected. Councilmember deHaan noted that there was also a clarification [to the motion] that the meetings would be posted in some way. Mayor Johnson inquired whether everyone was clear. Hearing no objection, on the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (07- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated dead bees are inside the Fort Knox building on Webster Street. Mayor Johnson stated City Hall had a bee problem; the beehive was removed and transplanted; requested that information be provided to Fort Knox. (07- ) David Howard, Alameda, stated that he hopes Council stays focused on job creation and job preservation when working with Sun Cal [Alameda Point developer]; questioned whether the three person sub - committee meeting referenced by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft [under the Public Hearing, paragraph no. 07- ] constituted a Brown Act violation. (07- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged everyone to ride bikes on Bike to Work Day. (07- ) Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated a newspaper article noted that the new Work/Live building would draw 50,000 cars; the Work/Live ordinance prohibits any impacts on the surrounding area; parking is not available on Blanding Avenue except the shopping center area; urged Council to direct • the City Manager to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 May 15, 2007 investigate whether a use permit or variance was issued; stated the Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant is a big joke if it does not consider electric carts; new developments need to address paths for electric carts; the idea is not revolutionary and works; further stated special paths can be developed for electric carts storage can be established at transit hubs, such as the ferry and bus terminals. Mayor Johnson noted Palm Desert legalized driving golf carts on the streets. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07- ) Mayor Johnson requested that electric car charging systems in new homes be considered as part of the green building ordinance. (07- ) Mayor Johnson stated the Harbor Island Task Force recommended a condominium conversion ordinance; requested an update on the status. Councilmember deHaan stated the issue was raised as a home ownership effort; the City was to come up with a model. Mayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to move forward on the matter. Councilmember Gilmore. stated Council was concerned about the economic feasibility for an owner to convert. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the Tube lighting system be placed on the Public Works project list; stated he appreciates the cleanup of the entrance on the Oakland side. Councilmember Gilmore stated the lighting has been removed on one side. The City Manager stated the lighting removal is part of the improvement; the Public Works Director would receive an update from CalTrans. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated control boxes are covered with graffiti throughout Alameda; he hopes that the Police Department makes an effort to find the responsible individual; the Central Avenue telephone company switching station and the Atlantic Avenue building near the old railroad housing are disasters; he would be happy to provide pictures. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 16 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11 :47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2007 17 May 31, 2007 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 159489 - 160071 $2,938,351.08 EFT 356 $18,440.71 EFT357 $75510.81 358 $105,450.36 Void Checks: 159338 159344 159406 159418 159450 159221 159096 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, mesa J. Sibley Council Warrants 06/05/07 ($394.23) ($477.30) ($58.00) ($145.00) ($1,942.74) ($96.89) ($3.00) $3,134,635.80 BILLS #4 -B 6/5/2007 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Approve an Agreement with Holland + Knight, LLP, in the Amount of $96,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services BACKGROUND In June 2004, the City retained the services of Holland + Knight (H+K) to provide federal legislative and regulatory advocacy services. The current agreement with H +K expired at the end of May. The proposed new agreement, which would extend until June 30, 2008, is on file in the City Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION The attached H +K Federal Legislative Update provides information on the firm's past legislative successes and its recent work for the City. In 2005, H +K assisted in securing authorizations and funding in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA.LU). SAFETEA -LU included $1 .672 million for planning, design, and construction of an intermodal facility project in Alameda. The funds are being distributed over four fiscal years. The project was also designated in federal legislation as a "New Starts" project, which makes it eligible for capital fundin g in future federal budgets. In FY 2006, the City received $700,000 in the Transportation - Treasury- Housin g and Urban Development (TTHUD) appropriations conference report for Park Street pedestrian safety transportation improvements. An additional $300,000 was included in the House version of the bill for FY 2007, but Congress did not pass the bill, opting p g instead to combine appropriations bills into one continuing resolution that included no project earmarks. Similarly, although the Bay Farm Island shoreline dike and seawall repair project received a project listing in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill and the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan received $100,000 in the House version of the TTHUD bill for FY 2007, neither project moved forward as a result of the passage of the continuing resolution absent any earmarks. H +K staff is continuing to seek funding for these projects this fiscal year. In the current legislative session, H +K staff is working to ensure that the City's two Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) priorities are included in an y WRDA City Council Agenda Item #4 -C 06-05-07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 reauthorization bill enacted into law. The City's priorities are: 1) require conveyance of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal property from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to an entity created by or designated by the City, and 2) compel the Corps to conduct a study of the Fruitvale Bridge to determine the most economic means of maintaining the bridge for future transportation options. Those two priorities were included in the Senate- passed version of the bill, and H +K staff is working with Senator Boxer, the Chair of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill, Senator Feinstein, and Representative Stark to ensure that they remain in the bill when it emerges from a House - Senate conference committee. H +K staff is also working to secure funding for the City in the fiscal year 2008 federal appropriations bills. Congress is beginning to consider the various appropriations bills but will probably not finish until close to Thanksgiving. Additionally, H +K staff is assisting the Housing Authority in its efforts to secure funding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) owes to the Authority. Recently, as a result of H +K's request, Representative Stark sent a letter to HUD on the Authority's behalf asking for corrective action. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost to retain H +K to provide federal legislative and regulatory advocacy is $8,000 per month, for a total of $00,000. H +K reduced its rate from $10,000 per month to $8,000 per month in November 2005 and has proposed no increase to the rate this year. This funding is included in the City Manager's Office budget. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Approve an agreement with Holland and Knight, LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative advocacy services. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager Attachment: 1. Holland + Knight Federal Legislative Update cc: Julie Adair and Rich Gold, Holland + Knight HoLLandKnight Memorandum Date: May 18, 2007 To: Mayor Beverly Johnson Debra Kurita, City Manager David Brandt, Assistant City Manger Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager From: Richard Gold Julie Adair Re: Federal Legislative Update INTRODUCTION Tel 202 955 3000 Fax 202 955 5564 Holland & Knight LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006- 6801 www.hklaw.com Richard Gold 202 457 7143 rich.gold @hklaw.com The start of the 110' Congress with a new democratic majority has been a busy one; however it has also brought about long-sought achievements for the City of Alameda (City) at the federal level. This memorandum will summarize the City's top federal priorities as well as our legislative strategy for continued success. I. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT With the Democrats now in charge of both the House and the Senate, Chairman Oberstar of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T &I) and Chairman Boxer of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) are committed to seeing the successful passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) this year. WRDA provides authorizations for water related projects such as flood control, navigation, and beach restoration nationwide and historically Congress has approved a WRDA bill every two years. However, under Republican leadership WRDA fell out of its biennial cycle and a WRDA bill has not been passed since 2000. As such, critical water projects have waiting over six years for Congressional approval. Included in the long list of projects that have been waiting are two priorities for the City: 1) Conveyance of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal property from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to an entity created by or designated by the City and; 2) Requiring the Corps to conduct a study of the Fruitvale Bridge to determine the most economic means of maintaining the bridge for future transportation options. • Legislative History Atlanta • Bethesda • Boston • Chicago • Fort Lauderdale • Jack Miami • New York • Northern Virginia • Orlando • Portlanc Tallahassee • Tampa • Washington, D.C. • West Pa Beijing • Caracas* • Helsinki* • Mexico City • Tel Aviv* • To. Office City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #4 -C 06 -05 -07 May 18, 2007 Page 2 When the City approached us with these priorities in 2005, both the House and Senate had just completed their respective versions of WRDA 2005. We immediately engaged our key T &I and EPW contacts as well as Congressman Stark and Senators Boxer and Feinstein to push for these two priorities to be added in conference. However, several controversial Corps reform issues prevented the House and Senate from completing the conference and WRDA 2005 died at the end of the 109th Congress. As a result, neither p riorit given the chance to be added in Y was g conference. As mentioned earlier, the start of the 110th Congress and the new Democratic leadershi p brought ht a renewed determination to complete a WRDA bill. Given the long backlog of projects over the past six years, both the House and Senate agreed that no new projects would be added in WRDA 2007. Instead, the two Chairmen planned to do a follow up WRDA bill in 2008 that would address any new projects and also help WRDA to get back on track to being completed every other year (in even numbered years). This "no new projects in WRDA 2007" strategy presented an enormous hurdle for the City to overcome. In addition, the 2006 election was largely won on an ethics platform and part of this ethics reform includes the prevention of adding any new projects in the conference of a bill. Simply put, if a project is not included in either the House or Senate version of a bill, it is not allowed to be added in conference. For Alameda, this meant that the two WRDA priorities would need to be added to either the House or Senate bill in order to have any chance of becoming law. • Senate Success Congressman Stark, a very senior member of the House Democratic Caucus and Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee Health Subcommittee, pushed hard for the City's priorities to be added in the House WRDA 2007 bill. However, the House stayed true to its plan and no new projects were added in the House bill. Initially, the Senate also maintained a hard and fast rule about no new projects in their bill, but in the end, we were able to convince committee staff for Senator Boxer that these priorities were too important to wait until the next WRDA (especially given that there is no guarantee that there will be a WRDA 2008). This was an incredibly heavy lift and is a significant achievement for the City. In her mark as Chairman, Senator Boxer included the language that the City had been seeking to provide for conveyance of the estuary as well as a study of the Fruitvale Bridge. This would not have been possible without a constant presence in Washington. At a critical moment in the legislative process, we were able to arrange for the Mayor, City Manager and Deputy City Manager to meet with key EPW Committee staff and also arranged for an audience with Senator Boxer. We have also stayed in constant contact with committee staff to provide .. p additional resources and key information. • Conference Earlier this week the Senate passed its version of WRDA which clears the way for a conference between the House and Senate. Conferees have not yet announced their plans; however we expect that this will be a rather quick conference. We will work with both House & Senate committee staff as well as Congressman Stark and Senators Boxer and Feinstein to ensure that the City's priorities are maintained in conference. May 18, 2007 Page 3 II. FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS • City Priorities In January, Mayor Johnson met with Alameda's Congressional delegation to discuss the City's Fiscal Year 2008 (FYO8) appropriations priorities. The priorities are as follows: • Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation Improvements: $5M ■ Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike & Sewall Repair: $3M ■ Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan: $208,236 • Citywide Bus Shelter Program: $216,800 ■ City of Alameda Police Department Technology Improvements: $304,200 ■ School Resource Officer and Drug Abuse Resistance Education Programs: $517,462 • Estuary Park Acquisition: $4M These priorities were established in consultation with the Mayor, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Department Leadership and City staff. These priorities were well received on Capitol Hill and we formally completed and submitted the required appropriations forms, letters of support, project whitepapers and maps to the offices of Congressman Stark and Senators Boxer and Feinstein. In addition to the standard forms and letters, this year Members of Congress were also required to certify that they, nor their spouses, had any financial interests in their various requests. This added step is a direct result of the Abramoff scandal and,part of a series of ethics reforms in Washington. We also met with Congresswoman Lee as she is now a member of the House Appropriations Committee and she knows the City well having represented Alameda before redistricting. In addition, all members of the Alameda Congressional delegation, are well positioned to secure funding for the City's priorities given the new democratic majority in the House and Senate. In particular, Senator Feinstein is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and she has a great deal of influence with regards the appropriations process. In the past she has also been a strong champion of both the Park Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements Project and the Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike & Seawall Repair Project. • Congressional Schedule This week, the House will begin to mark -up its FYO8 appropriations bills, starting with the Homeland Security bill. It is anticipated that next week they will mark -up the Energy & Water and Interior appropriations bills. Their goal is to complete mark -up of all of the domestic appropriations bills by July 4th, and then complete the remaining appropriations bill, for the Department of Defense, before the month long August recess. The Senate plans to follow the House schedule closely and will likely mark -up the individual appropriations bills shortly after they pass the House. In theory the House and Senate would begin to conference the appropriations bills after the August recess and have them signed into law by the start of the new fiscal year on October 1st, but this has only happened once in the history of the appropriations ro riations process. A much more likely course would be to complete the FYO8 appropriations bills, either May 18, 2007 Page 4 individually or via an omnibus, by Thanksgiving. We are in constant contact with House and Senate committee staff so that no matter when Congress decides to act, we will be ready. • Project Earmarks? There has been much talk and speculation in Washington with regard to the subject of earmarks. Will they or won't they? How much, how little? At present, the House and Senate are taking entirely different approaches on this topic. The House has elected to wait until conference to add project earmarks. On the other hand, the Senate is planning to earmark its bills during committee mark-up. The House's approach presents a number of problems; however this decision has been made by Congressman Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Chairman Obey has great concerns about the media scrutiny his bills will receive if he allows for project earmarks during the House phase of the process. Instead, he has elected to wait until conference to add these projects, in part to reduce potentially negative and harmful attention. At the start of the 110th Congress, the Senate passed a bill, S. 1, which p revents the Senate from adding any new projects in at conference. In accordance with S. 1, the Senate intends to earmark its bills as they move through the twelve Senate appropriations subcommittees. The House has not adopted similar rules, but it is unclear at this point how the Senate rules will affect the House during conference. The appropriations process is a moving target right now. Our key relationships with House and Senate committee staff on both sides of the aisle provide the City with a distinct advantage when navigating through the process. We will keep you informed as the process moves forward. III. FEDERAL GRANT OPPORTUNITIES • Weekly Grant Notification Each week we provide the City with information regarding recently announced federal grant opportunities. We comb through the Federal Register, Grants.gov, and other resources to identify specific funding that may be of interest to the City. We provide this service to the City as part of our regular legislative efforts. Should the City decide to pursue any of the grant opportunities, we are available to assist with those efforts. • Fiscal Year 2007 Opportunities In addition to the weekly grants notification, we have also provided the City with information regarding funding opportunities from FYO7. As you may recall, no earmarks were included in the FYO7 year -long continuing resolution (CR) which covered all of the FYO7 domestic appropriations bills. Instead, Congress provided a framework for broad funding levels, but left the individual project decisions up to the various federal agencies. Since passage of the FYO7 CR in February, we have provided the City with grant opportunities for: • The Department of Transportation: Funds could be used for the Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation Project or the Citywide Bus Shelter Initiative May 18, 2007 Page 5 ■ The Department of Justice: Funds could be used for the School Resource Officer and Drug Abuse Resistance Education Programs • US Army Corps of Engineers: Funds could be used for the Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike & Seawall Repairs As additional funding opportunities are announced, we will pass this information along to the City. We anticipate that additional funding for the Department of Justice as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be announced in the next couple of months. IV. HOUSING On the regulatory side, we have continued in our role to serve as the Washington voice for the City's housing priorities. In the past, we have worked closely with Mike Pucci to secure funding owed to the Housing Authority by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most successfully, we were able to build a team of Congressional support to secure $636,161 owed to the Authority by HUD. These funds were especially significant as they prevented 108 families from being cut from the Section 8 program. More recently we have been working with Alameda's Congressional delegation to assist in securing additional funds owed to the Authority by HUD. A series of meetings held earlier this year produced a letter from Congressman Stark to HUD requesting corrective action on these outstanding matters. We continue to work with Congressional staff to encourage a satisfactory response from HUD. CONCLUSION As the FYO8 appropriations cycle moves forward and conferees meet on the WRDA bill, we will continue to provide you with substantive updates. As we mentioned, it is always hard predict how the process will play out, however we are in constant contact with the congressional delegation and appropriations subcommittee staff. This allows us to quickly and effectively react to any changes or bumps along 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. Should you have any questions or need further information please do not hesitate to contact us. May 18, 2007 Page 6 City of Alameda Federal Legislative Successes FYO5-FYO7 Appropriations Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation Improvements • FY07: $300,000 in House TTHUD Appropriations bill* • FY06: $700,000 in the Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations conference report Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike & Seawall Repair • FY07: Received a project listing in the Senate Energy & Water Appropriations bill* Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan • FY07: $100,000 in House TTHUD Appropriations bill* * Final CR for FY07 did not include any project earmarks; however we are working with the City to restore these funds through grant opportunities Authorizations Water Resources Development Act 2007 Secured authorizations for the City's top priorities in the Senate passed bill: • Conveyance of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal property from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to an entity created by or designated by the City and; ■ Requiring the Corps to conduct a study of the Fruitvale Bridge to determine the most economic means of maintaining the bridge for future transportation options. SAFETEA -LU Secured authorizations and funding for the City's top transportation priorities in the final hill: ■ $1.672 million for planning, design, and construction intermodal facility project (FYO6- FYO9) • FYO6: $384,560 • FY07: $401,280 • FYO8: $434,720 • FY09: $451,440 ■ New Starts Authorization for the City's Fixed Guideway Corridor project Housing Secured $636,161 owed to the Authority by HUD. These funds were especially significant as they prevented 108 families from being cut from the Section 8 program. May 18, 2007 Page 7 General Representation We also actively monitor and weigh in on issues important to the City such as: • Full funding for Community Development Block Grants • Eminent Domain ■ SCHIP • Homeland Security • Video Choice ■ BRAC • Other issues as identified by the City # 4555264_v2 CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $320,000, Including Contingencies, to McNabb Construction, Inc., for Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P.W. 03-07-06 BACKGROUND On April 3, 2007, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P.W. 03-07-06. The proposed project consists of installing a new irrigation system, planting new sod, and regrading the field to improve drainage. In addition, the project will reconfigure the baseball field to maximize its use and allow for a variety of sporting events, including baseball and either an international --size soccer field or several smaller soccer fields. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal. Bids were opened on May 9, 2007. A total of five contractors submitted bids. The list of bidders from lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Location Base Bid Alternate Bid McNabb Construction, Inc. Lafayette, CA $354,540.00 $295,158.00 McGuire and Hester Oakland, CA $395,945.80 $357,345.80 Pacheco Brothers Gardening Hayward, CA $415,454.00 , $377,524.00 Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. Pleasanton, CA $397,080.00 $390,320.00 Bay Construction Company Oakland, CA $453,275.40 $411,715.40 To ensure the contract amount stays within available funds, the specifications included a base bid and an alternate bid. The base bid provided for the establishment of Iawn with sod, and a maintenance warranty. The alternate bid provided for Hydroseeding to establish the Iawn and a maintenance warranty for Hydroseeding. Staff recommends that the contract, with the alternate bid, be awarded to McNabb Construction, Inc., fora price of City Council Agenda Item #4 -D 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 $320,000, including contingencies. Once the contract is awarded, staff intends to enter into negotiations with the Contractor to identify an alternate and more economical source of fill material and to reuse the existing baseball infield area. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. When the City Council approved the plans and specifications for this project, additional information regarding the replacement ratio for trees removed at the park and a schedule for upgrading the existing play equipment was requested. The renovation project requires the removal of three Alder trees, which will be offset by the planting of six new Redwood trees by the Recreation & Park Department staff. With regards to the playground equipment, the Children's Learning Center has donated equipment to the City. Recreation & Park Department staff anticipates relocating and installing this equipment by fall 2007, in conjunction with the playfield renovations. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is funded under CI P# 06 -01, with funds available from the Capital Improvement Tax, the Dwelling Unit Tax, and the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $320,000, including contingencies, to McNabb Construction, Inc., for Godfrey Park playfield renovations, No. P.W. 03-07-06. Respq��tl�sub�h, / Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Robert Claire km, Associate Civil Engineer er MTN:RC:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $250,368, Including Contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for the Replacement of Curb, Gutter, and Related Improvements to Address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P.W. 02 -07- 04 BACKGROUND On April 3, 2007, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related improvements to address street ponding citywide, No. P.W. 02-07-04. The proposed project will repair approximately 1,300 feet of curb and gutter. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal. Bids were opened on May 17, 2007. A total of two contractors submitted bids. The list of bidders from lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Golden Bay Construction, Inc. Location Hayward Sposeto Engineering, Inc. Union City Total Bid $227,607.50 $241,015.00 Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for a price of $250,368, including contingencies. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted under CIP# 90 -06, with funds available from the Urban Runoff Clean Water fund. City Council Agenda Item #4 -E 06-05-07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section '15301(c), Existing Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Award a contract in the amount of $255,358, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related improvements to address street ponding citywide, No. P.W. 02- 07 -04. Respectfu�l�/ submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: CW Chung Associate Civil Engineer MTN:CWC:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Allocate $100,000 in Sewer Funds and Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,935,000, Including Contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 27, No. P.W. 04 -07 -17 BACKGROUND On January 16, 2007, the City Council accepted the work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03- 06 -08. The contract allows the City to extend the contract for four additional terms, subject to mutual agreement and a cost escalation based on the Engineers News Record construction price index for the Bay Area. DISCUSSION The City's pavement management plan was updated this fiscal year and was used as the basis for identifying the streets and type of street repair required for this year's . Y resurfacing project. The proposed project includes reconstructing failed p avement areas; repairing damaged curb and gutter; planning the existing pavement; crack sealing; overlaying with asphalt concrete (AC) or slurry seal (SS) treatment; and installing required traffic striping and pavement markings. Crack sealin g for next year's proposed projects is included as well. Copies of the plans and specifications as well as the construction contract, are on file in the City Clerk's office. The specific streets and related work are as follows: Asphalt Resurfacing (including crack sealing prior to resurfacing) • Buena Vista Avenue (Tilden Way to Broadway). • Buena Vista Avenue (Webster Street to Ninth Street). ■ Eighth Street (Lincoln Avenue to Central Avenue). ■ Laurel Street (Clinton Avenue to Powell Street). ■ Lincoln Avenue (Oak Street to Park Street). ■ Meyers Avenue (Hansen Avenue to East Shore Drive). ■ Regent Street (Central Avenue to lagoon). • Shoreline Drive (Westline Drive to Broadway). City Council Agenda item #4 -F 06-05-07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Slurry Seal Treatment • Fountain Street (Encinal Avenue to Washington Street). ■ Madison Street (west of Mound Street to Fernside Boulevard). • Oleander Avenue (Holly Street to Magnolia Drive). ■ Peach Street (cul -de -sac from Madison Street north). ■ Santa Clara Avenue (Third Street to Sixth Street). ■ Walnut Street (Clement Avenue to lagoon). • Washington Street (Peach Street to Fernside Boulevard). • Willow Street (Encinal Avenue to Clinton Avenue). June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Base Repair Only • Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (Third Street to West Campus Drive). • Mariner Square Loop (at Tinker Avenue). • Tinker Avenue (just west of Mariner Square Loop). Crack Sealing ■ Harbor Bay Parkway (Doolittle Drive to Maitland Drive). • B Street (all). ■ Fernside Boulevard (Thompson Street to High Street). ■ Santa Clara Avenue (Eighth Street to St. Charles Street). ■ Atlantic Avenue (Challenger Drive to Triumph Drive). ■ Ballena Boulevard (all of the City - maintained portion). ■ Buena Vista Avenue (Ninth Street to Grand Street). ■ Streets identified for next year's resurfacing project. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is funded under CI P# 82 -01, with funds available from Measure B, Capital p Improvement Tax, Proposition 42, Urban Runoff, Gas Tax, and the General Fund. Additional funding from the Sewer Fund is requested to fund the pro rated costs of resurfacing four streets (Regent Street, Powell Street, Willow Street, and Walnut Street) that were trenched and patched as part of last year's annual sewer improvement project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 3 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Allocate $100,000 in sewer funds and award a contract in the amount of $1,935,000, including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, phase 27, No. P.W. 04- 07 -17. Respectf bmitted, t. Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director lia-cLA. 71.Sei By: Laurie Kozisek bf Li Associate Civil Engineer MTN:LK:gc cc: Watchdog Committee CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Set a Public Hearing for Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges for July 17, 2007 BACKGROUND In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) and the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries (ACI), ACI may assign delinquent integrated waste management (IWM) accounts to the City for collection through the property tax. Prior to assigning its rights to the City, ACI is obligated to make at least four attempts to collect the delinquent accounts. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing prior to collecting through the property tax bills. DISCUSSION On April 19, 2007, ACI assigned a list of 76 delinquent IWM accounts, with an unpaid balance of $35,920 (excluding penalties, interest, and City fees), to the City for collection. As part of the Franchise Agreement, the City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent accounts. In accordance with the AMC, the City may send a letter to each assigned account requesting payment, and if not promptly received, the City may consider collecting delinquent accounts by means of the property tax bills at a noticed public hearing. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI, which is revenue for the General Fund. Unpaid IWM fees, therefore, result in a loss in General Fund revenues. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Integrated Waste Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health & Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -G 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Member of the Council RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Set a public hearing for delinquent integrated waste management charges for July 17, 2007. Respectf ubmitted, Matthew T. Nacl: io Public Works D. ctor By: Maria F. Di Meglio Environmental Services Manager MTN:MFD:gc cc: Louie Pellegrini, ACI CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: June 5, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Reject the Bids for the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, Adopt New Specifications, and Authorize CaII for Bids for Two Marked Dodge Charger Police Vehicles BACKGROUND The Public Works Department is responsible for the Managed Vehicle and Equipment (fleet) Replacement Program. On May 2, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 13951 establishing guiding principles for the management of the City's fleet vehicles and equipment. The replacement program is based on the City's fleet replacement criteria, which consider the useful life of vehicles and equipment in terms of age, mileage (or hours), and usage. Vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement are also reviewed and analyzed for safety history and operating performance to determine if it is appropriate to replace a vehicle of piece of equipment at a later date. In addition, vehicles and equipment are viewed to determine if the minimum use guidelines have been met. As part of the Managed Replacement Program, the Public Works Department has determined that three marked Police vehicles should be replaced. One vehicle has already been purchased. DISCUSSION On February 6, 2007, the City Council adopted specifications and authorized the Call for Bids for three Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. AlI bids received through the City Clerk's Office for the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors were above the approved budgeted amount for the vehicles and should be rejected. The Police Department is now pursuing a mid -range premium vehicle, the Dodge Charger Police Package. This proposed action would adopt new specifications and authorize calling for bids for two marked Dodge Charger Police Vehicles. This particular model is somewhat new to the California police market for marked police vehicles. It has tested well in overall responsiveness and safety crash test performance. Staff reviewed the functional requirements of a marked police vehicle and determined that utilizing an alternative fuel City Council Agenda Item #4 -H 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 vehicle does not meet the department's needs. However, procuring a mid -sized V-6 should reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions. Additionally, this particular model is not available with an electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel option. Alternative fuel vehicles currently available in the United States do not meet the performance requirements for a marked patrol vehicle. The specifications for the Dodge Charger Police Package are attached. The replaced vehicles will be taken out of the fleet inventory and sold at auction. The revenues raised will be returned to the fleet replacement fund in accordance with Resolution No. 13951. With Council authorization, the City Clerk will publish a public notice announcing the open bid. Bids proposals will be accepted until 2 :00 p.m. on Friday, June 22, 2007. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost for two vehicles is included in the FY 2006/07 managed vehicle replacement program fund. Whenever possible, existing safety equipment will be recycled. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Reject the bids for the Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, adopt new specifications, and authorize Call for Bids for two marked Dodge Charger police vehicles. Respectfully submitted, Walter B. Tibbet Chief of Police DK VBT: mcn Attachment SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE The City of Alameda is seeking proposals for the purchase of two new 2007 Dodge Charger Police Package (27A) including all standard equipment and the following options: Basics Description ' Suspension Front: Independent SLAIRear: 5 Link independent Break Type Rear Disc Anti-lock/vented Break Type Front Disc Anti - lock/vented Vehicle Type Mid -Range Premium Steering Rack & Pinion with hydraulic assist Doors 4 Tire Diameter 18 inches Overall Height 58.2 Wheelbase 120.0 inches Overall Length 200.1 inches Overall Width 74.5 inches Capacity 5 Passenger Base weight 3227 Fuel Tank 19.0 gallon Transmission Automatic/Adaptive electronic control Engine Size 3.5 Liter, High output SOHC 24 -Valve V-6 Engine Valve Configuration SOHC 24 Valve, hydraulic, center -pivot roller rocker arms Engine Power 250 bhp Alternator 160 amp Cage Partition 10 RP Recessed Sentina Brand Panel Seats Plastic Rear Seat Trunk Charger Trunk Tray/Trunk Release Ignition Interior Charger 24" Console with Cup Holder Color Black and White/Paint Scheme UB" Patrol Car Package Including Canfield Electrical System amps with circuits r Standard Vehicle Package #1 Including Prep Package for Electrical System Air bags Side curtain airbags Spare tire Full size spare tire Antenna 2- antenna cable roof mount Hands free Control Whelen Brand Hands free control for siren Mirror LED Lights Mirror Beam Red /Blue Whelen Lights _ _ __ City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #4 -H 06 -05 -07 EXTENDED WARRANTY The Dodge Charger Police Package comes with a standard 3 year, 36 month warranty, with a $50.00 deductible, to begin when the vehicle is placed into service Dealer will be responsible for registering the vehicle as an Exempt vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles and have the plates sent or delivered directly to the Police Department. VENDOR DELIVERY DATE: Vehicles must be delivered within thirty days of award of contract. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Teresa L. Highsmith City Attorney Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Amend Resolution No. 9460 to Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included In The City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescind Resolution No. 14000 BACKGROUND The City of Alameda is required to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and to make amendments when new positions are added or duties changed. The last amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code were adopted July 18, 2006. DISCUSSION The Political Reform Act requires that every city adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and amend it whenever new positions are designated or duties changed. Employees are to be included when they may be involved in the making or participate in the making of decisions that may foreseeably have a material financial effect on any financial interest. Boards, commissions and committees are to be included when they have decision - making authority. Each employee position has been reviewed to determine which employees are involved in the making of decisions potentially having a material effect on any financial interest. Each employee who either has been added to the Conflict of Interest Code or has a change in the reporting requirements was given a copy of the proposed Conflict of Interest Code. Each employee was requested to advise of any recommendations or objections. There have been no objections made by any employees to the changes. The Fair Political Practices Commissions (FPPC) implements and interprets the Conflict of Interest provisions of the Political Reform Act. FPPC regulation C.C.R. Section 18701 provides guidance in determining whether a board or commission is solely advisory or has decision - making authority. It states: (1) "Member" shall include, but not be limited to, salaried or unsalaried members of committees, boards or commissions with decision - making authority. (A) A committee, board or commission possesses decision- making authority whenever: City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -1 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 0i} It may make a final governmental decision; (ii) It may compel a governmental decision; or it may prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto which ma y not be overridden; or (iii) It makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without a significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency. Each committee, board, and commission has been reviewed. This review included the existing committees, boards, and commissions and those created since adoption of Resolution No. 1 2073, adopted February 20, 1991. The staff liaison to each of the committees, boards and commissions reviewed the recommendations of that entity to the City Council. The record of each entity was reviewed to determine whether the City Council regularly approved their substantive recommendations without significant amendment or modification. It concludes that all of the current disclosure categories for all existing committees, boards and commissions were correct. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There will be no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the municipal code. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the resolution amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code be adopted. TH/cms cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager Respectfully submitted, 2eVat_ Teresa L. High ' ith City Attorney CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING. RESOLUTION NO. 9460 TO REFLECT CURRENT POSITIONS AND ENTITIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 14000 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that City of Alameda Resolution No. 14000 is hereby rescinded; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that Para ra h 2 in 9 p of the Conflict of Interest Code set forth n Resolution No. 9460 be amended thereof to read: 2. The terms of 2 Cal. Adm. Code Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly .. y y adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission along with the attached Appendices in which officials and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the following departments and agencies: Alameda Power & Telecom Building Services Division City Attorney's Office City Clerk's Department City Council City Manager's Department 0 Civil Service Board Claims Board Commission on Disability Issues Development Services Department Economic Development Commission Film Commission Finance Department Fire Department Golf Commission Golf Complex Historical Advisory Board Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Housing Authority Housing Commission Human Resources Department Information Technology Library Board Library Department Pension Board Planning Board Planning Department Police Department Public Art Commission Public Utilities Board Public Works Department Recreation and Park Commission Recreation and Park Department Resolution #4 -I CC Social Service Human Relations Board Transportation Commission Appn DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY Alameda Power & Telecom General Manager Operations Manager Administrative Services Manager Marketing Manager Utility Planning Supervisor Engineering Supervisor Financial Analyst Financial Services Supervisor Senior Electrical Engineer Support Services Supervisor Technical Operations Superintendent Telecom Operations Supervisor Line Superintendent Assistant Line Superintendent Marketing Specialist Customer Service Supervisor City Attorney's Office City Attorney* Assistant City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Risk Manager City Clerk's Department City Clerk Deputy City Clerk City Council City Council Members* City Manager's Department City Manager* Assistant City Manager Deputy City Manager A through F Athrough F Athrough F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Civil Service Board Board Members A through F *Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 1 Claims Board Board Members Commission on Disability Issues Board Members Development Services Department Development Services Director Community Development Program Manager Redevelopment Manager Development Coordinator Development Manager Development Manager, Housing Program Specialist 11 Administrative Services Coordinator Economic Development Commission Commission Members Film Commission Commission Members Finance Department Auditor Treasurer* Chief Financial Officer Supervising Accountants Admin. Services Coordinator Financial Analyst Fire Department Fire Chief Deputy Chief Division Chiefs Assistant Fire Marshal — Captain Training Director Assistant Training Director E.M.S. Director E.M.S. Education Coordinator Disaster Preparedness Coordinator Firefighter Inspector Fire Marshal — Division Chief Fire Code Compliance Officer *Reporting requirements covered by other law. Athrough F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Athrough F A through F A through F Appendix A - Page 2 Golf Commission Commission Members Golf Complex General Manager Golf Professional Assistant Golf Professional Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent Historical Advisory Board Board Members Housing Authority Board Members Executive Director Finance Manager Housing Assistance Manager Housing Authority Manager Public Works Supervisor Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Board Members Housing Commission Commission Members Human Resources Department Human Resources Director Senior Management Analyst Information Technology Department Information Technology Director Information Technology Operations Supervisor Library Board Board Members Library Department Library Director Supervising Librarian Library Technician (Order Clerk) *Reporting requirements covered by other law. None A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Athrough F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Appendix A - Page 3 Pension Board Board Members Planning Board Board Members Planning and Building Department Planning and Building Director Planning Services Manager Building Official Building Services Manager Supervising Building Inspector Code Compliance Officer Supervising Planner Permit Technician 1 Permit Technician 11 Permit Technician 111 Plan Check Engineer Planner 111 Planner 11 Planner 1 Combination Building Inspector Senior Combination Building Inspector Police Department Chief of Police Civilian Records Manager Police Captains Police Lieutenants Public Art Commission Commission Members Public Utilities Board Board Members Public Works Public Works Director City Engineer Public Works Coordinator Public Works Superintendent Public Works Supervisor *Reporting requirements covered by other law. A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Appendix A - Page 4 Public Works Supervisor -- Ferry Manager Senior Civil Engineer Supervising Civil Engineer Associate Civil Engineer Traffic Engineer Survey & Construction Inspector Supervisor Senior Construction Inspector Construction Inspector Administrative Management Analyst Administrative Management Analyst Environmental Services Administrative Services Coordinator Transportation Coordinator Recreation and Park Commission Commission. Members Recreation and Parks Department Recreation and Parks Director Recreation Services Manager Senior Services Manager Recreation Supervisors Park Manager A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Athrough F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F A through F Social Service Human Relations Board Board Members A through F Transportation Commission Committee Members A through F *Reporting requirements covered by other law. Appendix A - Page 5 Consultants* * Consultants shall be included in the list of designated employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following limitation: The City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Manager determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code. Appendix A - Page 6 DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES An investment, interest in real property, or income is reportable if the business entity in which the investment is held, the interest in real property, or the income or source of income may foreseeably be affected materially by any decision made or participated in by the designated employee by virtue of the employee's position. An investment, interest in real property, or source of income or gift does not have a foreseeable material effect on an economic interest of the designated employee unless the business, real property or source of income or gift may foreseeably require legislative action or permits from the City of Alameda or may foreseeably enter into contracts or leases with or make sales of real property or goods or services to or be sold to the City of Alameda, a department thereof or the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. In general, that which a reasonable person would predict, anticipate, or expect beforehand, can be said to be "foreseeable ". The term requires the application of reasonable judgment to assess the degree of likelihood that a decision made or participated in will as financial interest. Where the likelihood is sufficiently great that a reasonable person would predict or anticipate an effect on a financial interest, the effect of the decision is foreseeable. Clearly, in the context of designating positions within a Conflict of Interest Code, "foreseeable" means greater probability than "conceivable ", yet Tess probability than "certainly ". CATEGORY A - INVESTMENTS All direct or indirect investments of the designated employee valued over $2,000 in a business entity, including any parent, subsidiary or related business, either (1) located in Alameda or (2) doing business in Alameda. CATEGORY B - INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY All direct or indirect interests over $2,000 of the designated employee in real property located in Alameda. CATEGORY C - INCOME (OTHER THAN GIFTS AND LOANS) All direct or indirect income of the designated employee aggregating $500 or more from any one source, during the reporting period. Appendix B - Page 1 CATEGORY D - LOANS Outstanding loans and Loans received by the designated employee from one source, aggregating $500.00 or more during the reporting period. CATEGORY E - GIFTS Gifts to the designated employee from one source, which total $a0 or more during the reporting period. CATEGORY F - TRAVEL PAYMENTS, ADVANCES AND REIMBURSEMENTS Travel payments to the designated employee from one source, which total $320 or more during the reporting period. Reportable travel payments include advances and reimbursements for travel and related lodging and subsistence. Appendix B - Page 2 INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES (A) No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his/her duties as an officer or employee or with the duties, functions or responsibilities of p his/her appointing power or the agency. No officer or employee shall perform any work, service or counsel for compensation outside of his /her employment where any part of his/her efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer, employee, board of commission of his/her employing body. (B) An employee or officer's outside employment, activity or enterprise is prohibited if that: (1) Involves the use for private gain or advantage of his/her departmental time, facilities, equipment and supplies; the badge, uniform, prestige or influence of the departmental office or employment; (2) Involves receipt or acceptance by the officer or employee of any money or . Y other consideration from anyone other than the City for the performance of an act which the officer or employee, if not performing such act, would be required or expected to render in the regular course or hours of his/her employment as a part of his/her duties as a local agency officer or employee; (3) Involves the performance of an act in other than his/her capacity as an officer or employee which act may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit or enforcement of any other officer or employee of the department by which he/she is employed; (4) Involves such time demands as would render performance of his her duties as an officer or employee less efficient. This Appendix C shall apply to all employees, officers and agents within the agencies covered by the Code. (This Appendix does not incorporate by reference the definitions of the Political Reform Act and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Interpretations of Government Code Section 1126 are applicable and interpretations of the Political Reform Act may apply.) Appendix C - Page 1 1, 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 , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Agreement to Purchase Tax Defaulted Property (APN 74- 955 -91) for Park Purposes BACKGROUND The State Revenue and Taxation Code, Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8, provides for the purchase by local agencies of tax - defaulted properties subject to agreement and approval of the County Board of Supervisors. From time to time, the Alameda County Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector notifies the City of those parcels within the City that are tax - defaulted and available for purchase under this statute. DISCUSSION The Chief Financial Officer was recently notified of the tax - defaulted status of a small parcel located adjacent to Towata Park. (See attached map) Staff is recommending the purchase of this small parcel for the defaulted taxes and fees of $3,753, which is below the current market price for similar parcels. The parcel can be used as a demonstration area for Bay Friendly landscaping, additional park area, or open space along the bay. City ownership will also promote active maintenance of the area. A copy of the Agreement to Purchase Tax - Defaulted Property (Alameda County Assessor's Parcel number: 74 -955 -91) is on file in the City Clerk's Office. After adoption of the resolution and filing of the Agreement, and with the approval of the County Board of Supervisors, the parcel will be removed from sale for defaulted taxes. The action will be noticed, and the sale will be final in 21 days. However, the owner may yet redeem the parcel for the defaulted taxes within that 21 -day period. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for this purchase are available through the Construction Improvement Tax Fund. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -J 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement between the City of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, State of California, and all necessary actions to purchase tax - defaulted property (APN 74 -955 -91) for park purposes pursuant to the provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Respectfully submitted, elle -Ann Boyer Chief Financial Officer JAB /di Attachment — Parcel Location Map City of Alameda, CA 0 0 0 0 I Io City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -J 06 -05 -07 ues•a , Ma 11 -i ` u Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO PURCHASE TAX - DEFAULTED PROPERTY (APN 74- 955 -91) FOR PARK PURPOSES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 1, PART 6, CHAPTER 8 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE WHEREAS, it has recently come to the attention of the City Council that certain real property adjacent to Towata Park, situated within the City of Alameda, is Tax - Defaulted and is subject to the power of sale by the Tax Collector of the County of Alameda for nonpayment of taxes, pursuant to provisions of law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it desirable to add additional land for park purposes to Towata Park and has exercised its public option to object to p sale pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 3695; and WHEREAS, the sum to be paid for said property in defaulted taxes ($3,752.8'1) is below the fair market value of said parcel if acquired by other means; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the Revenue & Taxation Code requires a resolution of the City of Alameda authorizing a purchase of tax-defaulted property; and WHEREAS, the regular requirement for the acquisition of real property to be by ordinance is specifically deemed not to apply where property is being acquired in satisfaction of a lien for taxes (City Charter section 3 -10) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda, that the form of Agreement to Purchase Tax - Defaulted Property (Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number: 74- 955 --91), submitted to the City Council in concert with this resolution, and the terms, conditions and covenants therein be, and the same are hereby approved and authorized for execution by the City Manager. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the City Manager of the City of Alameda is authorized to undertake all actions reasonably necessary to facilitate, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, the purchase of tax - defaulted property bearing Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number 74- 955 -91. Said actions will include, but not limited to, payment of the amounts required under the agreement, all related notice and publication costs, all statutory requirements, and the execution of necessary duplicate original agreements as required by law. Resolution #4 -J CC 06-05-07 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that this resolution constitutes the City of Alameda's objection under Revenue and Taxation Code section 3695 to a sale of the subject property to the public. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of June, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this th day of June 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held November 7, 2000 BACKGROUND On November 7, 2000, the voters of Alameda passed Measure "0" authorizing the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $1 0,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction, and completion of a new Main Library facility and improvements to two branch library facilities in the City of Alameda (the "Project "). In December 2002, the City received final confirmation of the award of the State Library Grant in the amount of $15,487,952. In March 2003, the City sold $10,600,000 in general obligation bonds. DISCUSSION Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15/$100,000 of assessed valuation over 30 years. The required tax rate for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, as shown on the attached chart, is $7.16/$1 00,000 of assessed valuation, down from the $8.00/$1 00,000 levied for the 2006 -2007 fiscal year. The decrease in the tax rate is primarily due to a 9.5 percent increase in the total assessed valuation of the City of Alameda. This rate will produce sufficient revenues to pay the required debt service during the fiscal year. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. Debt service for the $10,600,000 general obligation bonds will be paid from this tax levy on all real and personal property in Alameda. ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE This action is in conformance with the Alameda Municipal Code and all policy documents. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-K 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page2of2 Adopt a resolution requesting and authorizing the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the City of Alameda as a voter approved levy for the general obligation bonds issued pursuant to a general election held November 7, 2000. Respectfully submitted, Aw-d dffelle-Ann 4 �: oyer Chief Financial Officer JB:dI Attachment: Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation 0 0 0 0 e Ea (0 CV r 1/ 0 co ai Ef} E$ v 0 co 69. co r Ef} N. N NZ E9} 69 10 co co 69. v to 0 En. 69. bg Ea CI 03 Sri Ea N. co (6 to to v 6g co co LC E9 to N Id E'} 0 0 1ri Ea v. 0) E3 0') 0) '3 10 (0 LC) 69- 6 69- N V 01' Ea Ea 69. co v Ea u0 0) Ea C'7 03 Ea la c a H co Et 0 a 0 CD a 0 0 N. N r ov 0 v 0 o (00 v ov 0 v 0.00008782 0.00008004 r (D R. °v 0 v 0 N. ov ID 0 0.00007114 v. co 00 a 0 0) CAD °o 0 v v. co 00 oo 0 v mo co 0v 00 a v. co °o o° 0 0.00005934 0.00005991 0.00005833 0.00005672 0.00005549 0.00005382 0.00005250 0.00005078 0.00004941 crnM co co to °o 00 CP 0 ° o 0 0 o va a) '3 00 00 a 0.00004294 0.00004195 0.00004060 0.00003950 0.00003834 z Gi 0 0i 0 N 0 RI 0, co Ea ■ c0 00 M L{7 Ea N (D to fie av Ctrl co (f} 0 00 d7 LO Lo co N. r (D 69. 00 (D N CV (D 0 co LC7 cv co Ef} a) CE. CD ca co E } Lo to 10 el Co Ei} co ti r a) co E'} Li M i 03 8 -* ai r (D Eft r 4. 8 69. 0 N CQ 8 0, N c`� '3 C) s- N Co N. r co 69} oi (D n (o Ef} N-- C4 L] co Ea 03 Lii LO cD E } co c• oo Li j Ltii 11) co co (o 6g6g03 rn 00 L? co LO 7 L. co 03 coo LC) co co '3 rn co co 0'3 N- u) 00 r co 0, r r co 03 0 L0 N. 00 co 03 0 in to 0 to c 0 co co :15 0 To L 0 c 0 0 co 0 E co Q 0 Tv -0 0 in H 0 co 0 a L. 0 a 0 ix 0 1— u) J Unsecured c 0 f 0_ ■ fin Ea N- W Ef} 0 N Lri LC) 0, N v ce L 0, CD 00 Eft 0 o to 69. N V 10 Erg a) a) E3 X; v. Ea to o v. o) v. v. co rn Ea ti 03 Cq itt E3 N- v v. E3 nil+ •-J E3 CO CO r•" Ea N RI ce co Ea co F. c.) d c a) 0 co N. cv Lci 0) co 0) Ea v. coo co Ea 0 LO 0 t� 00 00 (0 LOCI CS ac OS cYiNN 69-E36 to 01 N Ea to N N 69. inw N co N 03 ;'r) N M CO C \l N d 0 0 0) co Ef} N- r M 00 6e 0 oo cii co 64 0 to (coo tn. a N LO (D E9} v Lo 8 (0 Ef7 LO M 0- CD 0, 0 Lo cD (D E'} 0 co r, co 64 10 (Vi [coo E4 00 v N co co '3 Lc) r L co 69- v to co Ef} 10 CV CV co 0, N r- 1.6 00 '3 00 Ln Ln ((D 03 N 10 co 64 to co 0 co 69. Ln (0 ((D '3 to 03 CD fie r- 133.. cD Efi N_ Ln CO 69- N N CV 0i 05 (0((0(0 '3 Ea', N r LC) CO fie o Lo N.. (o 0', CD o C) 03 co fie ti cO 't 03 (0 Ef} LC) co LC] CO co 6g M co 03 to (0 co '3 To 1— Assessed Valuation 8 co 0 r Lr7 a) co eT) 0 NI- 0, (0 0 8 N 0) ti M (0 M N. co v N. (D co o a) N to ti T M d- N 00 N. N. Lo N. 0 v- 00 N ti N." N. Lnw N. 00 in v. !� 10 0 a) co Le (0 N. N a) co 10 r to 0) CO NZ. N---. V. CO rn 0 CO CO N-- 0 CO 0 V J V v ti N- 0 CI CO Le. In CS cv N. 06 cp L J N. 0 r LO 'crw CO 03 0 N.-- 0, 0) 0') Lil co co L N. ow a a a) co v. N ti n. N 0 op N r 03 co 00 cv N cai o '3 • OS Co N '3 • o) a) �,M10 (O 0 NI- 0'3'3'3 ' � 03 00 003 Lo 0 N co co Lo' v. co v. v .0) e (w CO 0) to co V cv c0 ti v 00 N 1■.w (6 (0 (0 le 10 0) a) to (\I w co Lo P. �w rn op v n co 00 e-- L co Gi 0 v 0 N d7 0) r r v 0 CV v o v N M 0 0 CV ov N 0 a N 0 v N Lo 0 v CV co 0 v N ti v 0 N 00 v v CV 0) 0 0 CV 0 0 r N r r 0 N 1') r 0 N d- r 0 CV 10 0 r N r o CV CO T. v N r 0 N 0 N 0 N r N 0 CV N N v CV co N 0 N CV 0 N Lr) CO I` (V N N aoo CV CV N 00 CV a CV 0) N 0 N 0 co 0 N r C7 v N M 0') 0 N 0') 0 N to co 0 N ■ City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -K 06 -05 -07 Annual Tax Rate 08 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AS A VOTER APPROVED LEVY FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2000 WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed Measure "0 ", authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount not to exceed $10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a new Main Library facility and improvements to two branch facilities in the City of Alameda (the "project "; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda received a final grant award in December, 2002 in the amount of $15,487,952; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13563, adopted by the City Council on March 4, 2003, authorized and directed the sale of not to exceed $10,600,000 aggregate principal amount of City of Alameda, California General Obligation Bonds; and levying an ad valorem tax; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds, the City of Alameda must authorize the County of Alameda to levy and collect annually each year an ad valorem tax in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds; and WHEREAS,' Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $151$100,000 of assessed valuation over 30 years; and WHEREAS, the required tax rate for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 is $7.161$100,000 of assessed valuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby authorizes the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the County of Alameda as a voter - approved levy for the General Obligation Bonds issued pursuant to the General Election held November 7, 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the debt service for the $10,600,000 general obligation bonds will be p aid from a tax levy on all real and personal property in Alameda of $7.16 per $100,000 of assessed value for 2007 -08. Resolution #4 -K CC 06-05-07 1, 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 of the City Council on the 5th day of June 2007, by the y following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of June 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Containing a Description of the Community Improvement Commission's Program to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain on the Alameda Point, Business and Waterfront, and West End Community Improvement Project Areas BACKGROUND On September 29, 2006, the Governor signed two bills, SB 53 and SB 1 809, that altered the procedures that California Redevelopment Agencies, including Alameda's Community Improvement Commission (CIC), must follow to implement their existing eminent domain authority. SB 53 requires cities with Redevelopment Agencies implementing redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 2007, that include eminent domain authority, to adopt an Ordinance describing the Agency's "program" to acquire real property by eminent domain. The bill also requires that Redevelopment Agencies make findings that significant blight remains in a redevelopment area, and that such blight cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain, before any redevelopment plan may be amended to extend the power to use eminent domain. Pursuant to SB 53, these eminent domain programs must be adopted by July 1, 2007. To facilitate this action, SB 53 allows these cities to adopt the required ordinance without having to follow the usual procedures applicable to plan amendments, which take many months and contain extensive and expensive noticing procedures. Once the eminent domain � may ram is adopted, it be � p y changed only by amending the redevelopment plan pursuant to the normal plan amendment process set forth in Article 12 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 33450). This action makes no changes to the CIC's longstanding eminent domain policy. The purpose of this action is solely to satisfy technical revision made to Redevelopment Law in late 2006. SB 1809 adds additional information to the statement that is required to be recorded with the County Recorder after the adoption or amendment of a Redevelopment Plan. It also requires a revised statement to be recorded for all Redevelopment Plans adopted prior to January 1, 2007. This revised statement must be recorded by December 31, 2007. DISCUSSION SB 53 does not specifically proscribe the contents of the newly required eminent domain programs. The proposed programs for the CIC's redevelopment plan areas include, among other things: 1) the reasons for including eminent domain authority in the plan; 2) City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -L 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 the time limit and scope of the eminent domain authority, including a description of any restrictions on the use of eminent domain; 3) a description of the circumstances under which the CIC anticipates using its eminent domain authority; and 4) a recitation of the findings required under Health and Safety Code Section 333070d)(6) that the condemnation of real property, as provided for in the redevelopment plan, is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan, and that adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law, together with an outline of the facts upon which such findings are based. SB 1 809, requires existing Redevelopment Agencies with plans adopted prior to December 31, 2006, to record with the County recorder a revised statement for each of their redevelopment plans containing additional information including: 1) prominent "Boldface" heading noting that the property that is a subject of this recorded statement is located within a redevelopment project area; 2) a general description of the redevelopment plan that authorizes use of eminent domain; and 3) a description of a limitation on the use of that power. This statement would, for example, include that the City of Alameda does not authorize the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of residentially zoned property in the BWIP and WECIP project areas. This revised statement must be prepared by December 31, 2007. A statement meeting those requirements has been prepared and attached to the Ordinance, to be recorded with the County once the Ordinance is effective. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Introduce the Ordinance containing a description of the Community Improvement Commission's program to acquire real property by eminent domain on the Alameda Point, Business and Waterfront, and West End Community Improvement Project Areas. Res •e Iy submitt -d, Leslie Little Development Services Director DK /LL:dc CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. DESCRIBING THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION'S PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE ALAMEDA POINT, BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT, AND WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda, California "Cit t y Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2754 on March 3, 1998, approving and 9 adopting the Community improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, as amended by Ordinance No. 2895 on April 1, 2003 ( "APIP Plan"); } WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2559 on June 18, 1991, approving and adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended by Ordinance No. 2681 on December 6, 1 994; Ordinance No. 2835 on June 6, 2000; Ordinance No. 2844 on September 19, 2000; Ordinance No. 2857 on April 17, 2001; Ordinance No. 2896 on April 1, 2003; and Ordinance No. 2956 on January 2, 2007 ( "BWIP Plan " ); WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2141 on July 5, 1983, approving and adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project, as amended by Ordinance No. 2222 on January 2, 1985; Ordinance No. 2682 on December 6, 1994; Ordinance No. 2889 on November 20, 2002; and Ordinance No. 2897 on April 1, 2003 ( "WECIP Plan " ); WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") has been designated as the official redevelopment agency in the City of Alameda to carry out the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety r Code Section 33000 et seq) ( "CRL ") and to implement the APIP, BWIP, and WECIP Plans; WHEREAS, section I 1 I D(1) of the APIP Plan, section 111 D(1) of the BWIP Plan, and section V B(1) of the WECIP Plan contain Commission authority to acquire property by eminent domain; WHEREAS, Section 33342.7 of the CRL was amended by SB 53, which took effect on January 1, 2007, and requires a legislative body that adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before January 1, 2007, to adopt an ordinance on or before July 1, 2007, containing a description Introduction of Ordinance #4 -L CC 06-05-07 of the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real property by eminent p p y y anent domain; and WHEREAS, Section 33373 of the CRL was amended by i y s B � �o�, which took effect on January 1, 2007, and requires a legislative body that � y adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before January 1, 2007, to record with the County Recorder a revised statement containing a description of the land within the Project Area and a general d g ascription of the scope of the agency's eminent domain authority p rior to December 31, 2007. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. A description of the Commission's program to acquire real q property by eminent domain in the API P, BWIP, and WEC1P Project Areas is set forth in Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated p by reference. The Commission's program to acquire real ro ert by eminent p p Y Y domain in each Project Area may be amended only b y amending amendin the relevant Community Improvement Plan pursuant to Article 12 of the CRL (commencing ■ with Health and Safety Code Section 33450). Section 2. A revised statement containing a description of the land in the APIP Project Area, and a general description of the scope of the p Commission's eminent domain authority is set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated by reference. gip The City Council hereby approves the revised statement and directs the Executive Director of the Commission to cause it to be recorded with the County Recorder before December 31, 2007. Section 3. A revised statement containing a description of the land in the BWIP Project Area, and a general description of the scope of the p Commission, s eminent domain authority is set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The City Council hereby approves the revised statement and directs the Executive Director of the Commission to cause it to be recorded with the County Recorder before December 31, 2007. Section 4. A revised statement containing a description of the land in the WECIP Project Area, and a general description of the scope of the Commission's eminent domain authority is set forth in Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The City Council hereby approves the revised statement and directs the Executive Director of the Commission to cause it to be recorded with the County Recorder before December 31, 2007. Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of pY this Ordinance to the Commission. Section 6. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 7. The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council and cause the same to be published once in the Alameda Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Alameda, and it will take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT As provided in Section III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project ( "APIP Plan "), it is in the public interest and is necessary in order to eliminate the conditions requiring redevelopment and in order to execute the APIP Plan for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") to acquire real property in the APIP Project Area. This includes the power to acquire structures without acquiring the land under those structures. The Commission is also authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property ty less than a fee. The power of eminent domain is necessary because the APIP Pro J ect Area is characterized by incompatible and uneconomic land uses, substandard alleys, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. The APIP Project Area suffers from the adverse effects of mixed character and shifting uses or vacancies. In addition, there exist other blighting conditions such as small and irregular lots, faulty exterior spacing, p g, obsolete and aged building types, and buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. In order to eliminate these blighting conditions and prevent their recurrence, it s may be necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain. In approving the APIP Plan, the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council") found and determined that the condemnation of real property within the APIP Project Area, as p rovided for therein, is necessary to the execution of the APIP Plan and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for any property that is acquired as provided by law. This findin g was based upon: 1. The need to ensure that the provisions of the APIP Plan and the Commission's efforts to eliminate blight and redevelop the APIP Project Area would be carried out and that the area would be redeveloped in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law p w of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq) ("CRL") and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare; 2. The need to prevent the recurrence of blight; 3. The fact that any condemnation or other acquisition of property by the Commission would be undertaken in accordance with all applicable laws including, without limitation, the Eminent Domain Law (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq.), the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Section 7260 et seq.), and the Commission rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as applicable; and 4. The fact that the Commission will utilize its authority to acquire property by eminent domain only as a last resort. When the Commission exercises its power of eminent domain, it shall be exercised within the following limitations: Exhibit A Page 1 998382v4 21 942/0001 1. Eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the APIP Project Area, shall not be commenced after June 30, 2012. Commencement of an eminent domain proceeding occurs when a complaint in eminent domain is filed with a court. 2. The power of eminent domain shall not be used to acquire property to be retained b y an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement. 3. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised to acquire property upon which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use unless: a) the building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; .b} the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape or use; or c) it is necessary to impose upon such property the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of the APIP Plan, and the owner fails or refuses to execute a participation agreement in accordance with the provisions of the APIP Plan. 4. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless the public body consents to such acquisition. The Commission is, however, permitted to acquire public property which is transferred to private ownership before the redevelopment of the APIP Project Area is completed, unless the private owner enters into a participation agreement and fully performs under the agreement. 5. Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, eminent domain may be used to acquire personal property in the APIP Project Area where necessary in the execution of the APIP Plan. Furthermore, it is the policy of the Commission to encourage the participation of property owners and businesses within the APIP Project Area. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "Owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the APIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the APIP Project Area to participate in the redevelopment of the APIP Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit A Page 2 9983 82v4 21942/0001 EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. As provided in Section III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Water Front Improvement Project ( "BWIP Plan "), it is in the public interest and is necessary in order to eliminate the conditions requiring redevelopment and in order to execute the BWIP Plan for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") to acquire real property in the BWIP Project Area. This includes the power to acquire structures without acquiring the land under those structures. The Commission is also authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property less than a fee. The power of eminent domain is necessary because the BWIP Project Area is characterized by blighting influences and environmental deficiencies such as, deteriorated structures, inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, small and irregular lots, faulty exterior spacing, substandard alleys, and obsolete and aged building types. The BWIP Project Area suffers from the adverse effects of mixed character and shifting uses or vacancies. There are underdeveloped areas which are stagnant and under utilized. In order to eliminate these blight conditions and prevent their recurrence, it may be necessary to exercise the p ower of eminent domain. In approving the BWIP Plan, City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") found and determined that the condemnation of real property within the BWIP Project Area, as p rovided for therein, is necessary to the execution of the BWIP Plan and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for any property that is acquired as provided by law. This findin g was based upon: 1.. The need to ensure that the provisions of the BWIP Plan and the Commission's efforts to eliminate blight and redevelop the BWIP Project Area would be carried out and that the BWIP Project Area would be redeveloped in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq) ( and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare; 2. The need to prevent the recurrence of blight; 3. The fact that any condemnation or other acquisition of property by the Commission would be undertaken in accordance with all applicable laws including, without limitation, the Eminent Domain Law (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq.), the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Section 7260 et seq.), and the Commission rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as applicable; and 4. The fact that the Commission will utilize its authority to acquire property by eminent domain only as a last resort. When the Commission exercises its power of eminent domain, it shall be exercised within the following limitations: Exhibit B Page 1 998382v4 21942/00101 1. Eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the BWIP Project Area, shall. not be commenced after May 1, .2015. Commencement of an eminent domain proceeding occurs when a complaint in eminent domain is filed with a court. 2. The Commission shall not acquire residentially zoned real property by eminent domain. 3. The power of eminent domain shall not be used to acquire property to be retained by an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement. 4. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised to acquire property upon which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use unless: a) the building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; b) the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or c) it is necessary to impose upon such property the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of the BWIP Plan, and the owner fails or refuses to execute a participation agreement in accordance with the provisions of the BWIP Plan. 5. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless the public body consents to such acquisition. The Commission is, however, permitted to acquire public property transferred to private ownership before the redevelopment of the BWIP Project Area is completed, unless the Commission and the private owner enter into a participation agreement and the owner fully performs under the agreement. 6. Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, eminent domain may be used to acquire personal property in the BWIP Project Area where necessary in the execution of the BWIP Plan. Furthermore, it is the policy of the Commission to encourage the participation of property owners and businesses within the BW1P Project Area. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "Owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the BWIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the BWIP Project Area to participate in the redevelopment of the BW1P Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit B Page 2 9983 82v4 21942/0001 EXHIBIT C DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT As provided in Section V of the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project ( "WECIP Plan " ), it is in the public interest and is necessary in order to eliminate the conditions requiring redevelopment and in order to execute WECIP Plan for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") to acquire real property in the WECIP Project Area. The Commission is also authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property less than a fee. The power of eminent domain is necessary because the WECIP is characterized by blighting influences such as, obsolete buildings, inadequate public improvements, and certain privately held parcels that require substantial improvement activity. y In order to eliminate these blight conditions and prevent their recurrence, it may be necessar y to exercise the power of eminent domain. In approving the WECIP Plan, the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council") found and determined that the condemnation of real property within the WECIP Project Area, as provided for therein, is necessary to the execution of the WECIP Plan and adequate l' rovisions have been made for the payment for any property that is acquired as provided by law. This finding was based upon: 1. The need to ensure that the provisions of the WECIP Plan and the Commission's efforts to eliminate blight and redevelop the WECIP Project Area would be carried out and that the WECIP Project Area would be redeveloped in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq) ("CRL") and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare; 2. The need to prevent the recurrence of blight; 3. The fact that any condemnation or other acquisition of property by the Commission would be undertaken in accordance with all applicable laws including, without limitation, the Eminent Domain Law (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq.), the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Section 7260 et seq. ), and the Commission rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as applicable; and 4. The fact that the Commission will utilize its authority to acquire property by eminent domain only as a last resort. When the Commission exercises its power of eminent domain, it shall be exercised within the following limitations: 1. Eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the WECIP Project Area, shall not be commenced after April 1, 2015. Commencement of an eminent domain proceeding occurs when a complaint in eminent domain is filed with a court. Exhibit C Page 1 998382v4 21942/0001 Commencement of an eminent domain proceeding occurs when a complaint in eminent domain is filed with a court. 2. The Commission shall not acquire residentially zoned property by eminent domain. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is improved with a structure and the Commission has determined by resolution that rehabilitation of that structure and its proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the WECIP Plan and is in the best interest of the project and the owner has entered into an owner participation agreement with the Commission and is faithfully performing under .the terms of the agreement. 3. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is improved with a structure and the Commission has determined by resolution that the structure and its use is consistent with the objectives of the WECIP Plan and that no owner participation agreement is necessary so long as the structure is adequately maintained and landscaped. 4. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless prior consent is obtained from that public body. 5. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is residential property. 6. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is a non-blighted parcel listed in Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Furthermore, it is the policy of the Commission to encourage the participation of property owners and businesses within the WECIP Project Area. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the WECIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the WECIP Project Area to participate in the redevelopment of the WECIP Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit C Page 2 998382v4 21942/0001 Seifel Consulting Inc. Alameda Merger Amendments ATTACHMENT NO. x EXHIBIT C Lit f Nan- Ii d arcs! a f Au usfi 2f] WECIP APN Tax natc Arc Address 074 133400800 021002 1094 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133400900 021002 1092 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401000 021002 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 13340I203 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 I33401204 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 13340I404 021002 1076 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401504 021002 1050 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401506 021002 1054 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401606 021002 1040 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401607 021002 1040 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401700 021002 1010 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 ] 33401800 021002 1430 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401901 021002 1000 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133402300 021002 1100 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133402404 021002 1210 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133402901 021002 1 111 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403201 021002 801 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403305 021002 815 I► ARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403405 021002 817 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403505 021002 901 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403604 021002 931 MAR NA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403701 021002 933 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403800 021002 951 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404100 021 002 1390 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404600 021042 1090 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404700 021002 1082 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404800 021002 861 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074133404900 021002 871 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074133405300 021002 1001 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405500 021002 1001 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405600 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405800 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074133405900 021002 1301 MARINA VII.LAQE PKWY 074 133406140 021002 1301 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406200 021002 1305 MARINA VILLAGE PKY 074 133446300 021002 1151 MARINA VILLAGE PKY 074 133406400 021002 1 101 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406600 021002 1 101 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406800 021002 1190 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406900 021002 1290 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407000 021002 1380 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407100 021002 1360 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407300 .021002 1300 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 134000500 021002 1 PACIFIC MARINA 074 134001702 021002 1061 PACIFIC MARINA 1 7 G 074 134002300 021002 1115 ATLANTIC 074 134002400 021002 1125 ATLANTIC 074 134002500 021002 1135 ATLANTIC Parcels No Langer Blighted - WECIP 074 134002600 021002 074 134002700 021002 074 134003200 021002 074 134003600 021002 074 134003700 021002 074 134003800 021002 074 134003900 021002 074 134004000 021002 074 134004100 021002 074 134004200 021002 074 134004300 021002 074 134004400 021002 074 134004500 021002 074 I34004600 021002 074 134004700 021002 074 134004800 021002 074 134004900 021002 074 134005000 021002 074 134005100 021002 074 134005200 021002 074 134005300 021002 074 134005400 021002 074 134005500 021002 074 134005600 021002 074 134005700 021002 074 134101400 021002 074 134101500 021002 074 134101600 021002 074 134101700 021002 074 134101800 021002 074 134101900 021002 074 134102100 021002 074 134102200 021002 074 134102300 021002 074 134102400 021002 074 134102600 021002 074 134102700 021002 074 134102800 021002 074 134102900 021002 074'134103000 021002 074 134103100 021002 074 134103200 021002 074 134103300 021002 074 134103400 021002 074 134103500 021002 074 134103600 021002 074 134103700 021002 074 134103800 021002 074 134104000 021002 074 134104100 021002 074 134104200 021002 074 134104300 021002 074 134104400 021002 1145 ATLANTIC 1105 ATLANTIC 1050 PACIFIC MARINA 1011 PACIFIC MARINA 1025 PACIFIC MARINA 3001 TRIUMPH DR 3003 TRIUMPH DR 3005 TRIUMPH DR 3007 TRIUMPH DR 3009 TRIUMPH DR 3011 TRIUMPH DR 51 KINGSBURY CT 1 KINGSBURY CT 3 KINGSBURY CT 5 KINGSBURY CT 7 KINGSBURY CT 9 KINGSBURY CT 11 KINGSBURY CT 25 KINGSBURY CT 13 KINGSBURY cr 15 KINGSBURY CT 17 KINGSBURY CT 19 KINGSBURY CT 2r KINGSBURY CT 23 KINGSBURY CT 911 INDEPENDENCE DR A43 913 INDEPENDENCE DR B44 915 INDEPENDENCE DR F45 917 INDEPENDENCE DR 46 919 INDEPENDENCE DR 921 INDEPENDENCE DR B48 I COURAGEOUS CT A49 . 3 COURAGEOUS CT B50 5 COURAGEOUS CT C51 7 COURAGEOUS CT D52 9 COURAGEOUS CT A53 11 COURAGEOUS CT B54 13 COURAGEOUS cT E55 15 COUE.AOEOUS CT E56 17 COURAGEOUS CT A57 19 COURAGEOUS CT 22 COURAGEOUS CT 21 COURAGEOUS CT A59 23 COURAGEOUS CT B60 25 COURAGEOUS CT F61 27 COURAGEOUS Cr F62 29 COURAGEOUS CT A63 31 COURAGEOUS CT B64 18 COURAGEOUS CT A65 20 COURAGEOUS CT 1366 16 COURAGEOUS CT 067 14 COURAGEOUS CT G68 10 COURAGEOUS CT A69 Scil'cl Consulting Inc. Parcels No Langer Blighted - WEC11' Alameda Merger Amendments 2 2126103 074 134104500 021002 12 COURAGEOUS CT B70 074 134104700 021002 6 COURAGEOUS CT C71. 074 134104800 021002 S COURAGEOUS CT D72 074 134104900 021002 2 COURAGEOUS CT A73 074 134105000 021002' 4 COURAGEOUS CT B74 074 134105200 021002 931 INDEPENDENCE DR A75 074 134105344 021002 933 INDEPENDENCE DR B76 074 134105400 021002 935 INDEPENDENCE DR A77 074 134105500 021002 937 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134105700 021002 1 INVINCIBLE CT CI 074.134105800 021002 3 INVINCIBLE CT D2 074134105900 021002 5 INVINCIBLE CT G3 074 134106000 021002 7 INVINCIBLE CT G4 074 134106100 021002 9 INVINCIBLE CT ES 074134106200 021002 11 INVINCIBLE CT E6 074 134106300 021002 13 INVINCIBLE CT 07 074134106400 021002 15 INVINCIBLE CT G8 074 1 34106540 021002 17 INVINCIBLE CT C9 074 134106600 021002 19 INVINCIBLE CT D 10 074 134106800 021002 21 INVINCIBLE C'I' A 11 074 134106900 021002 23 INVINCIBLE CT B12 074 134107000 021002 25 INVINCIBLE CI' P13 074 134107100 021002 27 INVINCIBLE CT F14 074 134107200 021002 29 INVINCIBLE CT A15 074 134107300 ' 021002 31 INVINCIBLE CT B16 074 134107500 021002 50 INVINCIBLE CT A17 074 134107600 021002 521NVINCIELE CT B18 074 134107700 021002 48 INVINCIBLE CT P19 074 134107800 021002 46 INVINCIBLE CT F20 074 134107900 021002 42 INVINCIBLE CT A21 074134108000 021002 44 INVINCIBLE CI.822 074 134108200 021002 40 INVINCIBLE CT B24 074 134108300 021002 38 INVINCIBLE CT A23 074 134108400 021002 36 INVINCIBLE CT P25 074 134108500 021002 34 INVINCIBLE C"1' F26 074134108600 021002 30 INVINCIBLE CT A27 074 134108700 021002 32 INVINCIBLE CT E28 074 134108900 021002 10 INVINCIBLE CI' C37 074 134109040 021002 12 INVINCIBLE CT D38 074 134109100 021002 8 1NVINVINCIBLE CT 1*39 074 134109200 021002 6 INVINCIBLE CT F40 074 134109300 021002 2 INVINCIBLE CT C41 074 134109400 021002 4 INVINCIBLE CT D42 074 134 109600 021002 26 INVINCIBLE CT C29 074 134109700 021002 28 INVINCIBLE CT D30 074134109800 021002 24 INVINCIBLE CT 031 074 I34109900 021002 22 INVINCIBLE CT G32 074 134110000 021002 20 INVINCIBLE CT E33 074 134110100 021002 18 INVINCIBLE CT E34 074 134110200 021002 14 INVINCIBLE CT A35 074 I34110300 021002 16 INVINCIBLE Cr B36 014 134110600 021002 950 MARINA VILLAGE ?ICY 074 134110700 021002 2060 CHALLENGER DR Seifet Consulting lac. Parcels No Longer Blighted - WECIP Alameda Mcrgcr Amendments 3 2/26103 074 134110800 021002 2420 CIHALLL• NGER 13R 074 134110900 021002 965 ATLANTIC 074 134300100 021002 850 MAIUNA VILLAGE PKWY 074 134300200 021002 2061 CHALLENGER DR 074 134300300 021002 2021 CHALLENGER DR 074 134300400 021002 815 ATLANTIC 074 134300500 021002 801 ATLANTIC 074 134300600 021002 860 ATLANTIC 074 134300800 021002 960 ATLANTIC Q74 134300900 021002 980 ATLANTIC 074 134401900 021002 985 ATLANTIC 074 134402100 021002 1000 ATLANTIC 074 134402300 021002 1 REGULUS CT 074 134402400 021002 3 REGULUS CT 074 134402500 021002 5 REGULUS CT 81 074 134402600 021002 7 REGULUS CT 074 134402800 021002 9 REGULUS CT 074 134402900 021002 11 REGULUS CT 84 074 134403000 021002 • 13 REGULUS CT 074 134403100 021002 15 REGULUS CT 074 134403300 021002 17 REGULUS CT 074 134403400 021002 19 REGULUS CT 074 134403500 021002 21 REGULUS Cl' 074 134403600 02100z 23 REGULUS CT 074 134403700 021002 25 REGULUS Cl ' 074 134403800 021002 27 REGULUS CT 074 134404000 021002 14 REGULUS CT 074 134404100 02I002 16 REGULUS CT 074 134404200 021002 10 REGULUS CT 074 134404300 021002 12 REGULUS CT 96 074 134404500 021002 6 REGULUS Cr 074 134404600 021002 8 REGULUS CT 074 134404700 021002 2 REGULUS CT 99 074 134404800 021002 4 REGULUS CT 074 134405000 021002 981 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405100 021002 983 INDEPENDENCE WAY 102 074 134405200 021002 985 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405300 021002 987 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405500 021002 1 ECLIPSE CT 074 134405600 02 1002 3 ECLIPSE CT 074 134405700 021002 5 ECLIPSE CT 074 134405800 021002 7 ECLIPSE CT 074134406000 021b02 9 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406100 021002 11 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406200 021002 13 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406300 021002 15 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406500 021002 17 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406600 021002 19 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406700 021002 21 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406800 021002 23 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406900 021002 25 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407000 021002 27 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407200 021002 14 ECLIPSE CT Sella! Consulting Inc. Parcels No Longer Blighted • WECIP Alameda Merger Amendments 4 2126/03 SelFcI Consulting Inc. Alameda Merger Amendments 074 134407300 021002 16 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407400 021002 10 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407500 021002 12 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407700 021002 6 ECLIPSE C[' 074 134407800 021002 8 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407900 021002 2 ECLIPSE Cr 074 134408000 021002 4 ECLIPSE CT 074 134408200 021002 1051 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408300 021002 1053 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408400 021002 1055 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408500 021002 1057 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408700 021002 1005 ATLANTIC 074 134408800 021002 1015 ATLANTIC 074 134408902 021002 1025 ATLANTIC 074 134409000 021002 1 REDONDO CT 131 074 134409140 021002 3 REDONDO CT 074 134409200 421002 5 REDONDO CT 133 074 134409300 021002 7 REDONDO CT 074 134409500 021002 9 REDONDO CT 074 134409500 021002 11 REDONDO CT 074 134409700 02I002 13 REDONDO CT 074 134409800 021002 15 REDONDO CT 074 134409900 021002 17 REDONDO CT 074 134410000 021002 19 REDONDO CT 074 134410200 021002 21 REDONDO CT 074 134410300 021002 23 REDONDO CT 074 134410400 021002 25 REDONDO CT 074 134410500 021002 27 REDONDO CT 074 134410600 021002 29 REDONDO CT 074 134410700 021002 31 REDONDO CT 074 1344 10900 021002 18 REDONDO CT 074 13441 1000 021002 20 REDONDO CT 074 134411100 021002 14 REDONDO CT 074 134411200 021002 16 REDONDO CT 150 074 134411300 021002 10 REDONDO CT 074134411400 021002 12 REDONDO CT 074 134411600 021002 6 REDONDO CT 153 074 134411700 021002 8 REDONDO CT 074 13441 1800 021002 2 RED moo CT 074 134411900 021002 4 REDONDO CT 074 134412100 021002 1081 INDEPENDENCE DR 157 074 134412200 021002 1083 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134412300 021002 1085 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134412400 021002 1087 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134412700 021002 1010 ATLANTIC 074 134412800 021002 ,1024 ATLANTIC 5 Pnrccls No Longer Blighted - WECIP 2/26103 EXHIBIT D Recording Requested by and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380 Alameda, CA 94501 Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 ALL PROPERTY TO WHICH THIS NOTICE PERTAINS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA REVISED NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, in compliance with Section 33373(c) of the California Health and Safety Code which became effective January 1, 2007, that the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") adopted Ordinance No. 2754 on March 3, 1998, approving and p g adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, as y amended to date ( "APIP Plan "). The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is vested with the responsibility to carry out the APIP Plan. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, which became effective January 1, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. on , 2007, containin g a description of the Commission's program to acquire real property by eminent domain. A legal description of the boundaries of the APIP Project Area is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference and a copy of the APIP Plan may be obtained from the Commission. Proceedings for the redevelopment of the APIP Project Area, as contemplated by the APT) Plan, have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). Exhibit D Page 1 998382v4 21 942/0001 COMMISSION'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY. Section III of the APIP, authorizes the Commission to acquire property by eminent domain, subject to the following exceptions or limitations: (a) eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the APIP Project Area, shall not be commenced after June 30, 2012; (b) the power of eminent domain shall not be used to acquire property to be retained by an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement; (c) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised to acquire property upon which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use unless: i) the building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation, ii) the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use, or iii) it is necessary to impose upon such property the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of the APIP Plan, and the owner fails or refuses to execute a participation agreement in accordance with the provisions of. the APIP Plan; and d) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless the public body consents to acquisition or the public property is transferred to private ownership before the redevelopment of the APIP Project Area is completed and the private owner refuses to enter or fully perform under a participation agreement. In addition to the above limitations, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "Owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the APIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the APIP Project Area to participate in the redevelopment of the APIP Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit D Page 2 998382v4 21942/0001 Filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Alameda County by order of the City Council of the City of Alameda, California. Dated: , 2007. Attachment: Legal Description Exhibit D Page 3 998382v4 21942/0001 Lara Weisiger, City Clerk EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Legal Description of the Project Area Boundaries PARCEL 1 All those parcels of land described as listed: a) Judgment on a Declaration of Taken Filed in Office of the United States Clerk of the District Court of the Northern District of California: 1) Civil Action No. 21988 dated 10103/41 2) Civil Action No. 23109 dated 12/12/44 3) Civil Action No, 22463 dated 01/29/43 b) Executive Order: 1) Order No. 7467 dated 10/07/36 c) Exception to Executive Order No. 7467 1) Grant deed Reel 2568 Image 76, Official Records recorded 2!18170 d) Grant deed recorded in Alameda County Recorder's Office: 1) Book 3583 page 1 Official Records recorded 11/26/37 Beginning at a point distant thereon NORTH, 636.63 feet of Station 179 on the Peralta Grant Line as said Station and Line are delineated and so designated on that certain Map entitled "Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned among the owners thereof in Suit No. 8923" and entitled Pacific improvement Company, Plaintiff, vs James A. Waymire, et al, Defendants, Superior Court of Alameda County Sate of California," land filed July 30, 1900 in the office of the County Recorder of Alameda County in Book 25 of Maps, at pages 74, 76 and 78 said point also being on the Southeastern line of Main Street; thence along the Southwestern and Western line of said Main Street said line also being the Northeastern and Eastern lines of that parcel of Land described in the above mentioned Civil Action No. 21988, as follows:Southcasterly along a non - tangent curve having a radius of 700.00 feet, concave to the Southwest, a radial line of said curve through said point bears North 159 27' 47" East, through a central angle of 459'0 43' 13 ",.an arc length of 558.58 feet; South 28% 49' 00" East, 580.60 feet; Southerly along a curve having a radius of 960.00 feet, concave to the West, through central angle of 28% 15' 00 ", an arc length of 473.33 feet; South 0% 34' 00" East, 2134.92 feet to the Northeastern corner of that parcel of land described in the above mentioned Civil action No. 23109; thence along the Eastern line thereof, as follows: South 0% 34' 00" East, 228.24 feet; South 12%.19' 23" East, 51.60 feet; South 4%32' 16" East, 201.32 feet; South 1% 58' 15" West, 50.00 feet; South 2% 01' 00" West, 800.00 feet; South 87% 59' 00" East, 95.00 feet; South 2% 01' 00" West, 452.52 feet; Southerly along curve having a radius of 711.34 feet, concave to the East, though a central angle of 32% 06' 26 ", an arc length of 398.62 feet; South, 1664.52 feet to the Northeastern corner of that parcel of and described in the lease to the United States of EXHIBIT A Page 1of5 49:42" West, 505.94 feet" as described in said decd (Reel 1821 O.R. Image 494); thence along said extension and the exterior lines thereof as follows: North 2% 49 42 East 559.95 feet; North 89% 30' 31" East, 199.25 feet; North 0% 31' 43" West, 515.33 feet; North 76 %58' 17" East, 51.52 feet; South 0% 31' 43" East, 17.73 feet; North 77% 05' 30" East, 30.74 feet and South 89% 51' 30" East, 1180,29 feet to the western line of that parcel of land described in the deed to the State of California recorded in Book 7567 of Official Records at page 117 in the office of the County Recorder of said Alameda County; thence along the exterior lines thereof, as follows: North 2% 47' 17" East, 43.00 feet; South 87% 12' 43" East, 283.15 feet; southeasterly along a curve having a radius of 250.00 feet concave to the southwest; through a central angle of 90% 52' 30" an arc length of 396.52 feet and South 2% 47' 17" East, 1251.57 feet to a point on northern line of that parcel of land described in said Declaration of Taking No. 30735 (6618 OR. 339), said point also being the southwestern corner of that parcel of land described in the deed to the United States of America recorded in Book 5597 of Official Records, at page 433 in the Office of the Recorder of said Alameda County; thence along the said northern Iine (66918 OR 339) South 88% 20' East, 833.24 feet to the northwestern corner of Parcel 2 as said parcel is shown on the map of Parcel Map No. 3399 filed October 2, 1981 in Book 131 of Paitel maps; at page 1 in the Office of the Recorder of said Alameda County; thence along the western line thereof and the westem line of Parcel 1 of said parcel map (131 PM 1) South 2% 04' 31" West, 464.03 feet to the northern line of that parcel of land described in the deed to Alameda Amusement Co., Inc. a Corporation, recorded in Reel 25 of Official Records, at Image 976 in the Office of the Recorder of said Alameda County; said line also being the southern line of that parcel described in said Declaration of Taking No. 30735 (6618 OR 339); Thence along the exterior lines of said parcel (6618 OR 339) North 89% 00' 30" West, 499.63 feet; thence South 0% 59' 50" West, 624.83 feet; thence North 89% 00' 10" West, 155.19 feet to the northeastern corner of the parcel of land described in the deed to the United States of America recorded May 1, 1963 in Reel 871 of Official Records, at Image 596 in the office of the Recorder of said Alameda County, thence along the eastern Iine of said parcel (871 or 596) and the eastern line of that parcel land described in said Declaration of Taking No. 21816 (4023 OR 499) South 0% 59' 50" West, 1242.29 feet to the southeastern corner of said parcel described in said Declaration of Taking No. 21816 (4023 OR 499); thence along the Southern line thereof, being the northern lint of said Atlantic Avenue as follows: North 86% 34' West, 726.99 feet; South 88% 43' 04" West 889.75 feet and North 88% 34' West, 926.16 feet to the point of beginning. ' And containing 202.4 acres, more or less. Excepting and excluding therefrom, A parcel of land being a portion of the Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California, lying in the city and county of Alameda, State of California, and being a portion of the parcel described in that certain Judgment on Declaration of Taking entered in Civil Action No. 30 ?35 recorded.-on December 21, 1951 in Book 6618 of Official Records at page 339, Alameda County Records, and being all of the parcel described in that certain decd recorded June 18, 1963 in Reel 924 of Official Records at Image 879, Alameda County Records, and being all of the parcel described in that certain decd recorded April 29, 1963 in Reel 871 of Official Records at Image 596, Alameda County Records, and being all of the parcel described in that certain deed recorded March 28, 1941 in Book 4023 of Official Records at page 499, Alameda County Records, EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 5 Thence leaving said westerly line along said southerly line, North 87 °51'51" West, 155.23 feet to the easterly line of the parcel described in that certain deed recorded on April 29, 1963 in Reel 871 of Official Records at Image 596, said county records; Thence leaving said southerly line and along said easterly line, and also the easterly line of that certain deed recorded on March 28, 1941 in Book 4023 of Official Records at page 499, South 02°08'09" West, 1241.94 feet to the northerly line of. A'tl antic .Avenue, being 51 feet wide, as shown on that certain map entitled "OFFICIAL RESURVEY OF PORTION OF SEGREGATION LINE AND VICINITY ", filed for record on August 13, 1951 in Book 3 of Records of Survey at page 16 through 22, inclusive, said county records; Thence along said northerly line of Atlantic Avenue the following courses; North 8525'42" West, 729.54 feet; South 89 °49'20" West, 884.20 feet; North 87'26'18" West, 929.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing an area of 123.389 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT E Recording Requested by and When Recorder! Return to: City Clerk City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380 Alameda, CA 94501 Exempt front recording fees pursuant to Government Coyle Sections 6103 and 27383 ALL PROPERTY TO WHICH THIS NOTICE PERTAINS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA REVISED NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, in compliance with Section 33373(c) of the California Health and Safety Code which became effective January 1, 2007, that the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2691 on June 18, 1 991, approvin g and adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended to date ( "BWIP Plan "). The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is vested with the responsibility to carry out the BWIP Plan. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, which became effective Januar y 1, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. on , 2007, containin g a description of the Commission's program to acquire real property by eminent domain. A legal description of the boundaries of the Bwrp Project Area is attached hereto as Attachment 1. and incorporated herein by reference and a copy of the BWIP Plan may be obtained from the Commission. Proceedings for the redevelopment of the BWIP Project Area, as contemplated by the BWIP Plan, have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). Exhibit E Page 1 9983 82v4 21942/0001 COMMISSION'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY. Section III of the BWIP authorizes the Commission to acquire property by eminent domain, subject to the following exceptions or limitations: (a) eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the BWIP Project Area, shall not be commenced after May 1, 2015; (b) the Commission shall not acquire residentially zoned property by eminent domain; (c) the power of eminent domain shall not be used to acquire property to be retained by an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement; (d) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised to acquire property upon which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use unless: i) the building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation, ii) the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use, or iii) it is necessary to impose upon such property the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of the BWIP Plan, and the owner fails or refuses to execute a participation agreement in accordance with the provisions of the BWIP Plan; and (e) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless the public body consents to acquisition or the public property is transferred to private ownership before the redevelopment of the BWIP Project Area is completed, and the private owner refuses to enter or fails to fully perform under a participation agreement. In addition to the above limitations, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "Owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the BWIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the BWIP Project Area to participate in redevelopment of the BWIP Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit E Page 2 998382v4 21942/0001 Filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Alameda County by order of the City Council of the City of Alameda, California. Dated: , 2007. Attachment: Legal Description Exhibit E Page 3 998382v4 21942/0001 Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Exhibit A Attachment 1 Legal Description of the Expanded B W I P .Project Area Boundaries REAL PROPERTY in the City of Ala,Yeda, County o f Aianed described as follows: a, State of Cali fern PARCEL "A": BEGINNING at the intersection of the U.S. by the U. S. Ath intersection 'Corps of US Pierhead Line ( Alameda) y Engineers and shown on their Ma of as established fe San Francisco Bay, California, Oakland - Alameda ", dated 23 Sept. 91 and 55, and the southeastern "Harbor Lines, rni ltheastern right -of -way line of Mariner betDriv (formerly Webster Street, BO feet wide) as described tin Parse r, Community Imprnvenent Plan 1 Sq'spre Drive certified copy , adopted by City of Alameda Ordinance`} In the Was: End No. Bs�ed�1copy on said iddordinance having been recorded August 4, N. E341 a Official Records of Alaaada County; - '', under Series THENCE southeasterly along said Pievhead Line to intersection w corner of said Parcel ?, i t,'� a THENCE southwesterly alan t narthe�n 9 the boundary of said Parcel 2, the fnllorlino courses and distances; South 68' 18' s5" nz�_d South 17" E2' iS" �ie'`, .'T1.5�i fact; South ►+'3` 12' ��► Wept, )��.�b feet; Southerly, along West, l� °-C� fee:; radius of 1 30� is the arc of a curve concave a� Ward t, any c ! , the ,lore or less, to a northern ling is fe'k'' an arc distance of 42 feet east, Street r -d wide; now abandoned); 1 °ss, t:� tt:a THENCE westerly along said lute of Work Scree:, 225 feet, pore eastern line of said Mariner s - or less, to the THENCE northerly and northeasterly Drive; �E orth sore and r aster.ly along said• line, 850 feet mare less, respectively, to the BEGINNING. r °" lest, and Containing seven (7) acres, mu,e or less. PARCEL r$ ": EEGLIJ ING at the paint of intersR (10') easterly at right are ction of e a line drawn paral,l -el wi_t, and Street (60 feet at right and glen from .n? eastern right-uf-way -_l ten feet the "Se and Line � , ct ed on certain map entitled, "Official Line ", as shown and , ri ar Fe5+Jr► cloniLinefd do ,;,ti2•`. Vicinity", );led and recorded August-13, ey of of Segregation Lin? and Surveyors, at pane l6 19�i in Book s of SurV.ey, by Licensed is Surveyors, an t pa ' in the Office of the Alaneda Coy_ angle paint in the eastern boundary of Parcel b2, Ras °described i ptht West End Coaa+�nity� Isprpvement p Wes a certi r "led co lan, adopted by City of Alan • in .:h . copy of. said ordnance having been recorded Ordinance 83, under Series No. •33 -14Ug9 i August 4 i °Ba in the O`Y total Records of Al.aa4da County; ' , THENCE northerly along said eastern boundary, the fo11 ❑win distances: 4 na ued courses and North t 22- ° 41' 1= +" East, 2 :c.06 feet; 42' Od -, North 3' 2' 0 2 " feat, to c point nt on the east?.-1 boundary of t:° lands of aYarine Village Associates; 4orth 854 43' ► +9" West, 46. 21 Feet; North 4° la' l l"`a s , Oescription of the Survey i-lrea, Parcel "B", A.!,y.: 2S Uct )0 - (=;intinuEd) L. Nortn 58* 00 44" West, ao.00 Mor:h 31° 59,1 16" East, 150.(; : fie:i South 58' 00' 44" East, E-i,).02 North 4' 1.6' 11" East, 257.1E. feet; South 58° 02' 24" East, 254.10 i'ee: to a point an the U.S. Pierhead and Bulkhead Line (Ale2eda), as estatlished by the U.S. 4,3y Carps of Engineers, and shown on their Map of "Harbor Lines, for San Francisco Bay, California, Oakland Ala2eda", dated 22 S+pt 1563, which point bears northwesterly 4.54 feet, more or less, from Point Nu. 105 thereof, and wh:Ch point is also coincident with an eastern corner of said Parcel 2; ATHENCE along the eastern boundary of said Parcel 2, North 4' 16' 11" East, 143.9a feet to another corner thereof at intersection with the Peralta Grant Line, £ said Line is delineated and so designated on the "Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned among the owners thereof, in the suit numbered 8923 and entitled, Pacific isprovesent Co7pany, plaintiff, vs. James A. Waymire, et al., defendants, Superior Court of Alameda County, State of California.", filed for record July 30, 1900 in Book of Maps at page 74, in the Office' o! the Alameda County hecorder; THENCE southeasterly along said brant Line 295 feet, sore or less, to inter- section with the aforesaid Pierhead and Bulkhead Line; IHENCE leaving the said Grant Line southeasterly along said Pierhead and Bulkhei..d Line, 530 feet, more Dr less, to intersection with another point on the said Grant Line; MENGE northeasterly and in a general southeasterly direction along the said Er-ant Line, 1235 feet, sore or less, to Point No. 109 of the said Pierhead and Bulkhead line, e point of separation; THENCE continuing southeasterly alone the said Pierheed Line 3,682 f,?st, 2cre cr less, to Point No. 139, a junction' point; THENCE continuing southeasterly aiong said PierheE:d and BulNhead Line !,i,7:2 feet, Fiore or less, to the nortnwestern line of Oak Street, (,12.84 fe.lt wide, more • or legs; now abandonee.), as shown on the "Map of Pert oF che M:nturn 7ract". dated Decezber, 1376, filed for record March 3rd, lari, in the Office of the Alameda County Recorder; THENCE northeasterly along said line of Oak Street, or the direct production northeasterly thereaf, td th nea, chznnel line in the U.S. Tidal Canal, al the same now exists and as shswn on sai0 Harbor Litres lap; THENCE south-easterly along said channel 1in 71;0 feet, more,or less, to the southeastern right-of-way line of Park '...1treet; THENCE southwesterly along said right-of-wa,.. line to said Piernead Bulkhead Line; THENCE southeasterly along last said line, -.20 feet, nore or less, to inter- section with the northwestern boundary -r that: tract or parcel oF land Shawn an "Parcel Map No. 1264", filed fa, rec--d August 28, 1975 in Book 88 of Parcel Maps, page 12. Official Records Alameda County; THENCE northeasterly along the direct produ,:ion northeasterly of said boundary tD the said near channel line; THENCE southeasterly along said channel lin:. 1065 fee, more or less, to inter- section witn the direct production nor-t-• nsterly o tne soutneastern tcqr,dary of said parcel; THENCE southwesterl? a2org 5j d!re:: crod • la te 3a:d Bulkhead Line; THENCE continuiTio southeesterly alon: Eirad a7.s Bu1kPad Lin? !1-.0 nor? or lesE, :o inte-sv2ticn m.tn ;ne Uay +2.; tr:e 54,” nOW .eXiGt5); Description of the Survey Area Parcel „B.." 2a May 50 _ i== nk.;Ld} T;ENCE sa lcf:,2s t?r1 y along Said line of Tilden ln:g1.5�CtjUn With th2 5 Way J,C�i1�;1 feet, oar .. THENCE intersection on with o theast l ilf of Everett Street, a e a :a Lincoln In s �� {yang said line of Everett Street ut Foe: wide); ., feet wide, o . ;Q the THENCE northwesterly a5 the same now - 5o�l:i^.y►;+5�d.,� l;f,e '1;- Y along last said exi5�.sl; �E91, the yap of along was filed line o the northwesLertr for record 25 October 197bo'.4ndBoo of Tract in Book 7; of maps, page 92, Official Records 1`HEiifCE southwesterly along said of Alameda County; . thereof, rout, said direct 4boundary th Block a df production being athe tcommoneb4 ndarycbetw en loWe5la a the ttlamed3 5rat ion Harie;`.ead Tracbo�Jthe R�. 14, record ]o March 1868 me in I between lots ] an, Book. 17 of Maps, ' map of Records was filed Alameda County, to the northeastern Page �`'•'� Official ,� i`... sane now exists; line of Webb Reco. e, a! Avenue, {7�1 feet wide, d5 the THENCE southeasterly along said line to the said southeastern lane of • said Ev:ret . 5treet, • THENCE southwesterly along said line 15 ?. i fee_ western boundary �rer, We5tedn County or the lot commonly known as 1514 of e6et` St the south- western Assessor's Parcel 1 Everett �� .THENCE southeasterly along ?tn. 7r.,_]:, ?_�;;' Street, 5ci:,o THE?+�Caster n l in�aof said lot said boundary a; ;gib;" more or leis, to the 5c,1_h_ Block �s as shown long�iclast said line to the southwestern boundary o Blacks" as n certain map entitled "Subdivision dt a ar� lot 4, ap was f i led for record 3 May 1872 i of the Chipman , a in the Office of the Alameda County THENCE southeasterly l Recorder; n Book 4 of ,,laps, page -, along said lot ];ne A, being also the narthw� nd to the southeastern boundary THENCE northeasterly also the anon 5; 'r"n boundary of lot 6, said Block of said I :: 9 last said bo'lndar, a rk `. e:,s;. Ar•l thereof Y and ter. direct production � Y ea, to the northeastern c- Avenue, 1. fe t :side at this point, as the same snown exists); or said Webb AvanuA, (4 1. li faeL iHFI+[CE southeasterly along zxi 7,.s }; said line of ebb Avenue lr=r.+ feet, direct production northeasterly of the northwestern line `�! of 1 or less, to :j,� THENCE southwesterly in_ gf lot Ifr* said 8!,:c4 along said lot drawn parallel with and l�itj 1= �'CCI�n, and direct production ti-�eregf, a western line of said W� -alwr•1We,ter•1y at right arc to a : in. THENCE southeasterly along gab Aaei : ".:�, g files from the tia•.1:- E So boundary said par -alle! line .120.3 ar Chipman re °t, more or 1e531 to the common "Map of Fart f the. p• :r Blocks Subdivision and of Block 2 `t, It3ri i o Book 5 of Hays & Caperton I='r operty, .." 2, as shown on Recorder; Maps, page E, i n t,� Office filed For record pp ►.: 1 of she Alameda County .iH=NCE northeasterly along Common boundary, 14.r feet less, t p :r° northeastern boundary o F the lot cosmvn l y known as 15 3g Broadway, Alameda Cori Assessor's THENCE southeasterly clan � }a. 747-- In4• -jti�� thereof, as the l 5a"long2said boundary and the direct IHCIUth 'oaf, to southwesterly alts southeastern link of t et wide; southeasterly 9 said southeastern ❑u feet O.Ith Central Avenue (grj feet ,wide) stern line, to the southwestern lint.. >,: THENCE northwesterly along said line of Central Avenue to �, tract; intersection 3 tdirect production southwesterly of. the southeastern boundary of Tract 3465, , f i ti ed for record 27 February 1973 in 77 of Maps, pans 9A, i n the Official of Alameda CQ�nt,i .. he s. lv llcnu a.L _ a - .�.�..C' 2'r t7u da►y •o t1e lt'rn serin osa` r TScl[attw o, Description of the Survey Pr ea, Parcel •'l.]'', Rev.: L:i Oct 90 t,• - THENCE southwesterly along western out ly a ng said northwestern to tics, line g� lot 21 SlG �: 1 ,' � n�^ L +�� '' "� _cL�G� ���:�. e se id l.,l : oean Blocks S ' • - ;Due, THENCE northwester;' along 1�'���•is:cn� 1 g said i :ne of lot• '21, 6u feet, ' northwestern line of the lot eo�nvan :• ;r:�y;, ;, more or less, t t;,, Assessor's Parcel , 70-170-15; 1 a5 �:r +17 Central A'�en' ::, teeing THENCE southwesterly } Y along said it !ine and tree di+•act production Su jtn.b ;ys.t, thereof -to the southwestern line Said G ?ntra: Avenue; northwesterly alon g last said line to ,.ne southeaster n boundary a4 comaanly known as 2418 -•244) Cer:'aI Aven -•i bei ng AsseSSO''; Parcel THENCE southwesterly zIong said boundary, western boundary f last bo 1 ,Gar'!, 12:,. r ?:;., oe: or less, to the sc'.l: - o' said lot THENCE northwesterly along last said boundary, southeastern tine a -' c'_ _.,�., feet, oat•a ar lees, to the Park Avenue ( 4I feed, wide as the THENCE southwesterly along < <il with now bYLa:il last said line to intersection with tale direct tin southeasterly the t j :.arJouthJ1 e J of the neetr:east ern boundary line �+y e as Perk Avenue, being Assessors Parcel No. Dr -1. 1a� ca aa:rly ;�- TIE;'ICE northwesterly along ba rd '�- "'' -�• following courses and distances; tlry line and dir•r�4 F�. d,- �ir,rs *.r•sr•?o ;, northwesterly 186 feet., more o•. less, to an angle paint; 5 feet, more or less, to an angle point; northwesterly 45 r?2t, noee or ices, to the northwestern lot coemonly known as 1351 Park Avenue, being Assessor' stern line 7. the 195 -7; x Parcel ,Ic. 7':� -- THENCE southwesterly along last said line .�, as shown on the nap or " to the northeastern line of lot R, A1aeeda P �� ark Homestead , filed for + in Book 17 of Maps, Page 3, record !'lay . +:� _ y, �, Official Records of Ai aseda County; THENCE northwesterly along laet said line to the northwestern being also the cv.aaon boundary of lots A and C of said 3locLn3, oas stre�.n o_.. said map; THENCE southwesterly along said common boundary and the extension thereof thr-,.,E. Black 3 and beyond to the northeastern boundary of the lot commonly known as 1339 Park Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 70. 185_28-1; THENCE southeasterly along said boundary, t54.92 feet, more or less, to the northwestern line of said Park Avenue; THENCE southwesterly along said Iine, 90 feet, more or less, to the southwestern boundary, of said lot, being also the northeastern boundary of Block 5, as shown an said Rap of AlaQeda Park' Homestead; THENCE northwesterly along last said boundary, 140 feet drawn parallel with and 140 feet northwesterly from t hersaid northwestern l is of Park Avenue; THENCE southwesterly along said parallel line rat► ra,t, more or less, to the southwestern Lire of the property commonly known as 1.3,11.3,1.3 =ark Ave nee, Assessor's Parcel No. 70- 185-17- THElCE southeasterly along said 1 ine, •5. 23 feet, more or less, to the north- western line a r' the lot commonly known as 2414 and 2415 Mart irae Court, D? : n Assessor'r, Parcel No. 70- 185--17; THENCE southwesterly aloe said r line Cf .Black 7, a5 shown the f2s:' Feet, more or less, to the nor =nA�s- e.. n on said oap a' Alen, :da r . THENCE southeasterly along Park Homestead; �3�' "a7�3t,�-a3t2r': y t:1. • ?of� Snl�_�pi }'� ° -�`�t - '�'•'ti .t l�? 2.',� t,`!e :,•x�r -� F,•' line , 4--; Feet, iore r t way ne or said :=e,•k Avenue; . ssl,rrea,.s:•r '_ -: - T' -E,NCE sa'.sthweste•r!y long said fight -of-- ey !ins rC;lr'a'�C' F:A ::1e 5_r`,h: -r ?g- -. •h" 'a � ]1.i.' � - "a�' :1� ?�•. _ _-• as shown on 413^ r , 4 Description of the Survey Area, Parcel "9", Rev.: 26 Oct 90 - (contirojedi THENCE along the arc of said dur,e, havi-ig a rad:us e:f Feet, more- or less, the northeastern right-of-way line ef Encinal Avenue, feet wioe, as th: same now exists; TWNCE vouthwesterly at ripht anoles to :aid line of Encino! Avenue, 60 fees ta the southwestern line thereof; THENCE northwesterly along said southwestern line to the southeastern line of Avenue (West), (50 feet wide, as the sane now exists) ; THENCE southwesterly along last said In to the direct production southeaster of the northeastern boundary of Lot A, Block 10, as shown or the aforesaid is.0 of Alameda Park Homestead; THENCE northwesterly along said boundary and production 17; feet, more or lees, to the common boundary of Lats A and C of said block 10, as shown on said oop of Alameda Park Homestead; THENCE southwesterly along said boundary and the southwesterly extension thereof, ,, s o sa map; through Blocks 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of rest eaid map to the northeastern line of San Jose Avenue, 60 feet wide, alo shown n id THENCE southeaeterly alono said northeastern line, 5 feet, more.or ite t!The direct production northeasterly of the southeastern line of.the int commonly known as 119e Park Street, beino Assessor's Parcel No. 0_s1 THENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line,and production thereof, ;crt,is said San Jose Avenue And beyond to the southwestern line of said lot/parcel 70-101-1; THENCE northwesterly along said southwestern line 122 fee or lets, to the southeastern rioht-of-way line of Park Street, (2-0 feet wide, as the sseie no. exists; THENCE southwesterly along said line of Park Street, 100 feet, more or !els, to the direct production southeasterly of the northeastern line of Lot 7, Bleck 0, as shown on the "Map of Lands adjacent to the Town of Encino], Alameda County, Cal., Surveyed by Jas. T. Stratton," filed for recerd Nay ;nth, 1.SE-7 in Book 19 of Maps, at Page sa, in the Office of the Alameda County Recorder; THENCE northwesterly Eland said line or lot 7 and the production thereof to the northwestern line of that certain lot *I- parcel commonly known as 1117 Park Street, being Assessor's Parcel No. 71-J:06-7; THENCE southwesterly along last said line, 30 feet, more or less, to the south- western line of last said lot; THENCE northweeterly olono last said 1ine, 22..75 feet, more or less, t. the southeastern boundary of the lot commonly known as 'ilb.(lak Street, bein.0 Aesessor's Parcel No, 71-Q&-;5- THENCE northeasterly lono said boundary to the aforesaid northeastern line of 2oz 7, Block Q; THENCE northwesterly along said line tQ the eouthwestern line of the lot commonly known -as 2306 Szn Jose Avonue, beino Assessor's Parcel No. 71-208,1,-1; THENCE northeasterly along said.southwestern line and the direct production northeasterly thereof, 160 feet, aora or 1e5s, to the northeastern riaht-of- way line of said San Jose Avenue; THENCE southeaeterly along said right-of-way line to the southeastern boundary of the lot commonly known as 2309 San Jose Avenue, beino Assessor's Parcsl N. 71-207-12; THENCE northeasterly a)ono said boundary, 130 feet', more or less, to tne western line of lot 7, Elec.. R, a! shown on ths agoreteld Mao of Lend: ad,acent -TENCE northweste-ly alor e. les.r. said !:ne, 50 feet, mere er leis, western line of said lot 7; to THENCE nertheasterly along iest ta:f line, 5.d feet, meoe or less, eastern line of said lot 7; to thE nortn- 5 Description of the 'Lutes./ Area, Pe;oel eA ';:ey_50 - ieootieeed, THENCE southeasterly along lAet said line, 50 f!et, more oe lees, to the soothe eattePn line of the lot commonle :mown A5 Sen Aetonio Avenue, being Assessor's PATC2I No. 71-207-2; THENCE northeasterly along last said line and the direct peoduction nort'reesterly thereof, 160 feet, more or less, to the northeastern line of San A•otonio Avenue, at the intersection of the.southeasteen line Di lot 6, Block S, AS shown on the said flap of Lands adjacent ...; THENCE northeasterly along said line of lot 6, 150 feet, moee or less, to the northeastern line of said lot; THENCE northwesterly along last said line, 50 feet, mcree or less, to the north- western line of lot 3 of sail Plod: S, as shown on said map; THENCE northeasterly Along last said.line 50 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet SouthwesteTly from the southwestern line of EncinAl Avenue, (80 fte.et wide, as the sAme glow exists); THENCE northwesterly along said parallel line and the direct peoducticn northwesterly thereof, 160 feet, epee or less, to tne ncrthwesteTn line of Del: Street (60 feet wide, AS the seer!. now exists); THEMCE northeasterly-along said line of Oak Street (at varying widths, • the sawie • now elist), to interseetion with the southwestern bouhdare of a parcel of Cif property (the pain LibrAry and the Children's Libraey) commonly known AS .14Jf? • Oak Street, and 2264 Santa Clera Avenue, beim. Aseessor's Parcel No. 71-216-1; THENCE in a oeneral norteeaeterly direction Along said boundary, the following courses: northwesterly, 150 feet, mere De less; northeasterly, 52.85 feet, more or lese; southeasterly, 3? feet, more or less; and, northeasterly, 96.715 feet, more or less, to the southwestern line of Santa Clara Avenue, CO feet wide); THENCE northweeterly, S4 feet, more oT 19SG, along the said southwestern line tc • intersection with the direct production southwesterly of the northwestern boundary of the City Hall property, which consists of all of 1ots'6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, and the southeeste;en 33 feet of lot 13, all in Block 37, as shown on the aforesaid Map of Lands adjAcent...; THENCE northeasterly along said direct production, to the northeastern line of map; Santa Clara Avenue (60 feet wide, a. the same now exists) AS shown on said THENCE generally northeasterly Along said boundary and the direct production northeasterly thereof, to the northeastern line of Lincoln Avenue (80 feet wide, as the same now exists); - THENCE southeasterly along sAid line o Lincoln Avenue, 175 feet more OT i?SS, to the aforesaid northwestern line of Dak Street (43.33 feet wide, as the same •now elists); THENCE northeasterly Along said line of Oak Street, to the soutNwestern line of Buena Vista Avenue.(70 it wide, AS the same now exists); THENCE northwesterly lon line, 96.5 feet, more or less, to intersection with ths direct .production southwesterly of northwestern boundary of thAt certain property, commonly known as 2275 Buena Vista Avenue, being AssessoT's Parcel Ho. 71-222-2; THENCE northeasterly along said boundAry and productioe thereof, 215 feet, more ce less, the southwestern boundry of that certain lot cemmenly known as 1.4 1 Street, being Assesso's Parcel No. 71-222-1; THENCE 1,1 reeerel neetn•es:eely direetion, elcng saij lot line the fellowiag courses: northwesterly, 35!.E feet; nertheasterle, 460 feet; ane Descriptioo of the Survey rIrea, -:: r-:., ., - (...,,,,,s,:) northweste,ly, 13) feet to the scutaeastern lioa of Elm S:rees wide), as said street is shown oA tnA: ce•t4in map entitled, "Subdivis'.on oi Blocks 30 a 31, Lands Adjacent to the Town o EnC;Aal Alameda Township, Cal.", filed for reco•.!:, Auust, 1505, in ?oo=t 20, page '..5, Offioial F.:eoords of THE421:= orthwesterly along the di7ect productioo no,thoesteriy of last i=in said course to the northwestern line of said Elm Street; THENCE northeasterly along last said line, 50 feet, to tha southwestern line of Clement Avenue (60 feet wide, as the same now exists), And as sAid avenue it shown an said subdsion map; THENCE northwesterly along said line of Clement Avenue, 260 feet, more or /ess, tc the southeastern line of Walnut Street (40 feet wi4e1 As the same now exists); THENCE southwesterly along said street line, 725 feet, more OT less, to the existi); southwester u '. line of said Buena VistA Avene (70 feet wide, as the same now THENCE northwesterly along last said 1ir to intersection with the direct produc- tion southwesterly of the no'rthwSSteTn boundary of i tTact or parcel of City, 231-2-4; owned land, commonly known as McKinley Pr'! being Asses33:Parcl ilo. 7-. THENCE northeasterly Alan° said boundary and production the7oeof And beyond, 425 feet, more or less, to.t)e southwestern bound, of a parcel 3f lad owned by the Alameda Unified'School District, being Assessoo's Parcel Na. 71-225-2-; THENCE northwe.sterly along last said boundary to the southehstarn lioe of Mulber7.; Street (60 feet wide, as the same now exiots); THENCE southwesterly along said line 60 it to the direct production sooth- now exists); easterly of the southwestern Lie of Eagle Avenue, (60 feet wide, ai the same THENCE northwesterly along Said line'of Eagle Avenue, 540 feet, more or to to the northwestern line of Willow Street, (60 feet vide, As the same now .so,ists; THENCE northeasterly along said line to the southwestern line of CIsment'Avenue, (60 feet wide, as the same now exists); THENCE northwesterly Along said southwestern line, 103.5 feet to the southeastern line of lot 11, Block L3, as shown on that certain Mdp entitled, "Plan of the Subdivisions of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14 of Land Adjacent to the Town of Encihal.",' filed "for record July 20, 1885 in Book 10 of Maps, page 46, in the Office of the Alameda County Recorder; THENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line, 105 feet, more cre. less, to an intermediate southwestern boundary of that lot comoonly‘known as 2060 Clement Avenue, being Assesso•'s Parcel Ho. THENCE northwesterly alono said boundary, 34.8 feet, more of less, to a point; THENCE southwesterly along %Aid boundary, 45 feet, more or less to the south- . western boundary of said lot, being also the mid-block boundary.Oetween lotS in said Bloch 13, as Shown an said aibdivisions o Blocits map; THENCE northwesterly along said boundary to faerseotion with the southeastern boundary of that certain lot, commooly known as 1112 Stanford Street (60 feet wide, as shown on last said map), being Asi.essor's Parcel No. 71-255-21; THENCE southwesterly along said boundary, 35 feet, more or less, to the South- western line oi said lot; THENCE northwesterly along last said 1 and the direct production northwesterly sAid Stanford Street; thereo(, 1.25 feet, more or leis, to the northwestern right-uf-way line 0;" THENCE noTtheAstarly .3.1::u :at sa:d line to a iirie :.17.0 paoallel wIth.ano 115 fet, more or less, southwesterly of the' soothweEtero lioe IY Cleoe..lt PvenuE., GO feet wide, as ,:le s;,le r.S.4 exLst5); 7 4 Iiesc'r1ption of the Su'rve'y :�•i en, Pe :e; •1- .. � r f, THENCE northwesterly along said parallel 1 e i :�. feet, southeastern line of Lot 13 ;s' r••I• '• t ., dead OT 1oS ;� to t e io , a; s,7: en eeid Subdivisions of "ices :s map; THENCE' southwesterly along said lot line, 35 feet, more or less, to the southwestern line thereof; THENCE northweste'r1y along last said line, and aloe the southwestern 5t;ern 1in @S of Lots 14 end 15 of said irloci% 2, to the northwestern line of said lot 15; y THENCE na•rtheasterly along last Said line to intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 110 feet, more OT less, southwesterly from' the said south -- western line of Clement avenge; THENCE northwesterly along last said line EEC feet, more or less to a line deewn parallel with and 70.5 feet, more oe less, southeasterly from the southeastern line of Chestnut Street, CEO feet wide), as shown on said Subdivisions of Blocks Map, and on t +tint certain neap entitled, '+i'lap of Encinal Station, Town of Alameda, owned by Columbus Bartlett ", filed for record April 17, 17 of Maps, at page 44 in the Office of the Alameda County F :et:o•rde'r; if, aol: THENCE northeasterly along 5e id pa•r;11e1 line 110 feet, mo'r? or less, to yiie southwestern eight -of -,,,et' of said Clement Avenue; THENCE northwesterly along said right -o f_ , line, 70.5 feet, more or less to intersection with the said line of Chestnut Street; ' THENCE southwesterly alone last said line to the-direct production 5outheastiriy of a lot line parallel with and =0 feet, more or less, southwesterly of seed line oT Clement Avenue; THENCE northwesterly said lot line and production thereof, 168 feet to the sou ` hea -.:ts•rn boundary of lot LE, Block 60, as shows on saidvErcanal less, Station/ Columbus Bartlett map; • THENCE northeasterly along said boundary to the said southwestern line of Clement Avenue; THENCE northwesterly along as said lin? l08 Teet more or 1855, to the south- , eastern line of Lafayette arses, (M feet wide), as shown on said EAcinal Station map; THENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line, 75 fAet more or less, to the direct production southeasterly of A lot line parallel with and 75 fetl o'r 1G55 raoLttli'fli?r. � C t, more tarly of seij line of Clement Avenue; THENCE northwesterly along said ai all_ 1 p line nnd production thereof, 1E,a fear more or less, to the sOLttn est4•rr boti 4 -,dory of lot 16, Block 59, as shown on said t:ncinal Station map; ' :.THENCE eoethwesterly along 1:sst said line, and the direct p•rbduction southweste': 1�� thp'rer r 7.5 feet more or �- . 1 , less, to he common boundary of lots 9 and 1O of said Bleed: 5•3; , THENCE nee `nwesteely along said eamr,,or boundary and the direct production narth- wey,e_ .y ttie� eof, 1ES fop _ MOT? or lass, to the no'rthweete•r;1 line of Schiller Stare :. as shown Oil said Ercinal Station map; THENCE no•, -:,e sterly along said line, 50 feet, MOTE or jes5 to the no•rthea,se•rr7 line .' - lot 12, Block 56, as shown on shad Encinal S't'ation map; THENCE no• eweste•rly alone said northeastern line and the direct production • north esterky thereof, 133 feet, more or less, to the southeastern line of lot 15, s. :;! Block 58; THENCE no//r a 7easterly along last said line, 100 feet, more or less, to the Afore- said L emen y fvenee; THENCE no•r )westerly along 5;1%1 line x ►.: r'� O. O1 ?dl9+l e �i` e,i ? ?, 33 {�a� �m. inter' �'_`J41 'N. :� a.�? 3e: :'7g r5L °' , L 1 + '� G� x X57, :L7 rn line of Union 5t'reet, also as shown on se:d ncin: S:atiCn crap; r THENCE SQL •.,westerly along t cn a s a• �4 line, 1 as feet, r,ror? or !'e5, to '-;;e � : ••c_ pr•od+.uc :on southeasterly of � . r: the 5oetP+W?5t ?,'•'► line (called N 60° F l' 40"r; , Description of the S,:rvei i• ;•10.i..... - (zonti-,3d) feet and 12.06 feet) of Lot; 1 4 :?, al snown on tr.? aet- of "Tract AlamEda County; riled for record Clugust 2. 1:.ijz in !.7.4 of maps, at Records of page 33, Official THENCE northwesterly alonD seid s•zuth•estrri line and p,oe.uction thereof, together with the direct production nar;nwester• y thereof, 2.:E.:, eet, acre or less, to map; the northwestern line of Minturn Street, also as sh2wn on satd Encinal Stat THENCE northeasterly along sid line of Mintorn Street, 53 Feet, more or less, to Assessor'; Parcel No. 7Z.--:•:92-4; the northeastern corner of a lot conmoniy known as 111i Minturn Street, being THENCE northwesterly along the northeastern boundary of said lot, 108 feet, 'more or les.s, to the northwestern corner of ;aid lot; THENCE southwesterly alono the northwestern boundary of said lot, and the north- western boundary of lots 11, 1Z' and 5, Block 56, as shown on said Encinal Station map, WO feet to a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet northeasterly of the northeastern 1:ne of Eagle Avenue, (60 feet wide, as the S2Me now exists); THENCE northwesterly along said parallel line, 7E feet, NOVP or less, to tne northwestern boundary a;: that cer:ain Assessor's Parcel No. THENCE southwesterly along sait bc.undary, 160 feet to t;-.e southwestern line 07' Eagle Nen...ie., also O5 shown on said Encinal Station oap; THENCE northwesterly tne'recn, 33 feet, aove or less, to the sout.leastern Line of Grand Street, also as shown on said Encino( Station -map; THENCE southwesterly alono said southeastern line, .360 feet, aore or less, to as the saxe now exists); intersection with the southwestern line of Boena Vista Avenge, (70 feet wide, THENCE northwesterly and we;te,.ly eiong said southwestern line o: 2.uena Vista Avenue, (7) feet wide, but narrows to 65 fee: end. then ta 60 Feet), 1466 feet, more or less to irsection with the southeastern line of Arbor Street, (45 fest wide, Is the same now exists); ' THENCE southwisterly along seicl line of Arbor Street, 104 feet, more or 1es5, to a line drawn perpendicular to said line of Arbor Street, and southeasterly fron the most eastern corner of lot 10, Block B, a shown on the "Plat of part of the Fitch Tract" filed for record September 25, 1538, in hap Book 9, at page 22, in the office of the Plamede. County Recorder; THENCE northwesterly alone said perpendiculer line, 45 feet to Zhe northwestern right-of-way line of said Arbor Street, and the said mast r!astern corner; THENCE northwesterly along the southwestern line of Lot; 12 lh,quch 20, in said Block B, to the eastern line of jay Sk,?,..t, (45 fs.et wide, ,5 the same now exits); THENCE westerly at right angles to :laid line c,f jey Street, It :'?et.- to the w.estern line of Ja7 Street; THENCE northerly along said western line, 1.6 feet, sore or le. to the south- eastern corner of Lot 15, Block A, of the aforesaid Fitch • act; THENCE westerly along the southern line of Lots .1.5 throuoh 24 :,' said Block A to the eastern line o Benton StreeE, (6') feet wide); THENCE southerly alono last said line to intersection with the :outhern lne or Pacific Avenue, 160 feet w:oe); THENCE westerly along said scioth:,.n !ine, 400 eet, more or le ', to Ule dirr: production southeri? o: the ?RS:irn OC,Mdi-/ 0!' ti2 or2cer• -zoolionly 14ne....r. 13Z'1 Pacifi= gYenue, be:n: -",ssefi,r11 Parc:: Na. rHEmcE northeiy along $21.: sz,..erli Po-!c ':1:m, 6.) feet, acr. or les; 7.o tile northern line of said ::::ti: THENCE continuing n.Jrz.:1?,'!y a;:n2 sa:1 ci5tr-,1 no.gie,-/, Mort:, "L'ile.:" Ea3'.. lt) fe.et, aore or les.;, t:, -...-,e n.l,rtn?Aste,n Tz-ne, r,' 12it :: :=1; 9 Oescription of the Sureey Aree, Percsi "E', 2.4 May 10 •THENCE westerly along a southern boundary of a parcel ef City owned property, coomonly known as Buena Vista Park, being Assessorie Parcel No. 72-35-1, feet, or O! leSS. to the easte:rn line of Sheraan Street (60 feet wide); THENCE southerly alwag said eastern line 476.64 feet, more or lass, to the northern line of lot 9, as shown on the "Map of Re-Subdivision of Western Portion of Block 55, Fitch & Sharon Tract", recorded in Sook l5 of Maps, page 55, Official Records of Alateda County; THENCE easterly alone said line 105 feet, more or less, to the Eastern line of said lot; THENCE southerly along said eastern line, 31.7 feet, more or less, to the northern line of Lincoln Avenue (approx. 100 feet wide); THENCE easterly along said northern line, 5 feet, more•or less, to the direct production nartherly of the eastern line of the lot comeonly known as tao6 Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel'No. 72-346-2; THENCE southerly along said eastern line and prodmction thereof, .10(.1 feet, ocre •- less, to the southeastern corne- of said parcel; . — THENCE westerly along the southern line of said parcel and of th'e adjacent parcel (72-54:.-1)1 1,10 feet, Acre or less, to the aforesaid eastern line of Sherman Street; THENCE southerly along said eastern line, 35 feet, more or )ess, to . the direct production easterly, of the northern line of the lot cooaonly knoir;r1 as i545 Sheroan Street, being Assessor's Parcel No. 72-368-11; THENCE westerly along said northern line and the production thereof, 210 feet, more or less, to the western'line of said parcel; THENCE southerly along the said western line, 15 feet, more or less, to the southern line of the lot coorionly known as 1208 Lincoln Avenue, being Assess- or's Parcel Na. 72-366-4; THENCE westerly along said southern line, 50 feet, more or less, to a point on the eastern line of the lot commonly known as L544 Bay Street, being Assessor'; Parcel No. 72-563-26; • THENCE southerly along said eastern line, 10.5 fast, more or less, to the southern line of said parcel; THENCE westerly along said southern line and the direct.production thereof westerly, 160 feet, Gore or 1e55, ta the western line of Bay Street (60 feet wide); THENCE northerly along said line of Bay Street, 13 feet, more or less, to the northeastern corner of Lot 81, as shown an the "Map of the Encinal Park Tract", filed For record in Map Book 184, page 88, Official Records of Alaoe•:fe County; THENCE westerly along the northern line of said lot 81, 150 feet, more or less, to the northwe3tern corner of said lot being also a point on the eastern line af Lot 74, as shown an last said Map; THENCE northerly alone said eastern line, 25 feet, wore or less, to the northern line of said lot 74; THENCE westerly along said northern line and the direct production thereof westerly, 210 feet, sore or less' to the western line of St. Charles Street (60 feet wide); THENCE northerly along said western line, 125 feet, wore or less, to intersection with the southern line of the aforesaid Lincoln Avenue ()00 feet wide); THENCE westerly along said southern !ine 1136 feet, more or less, to the nort:',l? s: corner of the lot corhionly known as 9L2 Lincoln Avenue, being gssesInr's Parcel No. 72-:190-4; THENCE southerly along the we;tern line of said parcel ISO feet, more or les, t3 the northern line .of he 10 comoonly known as 1540 Ninth Etreet, (60 feet wide), belna Assessor's Parcel No. 73-390-53; 10 Deicriotifen of the Survey Aree, ';', ;stey :JO - TriENCE wes;erly along said noethern line, i02 feet, opee or less, to a eli7: on• t•, w2leErn 1:ae cf. said Nin•h Eteeet feet •ide), b,in9 the 7!o,-theastern ,orner of zr let conooniv !".ne.r. es 152i Ninth Seeeet, 'epeing C,ssessor's Perce: No. 73-406-35; ThENCE westerly along the ncert:..er• line of said parcel and tht direct proouction thereof wee:Priv, li7 feet core •or less, to the southwestern corner of the lot conoc,n/y knc-wn as E2E, Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor's Percel No. 72-406- 55 THENC; E nortnerly along tne western line of said lot, 150 feet, gore or less, to the southern line of said Lincoln Avenue; THENCE westerly along said southern line, 1150 feet, more or less, to the north- western corner of the lot commonly known as 726 Lincoln Avenue; beino Assess- or's Parcel Na. 73-419-43; THENCE southerly-along the western line of said parcel and the continuetit-in thereof as the western line of Per=els 73-41.5-44 anc 72-41i-22, arici the.diree: production southerly thereof, '325 feet, more or less, to the seethern line o! Haioht Avenue, (i0 feet wide); THENCE westerly along said southern line, 1 foot gore or less, to. the eesee-n line of the lot conoonly known as 7-25 Ha:ght Avenue. teinc Aeseeser's Parc:: No. THENCE. southerly along the.easiern boundary of said parcel and the contineation thereof es the eastirn boundary of lot 73-4a0-1S, and the direct prcduction southerly thereof, 345 feet, gore or less, to the southern line of Seinta Clar.1 Avenue, 160 feet wide); THENCE westerly along 5aid southern line, 16 feet, more or less, to the eastern line of the lot commonly known as 7 Santa Clara Avenue, t..eing Pssessor's Parcel No. 73-422-19; THENCE southerly along the said earn line and tne continuation therecf as the eastern line of Parcel 73-42.2-7 and the direct production thereof sos2theriy across Taylor Avenue (66 feet wide), and the eastern line Parcels 73-422-7, and 73-423-15-1, 465 feet, nore or less, to the northern boundary of lots 2. and 21, M00 2, as shown on tne "Nap of the Brower Tract", filed for record in Book 5 of Maps, page 1, Official Records of Alameda County; THENCE easterly along said boundary to the eastern line of said lot 21; THENCE southerly aloha said eastern line and the direct production so..irherly thereof across Central Avenue (75 feet wide), 116 feet, nore or less, :0 the southern line of said Central Avenue; THENCE westerly along said southern line, 136 feet, acre or.less, to 'the north- western corner af Tract 5045, a, shown on the gap thereof, filed for record 2'S September 1982 in aook 134 of page 78, Officail Recorde o o f Alalee,a CUnty; • THENCE southerly along the western line or said tract, South 1° 35' Wese, 160 feet, more or less, to the northeastern corner or Tract 4374, AS shown on tng nap thereof, filed for record 25 December 1980 in Book 123 of :slaps, page 3;, Official Records of Alameda County; THENCE westerly and southerly along t'he boundary of said tract, the following courses and distances: North 67D c 74.99 feet; North 2' 50' 51" East, feet; North 67° 09' Oi" West, 1611.1.: feet; North 2° 50' 51" Eest, 5.(e.) feet; No,:, ar' fe?t; No,ch 2' SO' 5!" East, feet; Mor:r, 87" 09' CO. wee: 12.00 feet; Suh je' SO' 51" Wese, 164.i; feet; : 1 Description of the Survey Area, Cartel ". ", 24 May 7 - North 67° 09' 09" West, 106.91 feet • South r 50' 51" West, 40.00 feet; North .87' 09' 05" West, 2:4.73 feel, to the northwestern corner .of said tract, being at the eastern line of McKay Avenue, La private street, 60 Test wide, as the same now exists); THENCE South 2' 50'51" West along said eastern line and the direct production southerly thereof, 733 feet, more or. less, to the southern terminus of said McKay Avenue; T Hri10E westerly along said southern terminus 600 feet to the southeastern corner of a tract or federal property, commonly known as Federal Center, being Assessor's Parcel No. 7A-1205-26; THENCE. North d7° 09' 06" West along the southern boundary of said tract, 220.12 'raet, more or less, to a boundary corner; THENCE South 2° 49' 16" West along said boundary, 132.63 feet, more or lass, to the northeast corner of Tideland Lot 25, Section 11, T.2 S., R.4 W., Mount Diablo Rase and Meridian, as shorn on 'Iap No. 2 of Salt Marsh and Tide Lends, situate in the County of Alageon, State of California, 167!"., •cert i fted copies thereof having been filed with the County Recorder of the City and County of San Francisco', and in the office of the Bepartaent of Finance, Division of State Lands; THENCE North 87° 57'42" 'West along the northern line of said tide-land lot, 188 Feet, more or 1es_, to the eastern boundary of Tract 3663, as amended, filed For record in Book 115 or Maps,' page 68, Official Records of Alaeeda County; THENCE North 1° 06" 11" East along said eastern boundary, 662.73 feet, more or- less, to the most eastern corner of said Tract 3663; THENCE easterly along the boundary of the aforesaid federal tract, 159 feet, nor' or less, to a boundary corner; THENCE North along said boundary, 296.86 feet, more or less, to a boundary corner; THENCE South 83° 25' East along said boundary, 265 feet, na:-e or less, to a point on a 17 foot offset of the western right-- of-way ling: of said McKay Avenue; THENCE northerly along said right -of -way line, 45 feet, more or less, to an angle point therein; THENCE easterly 17 feat, more or less, to the main or-regular western right- of--way line of said McKay Avenue; 'THENCE northerly along said western line and the direct production northerly thereof, 215 feet, more or less, to the northern line of aforesaid Central Avenue; ,THENCE Soutar 88' 35' East, 92 feet, sore or less, to intersection with the western line of a lot commonly known as 633 Central Avenue; being Assessor's Parcel No. 74- 426--9 -2; THENCE northerly along said western line and the direct production northerly thereof, 333 feet, morn or less, to the northern line of Taylor avenue (60 feet wide) ; THENCE easterly along 'said northern line, 52 Feet, more or less, to the eastern boundary of the lot commonly known as 633 Taylor Avenue; being Assessor's Parcel 19a. 74- +4277 -10; THENCE northerly aloha said eastern boundary, 133.92 feet,•mor -e or less, to the northern boundary of said lot; HENCE westerly along said northern boundary, and the continuation westerly thereof, 100 feet, ogre or less to the eastern line of the as 62ti Santa Clara Aire ' h_ let commonly known Avenue, being Assessor's Parcels No. 7�EACE northrz;, alone s_.t ems: .,rr.�line 'and the direct production nor• :7 e - Y thereof, 4! 4 feet, more l e, to the northern 1 i n? of Santa Clara Avenue 160 feet wide) ; 12 Description of tne 5ur•ey Pre? "", • THENCE easterly along said nortnern line, A feet, more or less, tri tne essteon line of the ist ccononly knoAn as 62-7 •ant:, Clara civeflue, being A;52S;0r'S Parcel No. 7O-428-7; THENCE northerly along said eastern li7e, feet, msre or less, to tne southern line of the lot coomonly known as 628 Haight Avenoe, being Assessor's Parcel t19. 74-428-27; THENCE easterly along said southern line, 10 feet, nor? or less, to t;.2 eastern Line of as said lot; the THENCE nortnerly along said eastern line, 103.75 fe to et, more or less, soothern right-of-way line of Haioht Avenue, (60 feet wide); THENCE.westerly along said southern line, 33 feet, more or less,- to the direct production southerly of the western line of the lot conmonly known as 69 Haight' Avenue; being assessor's Parcel No. 74-421-13; THENCE northerly along said western line and production thereof and its c3nt!noa- tion es the western line o lot connonly known as 623 Lincoln Avenue; being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-O25-32, 330 feet ko the soQtneen line of Lincoln Avenue, (100 feet wide); THENCE westerly along ,said southern line, 20 feet, more or less, .t3 the ect production southerly of the eastern line of the lot comoonly known as 625 . Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-420-12; THENCE northerly along Jas't said eastern line and prodoctisn thereof, 250 feet, nors or less, co the southern lins.of the lot commonly known as 62-E, Pacific Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-430-29; THENCE easterly along said southern line, 10 feet, hare or less, to the eastern line of said parcel; THENCE northerly along said eastern line and '.-t$4 direct production northerly thereof, 21(i feet, aore or 1.25E, to the northern le of Pacific rivenue, (60 feet wide); THDES easterly along said northern line, 22.5 feet, more or lesl, to the eastern line of Parcel 2, as shown on "Parcel Map No. :5478h, filed for record in 180 of Maps, page 71, Official :ecords of Alameda County; THENCE North 2' 44' 31" Est along said easteon lins, 145.00 feet, more ar less, to the southern line of Assessor's Parcel No. 74-431-26, (no aiscress); THENCE North 87' 221 29" West, along said southern line, 75.50 feet, more cr les- to the western line of said per=e1; THENCE North 1" 25' 00• East along said western line, 66 feet, pore or less, tp the northern line of the lot addressed as 617 Pacific Avenue, beino Assessor's Parcel Ho. 74-431-11; -THENCE in a general westerly direction olong said northern line, the following courses and distances: North Be 34' West, 47.40 feet, more or less; -South !" 35' West, 2.80 fe more ur less; North 88° 34' West, AO feet, more or less, to interse,:tion with the eastern line of thelot commonly khown as 62 Buena Vista Avenue, bena Assessot's Parcel No. 74-431-2S-4; THENCE -North 1° 35' East, along said 'eastern line, 83.00 feet, more or less, to the northern line of last said parcel, being on the southern In of Buena Vista Avenue, (60 feet wide); THENCE North 88" 26' West, along said southern lino, 209.6 feet, acre er less, :a a pin: on the direct production northerly of the cents-line of 3ixth Strsit. s:f centerline beina 1L' Es; sid g,.!ohinbauon lin? 730 feet 4icire er l=:, the northern I:ne 3f the conmoni? Pnowp 2E Z57-531 3uiha Vist'e Avenue. beino Assssor's Parc..! 13 Description of the Survey Mei (contir,uezi %HENCE North 86° 26' West, along ssid harth-% continue.tion thereof as the northern line of the acjacent lot iv%own as 5;7-545 Buena V15:. Avenue, beingAssessor's Parcel Mc. 74-434-.:• feet, more or less, to. the western line of last said parcel; THENCE South 1° 35' West, along las': said western line, 670 feet, nore or less, to the northern line of said buena Vista Avenue; THENCE South 66* 26' East, along said northern line, 45 (eet, nore or less, to the direct production northerly of the ee..tern line of Assessor's Parc'el No. 74- 426-26 (no address); THENCE South 1* 35' West, along said eastern lin? and production thereof, 21• reet, are or less, to the southern line of said parcel; THENCE North 86* 26' West, along said southern line, 196.29 feet, more ar less, to the western line of said parcel; THENCE North 1* 351 East, along said western line and the direct production northerly thereof and its cantiwietion as the eastern line of the lot cannon!? known as 501-535 Buena Vista Ayinue, being Assessor's Parcel Mo. 74-43,1-4-4, 97.6 feet, more or 125i, to thE sonthern right-of-way line of the Al;secla Belt tine Railroad; THENCE in a general westerly direction along said rignt-of-way line and direct production westerly th:reof, 3123 feet, or or less, to the western rt6h,..-o;- way line of Main Street, (generally 80 feet wide); THENCE northerly along said western in o Main Street, the following cour.ses and distances: North 0* 34' East, 2369.16 feet, are or less, to a point of beginnins of curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 960 feet; Northwesterly along the arc of said curve, an arc distance of 473.33 Feet, are or less; Nbrth 26* 49' West, 580.60 feet, pore or less, to the beginning of a curve, concav e. to the southwest, having a radius of 700 feet; Northwesterly along the arc of last said curve, an arc distance of 558.58 feet, are ar less; THENCE leaving said line of Main Street, North, 4'66.66 feet, nore or less, to a point on the aforesaid U.S. Pierhead Line, said paint beina distant thren, North 7g* 03' 2E East, 346.54 feet, more ar less, froo US Pie•head Station No. 67; T-ERCE easterly along said Pierhead line, 5200 feet, more or less, to the north- western line of Mariner Square Drive, (formerly Webster Street, 60 feet wide). as described (in Parcel 2) in the West End Community LOprovenent Plan, aforesaid, being a point on the boundary line of said Parcel 2; THENCE southwesterly along last said line, 220 feet, aore or less, to an angle point; THENCE continuing southerly along last said line, 8'10 feet, more or less, to an an paint; • THENCE North 89° 41' 14" West, 2.00 feet, as described in the aforesaid Parcel 2; THENCE in a general southwesterly and westerly th•ection along the northeastern and northern lines of the Posey Loop right-of-way, as widened to 93.82 ft, on a series of compound curves, concave northerly, arc distances totaling 171.14 feet, to a point of tangency; THENCE North 56° 0.51 50• West, tangent to the last of said curves, along tne northeasern richt-of-way llne of Posey Loop and tn.? direct ored•c•, northwesterly thereof, 365 A.7,re Cr lss, to point; T-ICE Souta 24' 35 50" West, f!e;, mare or less, to a point a= crve, concave to the east, having 2 radiiis of feet, as c'escribe-.! !r1 said Parcel 2; 14 ADescription or the Survey Area, Parcel .,3.,, Re•i.. E6 Oct q0 - (continued) THENCE so'.itnerly along the are of said tangent Feet to t +he Point or negin�ning of the descri ; : :: ' arc distance or T�1�Gi=. continuing 6 l ono the �'.]� nc Parcel � .'gin a i iei � �r'�r'C� � � 1 a e o i, ary of skid a, North 82* - , ,. feet, more or less, to the beginning of a non-tangent curve co '+."s East, 1�.:, east, having a radius of 945.9a feet; 5 s concave to the A THENCE along the arc of said curve, an arc distance of 280 .THENCE North 23 � �6' 12" East , 324.22 feet a - t , .dare o r less; THENCE South 56* 05' 50" East, 350 feet, Wore or less, to the western l ine Posey 'Loop right-of-way; of tn. THENCE southerly along said right -or` -way, 9S0 feet. gore ar less, to the direct production westerly of the northern line or Tynan Avenue (10]r] THENCE easterly along the last said northern feet wide); feat, more or less, to the western line of the PacificeRailr. 3d�� right-of-way; Railroad A THENCE southerly along last said line, 590 feet, more or less, 1 o the line of Bethlehee Aven+.re; snuth.rn THENCE easterly along the direct production easterly of the said'sauthern line, 140 feet, lore or less, to the eastern line of the said S. P, right -of --way; THENCE southerly along the last. said line, 420 feet, 'tore or less, to the southern line of Marina Village Parkways as the same now exists; THENCE along the last said southern line, North 89° 10' East, 620 feet, more or less, to the eastern line of Assessor's Parcel No. 74-- 906 -22; THENCE along said eastern line, South 3- 08' West, 671.18 Feet; THENCE North 06" 52' West, 0.17 feet; THENCE continuing a).anq said eastern line, South 3' 08' West, 182.26 feet to the northern line of Thau Way, as the sage now exists, THENCE westerly and southwesterly along the said line of Thau Way, r or less, to the northeastern line of the Southern Pacific right-of-way , mot THENCE southeasterly and easterly along said right -of -way line, 680 feet, more or less, to intersection with the direct production northerly of the western line of Eighth Street C77 feet• wide) i THENCE. southerly along said direct production, 50 feet to the northern line of Stewart Court (40 Feet Wide) THENCE along said northern line, North 87° art' West, 294.2 eastern corner of the lot commonly known as 1850 Thau Way, being the north- eastern Parcel No. 73-426-!8; g Assessor's THENCE along the nart.-ern line of said parcel, North 83' 10' 28" West, 192.78'fee: to the eastern li.;e of said Thau Way (60 feet wide); THENCE westerly acre =' : said Thau Way to the western line thereof and the north- eastern corner of The lot commonly known as 751 Eagle Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 72-426.1.7; THENCE ailing the nort. :ern line of said parcel, North a3° 10' 09" West, 81.68 feet to the northeast e-• 'i corner of Parcel 3, as shown on Parcel Map No. 3430, filed for record in BocL 125 of Parcel Maps, at page 68, in the Office of the Alameda County ke. :.;rder; Dose:1 1cm of the B+irye7 Area, Perer4 'h`, 24 u ;y 90 - (conlid.) THENCE along the Northerly line or °aid Paroel 3, North 83 °10'09" West, 268.68 feet to the Nor hweater?y corner or sad Parcel 3j • THENCE Southerly along the Westerly lines of last said Parcel 3, South 2 °47'55" Weat, 187.10; THENCE North 87 °17 ' 05n ' West, 10.00 feet; THENCE South 2 °7'55" West, 149.86 to the Northerly line of Eagle Avenue; THENCE across Eagle Avenue South 2042'55" West, 60 feet to the Southerly line of Eagle Avenue; THENCE along last abid Southerly line North 87°17'05" feat more or Less to the Westerly line or Pa.Ce1e2t-,. g said Parcel Map No. 3430; of along said Westerly line of Parcel 2 South 2 °47'55" West, 295,,re'et more or lens to the Northerly line of Bu ens V'i a to Avenue; along said Northerly line of Buena Vista Avenue South 67 °27'16" East, 457.37 Feet more or leas to the Westerly line or the Southern Pacific Railroad right - of-way; Southerly ' Along lent said right-of-way line and prof action thereof aoroaa .Buena Vista Avenue- 3 60f eet more or leas to the Eaat erly prof ea tion .of the Northerly line of Pacific Avenue; THENCE THENCE :THENCE THENCE across Pacific Avenue South 2 °52'05" West, 70 feet to tha Southerly line of Pacific Avenue; THENCE Westerly along the Southerly-line of Pacific Avenue 213 feet more-or lean to the Westerly line of Aaseaaor's Parcel No. 73- 414,.20.1, commonly known as 736 Pacific Avenue; THENCE Southerly along the last acid Westerly line 110 feet more or leas to the Northerly line of As season's Pared ; No. 73 ~414- -19 -2, oomr only known as 1616 Concordia Street THENCE Easterly along the Northerly line of lest acid A3 sensor' a Parcel 4 1 -, Ll feet more or leas to the Eas ve- ;y line of said Assessor's Parcels THENCE Southerly aloha the Es seedy line of last said Assessor's Partial 4e feet more or lees to the Horther.v line or Assessor's pascal No 73-- 414 --17, commonly krc 1 as 737 and 739 Lincoln Avenue; —1' uescrtptlon at the Sarre, 1►, ,a, I'arc•l 4B' 24 king 94 - cant d. THENCE THENCE THENCE THENCE THENCE Westerly along the Northerly line of last said Asaeaaor' a Parcel u I' 4 feet more or lase to the „, line of last Aeseaeor a Parcel; r�eate.�y maid Southerly along the Westerly line of l sat said Assessor's Parcel 150 feat more or lest to t d line of Lincoln Avenues he Northerly Easterly along the Northerly line or Lincoln its projection aor'oea the Southern Pacific r Avenue 'end and Eighth Street 115 feet more or leas to the of tees line of Aaaeasor' a Parcel No, 73-407-8, one 'r[eno n as 831 Lincoln Avenue; 7 ' C °��anlY known Northerly long acid Westerly line of l Parcel 150 feet to the Northerly lineoftl grid Aabesaor' s Aa aeasor' s Parcel ; rat said Era terZy along the Norther'x line Non. 73`107 —g 73 �0 r ne ❑T As r3e.aavr' a Parcel 7--71 73 407 3, oommonl 83 7, 839 and 841 Lincoln Avenue and Y known as B31 , respectively and the Eaeterl 1611 Ninth Street feet to the zaatarl Y Pros cation thereof 2y8 � fi� Easterly line of Ninth Street; THENCE Southerly along to g said Easterly line of the Southerly line of Aaaesinth Street 67.48 73. 408 -11, commonly known Le 1610 Ninth Street; ree�; THENCE Easterly along it amid line 90 feet moe the Easterly line at last eaid Aaaaaaor' a Par eel; el; to Northerly along the Eagterly' line last said Parcel to the Southerly aeesavr $ 73--848 -12 2, commonly knv nee. Assessor's Parcel Noy 1624A Ninth Street; Easterly along last said Southerly line 45, 4 73 0 Easterly line of Assessor's Parcel No 0 feet to the commonly known as 901 Lincoln Avenue; $ ~10' THENCE Southerly along E ga -d Easterly line 6f last said Assessor's Paroe1 100 f eeti.to the Northerly Lincoln Avenue; _ Y 1 inc of THENCE THENCE THENCE THENCE Easterly along bald Northerly .line of Lincoln Avenue its projection across Wood Street, Chapin Street and Std SG. Charles Street 1290 feat more or leas to the Weator }y line or asaessor'e Parcel. known es 1109 Lincoln Avenue, 72- 376 ~15 -2, commonly Northerly along lest said Westerly line cr Assessor' a 'arced. Nn. 72 76�1 e and the Wes . e: - y known ae 1113 Lincoln Avenue 158.61 to ~theeSo',.,rthtr y laid Aeeeeeori a Parcel; Drrexiptlofl of for far •,uy Ar.a, Pared * 3 ", 24 3.0.y 90 -- (eoat'd,} THENCE Easterly along last eaid Northerly line 72 feet to the 0.sterly line. or Aa sea aor' s Parcel No 72- 376 -7-.1, commonly known as 1617 Bay Street; . THENCE Southerlyalong last eaid Easterly line 8.64 feet to the moat Southerly line of last said Asi3esaor' a Parcel; • THENCE , Eastet .y along the last said Southerly line, the Southerly line of Aa aeaaor' a Parcel No. 72-376-8-2, commonly known as '1613 By Street and its Easterly projection to the Easterly line of By Street 225.41 feet more or lees; Southerly along aid Easterly line of Bay Street 17,66 feet more or leas to the Southerly line of Asaeasor' a Parcel No. 72-367-17, commonly known el5 1612 Bay Street; ' Easterly along last said line 130 feat to the Easterly line or it said Assessor's Pareel; THENCE Northerly along last at line 1x.59 feet more or leas • to the Northerly line of Aaacedor' n Parcel No, 72-367-12 oommonly known as 1211 and 1213 Lincoln Avenue; THENCE Easterly along Last' said Northerly line 20 feet to the moat Westerly line of Assessor' a Parcel No, 72-367-8, oommonly known as 1615 Sherman Street; THENCE Southerly along last mead line 10.75 test to the Southerly lime of last acid Assessor's Parcel; THENCE THENCE THENCE Easterly along last said line 150 feet to the Westerly line of Sherman Street; Description or t.ie Survey area, Parcel .,a„ .,. ) .. May THENCE northerly along the said western line, ►ieo.n feet • to a point d:3 :2e: thereon ;s} fear 5o��ttiwpster? l A of the southwestern line of Buena Vista Avenue; THENCE southeasterly at right angles, 60 feet, to the southeastern line of said Sherman Street.; THENCE northeasterly along last said line, 50 feet, to tike said southwestern line of Buena Vista Avenue; THENCE southeasterly along said southwestern line, 6; feet; THENCE northeasterly along a line parallel with the centerline of Sherria;t Street 155 feet to a point on a line, 9; feet northerly of and parallel with the northeastern line of Buena Vista Avenue; . THENCE westerly along said lire parallel with Buena Vista Avenue, 56 Feet to a line parallel with and 40 feet easterly of the center -line of Sherman Street; THENCE northerly along said line parallel to Sherman Street 380 feet, sore or less to the BEGINNING. EXCEPTING AND EXCLUDING THEREFROM all that portion thereof included in Parcel 1 of the aforesaid West End Conm.inity laaroveeent Plan, EXCEPTING ALSO AND EXCLUDING THEREFROM all of that tract or parcel of ion ,e, described 25 follows: BEING a portion of Tracts 39 and 40, as said tracts are delineated and so desig- nated on that certain map entitled, "Map of Alameda Marsh Land as partitioned� among the owners thereof, in the suit numbered 8923 and entitled, Pacific Improve- ment Company, plaintiff, vs. Janes' A. Waymire, et al., defendants, Superior Court of Alameda County, State of California.'', filed for record July 30, 1500 in Book 25 of Maps at page 74, Aiaaeda County Records, and further described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the western line af said Tract 39, and the northern line of Atlantic Avenue, as described in the aforesaid Parcel 2, in the West End Coeeinity Improvement Plan; THENCE northerly along said western line, 2516 feet, sore or less, to the eruthern line of Singleton Avenue, as shown on Alameda. County Assessor's Map 7e --905; THENCE along said southern line, 448 feet, more or less; THENCE in a general northerly direction along the western boundary, or prod.. ct i s thereof, of a 3; acre, more or less, tract or parcel of Federal property, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-905- 10--2, the following courses: northwesterly, 5:56 feet, more or less; northeasterly, 199.25 feet, more or less; northwesterly, 515.35 feet, are or 1 es5,_ to the northern boundary thereof; • THENCE . in a general easterly direction along said northern boundary, 1 240 feet, more or less, to the western boundary f another eft y parcel (18.2 acres, aorp or less) or Federal pro p y, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74- 905 -12; . THENCE northerly along said boundary, 43 feet, more or less, to the northern . boundary of said parcel ; THENCE in a general eastern and then southern direction along said boundary and the eastern boundary thereof, 1750 feet, more or Less, to the northern boundary of another parcel (80.89 acres, more or less) of Federal p;- acer -ty, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74- 905-9; THENCE easterly along said boundary, 855.29 feet, gore cr less, t) tr.. -�D corner of that F:• pere eorac - `'. '' ° ed ay and d5 shall -, 7n "�►drC? , �.:_ Na. 33;39", filed far• record Oce c•ber 2, 1981 i n Boo! 1 o f Maps, � nayw ti, C. ; ie ,: Records of Aiazada Coen_v T 19 Description of the Survey Area, Parcel "B', Rev.: 26 Oct 90 -- (continued) THENCF southerly along the western line of said tract, 464.03 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of the property on said Parcel Map, being at the • northern line of a parcel (16.3 acres, more or less), as described in the instrument to Peralta Junior College District, recorded August 24, 1967 under Series No. AZ 09 ;1291 Official Records of Alameda County; THENCE westerly along said northern line 499,73 -feat Wore or less, to the northwest corner of last said parcel, as shown on Record of Survey No, 295, filed for record. in Rook 6 of Records of Surveys, at page 42, Alameda County Records; THENCE southerly along the western line of said parcel, 6E4.62 feet, more or less, to the most southern southeastern corner of the aforesaid Assessor's Parcel Ho. 74-- 9O5 -9; THENCE. westerly along the southern line of last said parcel, • 155.2s feet, fare or less, to the western line of two (2] successive parcels as described in the instrument to Peralfa Junior College District, recorded May 6, 196E under Series No AY 07967, Official Records of Alameda County, and being Assessor's Parcels No. 74- 905--7 -- and 74-905-6-1, respectively; THENCE southerly along said western Line, 1214 feet, more or less, to the afore- said northern line of Atlantic Avenue; THENCE westerly along said northern line, 2544 feet, More or less, to the BEGINNING. Containing 749 acres (net), more or less. - ENO - EXHIBIT F Recording Requested by and When Recorded Return to: City Clerk City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380 Alameda, CA 94501 Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 ALL PROPERTY TO WHICH THIS NOTICE PERTAINS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA REVISED NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, in compliance with Section 33373(c) of the California Health and Safety Code which became effective January 1, 2007, that the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") adopted Ordinance No. 2141 on July 5, 1983, approving and adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project, as amended to date ( "WECIP Plan "). The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") is vested with the responsibility to carry out the WECIP Plan. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33342.7, which became effective January 1 2007 Y 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. on , 2007, containing a description of the Commission's program to acquire real property by eminent domain. A legal description of the boundaries of the WECIP Project Area is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference and a copy of the WECIP Plan may be obtained from the Commission. Proceedings for the redevelopment of the WECIP Project Area, as contemplated by the WECIP Plan, have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). Exhibit F Page 1 998382v4 21 942/0001 COMMISSION'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY. Section V of the WECIP Plan authorizes the Commission to acquire property by eminent domain, sub' ect to the following g exceptions or limitations: (a) eminent domain proceedings, if used to acquire property within the WECIP Project Area, shall not be commenced after April 1, 2015; (b) The Commission shall not acquire residentially zoned property by eminent domain; (c) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is improved with a structure and the Commission has determined by resolution that rehabilitation of that structure and its proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the WECIP Plan and is in the best interest of the project and the owner has entered into an owner participation agreement with the Commission and is faithfully performing under the terms of the agreement; (d) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is improved with a structure and the Commission has determined by resolution that the sti- ucture and its use is consistent with the objectives of the WECIP Plan and that no owner participation agreement is necessary so long as the structure is adequately maintained and landscaped; (e) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless prior consent is obtained from that public body; (f) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is residential property; and (g) the power of eminent domain shall not be exercised when the property in question is a non - blighted parcel listed in Attachment 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the above limitations, the Commission has adopted Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation Rules ( "Owner Participation Rules ") which extend reasonable preferences to businesses in the WECIP Project Area and provide reasonable opportunities for owners of property in the WECIP Project Area to participate in the redevelopment of the WECIP Project Area. The power of eminent domain shall not be exercised except in compliance with the rules and procedures set forth in the Owner Participation Rules, as amended from time to time. Exhibit F Page 2 998382v4 21942/0001 Filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Alameda County by order of the City Council of the City of Alameda, California, Dated: , 2007. Attachments: Legal Description List of Ion- Blighted Parcels Exhibit F Page 3 998382v4 21942/0001 Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Job No. 2623 September 7, 1984 M.AR I NA VILLAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Exclusions from terms and conditions of the West End Commun- ity Improvement Plan, adopted b ' City � ty of Alameda Ordinance No. 2141, certified copy of said ordinance. having August 4, 1983, Series N .� ing been records of Alameda County• o • 83 144981, pf f iclal REAL PROPERTY in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California comprising seven parcels which are depicted on the attached map (Exhibit A pA hereto, incorporated herein) and are futh..r described as follows: PARCEL ONE: All that certain portion of Lot 2, Parcel Map No. 393, filed September 26, 19 8 3 , in Book 141 of Parcel 23, Alameda Maps at Pages 20 eda County Records, State of California, described as follows: lifornia, BEGINNING at the most-northern corner of Lot No. 3963, said t 1 of sold Parcel corner having the coordinates: Y 473,762.97 feet and X = 1,487,219.10 feet, eet, based on the California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all burins and distances in this description (Note: 9 tances shown herein b multiply all di s- .shown 1.0000707 to obtain ground distances); THENCE northerly along the most western line of said Lot 2, North 4'46'53" west 101.37 feet to corner of that certain easement the most ment for public access and public utilities purposes .7$ p wide, as shown an said map D feet p of Parcel Map No. 3963, being the beginning of a non-tangent 9 curve Concave to the southwest having a radius of 439.00 feet (a radial line to said point bears North 30 °28'36" East); THENCE leaving last said western line of Lot 2 and south- easterly along the general . northeastern public line of said easement for p is access and public utili- ties purposes, being along the arc of h a c said curve, 126.90 feet, through central angle of 16°33'45"; THENCE continuing southeasterly along g t he general north- eastern line of said easement, following ts vari- ous courses, South 42p57139" g var�,�- East 123.59 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southwest having a radius of a e to the g d3�.�� feet; Page 1 of 10 Attachment No. 1 ' Marina villa, 1,egal Descriptions September 7, 1984 THENCE southeasterly along the arc of said curve 147.03 feet through a central angle of 19°11'20"; THENCE leaving said general northeastern line of said easement, South 44°47'52" East 21.56 feet; THENCE South 22'51'30" East 80.00 feet; THENCE South 01°38'04" East 21.45 feet to a point on the general northeastern line of said easement, being the beginning of a non - tangent curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 361.00 feet (a radial line to said point bears South 65°04'42" West) ; THENCE continuing southeasterly along the general north- eastern line of said easement, following its vari- ous courses, along the arc of said curve 246.32 feet through a central angle of 39°05'38"; THENCE South 64'00'56" East 451.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 439.00 feet ; THENCE southeasterly along the arc of said curve 86.91 feet through a central angle of 11°20'35" to the most western corner of Lot 3 of said Parcel Map No. 3963; THENCE continuing southeasterly along the arc of said curve and along the southwestern line of said Lot 3, a distance of 131.58 feet through a central angle of 17 °10'21"; THENCE continuing along said southwestern line, South 35°30'00" East 106.42 feet; THENCE leaving said southwestern line of said Lot 3, South 54 °30' 00" West 78.00 feet to a point on the general southwestern line of said easement for public access and public utilities purposes; THENCE North 35°30'00" West along said general southwest- ern line, 106.42 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 361.00 feet; THENCE continuing northwesterly along the general south-- western line of said easement for public access and public utilities purposes, following its various courses, along the arc of said curve 179.67 feet through a central angle of 28 ° 30' 55" ; THENCE North 64°00'56" West 271.68 feet; THENCE leaving said general southwestern line, North 80°42'53" West 20.68 feet; THENCE North 64°00'56" West 60.00 feet; THENCE North 47°18'59" West 20.88 feet to a point on the general southwestern line of said easement; THENCE continuing northwesterly along the general south- western line of said easement for public access and public utilities 'purposes, following its various Page 2 of 10 Marina Village Le„,1 Descriptions September 7, 1984 .. courses, North 64°00'56" West 79.57 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the north- east having a radius of 439.00 feet; THENCE - northwesterly along the arc of said curve 212.98 feet through a central angle of 35°37'36" to the most eastern corner of said Lot 1; THENCE continuing northwesterly along the arc 'of said curve and along the general northeastern line of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.37 feet through a central angle of 05°31'50", THENCE continuing northwesterly along the general north -- eastern . line of said Lot 1, following its various courses, North 22°51'30" West 100.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the south- west having a radius of 361.00 feet; THENCE northwesterly along the arc of said curve 126.66 feet through a central angle of 20°06'09", THENCE North 42°57'39" West 123.59 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 361.00 feet ; THENCE northwesterly along the arc of said curve. 45.58 feet through a central angle of 07°14'02" to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2.707 acres, more or less. PARCEL TWO : All that portion of Lot 2, Parcel Map No. 3963, filed Septem- ber 26, 1983, in Book 141 of Parcel Maps at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County Records, State of California, described as follows: •COMi1ENCING at the most southwestern corner of said Lot 2 of said Parcel Map No. 3963, said corner having the coordinates: Y = 472,318.10 feet and X = 1,487,339.96 feet, based on the California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearings and distances in this description (Mote: multiply all dis- tances shown hereon by 1.0000707 to obtain ground dis- tances ); THENCE North 4°46'53" West along the western line of said Lot 2, a distance of 403.20 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing North 4°46'53" West along the western line of said Lot 2, a distance of 70.28 feet; Page 3 of 10 Marina Viii regal Descriptions September 7, 1984 THENCE South 89°40'53" East 715.17 feet to the beginning i n of a tangent curve concave to g g .. the northwest having a radius of 215.00 feet; THENCE northeasterly along the arc of said curve 134.41 feet through a central angle of 35°49'07"; THENCE North 54 °30'00" East 92.10 feet to a, point on the southwestern line of that certain • easement for public access and public utilities purposes, 78.00 feet wide, as shown on said map of Parcel Map No. 3963; THENCE South 35°30'00" East along said southwestern line, 70.00 feet; THENCE South 54°30'00" West 92.10 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 285.00 feet; THENCE southwesterly along the arc of said curve 178.17 feet through a central angle of 35°49'07"; THENCE North 89°40'53" West 708.93 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.543 acres, more �r less. PARCEL THREE: All those certain portions of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Parcel Map No. 3963, filed September 26, 1983, in Book 141 of Parcel Maps at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County Records, State of California, described as follows: COMMENCING at the corner common to said Lots 2, 3, and 4 of said Parcel Map No. 3963, said corner having the coordinates: Y = 473,158.18 feet and X = 1,488,'669.24 feet, based on the California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearins and distances in this description (Note: multiply all distances shown herein by 1.0000707 to obtain ground distances) ; THENCE North 26°38'09" East along the general southeastern line of said Lot 2, a distance of 9.42 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE North 63°20'32" West 28.32 feet; THENCE North 24°50'32" West 30.00 feet; THENCE South 65°09'28" West 30,00 feet : THENCE South 24°50'32" East 30.00 feet; THENCE North 65°09'28" East 9.56 feet; THENCE South 63°20'32" East 25.67 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 22.96 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 5.50 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 1.00 feet; Page 4 of 10 Marina Village Legal Descriptions September 7, 1984 THENCE South 89 °47' 15 " East 13.66 feet; THENCE North 0 ° 12'45" East 1.00 feet; THENCE South 89 °47'15" East 5.50 feet; THENCE South 0 ° 12' 4 5 " West 4.88 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 1.00 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 4.00 feet; THENCE South 89°47!15" East 1.00 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 2.50 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 1.00 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 4.00 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 16.63 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 11.57 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 40.42 feet; THENCE North 0°12'45" East 17.25 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 14.23 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 2.00 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 33.33 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 5.50 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 60.00 feet; THENCE South 44°47'15" East 4.95 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 11.00 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 3.50 feet; THENCE South 0°12'45" West 59.40 feet; THENCE South 89°47'15" East 24.00 feet; THENCE North 0'12'45" East 60.50 feet; THENCE North 45°12'45" East 7.07 feet; THENCE. North 0'12'45" East 22.50 feet; THENCE North 44'47'15" West 15.41 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 23.50 feet; THENCE South 45°12'45" West 14.14 feet; THENCE North 89 °47'15" West 24.00 feet; THENCE North 44°47'15" West 19.09 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 19.50 feet; THENCE South 45°12'45" West 4.24. feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 14.50 feet; THENCE North 44°47'15" West 7.07 feet; THENCE North 89°47'15" West 21.00 feet; THENCE South 45°12'45" West 8.00 feet; THENCE North 63°20'32" West 51.18 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.206 acres , more or less. PARCEL FOUR: All that portion of Tract Numbered 31, as said tract is delineated and designated on Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned among the owners in Case No. 8923 in the Superior Page 5 of 10 Marina Villl Decal Descriptions v September 7, 1984. Court of Alameda County, State of California, file July 30, 1900, in Book 25 of Maps, at Pages 74 through 78, Alameda County Records, described as follows: COMMENCING at the most southwestern corner of Lot 2, Parcel Map No. 3963, filed September 26, 1963, in Book 141 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County records, said corner having the coordinates: Y : 472,318.10 feet and X = 1,487,339.96 feet, based on the California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearings and distances in this descrip- tion (Note: multiply all distances shown hereon by 1.0000707 to obtain ground distances); THENCE North 4°46'53" West along the ,western line of said Lot 2, a distance of 403.20 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing North 4°46'53" West along the western line of said Lot 2, a distance of 70.28 feet ; THENCE North 69°40'53" West 100.39 feet to a point on the western line of said Tract Numbered 31, being the western line of the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. right-of-way; THENCE South 4°46'53" East along said western line 70.26 feet; THENCE South 89°40'53" East 100.39 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.161 acres, more or less. PARCEL FIVE: All that portion of Tract Numbered 31, as said tract is delineated and designated on Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned among the owners in Case No . 8923 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, State of California, filed July 30, . 1900, in ' Book 25 of Maps, at Pages 74 through 78, Alameda County Records, described as follows: COMMENCING at the monument found and designated "11 1/2" as shown- on the map entitled "Official Resurvey of Portion of Segregation Line and Vicinity", filed August 13, 1951, in Book 3 of License Survey Maps, at Pages 16. through 22, Alameda County Records, having coordinates of Y = 470,611.66 feet and X = 1,487,425.99 feet based on the California Coor- dinate System, Zone III, as are all bearings and distances in this description (Note: multiply all distances shown herein by 1.0000707 to obtain ground distances) ; Page 6 of 10 ' Marina Village L. 1 Descriptions September 7, 1984 THENCE South 83 ° 10' 2 8 " East along said Segregation Line 57.69 feet to the southeastern corner of said Tract 31; THENCE North 4°46'53" West along the eastern line of said Tract 31, being also along the eastern line of Southern Pacific Transportation Co. right-of-way, a distance of 3169.19 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, being the beginning of a non - tangent curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 361.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 39°48'19" East; THENCE northwesterly along the arc of said curve 48.19 feet through a central angle of 7°38'56"; THENCE along a non-tangent line to said curve North 74°17'40" West 58.28 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 349.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 22°56'24" East; THENCE northwesterly along the arc of said curve 10.00 feet through a central angle of 1°38'30" to a point on the western line of said Tract 31, being the western line_ of said Southern Pacific Transiporta- ti❑n Co. right-of-way; THENCE North 4°46'53" West along said western line 97.85 feet to the beginning of a non - tangent curve con- cave to the southwest having a radius of 439.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 15 °40'30" East; THENCE southeasterly along the arc of said curve 113.41 feet through a central angle of 14°48'06" to a point an the eastern line of said Tract 31; THENCE South 4°46'53" East along said eastern line 101.37 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.223 acres, more or less. PARCEL SIX: All that portion of Tract 32, as said tract is delineated and designated on the "Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned among the owners thereof, in the suit numbered 8923 and entitled 'Pacific Improvement Company, plaintiff vs. James A. Waymire et al., defendants', Superior Court of Alameda County, State of California," etc., filed July 30, 1900, in Book 25 of Maps, at Pages 74 through 78, Alameda County 'Records, described as follows: Page 7 of 10 Marina Vi141 1,egal Descriptions September 7, 1984 COMMENCING at the granite monument found and designated "11 1/2" as shown on the map entitled "Official Resurvey of Portion of Segregation Line and Vicinity", filed August 13, 1951, in Book 3 of Licensed Surveys, at Pages 16 through 22, Alameda County Records, said monument having the coordinates: Y = 470,611.66 feet and X = 1,487,425.99 feet,, based on the California Coordinate System, Zone III, as are all bearings and distances in this description. (Note: multiply all distances shown hereon by 1.0000707 to obtain ground dis- tances); THENCE South 83°10'28" East along said Segregation Line, 57.69 feet to the southeastern corner of Tract 31, as shown on said map of Alameda Marsh Land; THENCE North 4°46'53" West along the eastern' line of said Tract 31, being also the eastern line of a Southern Pacific Transportation Co. right-of-way., a distance of 3169.19 feet to the most northern corner of Lot 1 of Parcel Map No. 3963, as recorded - in Book' 141 of Parcel Maps at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County Records, said corner being the beginning of a non -- tangent curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 361.00 feet, (a radial line to said point bears North 39 °48`19" East); THENCE northwesterly along the arc of said curve 48.19 feet through a central angle of 7°38'56"; THENCE North '7 4 ° 17 ' 4 0 " West, 58.28 feet along a non- - tangent line to the beginning of a non -- tangent curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 349.00 feet, (a radial line to said point bears North 22 °56'24" East); THENCE northwesterly along the arc of -said curve 10.00 feet, through a central angle of 1°38'30" to a point on the western line of said Tract 31, being the western line of the said Southern Pacific Transportation Co. right-of-way, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing northwesterly along the arc of last said curve, 47.76 feet through a central angle of 7 ° 50 ' 2 5 " to the beginning of a compound curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 38.00 feet; THENCE northwesterly, westerly and southerly along the arc of said curve, 84.25 feet through a central angle of 127°02'09"; THENCE South 66°25'20" West, 30.92 feet to a point on the eastern line of Mariner Square Drive as relin- quished to the City of Alameda, by the State of California by document recorded April 1, 1965, Reel 1'471, Image 41, Official Records of Alameda County, Page 8 of 10 Marina Village :al Descriptions September 7, 1984 said point being on the arc of a curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 225.00 feet, ( a radial line from said point bears South 75 °47' 11" West) • THENCE northwesterly along said eastern line of Mariner Square Drive and along the arc of said curve, 35.02 feet, through a central angle of 8°55'08"; THENCE continuing .along said eastern line, North 23°07'57" West, 24.69 feet to a point on the eastern line of Mariner Square Drive, (formerly Webster Street) as relinquished to the City of Alameda by the State of California by document recorded November 15, 1978, Reel 5676, Image 449., Official Records of Alameda County, said point having coordinates: Y 473,816.38 feet and X = 1,486,976.31 feet; THENCE North 0°16'46" East along the said eastern line, 128.28 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 20.00 feet • THENCE southeasterly along the arc of said curve 31.13 feet, through a central angle of 89°11'16" _to the beginning of a reverse curve concave to the south, having a radius of 439.00 feet; THENCE southeasterly along the arc of said curve, 111.48 feet, through a central angle of 14°33'00" to a point an the eastern line of said Tract 32, being the western line of said Southern Pacific Transpor- tation Co. right-of-way; THENCE South 4°46'53" East, along said eastern line, 97.85 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.355 acres, more or less. PARCEL SEVEN: All that portion of Lot 3, Parcel Map No. 3963, filed Septem- ber 26, 1983, in Book 141 of Parcel Maps at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County Records, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in said Lot 3, from which the most western corner of said Lot 3 bears North 43°03'27" West 233.78 feet, said point having the coordinates: Y = 472, 875.24 feet and X = 1,468,329.19 feet, based on the California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearings and distances in this description (Note: multiply all dis- tan.ces shown herein by 1.0000707 to obtain ground dis- tances); Page 9 of 10 Marina Vill C Legal Descriptions September 7, 1964 THENCE North 49 °45' 00" East 94.84 feet; THENCE North 37°52'30" West 8.79 feet; THENCE North 54°30'00" East 32.12 feet; THENCE' South 90°00'00" East 322.43 feet; THENCE South 0°00'00" West 4.00 feet to the beginnin g of a non-tangent curve concave to the, southeast having a radius of 13.50 feet, a radial line from said point bears South 0 °00'00" West; THENCE southwesterly and southeasterly along the arc of said curve 30.69 feet through a central angle of 130°15'00"; THENCE South 40°15'00" East 15.94 feet; THENCE South 49°45'00" West 328.50 feet; THENCE North 40°15'00" West 17.54 feet; THENCE South 49 °45'00" West 21.00 feet; THENCE North 40°15'00" West 214.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.417 acres, more or less. Approved By: 1044166f Donald L . Smith, ' L. S. 3361 Prepared By: Tillson-- Nuessmann & Associates 525 Middlefield .Road, Suite 110 Menlo Park, California 94025 Page 10 of 10 Scifel Consulting Inc. Alameda Merge: Amendments ATTACHMENT 2 TO EXHIBIT F List ❑� Ion -311 ht d reels as ❑f Au st Q2 WECIP AIN Tax Rate Arc Address 074 133400800 021002 1094 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133400900 021002 1092 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401004 021002 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401203 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 I33401204 021002 1470 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401404 021002 1076 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 474 133441504 021002 1054 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401506 021002 1054 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401606 021002 1040 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401607 021002 1044 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401700 021002 1010 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401800 021002 1030 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401901 021002 1004 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133402300 021002 1100 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 I33402400 021002 1210 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133402901 021002 1111 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403201 021002 801 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403305 021002 815 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403405 021002 817 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403505 021002 901 MARINA VILLAGE PK.W Y 074 133403604 021002 931 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403701 021002 933 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133403804 421002 951 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 1334441M 021002 1390 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133444600 021002 1090 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404700 021002 10$2 MAMA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404840 021002 861 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133404900 021042 871 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405300 021002 100I MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405500 021002 1001 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405600 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133405800 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 1334 05900 021002 1301 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406100 021002 1303 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406200 021002 1305 MARINA VILLAGE PKY 074 133406300 021002 1151 MARINA VILLAGE ?KY 074 133406400 021002 1 101 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406600 021042 1101 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 13340680( 021002 1190 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133406900 021002 1290 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407000 021002 1380 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407100 021002 1360 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133407300 .021002 1300 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 134000500 02I002 1 PACIFIC MARINA 074 134001702 021002 1061 PACIFIC MARINA 17 G 074 I34002300 021002 1115 ATLANTIC 074 134002400 021002 1125 AT'LA1NITIC 074 134002500 021002 1135 ATLANTIC Parcels No Ganger Blighted - WECIP nekrarti 074 134002600 021002 074 134002700 021002 074 134003200 021002 074 134003600 021002 074 134003700 021002 074 134003800 021002 074 134003900 021002 074 134404000 021002 074 134004100 021002 074 134004200 021002 074 134004300 021002 074 134004400 021002 074 134004500 021002 074 134004600 021002 074 134004700 021002 074 134004800 021002 074 134004900 021002 074 134005000 021002 074 134005100 021002 074 134005200 021002 074 134005300 021002 074 134005400 021002 074 134005500 021002 074 134005600 021002 074 134005700 021002 074 134101400 021002 074 134101500 021002 074 134101600 021002 074 134101700 021002 074 134101800 021002 074 134101900 021002 074 134102100 021002 074 134102200 021002 074 134102300 021002 074 134102400 021002 074 134102600 021002 074 134102700 021002 074 134102800 021002 074 134102900 021002 074 134103000 021002 074 134103100 021002 074 134103200 021002 074 134103300 021002 074 134103400 021002 074 134103500 021002 074 134103600 021002 074 134103700 021002 074 134103800 021002 074 134104000 021002 074 134104100 021002 074 134104200 021002 074 134104300 021002 074 134104400 021002 1145 ATLANTIC 1105 ATLANTIC 1050 PACIFIC MARINA 1011 PACIFIC MARINA 1025 PACIFIC MARINA 3001 TRIUMPH DR 3003 TRIUMPH DR 3005 TRIUMPH DR 3007 'TRIUMPH DR 3009 TRIUMPH DR 3011 TRIUMPH DR 51 KINGSBURY CT 1 KINGSBURY CT 3 KINGSBURY CT 5 KINGSBURY CT 7 KINGSBURY CT 9 KINGSBURY CT 11 KINGSBURY CT 25 KINGSBURY CT 13 KINGSBURY CT 15 KINGSBURY CT 17 KINGSBURY Cr 19 KINGSBURY C1' 21' KINGSBURY CT 23 KINGSBURY CT 911 J DEPENDENCE DR A43 913 INDEPENDENCE DR B44 915 INDEPENDENCE DR F45 917 INDEPENDENCE DR 46 919 INDEPENDENCE DR 921 INDEPENDENCE DR 048 1 COURAGEOUS CT A49 3 COURAGEOUS Cr 050 5 COURAGEOUS CT C51 7 COURAGEOUS CT D52 9 COURAGEOUS CT A53 11 COURAGEOUS CT B54 13 COURAGEOUS CT E55 15 COURAGEOUS CT E56 17 COURAGEOUS CT A57 19 COURAGEOUS CT 22 COURAGEOUS CT 21 COURAGEOUS CT A59 23 COURAGEOUS CT 060 25 COURAGEOUS Cr P61 27 COURAGEOUS CT F62 29 COURAGEOUS CT A63 31 COURAGEOUS CT 1364 18 COURAGEOUS CT A65 20 COURAGEOUS CT 1366 16 COURAGEOUS CT G67 14 COURAGEOUS CT 068 10 COURAGEOUS CT A69 Sei(cl Consulting Inc. Parcels No Longer Blighted - WECIP Alameda Merger Amcodnicnts 2 2/26/03 074 134104500 02 1002 ' 12 COURAGEOUS CT B70 074 134104700 021002 6 COURAGEOUS CT C71 074 134104800 021002 8 COURAGEOUS CT D72 074 134 104900 021002 2 COURAGEOUS CT A73 074 134105000 021002' 4 COURAGEOUS CT B74 074 134105200 021002 931 INDEPENDENCE DR A75 074 134105300 021002 933 INDEPENDENCE DR B76 074 D4105400 021002 935 INDEPENDENCE DR A77 074 134105500 021002 937 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134105700 021002 11NVINCIBLE CT CI 074 134105800 021002 3 INVINCIBLE CT D2 074 134105900 021002 5 INVINCIBLE CT 03 074 134106000 021002 7 INVINC1LE CT G4 074 134106100 021002 9 INVINCIBLE CT E5 074 134106200 021002 11 1NV INCMLE CT B6 074 134106300 021002 13 INVINCIBLE CT G7 074134106400 021002 15 INVINCIBLE CT G8 074 134106500 021002 17 INVINCIBLE CT C9 074 134106600 021002 19 INVINiCDLE CT D 10 074 134106800 021002 21 INVINCIBLE CT At 1 074 134106900 021002 23 INVINCIBLE CT B12 074 134107000 021002 25 INVINCIBLE CT F13 074 134107100 021002 27 INVINCIBLE CT F14 074 134107200 021002 29 INVINCIBLE CT Al 074 134 107300 ' 021002 31 INVINCIBLE CT B16 074 134107500 021002 50 INVINCIBLE CT A17 074 134107600 021002 52 INVINCIBLE CT B18 074 134107700 021002 48 INVINCIBLE CT F19 074 134107800 021002 46 INVINCIBLE CT F20 074 13.4107900 021002 42 INVINCIBLE CT A21 074134108000 021002 44 INVINCIBLE CT 1322 074 134108200 021002 40 INVINCIBLE CT B24 074 134108300 021002 38 INVINCIBLE CT A23 074 134108400 021002 36 INVINCIBLE CT F25 074 134108500 021002 34 INVINC>LE CT F26 074134108608 021002 30 INVINCIBLE CT A27 074 134108700 021002 32 INVINCIBLE CT B28 074 134108900 021002 10 INVINCIBLE CT C37 074 134109000 021002 12 INVINCIBLE CT D38 074 134 109100 021002 8 INVINCIBLE CT F39 074 134109200 021002 6 INVINCIBLE CT F40 074 134109300 021002 2 INVINCIBLE CT C41 074 134109400 021002 4 INVINCIBLE CT D42 074 134E09600 021007. 26 INVINCIBLE CT C29 074 134109700 021002 28 INVINCIBLE CT D30 074 134109800 021002 24 INV2NCI3LE CT 631 074 I34109900 021002 22 INVINCIBLE CT G32 074 134110000 021002 20 INVINCIBLE CT E33 074 134110100 021002 18 INVINCIBLE CT E34 074 13.4110200 021002 14 INVINCIBLE CT A35 074 134110300 021002 16 INVINCIBLE CT B36 074 134110600 021002 950 MARINA VILLAGE PKKY 074 134110700 021002 2060 CHALLENGER DR Seiicl Consulting Inc. Parcels No Longar Blighted • WECIP 2J261t]3 Alameda Mcrgcr Amendmcnis 3 074 134110800 021002 2020 CHALLENGER DR 074 134110900 021002 965 ATLANTIC 074 134300100 021002 8501vMARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 134300204 021002 2061 C1{ALLENGER DR 074 134300300 021002 2021 CHALLENGER DR 074 134300400 021002 815 ATLANTIC 074 134300500 021002 801 ATLANTIC 074 134300600 021002 860 ATLANTIC 074 134300800 021002 960 ATLANTIC 074 134300900 021002 980 ATLANTIC 074 134401900 021002 985 ATLANTIC 074 134402100 021002 1000 ATLANTIC 074 134402340 021002 1 REGULUS CT 074 134402400 021002 3 REGULUS CT 074 134402540 021.002 5 REGULUS CT 81 074 134402600 021002 7 REGULUS CT 074 134402800 021002 9 REGULUS CT 074 134402900 021 002 11 REGULUS CT 84 074 134403000 42102 - 13 REGULUS CT 074 134403100 021002 15 REGULUS CT 074 134403300 021002 ,17 REGULUS CT 074 134403400 021002 19 REGULUS CT 074 134403500 021002 21 REGULUS CT 074 134403600 021002 23 REGULUS CT 074 134403700 021002 25 REGULUS Cr 074 134403800 021002 27 REGULUS CT 074 134404000 021002 14 REGULUS CT 074 13440.4100 021002 16 REGULUS CT 074 134404200 021002 10 REGULUS CT 074 134404300 021002 12 REGULUS CT 96 074 134404500 021002 6 REGULUS CT 074 134404600 021002 8 REGULUS CT 074 134404740 021002 2 REGULUS CT 99 074 134-404800 021002 4 REGULUS CT 074 134405000 021002 981 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405100 021002 983 I DEPENDENCE WAY 102 074 134405200 021002 985 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405300 021002 987 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134405504 021002 1 ECLIPSE CT 074 I34405600 021002 3 ECLIPSE CT 074 134405700 021002 5 ECLIPSE CT 074 134405800 021002 7 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406000 021002 9 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406100 021002 11 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406200 021002 13 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406300 021002 15 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406500 021002 17 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406600 021002 19 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406700 021002 21 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406800 021002 23 ECLIPSE CT 074 134406900 021002 25 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407000 021002 27 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407200 021002 14 ECLIPSE CT SeI(oI Consulting Inc. Parcels No Longer Blighted • WEC1P Alameda Merger Antendrenis 4 2)26103 Seifcl Consulting Inc. Alameda Merger Amendments 074 134407300 0210Q2 16 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407400 021002 10 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407500 021002 12 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407700 021002 6 ECLIPSE CT 074 134407800 021002 8 ECLIPSE CC 074 134407900 021002 2 ECLIPSE CT 074 134408000 021002 4 ECLIPSE CT 074 134 408200 021002 1051 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408300 421002 1053 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408400 021002 1055 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408500 021002 1057 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134408700 021002 1005 ATLANTIC 074 134408800 021002 1015 ATLANTIC 074 134408902 021002 1425 ATLANTIC 074 134409000 021002 t REDONDO CT 131 074 134409100 021002 3 REDONDO CT 074 134409200 021002 5 REDONDO CT 133 074 134409300 021002 7 REDONDO CT 074 134409500 021002 9 REDONDO CT 074 134409600 021002 11 REDONDO CT 074 134409700 02I002 13 REDONDO CT 074 134409800 021002 15 REDONDO CT 074 134409900 021002 17 REDONDO Cr 074 134410000 021002 19 REDONDO Cr 074 134410200 021002 21 REDONDO CT 074 134410300 021002 23 REDONDO CI' 074 134410400 021002 25 REDONDO CT 074 134410500 021002 27 REDONDO CT 074 134410600 021002 29 REDONDO CT 074 134410700 021002 31 REDONDO CT 074 134410900 021002 18 REDONDO CT 074 134411000 021002 20 REDONDO CT 074 134411100 021002 14 REDONDO CT 074 134411200 021002 16 REDONDO CT 150 074 134411300 021002 10 REDONDO CT 074 134411400 021002 12 REDONDO CT 074 134411600 021002 6 REDONDO CT 153 074 13441 L700 021002 8 REDONDO CT 074 134411840 021002 2 REDONDO CT 074 134411900 021002 4 REDONDO CT 074 134412100 021002 1081 INDEPENDENCE DR 157 074 134412200 021002 1083 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134412300 021002 1085 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 134412400 021002 1087 INDEPENDENCE DR 074 1344 L2700 021002 1010 ATLANTIC 074 134412800 ,021002 1420 ATLANTIC 5 Parcels No Longer Blightul - WECIP 2/26/03 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was dul y and . regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting g assembled on the day of , 2007 by the followin g vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum DATE: June 5, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Public Hearing to Consider PDO7 -0001, a Rezoning to Add a Planned Development Overlay to a Property Located Within an R -1 (Single- Family Residential) Zoning District and to Consider PMO6 -0005, for the Approval of a Parcel Map to Allow the Division of 25,000 Square Foot Residential Lot into Two Parcels: Each With an Existing Single - family Dwelling. The Property is Located at 700 and 650 Grand Within an R -1 (Single- Family Residential) Zoning District. Applicant: Sylvia Rankin BACKGROUND On February 26, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended the City Council approve Planned Development PDO7 -0001 and Parcel Map PMO6 -0005 (see Attachments 1 and 2) to allow the division of this property into two parcels. Currently two historically important single - family dwellings occupy the corner parcel. The proposed subdivision would create two Tots, with one of these buildings on each lot. The proposed Tots would be 17,500 square feet at 700 Grand and 7,500 square feet at 650 Grand. The Planned Development overlay allows flexibility to accommodate the existing historic buildings in their current configuration and to vary the off street parking requirements for 650 Grand Street. No new residential units or additions are proposed. DISCUSSION The Planning Board's recommendation is based upon consistency with Zoning standards and the General Plan as well as the ability to make the required findings for the Planned Development zoning overlay and Parcel Map. The existing houses on 700 Grand do not conform to all setback and parking requirements for the R -1 district. Data highlighted in bold text in the table below denotes standards that do not conform to the development regulations for the R -1 district. Under Planned Development regulations (AMC 30- 4.13), the proposed Development Plan, with the proposed Parcel Map, would permit these nonconforming conditions. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #4 -M 06-05-07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Table 1: Compliance with Development Standards Description Front Setback Right Side Setback Left Side Setback Rear Setback Lot Size (sq. ft.) Lot Width Parking Spaces Required Parking in Front Yard (front 20 feet) AMC Standard 20' 5' 5' 20' 5,000 50' 2 spaces 0 spaces Parcel 1 (700 Grand) 19' (existing) 5' 2' (existing) 20' 17,500 100' 2 spaces 0 spaces June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Parcel 2 (650 Grand) 45' 5' 1 0' (existing) 7,500 75' 0 spaces (existing) 0 spaces proposed 0 spaces proposed The ability to add parking on the proposed new parcel at 650 Grand is constrained by three factors: 1) The percentage of lot covered by water, 2) The position of the house, and 3) The position of the historic seawall on the property. Approximately 30% of the proposed lot on 650 Grand is under water. The house is constructed on piers at the eastern end of the property, projecting over the water and making parking behind the house impossible. The site is also constrained by the historic seawall that blocks access to Grand Street for 26 feet of the 75 -foot street frontage. Because of these factors, parking would need to be located in front of the house. A side - by -side parking configuration would result in a driveway that exceeds city maximum driveway width standards and unduly affects the view of the historic house. A tandem configuration would result in one of the two spaces in the front yard setback area and eliminate most of the front courtyard that has served as private open space for 650 Grand. Under the Planned Development Overlay, the Planning Board considered the following alternative parking configurations for 650 Grand Street: 1. Modify the historic seawall and place two new tandem parking spaces on the north side of the seawall. This would require cutting a 10.5 -foot hole in the existing brick seawall and placing parking on what was historically part of the rear yard for 700 Grand Street. 2. Provide two tandem spaces in front of the house. One space would be located in the front yard setback. 3. Provide two side -by -side spaces in front of the home with a 16 -foot wide driveway, which would exceed the allowed driveway width under AMC 30- 7.9(f)(1 ) and block the view of the house at 650 Grand. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 4. Provide one off street parking space, which is less than mandated under AMC 30 -7.6 (a)(1). 5. Provide no new off street parking spaces, which is less than mandated under AMC 30 -7.6 (a)(1). The Planning Board recommended approval of Alternative No. 5. Additionally, the Board recommended that the project not include a new curb cut because of potential traffic and bicycle safety concerns and the visual effect of locating parking near the historic structure. The parcels' frontage includes over 300 feet along Grand Street. Thus, there is ample existing parking. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary relating to Planning activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Actions taken on this item would not affect or deviate from any Local Codes, Regulations, and Policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed rezoning and parcel map will not have a significant effect on the environment and are Categorically Exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions, which exempts the division of property in urbanized areas for residential use into four or fewer parcels when in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required and all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve Rezoning, PDO7 -0001, to add a Planned Development overlay based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft Resolution; 2. Approve the tentative Parcel Map, PM06 0005, to allow the division of the existing 25,000 square foot residential lot into two parcels and direct staff to approve the Final Parcel Map, subject to compliance with City of Alameda standards. Respectfully submitted, Cathy .)..urY 01— Planning and Building Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council By: Andre Tho Plan ing Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Board Minutes, February 26, 2007 2. Planning Board Resolution, PB-07-06, February 26, 2007 cc: Sylvia Rankin, 700 Grand Street, Alameda, CA 94501 June 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8 -A. Planned Development PD07- 001/Parcel Map PM06 -005 — Applicant: Will Harrison - 700 Grand Street (BS). The applicant requests approval of a Planned Development overlay on an existing R -1 (Single - Family Residential) district and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single - family dwelling. The property is located within an R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would recuse herself from this item because of a personal professional conflict. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook why this item was not presented as a variance, Mr. Thomas replied that the planned development overlay approach provided the flexibility. Staff did not feel the findings could be made for the variance in this case because the lot was so large. Staff did not feel the historic location of the existing homes or the historic quality of the wall qualified the project for a Planned Development. Vice President Cook expressed concern about the curb cut on Grand because the sidewalk narrowed in that area, as well as the presence of bike riders and the fact that the bridge rose slightly. She noted that drivers would be backing in and out, and believed it would be a risk to pedestrians and bicycle riders. She noted that the proximity of the school was also a concern. Mr. Thomas noted that stair identified six parking alternatives in the staff report. In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether the sea wall would be demolished, Mr. Thomas replied that was not the part that staff would consider historic. He noted that it did not have structural significance with respect to the water, and that it was the portion along Grand Street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Will Harrison, applicant, representing the property owner, noted that they agreed with the staff" s recommendation regarding the tandem parking. Their first choice would be to do nothing extra, because there was adequate on- street parking. He added that both buildings had historical significance, and believed the parking design should be addressed thoroughly. He noted that only the first five feet of the wall would be removed, because the side yard of the house would be increased. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Kohlstrand suggested an additional condition requiring that any changes made to the property or structures in the future would trigger a reevaluation of the off - street parking situation. Planning Board Minutes February 26, 2007 City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #4.M 06-05-07 Member Cunningham believed that as part of the planned development, the off- street parking must come back to the Planning Board. Vice President Cook moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -07 -06 to approve a Planned Development overlay on an existing R -1 (Single - Family Residential) district and a Parcel Map to allow the division of an existing 25,000 square foot residential lot into two parcels: each with an existing single - family dwelling, with the modifications that Alternative 5 would be examined, and that any future changes made to the property or structures would trigger a reevaluation of the off-street parking situation. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Absent: Member Mariani — 1. Abstain: Member Ezzy Ashcraft] Mr. Thomas noted that the PD overlay and the subdivision action required action by City Council, and staff would revise the resolutions before taking the item to City Council. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 February 26, 2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -07 -06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD07 -0001 AND PARCEL MAP PM06 -0005 TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 25,000 SQUARE -FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 700 GRAND STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN R -1 (SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, an application was made on October 19, 2006 by Will Harrison Design requesting approval of a Parcel Map, PM00 -0005 and on 30 January 2007 for a Planned Development overlay, PM07 -0001 to subdivide a parcel with two existing houses into two lots; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on January 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on February 26, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the property is currently occupied by two houses and both houses are on the Alameda Historical Building Study List; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -4.13, the Planning Board has made the following findings with regard to the Development Plan approval: 1. All Planned Developments shall be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan supports the preservation of all buildings and structural elements having architectural, historic or aesthetic merit. The proposed Planned Development would allow the creation of a new parcel with the least impact to historic buildings and structures. The General Plan Diagram designates this property Low Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The density of the property and of the surrounding neighborhood would not be changed. This project also supports the General Plan policies on the preservation of historically significant building and contributing structures. 2. The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD District is combined. The Parcel Map will create two individual parcels with two existing homes. The Planned Development overlay allows the necessary flexibility in the development standards, such as • setbacks and parking to permit this development to occur. By varying the off - street parking mandated at this location the integrity of a contributing historical structure can be City Council Public Hearing Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #4 -M 06 -05 -07 preserved where it would otherwise have to be compromised and the visual impact of parking on the historic house is eliminated. 3. The project will not have a significant _adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City. The site is already developed with two single- family homes. The Planned Development and Parcel Map would divide the existing parcel without adding any new development. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the city. WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -78.5 the Planning Board has made the following findings with regard to the proposed Parcel Map: 1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable Genera! and Specific Plans. The project complies with the density requirements in the General Plan and is compatible with the variety of lot sizes of surrounding properties. This project also supports the General Plan and policies for the preservation of historical buildings and structures. 2. The proposed design/improvements are consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The proposed design respects the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. No new development is proposed that would impact any of these aspects of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. 3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because the proposed parcel will exceed the required minimum lot size and width and be comparable in size to the surrounding single family parcels. Additionally, the site and surrounding properties are zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1) and are designated for Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram. The parcels front over 300 linear feet of continuous curb space along Grand Street. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General Plan designates this property Low Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of below 8.7 units per acre. This density will be maintained for this proposal, and will not change the density of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause injury to fish or wildlife - habitats. The site is located within a developed urban area. The property is already developed. The project will not result in any site alterations on the parcels. There is no proposed construction in the water area of the parcel. 2 6. The design of the subdivision and its related improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Utilities are already available at the project site's boundaries. The existing single - family home at 700 Grand Street is already connected to water, sewer, and electric utilities. Police, Fire, and garbage services are also available along Grand Street. Establishment of separate utility connections to newly created parcels will be required before recordation of the Final Map. The proposal will create parcels that are similar to those found in the vicinity. Additionally, access and utility easements will be required for utilities. An additional easement is proposed for the existing encroachment of the house. at 650 Grand Street on to City owned property in the lagoon. City encroachment permits will be required for any work within the right - of -way. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause public health problems. The proposal continues existing residential uses at the site without any changes to the existing structures. Both parcels would have continued direct access the Grand Street and/or Palmera Court. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda determines that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 —Minor Land Divisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves recommends that the City Council approve Planned Development, PD07- 0001 and Parcel Map PM06 -0005 to allow the subdivision of 700 Grand Street in to two legal parcels, subject to the following conditions: General Approved Plan. The approved project shall be completed in substantial compliance with the plans submitted for Planned Development , and Parcel Map prepared by Will Harrison, dated November 18, 2006 and revised January 3, 2007 consisting of one (1) sheet, and the site survey prepared by Andreas Deak, dated January 23, 2006 and revised January 9, 2007, consisting of two (1) sheet, all marked "Exhibit "A "" and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. Planned Development a. The applicant shall secure approval of a Final Map. The Final Map shall comply with all conditions of this Planned Development approval. 3 b. Any additions to either single - family residence shall require an amendment to this Planned Development. c. No part of the Grand Street historic seawall shall be demolished, except the first five feet nearest the house at 650 Grand. d. This approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under valid permits prior to May 7, 2007 unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by prior to expiration of the Planned Development, or the Final Map has, been approved and vested. Only one (1) extension may be granted. 2. Parcel Map a. The Parcel Map shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Director of Planning and Building. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map, preparation of staff reports, and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor. b. The subdivider shall install separate utilities (gas, water, and electrical) and sewer lateral for rear Parcel #1 and obtain permits for the construction. Trench reconstruction and reconstruction of any sidewalk, curb and gutter removed for installation of the utilities and sewer lateral shall be to City of Alameda standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Building Official and utility companies. The existing sanitary sewer lateral shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the Plannin g and Building, and Public Works Departments. All costs shall be borne by the subdivider. c. In conjunction with the Parcel Map an instrument granting a separate easement from the city to the property owner shall be prepared for the pile- supports and brick wall encroachments in the lagoon and for air rights for the portion of the dwelling structure above the lagoon. The easement plat, legal and metes and bound descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor in the State of California and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement shall be recorded concurrent with the parcel map. All costs associated with the preparation of the easement and City staff plan review shall be borne by the subdivider. d. An easement shall be provided on the parcel map in the owner's statement for surface flow for the benefit of Parcel #2 from Parcel #1 due to the existing slope of the land towards the lagoon. 4 e. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check to guarantee that a mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Maps is provided in the form approved by the City Engineer. f. After the Parcel Map has been approved by City Council, the subdivider shall submit a mylar copy of the recorded parcel map to the Public Works Department. 3. Miscellaneous a. Codes Compliance. All improvements shall conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. b. Compliance with Laws. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and shall file with relevant federal, state and local agencies for required permits. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of such permits. All required federal, state, regional, and local permits shall be obtained prior to occupancy. c. 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 property. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to 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. d. Acknowledgement of Conditions. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 5 NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government. Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by filing with the Planning and Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February 2007 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (5) Gook, Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, McNamara NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Mariani ABSTAIN: (1) Ezzy Ashcraft ATT ST: Andrew Thomas, acre ary City Planning Board 6 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PDO7 -0001, AND PARCEL MAP PMO6 -0005 TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 650/700 GRAND STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN R -1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, an application was made on October 19, 2006 by Will Harrison Design requesting approval of a Parcel Map, PMO6 -0005 and on 30 January 2007 for a Planned Development overlay, PMO7 -0001 to subdivide a parcel with two existing houses into two lots; and WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on January 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R--1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the property is currently occupied by two houses and both houses are on the Alameda Historical Building Study List; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on February 26, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved a resolution recommending City Council approval of the proposed tentative Parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on June 5, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Sec. 30 -4.13, the City Council makes the following findings with regard to the Development Plan: 1. The Planned Development overlay is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan supports the preservation of all buildings and structural elements having architectural, historic or aesthetic merit. The proposed Planned Development would allow the creation of a new parcel with the least impact to historic buildings and structures. The General Plan Diagram designates this property Low Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The density of the property and of the surrounding Resolution #4 -M CC 06 -05 -07 neighborhood would not be changed. This project also supports the General Plan policies on the preservation of historically significant g building and contributing structures. 2. The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD District is combined. The Parcel Map will create two individual parcels with two existing homes. The Planned Development overlay allows the necessary flexibility in the development standards, such as setbacks and parking to permit this development to occur. By varying the off - street parking mandated at this location the integrity of a contributing historical structure can be preserved where it would otherwise have to be compromised and the visual impact of parking on the historic house is eliminated. 3. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City. The site is already developed with two single- family homes. The Planned Development and Parcel Map would divide the existing parcel without adding any new development. Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City. WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -78.5 the City Council has made the following findings with regard to the proposed Parcel Map: 1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The project complies with the density requirements in the General Plan and is compatible with the variety of lot sizes of surrounding properties. This project also supports the General Plan and policies for the preservation of historical buildings and structures. 2. The proposed design /improvements are consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. The proposed design respects the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. No new development is proposed that would impact any of these aspects of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. 3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically suitable for this type of development because the proposed parcel will exceed the required minimum lot size and width and will be comparable in size to the surrounding one - family parcels. Additionally, the site and surrounding properties are zoned one - Family Residential (R -1) and are designated for Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram. The parcels front over 300 linear feet of continuous curb space along Grand Street. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of Y development. The General Plan designates this property Low Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of below 8.7 units per acre. This density will be maintained for this proposal, and will not change the density of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause injury to fish or wildlife habitats. The site is located within a developed urban area. The property is already developed. The project will not result in any y site alterations on the parcels. There is no proposed construction in the water area of the parcel. 6. The design of the subdivision and its related improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Utilities are already available at the project site's boundaries. The existing single- family home at 700 Grand Street is already connected to water, sewer, and electric utilities. Police, Fire, and garbage services are also available along Grand Street. Separate utility connections to the newly created parcels have been established. The proposal will create parcels that are similar to those found in the vicinity. Additionally, access and utility easements will be required for utilities. An additional easement is proposed for the existing encroachment of the house at 650 Grand Street on to City owned property in the lagoon. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause public health problems. The proposal continues existing residential uses at the site without any changes to the existing structures. Both parcels would have continued direct access the Grand Street and/or Palmera Court. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda determines that the project is Categorically Exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 -- Minor Land Divisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Planned Development, PDO7 -0001 and Parcel Map PMO6 -0005 to allow the subdivision of 700 Grand Street in to two legal parcels, subject to the following conditions: HOLD HARMLESS 1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Parcel Map approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the developer shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONDITIONS 2. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all conditions of approval and accept this permit subject to conditions, with full awareness of applicable provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code for these Parcel Maps to be exercised. OTHER CONDITIONS Conditions Applicable Prior to Approval of Parcel Maps by City Council 3. Parcel maps shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City's consultant surveyor. 4. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor. 5. The subdivider shall install separate utilities (gas, water, and electrical) and sewer lateral for rear Parcel #1 and obtain permits for the construction. Trench reconstruction and reconstruction of any sidewalk, curb and gutter removed for installation of the utilities and sewer lateral shall be to City of Alameda standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Building Official and utility companies. The existing sanitary sewer lateral shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building, and Public Works Departments. All costs shall be borne by the subdivider. 6. In conjunction with the Parcel Map an instrument granting a separate easement from the city to the property owner shall be prepared for the pile- supports and brick wall encroachments in the lagoon and for air rights for the portion of the dwelling structure above the lagoon. The easement plat, legal and metes and bound descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor in the State of California and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement shall be recorded concurrent with the parcel map. All costs associated with the preparation of the easement and City staff plan review shall be borne by the subdivider. 7. An easement shall be provided on the Parcel Map in the owner's statement for surface flow for the benefit of Parcel #2 from Parcel #1 due to the existing slope of the land towards the lagoon. 8. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check to guarantee that a mylar copy of. the recorded Parcel Maps is provided in the form approved by the City Engineer. Conditions Applicable After Approval of Parcel Maps by City Council 9. The subdivider shall provide one mylar copy of the recorded parcel maps. The decision of the City Council shall be final. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1 094.6 NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, . pursuant to Government Code . Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020 the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. 1, 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 , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this , _day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Tentative Map 9387, (TMO6-0003) for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Commercial Spaces Located Within One Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue, Within the M -X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is located within the Marina Village Master Plan, a mixed -use development that was originally approved by Planning Board Resolution No. 1990 in 1 979. Under this approval and subsequent entitlements, a range of residential, commercial, recreational, office, and open space uses are allowed consistent with the Marina Village Master Plan. Constructed in 1987, a range of office, Tight industrial, and manufacturing uses currently occupy the eight commercial spaces located within one building on the parcel. DISCUSSION The applicant, Kier & Wright Engineering acting on behalf of Legacy Partners, requests approval of Tentative Map 9387 to allow the division of the existing parcel into eight new commercial condominiums, as shown on the attached map. The subdivision map will confer the right to separately sell the individual condominiums, but will not alter the type or character of land uses established in earlier entitlements. The Marina Village Master Plan governs land uses at the site, and no changes are being proposed. On April 23, 2007, the Planning Board unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed tentative map, pursuant to the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance. The City Council must make the following findings in order to approve Tentative Map 9387, pursuant to the City of Alameda Subdivision Ordinance (AMC 30- 78.5): 1. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The existing business park is consistent with the General Plan designation of Business Park on City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #4-N 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 3 the General Plan Diagram and the M-X mixed use Planned Development Zoning District in which the property is located. The proposal will not change the existing business park use. 2. That the proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan and zoning. No changes to the physical environment are proposed. 3. That the site is physically suitable for this type of development. The business park use has existed since the 1980s, with the existing building constructed in 1987. No change to the use is proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. No change to the existing density is proposed. 5. That the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No change to the existing use and no physical changes are proposed. 6. That the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. All existing easements are required to be retained. 7. That the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. No change to the existing business park use and no physical changes are proposed. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary related to planning activities for this project. After a Final Map has been recorded, the sale of each lot would generate a property transfer tax, which would flow to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This proposal is governed by Alameda Municipal Code §30 -78.5 Action on Tentative and Parcel Maps. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposal to subdivide the parcel into eight separate lots will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 3 effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (k) (Existing Facilities), which exempts the subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. RECOMMENDATION Approve Tentative Map 9387, TMO6 -0003, to allow the conveyance of up to eight existing commercial spaces located within one existing building to separate owners. Respectfully submitted, ;err Cathy Ftoodbury Planning & Building Director By: Do Vu Planner 111 Attachment 1. Tentative Map 9387 G:IPLANNINGICCIREPGRTSl200 7105 -15- 0711000 Atlantic TMO6 -0003_Report.doc ve.3 ri.hg lir9S L Z1 MOO • EO6Ji Yleta S999 4t1 (800 • ZZ 6ujpwI 'p10 15110A3A1111S S'd33NION3 11/11D IHDIMil 131N VINWAI1VD 0 z 2 § E t. .(1-i; -:)':'.• -.• ..,:ti.:,:.,.i- Y E a.. E‘. (::' ,,,f :• , i 5. f -- .: ..'..--...:;.._._, 1 7, 311N3AY 3111,11fliV 000 t 711 'VCIVIVIV SIANIAlVd ADVDT1 L8E6 cIVIN iamwdgAuviNai YCI3WV1V : '!1...:1111 ' I ....i. Hit '': gl : r - - 1 .1-I i L:H g! : L • ...: :' 7 _ .7 .., i. • • L:;______)_11-..., iL. 1 1 I 1 ..............— ., ..4... )_.. ii; • • 1 I 1 '.;" ."-;,..,." -, ..... . . .. 1„ .,;,.,..:::,,,D...,_:. , , ,..1 1 .. i. -.. ,i,i .., _ 2 .,,./ ...-;.--- 11 ', E.. -I . ,- --I !k I --,7-7-Iye., ...../..- —'-' 'g g...!..._ -----, , --1 E r- -- - ___... 1 1 1 1: , i i ' I 9 , ---- @ g 1,-, -4---..„.. t 1 i cif., j------- -';,2 ,, L.. .4.--f-- - . 4,440/ ., '-----1 ; ----, i ./,,--....._..._.....:.::),..=... ' ,.:--/' 1 ' - `I-L'-t.,:7 7.: . , : qi. v,,,,,•,-,:c.---,,, AO <;'....,..,:-,. 1 1 , '"..--- " F, .. ■ . • .•,.., : 1 . I : .?: . / f( l'' ' j .:i".1 ..L, ...",..-..-- I : • 1--- ---.00t1T...,_3....E.AS. 0 '.it.- !! . 1 1 r ....: - -'.-.1- r- T I- 4 ,; 1 .1- --1--.'"-L—F--1-7 1 'PT 71 i 1 F ll, i f i _ , i—i-,-i— 1 — _1-7,_ \ I..--.----i 1 " • p; L-7..i,... .„ . p, ).1 111 _ , k , ,,,,: : ,,. 4 )1 i 1 1 .._...: ...4 , ..- 7 -../ 'i i 1 'H i .. i , , am ri 2E 0 -1 :,{ 'Two .0'Di ti 1 ) 1 1 I .) ??L'e ! 1 ■ ",...1 1 H °I 7: ;,- ' . .. 9"gs _ ---L.-if : 1 ; '4 !.. 1 4 '; 6 i 1 1.1F------ L : d 5; ai ..., 1 ! # l 1.--- 1 '11 II 11 . _... =,<-..-----ri-- --rot 1 1'11, 1;1111 ,-,!.-....41 H......11 1 ! 1 1 1 :- Mirficz4) 1 i'.1 co 1, fi 1 I 'l -. i'll '‘' '='. ;• 0.gt., '.i II 1 h 11---- 11, -I '-‘,1.------, 1 Ii I 1 ,N ,--. i i„ i . 1.-----/ '' 11 • r .. 2 0.- - i•-• 1 . ';,.. I : .1 ' 1 .4 ' 1::.?,------Tr . 1 /17 1.'ir`T. fi 1 .: 4 Li -:;i .-. 1 -I . .,:. .7., ..; 1 111 ii 1 1 1 1 I__:--... fISZ69Z-1-B vil -1.LI , , 1 1.143re5V34.J.111.SICO AJ1L10 Ttd3+111 AYR LS1.00, 1 : : I 1. 1 1 i_....i_ i1 ,: I 1 1 1--+ : 11 ,!,i I I, Ili ii i-1 1 1 1--- . '..:..;. 1 II 11 4,11 : 2 1 11 Or 1 r. 1 li i 1 : 1: 'i,', 1 1 i .... l--—.:—.-.:..„..:.--2 ,} ij ••:.....s-~,,,........,..._:::_...,.•.,__\\ 11 1 1 L , -- 1 1 1 1 1-- ••• .• r. Li -7, a g I Lis E 1 g g ,z4 LIP 8 t t; rlEt A! •8 eilEral • • 4 • 13 0204, f;;- --•1 - .'. '..',-,-._, ' , --........ .. F.---54 ..,.''.. ,.„. 4 rf 'il a .........., rN .. 2 -i4•12i ABBREVIATIONS . g FE- kq gi I r 6-5' City Council g 3 Public Hearing g 8 8 5-, 1- 3 t! Attachment to • • Agenda Item #4-N 06-05-07 Ell V Ell 50-4Z--1 L 5.1101140D AID VII ' El 9O-DE-01 S..1.1.01,11040 AID )iad VA ve.3 ri.hg lir9S L Z1 MOO • EO6Ji Yleta S999 4t1 (800 • ZZ 6ujpwI 'p10 15110A3A1111S S'd33NION3 11/11D IHDIMil 131N VINWAI1VD 0 z 2 § E t. .(1-i; -:)':'.• -.• ..,:ti.:,:.,.i- Y E a.. E‘. (::' ,,,f :• , i 5. f -- .: ..'..--...:;.._._, 1 7, 311N3AY 3111,11fliV 000 t 711 'VCIVIVIV SIANIAlVd ADVDT1 L8E6 cIVIN iamwdgAuviNai YCI3WV1V : '!1...:1111 ' I ....i. Hit '': gl : r - - 1 .1-I i L:H g! : L • ...: :' 7 _ .7 .., i. • • L:;______)_11-..., iL. 1 1 I 1 ..............— ., ..4... )_.. ii; • • 1 I 1 '.;" ."-;,..,." -, ..... . . .. 1„ .,;,.,..:::,,,D...,_:. , , ,..1 1 .. i. -.. ,i,i .., _ 2 .,,./ ...-;.--- 11 ', E.. -I . ,- --I !k I --,7-7-Iye., ...../..- —'-' 'g g...!..._ -----, , --1 E r- -- - ___... 1 1 1 1: , i i ' I 9 , ---- @ g 1,-, -4---..„.. t 1 i cif., j------- -';,2 ,, L.. .4.--f-- - . 4,440/ ., '-----1 ; ----, i ./,,--....._..._.....:.::),..=... ' ,.:--/' 1 ' - `I-L'-t.,:7 7.: . , : qi. v,,,,,•,-,:c.---,,, AO <;'....,..,:-,. 1 1 , '"..--- " F, .. ■ . • .•,.., : 1 . I : .?: . / f( l'' ' j .:i".1 ..L, ...",..-..-- I : • 1--- ---.00t1T...,_3....E.AS. 0 '.it.- !! . 1 1 r ....: - -'.-.1- r- T I- 4 ,; 1 .1- --1--.'"-L—F--1-7 1 'PT 71 i 1 F ll, i f i _ , i—i-,-i— 1 — _1-7,_ \ I..--.----i 1 " • p; L-7..i,... .„ . p, ).1 111 _ , k , ,,,,: : ,,. 4 )1 i 1 1 .._...: ...4 , ..- 7 -../ 'i i 1 'H i .. i , , am ri 2E 0 -1 :,{ 'Two .0'Di ti 1 ) 1 1 I .) ??L'e ! 1 ■ ",...1 1 H °I 7: ;,- ' . .. 9"gs _ ---L.-if : 1 ; '4 !.. 1 4 '; 6 i 1 1.1F------ L : d 5; ai ..., 1 ! # l 1.--- 1 '11 II 11 . _... =,<-..-----ri-- --rot 1 1'11, 1;1111 ,-,!.-....41 H......11 1 ! 1 1 1 :- Mirficz4) 1 i'.1 co 1, fi 1 I 'l -. i'll '‘' '='. ;• 0.gt., '.i II 1 h 11---- 11, -I '-‘,1.------, 1 Ii I 1 ,N ,--. i i„ i . 1.-----/ '' 11 • r .. 2 0.- - i•-• 1 . ';,.. I : .1 ' 1 .4 ' 1::.?,------Tr . 1 /17 1.'ir`T. fi 1 .: 4 Li -:;i .-. 1 -I . .,:. .7., ..; 1 111 ii 1 1 1 1 I__:--... fISZ69Z-1-B vil -1.LI , , 1 1.143re5V34.J.111.SICO AJ1L10 Ttd3+111 AYR LS1.00, 1 : : I 1. 1 1 i_....i_ i1 ,: I 1 1 1--+ : 11 ,!,i I I, Ili ii i-1 1 1 1--- . '..:..;. 1 II 11 4,11 : 2 1 11 Or 1 r. 1 li i 1 : 1: 'i,', 1 1 i .... l--—.:—.-.:..„..:.--2 ,} ij ••:.....s-~,,,........,..._:::_...,.•.,__\\ 11 1 1 L , -- 1 1 1 1 1-- ••• .• r. Li -7, a g I Lis E 1 g g ,z4 LIP 8 t t; rlEt A! •8 eilEral • • 4 • 13 0204, f;;- --•1 - .'. '..',-,-._, ' , --........ .. F.---54 ..,.''.. ,.„. 4 rf 'il a .........., rN .. 2 -i4•12i ABBREVIATIONS . g FE- kq gi I r 6-5' City Council g 3 Public Hearing g 8 8 5-, 1- 3 t! Attachment to • • Agenda Item #4-N 06-05-07 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 9387, TMO6 -0003, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING UP TO EIGHT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN ONE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1000 ATLANTIC AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on August 28, 2006, requesting • approval of Tentative Map 9387, to permit the conversion of approximately 0 40,745 square feet of office, light industrial, and manufacturing space with • associated parking and landscaped areas on an approximately 3.085 acre p arcel from a single ownership to up to eight f ee simple ownerships; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Map was accepted as complete on March 19, 2007; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a M -X, Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on April 23, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board unanimously approved a resolution recommending City Council approval of the proposed maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this application on June 5, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Sec. 30 -78.5, the City Council finds: 1. That the Proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The existing business park is consistent with the General Plan designation of Business Park on the General Plan Diagram and the M -X, mixed use Planned Development Zoning District in which the property is located. The proposal will not change the existing business park use. 2. That the proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan and zoning. No changes to the physical environment are proposed. 3. That the site is physically suitable for this type of development. The business park use has existed since the 1980s with the existing building constructed in 1987. No change to the use is proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of Resolution #4 -N CC 06 -05 -07 development. No change to the existing density is proposed. 5. That the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No change to the existing use and no physical changes are proposed. 6. That the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the Y public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. All existing easements are required to be retained. 7. That the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. No change to the existing business park use and no physical changes are proposed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council finds that the proposal to subdivide the parcel into eight separate lots will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (k) (Existing Facilities), which exempts the subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Tentative Map 9387, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City's consultant surveyor. 2. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Final Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor. 3. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to guarantee a mylar copy of the recorded Final Map. 4. Deeds, title report of property owner(s), adjoiner deeds and closure calculations shall be provided. 5. The applicant shall provide a mylar copy of the recorded final maps. 6. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. & R's) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Alameda. Copies of the recorded C.C. & R's and condominium plan shall be provided to the City Engineer. 7. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Tentative Map approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and g the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the developer shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 8. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all conditions of approval and accept this permit subject to conditions, with full awareness of applicable provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code for this Tentative Map to be exercised. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. 1, 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 ,, 2007, . by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said city this _day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriations Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007 -08; and Adopt a Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2007 -08 BACKGROUND Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, was approved by the California electorate in November 1979. The purpose of the constitutional provisions and the implementing legislation is to restrict growth of tax-funded programs and services by limiting the appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the fiscal year 1978 -79 base year limit, adjusted annually for changes in the population and inflation. Proceeds of taxes in excess of the limit, with limited exceptions, must be returned to the taxpayers within two years by refund or reduction in tax rates unless extension of the limit is approved by majority popular vote. Proceeds of taxes include (1) all tax revenues, (2) proceeds from licenses and user fees to the extent that such fees exceed costs of providing services, (3) interest earnings from investment of tax revenues, and (4) discretionary state subventions. All other revenues, i.e. federal funds, enterprise fund revenues, and user fees that do not exceed the cost of providing services are excluded from the limit. In June 1990, the voters approved Proposition 111, which allows for new adjustment formulas for the required appropriations limit that are more responsive to local growth issues. The proposition also requires review of the limit calculations by an independent auditor in conjunction with the annual financial report. The significant changes to the original Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and its implementing legislation (Chapter 1205/80) as modified by Proposition 111 and SB 88 (Chapter 60/90) are as follows: A. Beginning with the 1 990 -91 Appropriations Limit, the annual adjustment factors changed. Instead of using the lesser of the California Per Capita Income (CPI) or U.S. CPI to measure inflation, each city may choose: City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -A 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 1. Growth in the California Per Capita Personal Income or June 5, 2007 Page 2 2. Growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the city. B. Additionally, instead of using only the population growth of the city, each city may choose to use the population growth within its county. These changes in population and inflation are both annual elections. DISCUSSION The revised annual adjustment factors have been applied to calculate Alameda's fiscal year 2007 -08 Limit. Information detailing the adjustment factors is attached. The City's population posted a growth of 1.05% over the prior year, while the County posted a growth of 1.07 %. The Personal Per Capita Income percentage change over last year was 4.42 %. These factors (County population change and Personal Per Capita Income change) were used to compute the Appropriations Limit for 2007 -08. The Per Capita Personal Income change year -over -year is 4.42 percent as provided by the State Department of Finance. This factor and the County Population Change were selected as the incrementing factors for FY 2007 -08. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The City's estimated proceeds of taxes constitute approximately 68 percent of the adjusted appropriations limit. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2007 -08 in the amount of $78,285,105. Respectfully submitted, 4/4 elle -Ann : oyer Chief Financial Officer Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council By Annette Brisco Financial Analyst June 5, 2007 Page 3 J B:dl Attachments (3) Attachment 1: Adjustment factors for calculation of the City's Annual Appropriations Limit Attachment 2: Revenue sources and estimated proceeds from taxes for 2007 -08 Attachment 3: State Department of Finance January 1, 2007 Population Estimates for cities within Alameda County. CITY OF ALAMEDA ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS Fiscal Year Original Appropriations Limit Adjusted Appropriations Limit Population Increase Within City Population Increase Within County Per Capita Income Increase 1985 -86 1986 -87 1987 -88 1988 -89 1989 -90 1990 -91 1991 -92 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 $25,964,962 27,125,274 28,380,866 29, 843,020 31,960,066 33,658,624 36, 804,086 $27,125,274 28,442,612 30,217,535 32,361,149 34,182,194 36, 804, 086 37,307,224 39,111,414 39, 798, 751 42,206,554 44,553,109 47,445,167 50,476,545 53,501,816 56,734,946 62,254,356 62,244,474 64,287,304 66, 873, 978 70,884,290 74,177, 671 78,285,106 2.12% 1.12% 0.47% 1.81% 1.06% 3.39% 2.02% 2.06% 1.04% 0.14% 0.34% 1.74% - 1.32% 0.60% 0.12% 1.77% 1.25% 0.95% 0.48% 0.17% 0.28% 1.05% 2.26% 1.34% 1.51% 1.35% 1.36% 1.48% 1.58% 1.55% 0.97% 1.27% 0.85% 1.74% 2.15% 1.40% 1.08% 1.62% 1.62% 0.82% 0.72% 0.70% 0.66% 1.07% 2.30% 3.47% 4.66% 5.19% 4.21% 4.14% - 0.64% 2.72% 0.71% 4.72% 4.67% 4.67% 4.15% 4.53% 4.91% 7.82% -1.27% 2.31% 3.28% 5.26% 3.96% 4.42% Fiscal Year Adjusted Appropriations Limit Estimated Proceeds of Taxes Taxes as a Percentage of Limit 1986 -87 1987 -88 1988 -89 1989 -90 1990 -91 1991 -92 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995-96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 1999-00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 G:1F I NAN CE\Prop41P ROP4appli m it $27,1 25.274 28,442,612 30,275,280 32,422,989 34,247,514 36, 874, 417 37,307,224 39,111 ,414 39, 798, 751 42,206,554 44,553,109 47,445,167 50,476, 545 53,501,816 56,734,946 62,254,356 62,459,439 64, 509, 323 67,1 04.930 70,884,290 74,177,671 78,285,106 $19,150,006 21,171,824 22,237,185 23, 980, 762 26,248,017 28,129,049 29,585,533 29,674,315 29,692,284 31,586,117 32, 343,115 32,390,1 48 34, 936, 993 37, 799, 889 40,451,148 42,282,136 44, 457,196 42, 485, 083 40,953,416 46,681,034 50,477,217 53,203,359 70.60% 74.44% 73.45% 73.96% 76.64% 76.28% 79.30% 75.87% 74.61 % 74.84% 72.59% 68.27% 69.21% 70.65% 71.30% 67.92% 71.18% 65.86% 61.03% 65.86% 68.05% 67.96% City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -A 06-05-07 CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSITION 4 CALCULATION FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008 REVENUE SOURCES NON PROCEEDS PROCEEDS FROM TAXES FROM TAXES PROPERTY TAXES General $ 20,775, 885 "Triple Flip" Subsidy $ 1,554,781 $22,330,666 OTHER LOCAL TAXES Sales Tax 4,866,500 541,500 Property Transfer Tax 5,749,979 Utility Users Tax 8,422,485 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,036, 350 PG &E Franchise Fees 204,020 Garbage Franchise Fees 1,874,375 Cable Franchise Fees 636,126 Taxi Franchise Fees 2,500 Housing Authority In Lieu Fees 210,000 In Lieu Fees 1,654,578 Golf Surcharge 160,000 Construction Improvement Tax * 850,284 LICENSES & PERMITS Permit Tracking Fee 165,000 Communtiy Planning Fee 300,000 Business Licenses 1,644,753 Taxi Permits 1,000 Bicycle Licenses 300 Building Permits 1,700,000 Encroachment Permits Electrical Permits 170,000 Plumbing Permits 215,000 Concrete Permits Miscellaneous Permits (Police) 1,000 Fire Inspection Fees 170,000 USE OF PROPERTY Rents Concessions 112,027 FINES & FORFEITURES General 721 ,950 Traffic School Fees 70,000 26,208,697 4,367,053 112,027 791,950 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES State Highway Maintenance 44,200 State Mandate Reimbursement 223,000 Booking Fees Reimbursement 30,000 POST Reimbursements 135,000 County Reimbursemetns Motor Vehicles In Lieu 6,660,188 Park Fund Conributions 85,000 Other Donations 38,164 State Grant Public Services 1 10,160 County Measure B Abandoned Vehicle Surcharge 95,000 7,420,712 CURRENT SERVICES General 7,208,644 7,208,644 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER FUNDS Transfers In 10,841,975 10,841,975 As a percent of Total Allocation of Investment Income * Special Fund $ 52,031,002 $ 27,250,722 $79,281,724 65.63% 34.37% City Council Public Hearing $ 1,172,357 $ 614,010 $ 1,786,367 Attachment 2 to $ 53,203,359 $ 27,864,732 $81,068,091 Agenda Item #5 -A 05 -05 -07 0047 v A. 1111111 v III a DEPARTMENT OF c'4LrraR4' F I N A N C E ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR May 2007 Dear Fiscal Officer: Subject: Price and Population information Appropriations Limit 9 1 5 L STREET • SACRAMENTO -CA • 9551 4 -3705• • WWW.DDF.CA.GDV RECEIVED APR 3 0 2(107 BY THE CITY OF ALgMEDA FINANCE DEPARTMENT The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2227, mandates the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an. estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2007, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations i p ppropriations limit for fiscal year 2007 -08. Enclosure 1 provides the change in California's per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate p p g g ate the 2007 -08 appropriations limit. Enclosure 11 provides city and unincorporated county population percentage changes, and Enclosure -I IA provides county and incorporated areas population percentage changes. The I? o • u lation p percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations, as noted. Population Percent Change for Special Districts Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. Consult the Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2228 for further information regarding the appropriation limit. You can access the Code from the following website: " http:/ /www.leginfo.ca.gov /caiaw.html" check: "Revenue and Taxation Code" and enter 2228 for the search term to learn more about the various population change factors available to special districts to calculate their appropriations limit. Article x111 B, Section 9, of the State Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Consult the following website: " http: l /www.leginfo .ca.gov /.constl.article_l3B" for additional information. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this issue should be referred to their respective county for e agency reviews the local clarification, or to their legal representation, or to the law itself. No State y appropriations limits. Population Certification The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11 005.8 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller's Office. Finance will certify the hi g her estimate to . the State Controller by June 1, 2007. . g Please Note: City population estimates are controlled to independently calculated county population Yp p estimates. Due to county estimates revisions; prior year's city population estimates may have also been revised. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323 -4086. MICHAEL C. GENEST Director By: f3/141,,rw VINCENT P. BROWN Chief Deputy Director Enclosure City Council Public Hearing Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5 -A 06 -05 -D7 May 2007 Enclosure 1 A. Price Factor: Article XIII 13 specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost -of-- living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost -of- living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the 2007 -2008 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personal Income Fiscal Year (FY) Percentage change over prior year 2007 -2008 4.42 8. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2007 -2008 appropriation limit. 2007.2008: Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.42 percent Population Change = 1.20 percent Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: Population converted to a ratio: Calculation of factor for FY 2007 -2008: 4.42 +100 1.0442 100 1.20 +100 _ 1.0120 100 1.0442x1.0120= 1.0567 Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Enclosure 11 Annual. Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions ( *) January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007 and Total Population, January 1, 2007 Total County Percent Change - -- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2006 -2007 1-1-06 1-1-07 1 -1 -2007 Alameda Alameda 1.05 74,394 75,174 75,25 Albany 0.50 16,680 16,764 t6764 Berkeley . 0.92 105,382 106,347 106,347 Dublin 4.12 39,675 41,308 43,630 Emeryville 7.32 8,538 9,163 9,163 Fremont 0.72 210,150 211,662 211,662 Hayward 0.99 146,391 147,845 147,845 Livermore 1.72 81,442 82,845 82,845 Newark 0.48 43,486 43,693 43,693 Oakland 1.01 411,334 415,492 415,492 Piedmont 0.52 10,998 11,055 11,055 Pleasanton 1.30 67,873 68,755 68,755 San Leandro 0.49 81,071 81,466 81,466 Union City 1.61 71,151 72,297 72,297 Unincorporated 0.60 139,043 139,880 139,880 County Total 1.07 1,507,608 1,523,746 1,526,148 ( *) Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters' residents in state mental institutions, and state and federal correctional institutions. Page 1 NOTICE for Cities and Counties Please be advised that starting next year, the Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (DRU), will NOT mail the price and population data to city and county fiscal offices via the United States post office. Instead, these data will be emailed to local fiscal offices. It is therefore imperative that updated and viable email addresses be provided annually. You will be contacted each year to provide these updates, if the existing email being used has changed. The annual price and population data, required by law for cities and counties to calculate their appropriation's limit, are also available via these options: • The DRU web -page, at: http: / /www.dof.ca.gov /Research /Research.asp On this web -page, click on the option entitled "Price and Population Factors Used for the Appropriations Limit ". This will link you to our Budget Page, where, under "More Budget Options", the price and population data are provided under "Price and Population Factors used for the Appropriations Limit for ", where you select the year needed. The current budget year will be listed first, and will be updated EACH YEAR ON MAY l st. NOTE: To guarantee your jurisdiction has the latest price and population data, the Internet is the best option available. • You may also be able to obtain the price and population data from your county's fiscal office. • If your jurisdiction does not have access to the Internet, or does not have a viable email address, the Demographic Research Unit can be reached at 916-323 - 4086. Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Alameda is required to establish an "Appropriations Limit" for fiscal year 1997 -98; and WHEREAS, the Appropriations Limit has been determined in accordance with uniform guidelines for Article XIIIB of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, the voters approved Proposition 111 in June, 1990, which allows for new adjustment formulas for the appropriations limit calculation that is responsive to local growth issues. The adjustment factors used to arrive at the 2006 -07 limit are as follows: 1990 -91 County Population increase of 1.36 %; CPI of 4.21 % 1991 -92 City Population increase of 3.39 %; CPI 4.14% 1992 -93 City Population increase of 2.02%; CPI of - 0.64% 1993 -94 City Population increase of 2.06 %; CPI of 2.72% 1994 -95 City Population increase of 1.04 %; CPI of 0.71% 1995 -96 County Population increase of 1.27 %; CPI of 4.72% 1996 -97 County Population increase of 0.85%; CPI of 4.67% 1997 -98 City Population increase of 1.74%; Per Capita Personal Income 4.67% 1998 -99 County Population increase of 2.15 %; Per Capita Personal Income 4.15% 1999 -00 County Population increase of 1.40 %, Per Capita Personal Income 4.53% 2000 -01 County Population increase of 1.08 %, Per Capital Personal Income 4.91% 2001 -02 City Population increase of '1.77%, Per Capita Personal Income change of 7.82% 2002 -03 County Population increase of 1.62 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of --- 1.27% -A Resolution #5-A 2003 -04 City Population increase of 0.95%, Per Capita Personal Income change of 2.31 % 2004 -05 County Population increase of 0.72 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 3.28% 2005 -06 County Population increase of 0.70 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 5.26% 2006 -07 County Population increase of 0.66 %, Per Capital Personal Income change of 3.96% 2007 -08 County Population increase of 1.07 %, Per Capital Personal Income change of 4.42% NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby establishes the Appropriations Limit in the amount of $78,285,106 for fiscal year 2007 -08. 1, 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 , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees Via the Property Tax Bills BACKGROUND City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2655 added Section 5 -7.2, entitled "License a Debt," and enacted several amendments and additions to the business license provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. Specifically, the ordinance provided for the collection of delinquent business license fees and charges via the property tax bill. In order for this assessment to be valid, it must satisfy the basic requirements of due process. The owners must be given fair and adequate notice regarding the assessment and an opportunity for a hearing. DISCUSSION The Finance Department continually pursues collection of business license tax from owners and /or managers of commercial and multi - family residential rental properties with no current business license. Although the Business License Ordinance states that a notice or bill is not required, property owners are notified by mail using the last mailing address shown in the County tax records and are given approximately two months to respond prior to sending the final notices. This year, final notices were mailed on May 24, 2007. Included with the notice was contact information written in the six languages most commonly spoken within the City. There were 60 rental properties identified as not having current licenses as of March 15, 2007. In the interim, fees on 18 parcels have been paid; therefore, fees on 42 parcels remain unpaid. As in past years, payments will be accepted through June 30, 2007, the date of filing with the County Tax Collector. Those parcels for which licenses and fees are paid will not be placed on the tax roll. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Business license fees are due and payable on July 1 of each year and are deemed delinquent if not paid by July 31 of each year. Collection efforts ensued from August 2005 through April 2007. The total uncollected license fees are $7,'145. A ten percent penalty is imposed for every month the fee is up , delis uent u to a maximum of 60% of the annual fee. q The total late charge included in the amount due as shown in the attached list is $4,447. City Council Public Hearing Agenda item #5 -B 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Authorize collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. Respectfully submitted, elle -Ann . oyer Chief Financial Officer ?()ati,Ca- By: Laura Gwynne Supervising Accountant JB:dI Attachment Exhibit 1 — 2007 Business License Attachments 2007 Business License Attachments License Fee+ 0) .c 0 J 00 0 cv 00 (0 N 0 CO Cr) 00 00 co N a0 co 0 T CD N Cl T N 0 0 O 0 00 N Cacf) N- CO 0 r o° � I CR N Cr] 10 0 0 00 N 00 N 0) 00 d' N 0 C]D N 0 O Ctrl 00 Q 00) 00 Ctrl ✓ 1 00 Ctii a) 00 N N I' License Fee 0) ca i 0 0 Ca J 00 cci Q 00 00 v- 0 N r oQ m N 0 N Cli CO r- N ai 0 T d' 0 a) Amount Due 0 0 a co a 0 0 a0 0 0 iri 0 N Co 0 6 0 N 0 0 Lci 0 N 0 0 N c T co 0 O r 00 0 0 Ni o v- N T .r- 0 0 00 o0 v- a N N Encinal Ave Lcii CL 0 J 0 ca 0 J 0 T N Q 0 T T T T T n 0 0 0 a) 0 CO Lincoln Ave 0 Santa Clara Ave cm 10 O 00 a 0 N-- o N T T N O 00 v- 00 Cv 0 a; 0 00 00 00 0 a) 0 0 c0 CO 000 N t` T 0 0 N 00 N N d' op CO 0 00 6 T Cr) 0 C6 CO N 0 N r a) ('f) CO Od r T 0 T N T 0 0 N N- O CO CO CD N 0) co a Od N o 0 Q co 0 O N 0 (0 a) J 0 Y v- 00 oa N- 0Q C6 N N--- 0 N CV 0 N 0 0 Od v- 0 Q 00 T 00 6 a) 00 O 3D 0 OD r © o Od N CO Cti a) 0 0 co N- 0 0 N O Co 0 Q 0 CO 0 0 0 N r 0 0 Lci 0 r 0 0 a 3D 0 0 0 O T 0 0 a 0 ca 0 0 a 0 0 0 N r a 0 0 N 0 0 0 Cr] 0 0 0 co 0 0 a� a) r 0 0 N 0 Ctrl o 0 Q 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 I` co co 0 0 0 op Q 0 0 0 co a 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 a CO 43 Q o ct C • a3 0 0 a] co r 0 CI) Cr) 0 N N r CO co co T a) cv N--- co 0 co T 0 0 T V) Co 0 ct 11 Santa Clara Ave L co CL c z r N CCD r N In r 0 0 0 0 T IOwner's Name J 0 co o c L Q ± 0 0 (n E 0 i CU 071- 0245 -030 0 O Q i cv (0 r a a o J m 0 6 O 0 0) 0 0 1 0 i ti Q ti O T 0 (n E (1) cn 0 0 Ci 0 0 0 a) _c 0 0) 0 ct 06 C_ 0 0 0 0 0 ccii n L) s 0 U 6 m 0 074 -1 332 -020 071 - 0250 -019 072- 0299 -014 073 - 0405 -001 T co CO co N 0 CD (0 0 N 0 J J CKS CO 00 (70 0 DO 06 -) -) L CO L _(0 0 U o N ✓ a TO a a7 O co N Q T 0 0 N N CO CO CO CO CO 01 0 0 0 0 ca cn n 05 cn a3 E co a a) 12 0 0 .-. c 0 0 cn c 0 To 0 oo E co z 0 c > _ co 2 >, TD 0 0 0 072 - 0374 -026 -01 073 - 0383 -010 071- 0205 -014 d' CO II; II] r 0 co lc c 0 0 L 0 0 -0 LL 06 (0 co 0 0 N r- 0 1 T 00 0 0 0 CO CO CO 00 co IE a 0 0 0 -0 06 v) co 0) 0 0 VJ CE 0 0 2 al (0 W 6 0 co 0 0 2 Z a (1) co W 0) w as Q a Cr L) Santa Clara Ave _0) 2 a) Q CB 1... co 0 0 co c u) 0 CO T F N- u" N 0 0 ✓ 0 co N- O 0 T a) 0 2 U 0 0 2 U� CO N uj v E co 0 2 _c- u) ci co W 0 co co W 4- 0 L 2 co Q (0 0 LL Q 0 0 2 c c Q T. L u_ .0) 2 C9 0) L o a) 0 0 2 n (10 r 0 ra L a 0 0 _, 0 a Co C6 c s 1Y c 0 0 co 0 0 W L CL Sable Point ei5i -0 2. 0 in co 0 Webster St 55 L 4) 0 CI] 7 Q FE .co CL 0 00 T N cv CtI T Ln v- v- T O T .co co a c Q c 0) c o . > Y . co 1 a) ai 2 IT) L co 0 c co z 06 0 0 co 0 as 0 J 0 To co E 0 co Co 0 a c) co ci a 070 - 0181 -050 073 - 0390 -051 073 - 0410 -102 071- 0240 -010 073- 0388 -018 069 - 0085 -029 073-0388-018 074 -1350 -058 070 -0166 -024 070-0184-018 074 -1044 -090 CT) 0 1 N T 0 T1 0 ) 0 i N Q C7 cv op Co 0 0 C) 3D 00 1 c 0 0 T N co CO 0) 0 T N- N- 0 r N T v- T O T co T 0d a) r 0 N ■ CO 0) Cr) 0 0 0 6 T 0 0 v- T 0 CO CO N T 0 0 3D 0 T C.) 0 T T a) Q c0 co c D CO . CO r r T Fernside Blvd Fernside Blvd Central Ave Cr] CO N co CO CO N 3D co O E P .c 0 co 03 0 u) ) Q com J ET) 0) co 0 J ti T T 1.6 N T 1 N- a r 0 a 0 .L Co J oes co E L 0) 0 c J co c c co 0) .0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ca c a co 2 0 ._ co 2 L c c a 0 L 2 2 0 U L in c 0 0 0 15 2 I..L c LL r a 2 ..Q co N W 05 0 To L w (1) a) ct 073 - 0426 -029 071 -0279 -004 072 - 0377 -021 072- 0377 -005 069 - 0109 -156 069 - 0109 -156 074 -0443 -036 CO 0 CO CO 0 0 0 a) 0 co 0 v- T o oo Y- N N N N 0 N 0 N N CO N a) N 0 co T CO N 3D v- M 0 C Q 1 _ -- �--' LC) to c it a .0 if =' o 6 :E2 g 43 a Attach2007.xls 2 0 r N r ti v 0 N r el tfl 2007 Business License Attachments DO N 0 O 00 N 0 d- 0 CY7 0 0o 03 r 0 00 N 0 0 CO CO av O 0 00 0 co 0 0o 0 co 0 0 0 N- 0 M 0 0 0o O 0 a co 0 0 N 0 0 O 0 00 Sherman St s 0) W c0 0 2 ca r N CO Lc) L,(3 co O 0 0 L (7) 0 0 1- 0 r co 0 C0 072-0365-003 072 - 0301 -019 073- 0411 -009 V} 0 0 U To U r 0 0) 0 0 J Q 57 070 -0175 -033 co J oes 0 070 -0175 -033 071 -0233 -028 CO O O co a7 Cfl CO Li] O CO CQ Cr) C�J N 0Q CO O Attach2007.xls 5/31/2007 12:17 PM CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2007 -08 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08 BACKGROUND The Business Improvement Area (BIA) was established in 1989. Fees, based on sales volume, are collected within two Benefits Areas, "A" and "B," with "A" businesses paying slightly higher rates because of their proximity to the retail core. While the basic rate structure for retail and service business in both Benefit Areas has remained the same since inception, some fees do increase annually based on rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco area. CPI increased fees include: 1) the flat fee assessed non - retail; 2) the fee paid by financial institutions; and 3) the maximum charge in all categories. The City's Finance Department projects no significant BIA revenue increase this coming fiscal year after applying the CPI increase of 2.6 percent. On May 15, 2007, City Council received information on the proposed FY 2007 -08 Business Improvement Area (BIA) assessments and activities (Attachments A, B, and C) and adopted a Resolution of Intention (Attachment D) to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area for FY 2007 -08. DISCUSSION The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) included affected parties in the process of adopting the proposed activities and budget by holding meetings, which were announced through business association invitations, newsletters and /or personal contact. These efforts led to the approval of the PSBA and WABA BIA budgets by the members in attendance at these meetings. Notice of the Public Hearing was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation seven days prior to the hearing. The public hearing will give affected parties a final opportunity to comment on the proposed assessment. During or following the public hearing, Council may order changes in the report, including changes in the proposed activities, City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 3 boundaries or benefit areas. After the hearing, the Council may adopt the Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed. Adoption of the Resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for FY 2007 -08. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is an impact on the General Fund in the form of staff costs for the Finance Department to process BIA billing and track expenditures. Finance Department costs are included in the department's annual budget. BIA billing is done concurrently with business license billing. Revenues from the BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the promotion of business and similar eligible activities. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE A.M.C. Sec. 6-7 et seq. Also, the renewal of the BIA for another year supports both the goals of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Vision through continued operation of the two business associations. RECOMMENDATON Hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution confirming the Business improvement Area Report for FY 2007 -08 and levying an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08. Resp: ctfu d, Les le A. Little evelopment Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business elopment Division By: . -` us Economic Development Coordinator DK/LALIDES /SGR:ry Attachments: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council A) PSBA letter and report B) WABA report C) Assessments D) Resolution of Intention, adopted May 15, 2007 cc: Economic Development Commission Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association G:IBUSASSOC\BIA12007- 0812nd staff report - CONFIRM.doc June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 3 �1 1� . ■ EZi Business Associa April 17, 2007 Sue Russell Management Analyst Economic Development Division 950 West Mali Square, Room 215 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Russell: ion As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report and accompanying 2007/2008 budget for our Association. We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2007/2008. W e have provided a description of the activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget. This ro osed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted P p this week and will be confirmed at the May 30, 2007 meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we anticipate 07/08 BIA revenue of $84,000 and a carryover of $16,000 resulting from reduced worker's comp costs, less than anticipated staff benefit costs, and cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 07/08 BIA budget to $100,000. We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material. Sincerely, Lars Hansson President Park Street Business Association 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302 Alameda, CA 94501 A California Main Street Program City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -C 06 -05 -67 (510) 523 -1392 FAX (510) 523 -2372 PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 INTRODUCTION: The Park Street Business Association (PSBR) is recommending a BIA budget of $100,000 for the Park Street Business District for fiscal year 2007/2008. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 06/07 as well as a carryover from the 06/07 budget. The formulas, budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of-Director and committee meetings between December, 2006, and April, 2007. BUDGET: The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line with the California Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities. BOUNDARIES: We are not proposing any changes this year. ACTIVITIES: Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2007/2008. These activities are designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District. Several projects are continuations from the 2006/2007 fiscal year. PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2007/08 Membership Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Conduct Meetings a. Mixers b. Special Election Meeting (October) c. Informational Meetings at half of the meetings d. Holiday Party Awards a. Continue current awards program (recognizing PSBA members and city staff) 3. Welcome New Members a. Update New Member Packet b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members c. Greet new members to the District with packets as they move into their business 4. Newsletter a. Continue mailing newsletter every month b. Update mailing list 2007/08 Design Committee Work Plan Outline 1 Design Guidelines a. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria b. Write Guidelines c. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval d. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council Streetscape Phase II a. Work with City staff to plan Phase II b. Implement Phase II in the summer of 2007 3. Sign ordinance a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement 4 News Rack Ordinance a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement 5. Promote Facade Grant Program a. Newsletter articles b. Outreach by Committee PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2007/08 Econ -Revi Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Assist with Business Recruitment a. Identify empty storefronts b. Work with City Staff and contract staff to promote the District as a positive business destination 2 Ordinances a. Vacant Buildings -- begin discussions with City Staff to beef up ordinance b. Parking overlay to exempt developers in the District from in lieu parking fees. 3. Maintenance Continue current level of service -- 7 days a week 2007/08 Promotions Committee Work Plan Outline 1 Continue Special Events a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend) b. Art & Wine Faire (last weekend of July) c. Classic Car Show (2 "d Saturday in October) 2 Promotions a. Shopping Guide produced once a year b. Continue to upgrade and update our Web Site 3. Print Advertising a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages b. Continue Holiday campaign c. Continue Alameda/Oakland Magazines campaign d. Continue Book of Savings Campaign begun in January of 2007 4 Cable Advertising a. Continue ads for special events b. Continue ads for Holiday Program 5 Holiday Promotions a. Cable ads two weeks prior to Christmas b. Free parking all weekends after Thanksgiving c. Continue print ads in Chronicle, Journal, Sun, Alameda and Oakland Magazines METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget: See Exhibit A CONCLUSION PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District. Exhibit A Park Street Business Association 2007/2008 BIA Budget Submission INCOME: BIA Projection Accumulated Carryover Total Income: EXPENSES: S84,000 $12 000 $96,000 Personnel Services Staff Benefits S28,000 Staff Salary $6,500 Worker's Comp $12,400 Payroll Taxes $15,300 Sub Total $62,200 Membership Services Meetings /Training $2,500 Printing $500 Holiday Decorations $1,400 Postage $2,800 Sub Total $7,200 Indirect /Overhead Accounting /Audit $ 8,000 Rent $12,000 Utilities $1,600 Insurance $ 5 000 Sub Total $26,600 Total Expenses $96,000 WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -5955 west_alameda @yahoo.com www.WestAlamedaBusiness.com PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008 INTRODUCTION The West Alameda the Webster Street proposed activities Improvement Area April 18, 2007. Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for Business District for fiscal year (FY) 2007 -2008. The formulas, budgets and are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The Business (BIA) Budget was presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting PROPOSED CHANGES WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area. ACTIVITIES of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2007 -2008. These activities The following is a summary o p p Board and committee meetings. WABA' s mission is to use these have been discussed at various Webster Street's to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve activities t �' generate character. We seek to enerate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote ' and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda. members' businesses a P g The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 11 is estimated that there will be no carry forward from the 2006 -2007 budget. The estimated BIA revenue for 2007 -2008 is $32,000. The following are activities proposed for 2007 -2008. Several projects are continuations from previous fiscal years. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 2 to Agenda item #5 -C 06 -05 -07 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING • Facilitate development of high- potential properties • Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses • Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects • Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity • Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda • Work with the City and others to implement the Strategic Economic Development Plan, including parking plan, catalyst project and business attraction strategies • Continue business retention activities DESIGN • Identify projects for facade improvements • Develop beautification program • Continue helping members with the Storefront Assistance Program • Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects • Work with City to implement recent changes to sign ordinance • Finish implementing the newsrack district • Fulfill public art requirements • Work with the City in accomplishing Phase 11 of the Webster Renaissance Project SPECIAL EVENTS • Participate in July 4th events • Produce advertising for the Association and businesses • Produce year -round Farmers' Market • Produce Thursday night Farmers' Market during summer months • Produce Concerts at the Cove • Produce Webster Street Wine and Dine Nights • Produce annual Halloween event • Produce 5th annual Peanut Butter Jam • Produce holiday bazaar and visit from Santa PUBLIC RELATIONS • Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda • Maintain contacts with key media representatives • Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses 2 • Continue implementing strategic marketing plan, including branding strategy, website, weekly columns and calendar of events, cooperative advertising program and business attraction strategy ORGANIZATION • Manage the administrative activities of the organization • Expand community and business participation with WABA • Develop and, implement a fundraising plan, including Community Benefit District • Organize and host business and community events for members • Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff • Produce and distribute WABA newsletter • Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents • Distribute information door -to -door • Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in W AB A' s activities • Implement enhanced volunteer program, including recruitment, volunteer appreciation activities and training • Continue implementing enhanced maintenance program, including clean -up events, keeping up appearances awards and collaboration with City maintenance staff to resolve issues such as illegal dumping , littering and public health hazards METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget, see Exhibit A Assessment, see Attachment C CONCLUSION WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services, Public Works, Planning and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. Please visit the WABA website, www.westalamedabusiness.com, to see the many ways WABA promotes the West End. The BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business district. 3 Exhibit A West Alameda Business Association BIA Budget 07 -08 INCOME BIA Projection 32,000 Accumulated Carryover 0 Total Income 32,000 EXPENSES PERSONNEL SERVICES 0 MEMBERSHIP SERVICES _Supplies Printing 1,500 4,000 Postage 1,000 Newsletter /website /marketing Committees 9,000 1,000 Subtotal 1 6,500 INDIRECT /OVERHEAD Accounting /Audit 3,000 Utilities 5,000 Insurance 7,000 Contingency 500 Subtotal 15,500 GRAND TOTAL 32,000 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON- RETAIL FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08 Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients and/or do not operate retail stores. Accountant Advertising Ambulance Answering service Architect Attorney Building maintenance Business services Construction Consultants Contractors Counselor Credit Unions with restricted membership Decorator Electrician Employment Engineer Gardener Graphic arts Handyman HealthlMedical professions Importers Insurance Landscape Mail order Manufacturer Manufacturer's /sales reps Mortuary Newspaper publishing Nursing facility Painters Pest control Plumber Property management Real estate School /Instruction Security Stockbrokers Tax consultants Travel Veterinary Wholesalers Misc. professional /office BIAO7 -08. doc 1 AREA A = $ 123.00 AREA B = $ 80.00 PRO -RATED FEES A B $123.00 $ 80.00 JULY 123.00 80.00 AUG 112.00 74.00 SEPT 102.00 67.00 OCT 92.00 60.00 NOV 82.00 54.00 DEC 72.00 47.00 JAN 61.00 40.00 FEB 51.00 34.00 MAR 41.00 27.00 APR 31.00 25.00 MAY 25.00 25.00 JUNE 25.00 25.00 City Come!! Public Hearing Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5 -C 06 -05 -07 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service. Alarm and fire extinguisher service Appliance service Athletic/Health Club Auto glass Auto upholstery Auto wash/parking Auto repair Barber Beauty Cleaners Electronics service Furniture repair Hotel /motel Keys/Locksmith Laundromat/laundry Marine service Pet services Photography studio Printing Shoe service Storage Tailor Tattoo Upholstery BIAO7 -08. doc 2 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 123.00 MAXIMUM = $1,625.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 80.00 MAXIMUM = $798.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $123.00 $80.00 123.00 80.00 112.00 74.00 1 02.00 67.00 92.00 60.00 82.00 54.00 72.00 47.00 61.00 40.00 51.00 34.00 41.00 27.00 31.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product. Alcoholic Amusement Antiques Appliances sales Art Auto dealer Auto stereo Auto supply Bakery Bar Bicycles Books Clothing Coin Computer sales Drug /variety Electronics sales Fishing Floor coverings Florist Food Furnishings Furniture Gasoline stations Gift Hardware Hobby Jewelry Magazines /newspaper sales Marine sales Market Medical supplies Music Nursery Office supplies /equipment Optical supplies Pet supply Product rentals Restaurant Shoe sales Sporting goods Thrift /used merchandise Theater /club BIAO7 -08. doc 3 AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 244.00 MAXIMUM = $1,625.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 123.00 MAXIMUM = $ 816.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $ 244.00 $123.00 JULY 244.00 AUG 224.00 SEPT 204.00 OCT 183.00 Nov 163.00 DEC 143.00 JAN 122.00 FEB 102.00 MAR 81.00 APR 61.00 MAY 41.00 JUNE 25.00 123.00 1 12.00 102.00 92.00 92.00 72.00 61.00 51.00 41.00 31.00 25.00 25.00 Video Other retail goods ALANIEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/UTILITIES FISCAL YEAR 2007 -08 Banks Savings and Loans Credit Unions operating to the general public Utilities BIA07 -08. doc 4 AREAA &B= $816.00 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N01.40 93 INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2007 -08 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 5, 2007 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article 11 of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter "Area "); and WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit A and C, respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City ") and the Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association (hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area (hereinafter "BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2006 -07 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2007 -08. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2007 -08; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or change in boundary for June 5, 2007, at which time written or oral protests maybe made; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not Tess than seven days before the public hearing. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #5 -C 06 -05 -07 • v. •■••. EXHIBIT A: Park Street geographic zone R•1 • • • Lill 1! ' : S • it 1 :1 • • .1 II: • • , 3-13 at, ....• * q. • .a. 7.,Azig , ... inile FiNg-i--P I :--: 4.4.--.-.. • I • - u .... aii, IL, ''''''. ..... • : • . a ;"... ,../iii waxy Ltitilil . MIR! hiC 1•141111 LIN OM - 2.-:73 . lititit4"4fti Illir,i9141 - initlitztt,, '14,k LT -111111 p- a-eaiTii rimmitaiumm 1 ritimenummtA 4.-542D PARK STREET COMMERCIAL IdTsk A: Benefit Area A B: Benefit Area B C ..1 EXHIBIT B: Webster Street geographic zone • ;, • 1-4,4.tal 4P 11,4111.101 Fl.s4 • RIM I at: *0,1/1111111/1111 i 4 11111111111111111111 11111111114 -11 111, r-4:1 :I'll Il• -,177 . II Mil- I/1 fini-11—tt...1-**1‘12:;7311111$ 1 it. L':1121111 Affi 86.• ••A k ir• 'FT lea3SIER. STREET COMMERCIAL A: _ • Benefit Area. A B: Benefit Area B AREA • • EXHIBIT C LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area: Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 oddleven Park St. Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St. Buena Vista Ave. 616-750 oddleven Webster St. Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. 2501, 2521 Park St. Eagle Ave. 633 -707 oddleven Webster St. Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 oddleven Park St. Everett St. 1400-1519 odd/even Park St. Haight St. Lincoln Ave. 629-728 odd/even Webster St. 627 -726 oddleven 2267 -2499 odd/even Webster St. Park St. Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St. Pacific Ave. 626 -730 oddleven Webster St. Park Ave. 1300-1399 odd only Park St. 1400 -1499 oddleven Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St. odd/even San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 oddleven Park St. Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2599 oddleven Park St. Taylor Ave. 634 -725 oddleven Webster St. Times pry. 2300 -2399 oddleven Park St. Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 oddleven Park St. Page l of 2 H :I CHERYLI RESOIRESOLUTIONSO710515071EXHIB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004-05 Webster St. 1345 -1999 oddleven Webster St. Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone only Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St. oddleven, 1600 -1999 Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 oddleven Park St. Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 oddleven Park St. Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St. Page 2 of 2 H:I CHERYLIRESO IRESOLUTIONS0710515071E>HIB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004-05 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the duly foregoing Resolution was du1 and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda durin g Regular Re ular Meeting of the City Council on the 15 to day of May 2007, by the followin g vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 16th day of May, 2007. (,(A/Na Lara Weisiger, City C City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CONFIRMING THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA REPORT FOR FY 2007 -08 AND LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2007 -08 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article 11 of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter Area); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda desires to continue said Area in FY 2007 -08 for the purpose set forth in Section 6 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a report has been filed with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2006 -07 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2007 -08; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting of May 16, 2007 adopted a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08 and to set a public hearing for such action; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing regarding each action was held by the City Council on June 5, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the BIA report for FY 2007 -08 with any modifications as directed by the Council following closure of the Public Hearing, is hereby confirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that an assessment for the Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2007 -08 is hereby levied. Resolution #5 -C 06 -05 -07 1, 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 , 2007, 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 , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing on the Proposed Fare Increase for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One -Year Extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, Adopt Associated Budgets, and Approve the Proposed Fare Increases for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service BACKGROUND On August 1, 2004, the City of Alameda and the Blue & Gold Fleet (the Parties) entered into an Agreement for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS). The Agreement is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract wherein the operator receives a fixed management fee, while operational costs are passed through to the City of Alameda and paid in advance on a monthly basis. The Parties have amended the Agreement several times to extend the term, revise insurance provisions, set Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF) management fees, fix labor and maintenance rates, and cap expenses. The Parties now want to amend the Agreement to extend the contract for one year, beginning July 1, 2007. DISCUSSION Under the proposed amendment, service levels and schedules will not change; however, a fare increase, discussed later in this report, is required. A copy of the B &GF agreement and the fare increase study is on file in the City Clerk's office. The principal Amendment terms are: • Term: One year, beginning July 1, 2007, with up to one additional one - year extension. The multi -year operating agreement expires on June 30, 2009. • Budget: The AOFS fiscal year 2007/2008 operations budget totals $3,888,174, compared to budgeted expenses for fiscal year 2006/2007 of $3,843,142. The budget is based on the assumption that the City Council and the California Public Utilities Commission will approve a recommended City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -D 06.05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 fare increase and that the cost of diesel fuel will average $2.70 per gallon less. AOFS expenses are detailed in Table 1, which is attached. • Revenue: Public funding totals $3,888,174 and is provided from Regional Measure 1, Measure B, the Port of Oakland, and passenger fares (see Table 2). The projected farebox revenue of $1,944,315 assumes City Council and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval of the recommended fare increase and 410,200 tickets sold at an average cost of $4.74 each. • Expenses: Major expense items are operator fees, fuel, and City costs. ❑ Operator Fees: B&GF will receive fixed management and administration overhead fees of $212,483, compared to $207,301 in fiscal year 2006/2007. In addition, there is a performance incentive based on customer satisfaction survey results and on -time performance. The available 12 -month performance based incentive will be $82,632, compared to $80,616 in fiscal year 2006/2007. Total operator fees (overhead, management, and performance based) will be $295,115, compared to $287,917 for the same period the prior year. This increase reflects increases in B&GF's operating expenses, including Pier 39 rent, and insurance. ❑ Fuel: Fuel is budgeted at $810,000 for 300,000 gallons at $2.70 per gallon. This compares with the budgeted $852,500 for 300,000 gallons in fiscal year 2006/2007 (at $2.84 per gallon). ❑ City Costs: City expenses are expected to be $765,047, compared to the $675,556 budgeted for fiscal year 2006/2007 (see Table 3). City costs include $110,000 for marketing, $263,647 for operating contingency, and $115,000 for vessel and dock Long Term Maintenance Reserves (LTMR). Both the City's ferry services have LTMR accounts which are used by the City to accumulate funds over time for use on major vessel maintenance projects such as equipment overhaul, replacement, or dry- docking. ❑ Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR): The FRR is a measure of the percent of operating costs offset by revenue from ticket sales. FRR is calculated by dividing revenue from ticket sales by operating costs. If the fare increase recommended below is adopted, then the AOFS FRR is projected to be 51.5% (see Table 4). Fare Increase: The AOFS budget for the current fiscal year includes the following one- time revenues that will not be available for next year: $160,000 paid by Nichols Brother Boat Builders for warranty - related compensation and approximately $171,000 in Measure B reserves. The upcoming fiscal year budget anticipates increased operating Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 costs associated with fuel, labor, and Port of San Francisco landing fees, as well as capital costs associated with vessel haul outs (Peralta and Encinal), engine replacement (Peralta), and the Main Street dock replacement. Staff proposes to address this shortfall through cost reductions, increased ridership, and a recommended fare increase (see Table 5). The last AOFS fare increase was a $0.25 each way fuel surcharge approved by the City Council in July 2004. As B &GF is a vessel common carrier, the rate increase must also be approved by the CPUC. If approved by both the City Council and the CPUC, the fare increases could generate an additional $180,000 over a 12 -month period. Proposed fare changes are: • Single One-Way Tickets — Adult, junior, and active military fares will increase by $0.50. Senior, disabled, and school group fares will increase by $0.25. • Discount Ticket Books — The 10 -, 20-, and 40- ticket books will increase by $0.25 per ticket. • AT &T Park/Giants Service One-Way Tickets — Adult, junior, senior, disabled, and military personnel fares will be increased by $'1.50 each way. This would off set the anticipated increase in landing fees charged by the Port of San Francisco for China Basin and bring the adult fare in line with that charged by Golden Gate Ferry. Discount ticket books will not be accepted on this service. • Angel Island State Park Round -Trip Tickets - Adult, junior, senior, disabled, and child fares will be increased by $0.50. These fares include State Park admission fees. Public Outreach: To inform the riders of the proposed fare increase and elicit feedback, City staff held an informational meeting, sent two notices via e-mail to the AOFS rider list, posted a notice on the AOFS web site, prepared a press release, and rode the ferry during the commute on two days to discuss the proposal with riders. Overall rider response to the proposed increase was mixed. While some riders opposed the increase, other riders recognized that while fares had not increased since 2004, many operating costs had, and they understood the need for the fare increase. AOFS Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital Projects: In addition to operations, there will be four AOFS capital projects. These projects, which total approximately $1,547,807, are: Bay Breeze haul out ($220,800) and engine replacement ($798,700), Encinal generator replacement ($57,307), and Main Street ferry terminal dock replacement ($471 ,000). These projects are funded through Measure B, Carl Moyer Program grants, Regional Measure 1-2 %, and the Tidelands Trust Fund program (see Table 6). Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT June 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 The AOFS is budgeted under CI P# 621.20. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with AOFS operations. Total fiscal year 2007/2008 revenue for both the Alameda /Oakland and Alameda Harbor Bay ferries is provided in Table 7. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.f.. RECOMMENDATION Approve proposed fare increase for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, authorize the City Manager to execute a one -year extension of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service. Respep . il Iy s . mitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director e-jyac,io By: Ernest Sanchez' Ferry Manager 41c--- MTN:ES:gc Attachments: Table 1 — AOFS Budgeted Expenses Table 2 — AOFS Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue Table 3 — AOFS City Expenses Table 4 — AOFS Farebox Recovery Ratio Table 5 — AOFS Fares Table 5 — AOFS Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital Projects' Table 7 - City Ferry Services Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry) Table 1 - AOFS Budgeted Expenses EXPENSES Budget FY 2007/08 Budget FY 2006/07 Actual 2006 Vessel Expenses: Wages $1,366,277 $1,326,483 $1,325,979 Maintenance: Pier 9 $150,000 $170,000 $168,778 Outside contractors $150,000 $170,000 $158,380 Fuel (1) $810,000 $852,500 $682,298 Insurance $204,735 $204,735 $188,000 Rental of Carrier boats $10,000 $10,000 $2,269 Other(2) $o -$0 $0 Total Vessel $2,691,012 $2,733,718 $2,525,704 Non Vessel Expenses: _ Contract services(2) $5,000 $3,167 $4,832 Professional fees /legal(2) $4,500 $12,668 $3,980 Customer Service(2) $35,000 $36,788 $34,596 Taxes/ licenses(2) $12,500 $15,202 $12,530 Insurance (facilities) 0 0 $0 Port SF/ Pier 39 fees(2) $80,000 $78,126 $78,126 Subtotal Non Vessel $137,000 $145,951 $134,064 Operator Fees: Admin /Overhead fees(2) $49,092 $47,895 $47,426 Management(2) $163,391 $159,406 $157,843 Performance Base: Fee 2 : On Time Performance $41,316 $40,308 $39,913 Customer Satisfaction $41,316 $40,308 $39,913 Subtotal fees ._ $295,115 $287,917 _ $285,095 Subtotal /Operator expenses $3,123,127 $3,167,586 $2,944,863 City cost $765,047 $675,556 $647,969 Total (City + Operator) $3,888,174 $3,843,142 $3,592,832 REVENUE $3,888,174 $3,843,142 $3,592,832 ssumes 300,000 gals at $2.70 /gal. Includes lube oil. (2) The City's cost for a "capped" line item cannot exceed budgeted amount. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06 -05 -07 Table 2 — AOFS Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue REVENUE /operating TOTAL Farebox (1)(2) $1,944,315 MTC RM1 -5% $1,171,022 Measure B: '07/08 revenue $693,678 Reserves /carry over $0 Subtotal /MB $693,678 Port of Oakland $79,159 Total $3,888,174 (1) AOFS: Approximately 410,200 tickets @ $4.74 each. (2) Assumes AOFS fare increase implementation in Sept. '07. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06 -05 -07 Table 3 - AOFS City Expenses Item Budget FY 2007/08 Budget FY 2006/07 Actual 2006 Operations: Docking fees: Ferry Building $54,000 $36,000 $34,947 AT &T Park (Giants) $6,400 $900 $1,340 MUNI $14,000 $11,075 $12,147 Marketing $110,000 $96,692 $93,334 Administration: City Admin(1) $89,700 $89,700 $89,700 MTC SRTP(2) $2,600 so $2,591 Audit $4,000 $2,000 $4,000 Office supplies $2,700 $2,658 $2,700 Surveys $15,000 $8,000 $11,241 Subtotal $298,400 $247,025 $252,000 Reserves: Long Term Maintenance Reserve: Encinal $50,000 $30,200 ' $30,200 Peralta $50,000 $52,010 $52,010 Dock (Main Street) $15,000 $0 $0 Operations Contingency $263,647 $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal reserves $378,647 $332,210 $332,210 Main Street terminal: Facility Security Officer (Main Street) $0 so $0 Utilities (Main Street) $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Main St Maintenance $30,000 $15,321 $9,836 Main Street Patrol Guard $55,000 $78,000 $50,923 Subtotal Main Street $88,000 $90,836 $63,759 Total $765,047 $675,556 $647,969 3/4 of a $92, 000 /yr staff position (2) Short Range Transit Plan City Council Public Hearing Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06 -05 -07 Table 4 — AOFS Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) Total expenses $3,888,174 Less Long Term Maintenance Reserve Accounts $115,000 Subtotal operations $3,773,174 Farebox revenue $1,944,315 Farebox Recovery Ratio 51.53% City Council Public Hearing Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #5 -D D5 -05 -07 Table 5 - AOFS Fares TYPE Current One -Way Fares Proposed One -Way Fares Change $0.50 Adult $5.50 $6.00 Junior (5 -12) $2.75 $3.25 $0.50 Child (under 5) FREE FREE $0.00 Seniors (65, +)/ Disabled $3.25 $3.50 $0.25 Active Military $4.25 $4.75 $0.50 School groups $1.75 $2.00 $0.25 Short Hop (1) $1.50 $1.50 $0.00 AT&T /Giants: Adult $5.50 $7.00 $1.50 Junior (5 -12) $2.75 $4.25 $1.50 Child (under 5) FREE FREE $0.00 Seniors (65, +)/ Disabled $3.25 $4.75 $1.50 Active Military $4.25 $5.75 $1.50 Angel Island (2): Round -Trip Fares Round -Trip Fares Adult $13.50 $14.00 $0.50 Seniors, Disabled & Junior (13 -18 yrs) $10.50 $11.00 $0.50 Child (5 -13 yrs) $8.00 $8.50 $0.50 Under 5 FREE FREE $0.00 Discount Books: Book Cost Book Cost 10- Ticket $45.00 $47.50 $2.50 20- Ticket $80.00 $85.00 $5.00 40- Ticket $150.00 $160.00 $10.00 1 } Travel between Alameda, Oakland and between San Francisco Ferry Building and Pier 4 (2) Includes park admission. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 5 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06-05-07 Table 6 — AOFS Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Capital Projects Project Measure B Carl Moyer RM 1-2% Tideland Trust Fund Total Peralta: Haul out $49,081 $0 $171,719 $0 $220,800 Re -Power $2,841 $478,609 $317,250 $0 $798,700 Subtotal /Peralta _ $1,019,500 Encinal: + Generator $0 $57,307 $0 $0 $57,307 Subtotal / Encinal $57,307 Main Street Dock Replacement (1) $0 $0 $153,373 $317,627 $471,000 Total $51,922 $535,916 $642,342 $317,627 $1,547,807 1) Project begun in '06/07. FY '06 -07 expenditures totaled $187,990: $176,617 in RM 1 -2% and $11,373 in Tidelands Trust Funds. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 6 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06-05-07 Table 7 — City Ferry Services Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue REVENUE /operating Total Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry AOFS Fa rebox (1)(2) $2,553,465 $609,150 $1,944,315 MTC RM1-5% $1,621,022 $450,000 $1,171,022 Measure B: '07108 revenue $838,078 $144,400 $693,678 Reserves /carry over $0 $0 $0 Subtotal /MB $838,078 $144,400 $693,678 Port of Oakland $79,159 $0 $79,159 Transportation Improvement Funds: Ferry operations $231,800 $231,800 $0 HB terminal $40,600 $40,600 $0 Capital projects $175,000 $175,000 $0 LLMD 84 -2 /terminal $78,253 $78,253 $0 Harbor Bay Business Park Association $106,000 $106,000 $0 Harbor Bay Isle Associates $0 $0 $0 Concessions $32,000 $32,000 $0 Charter $12,000 $12,000 $0 Total $5,767,377 $1,879,203 $3,888,174 (1) AOFS: Approximately 410,200 tickets a@ $4.74 each. (2) Assumes AOFS fare increase implementation in Sept. '07 City Council Public Hearing Attachment 7 to Agenda Item #5 -D 06 -05 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a One -Year Extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and Adopt Associated Budgets BACKGROUND In June 2004, the City and Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM) entered into the Sixth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (Agreement) for the East End Ferry Service. The Agreement is a multi -year, modified fixed subsidy contract, in which HBM receives a fixed subsidy, and the use of two City -owned boats while retaining farebox revenue. in June 2006, the City and HBM amended the Agreement to extend the contract for one year, commencing on July 1, 2006. The City and HBM now want to amend the Agreement (Third Amendment) to extend the contract for an additional year beginning July 1, 2007. If the City Council approves an extension of the contract through June 30, 2008, there will be one remaining year in the multi -year HBM operating agreement. DISCUSSION There are no proposed changes to service levels, schedules, or fares at this time. A copy of the Third Amendment to the Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's Office. The principal Amendment terms are: • Term: One year, beginning July 1, 2007, with up to one additional one -year extension. The HBM multi -year operating agreement expires on June 30, 2009. • Pro Forma Budget: Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) Fiscal Year 2007/2008 expenses, excluding charters, are expected to total $1 ,729,203, including operator commute only expenses of $879,175, and City contractual expenses of $850,028 (see Table 1). City contractual expenses include: $336,000 for fuel; $40,000 for fuel contingency; $40,000 for maintenance contingency; and $65,500 in Tong -term capital reserves (see Table .2). Capital Reserves are the "sink funds" accumulated over several years for major facility or vessel maintenance, overhauls, and refurbishments. Total public funding and projected farebox revenue are expected to be $1,729,203 (see Table 3). City council Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 • Fuel: Since July 1, 2006, fuel cost has been a pass-through expense paid by the City. HBM is not allowed any mark -up of fuel costs. The City has budgeted $336,000 for fuel, and has a fuel contingency of an additional $40,000 (see Table 2). • Vessel Maintenance Contingency: During the current fiscal year, HBM experienced higher than anticipated costs for on -going maintenance of the Bay Breeze. To ensure adequate funding for these unanticipated costs, staff proposes establishing a $40,000 vessel maintenance contingency as part of the operating budget. These funds would be held by the City and made available to HBM to offset actual vessel maintenance costs incurred in fiscal year 2007/2008 that exceed the regular maintenance budget. HBM has agreed to this funding level provided that all unspent funds, if any, from both the Fuel Reserve and Vessel Maintenance contingency funds will be transferred to the Long Term Maintenance Reserve fund. The City has previously established a similar contingency account for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS). • Long Term Maintenance Reserve (LTMR): The LTMR is an account used by the City to accumulate funds over time for use on major vessel maintenance projects such as equipment overhaul, replacement, or dry- docking. The annual funding for this reserve is proposed to be reestablished at $65,500 for fiscal year 2008, supplemented by any unspent funds from both the Fuel Reserve and Vessel Maintenance contingency allocation in the operating budget. There is also a proposed one -time allocation of Transportation Improvement Funds (TIF) of $347,500, which includes the capital improvements discussed below, and an allocation for the long -term maintenance reserves (see Table 4). The TIF is a special transportation fund established for the Harbor Bay Business Park (HBBP). • Subsidy: HBM will receive an operating subsidy. of $270,025 in 24 semi- monthly installments of $11,251 each (see Table 5). This is a decrease of $40,600 from the current year and is due to increased farebox revenue. • Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR): The FRR is a measure of the percent of operating costs offset by revenue from ticket sales. FRR is calculated by dividing revenue from ticket sales by operating costs. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has set attainment of a FRR of40% (or better) as a requirement for receiving Regional Measure 1 Operating and Capital grants. Under the proposed amendment, HBM will receive a total fiscal year 2007/2008 subsidy payment of $270,025. In addition, the City's non - capital AHBF costs will be $531,275. For FRR calculation purposes, total public funding for AHBF operations will be $801,300, which excludes the Tong -term reserve cost of Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 $65,500 as allowed by MTC. If the farebox revenue is $609,150, as projected, the FRR will be 43.19% (see Table 6). For fiscal year 2005/2006, AHBF achieved a FRR of 47.08 %, while for the first six months of fiscal year 2006/2007, the FRR was 44.79 %. • Marketing: The City continues to work with HBM on ferry promotions. In April and May, the City distributed a total of 40,000 AHBF coupons in San Leandro. The coupons offer a free complimentary ride to first -time riders. In June, the City will mail approximately 11,500 free ride post cards to homes on Bay Farm Island and in the Fernside district. In addition, both the AHBF and the AOFS participated in the Bike to Work Day promotion on May 17, 2007, and will join in the Spare the Air Free Transit promotion this summer. Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal - The Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal is owned by the City. It is managed and maintained by contract with AHBF. The budget for fiscal year 2007/2008 is $118,853 and includes $78,253 for maintenance, $10,100 for insurance, and $30,500 set aside for long -term maintenance reserves. Property owners in the HBBP contribute $78,253 through the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 84 -2, Zone 5. The remaining $40,600 is from the TI F. The TIF will also provide a one -time allocation of $91,500 to long -term maintenance reserves. AHBF Capital Projects /Fiscal Year 2007/2008 In addition to AHBF operations, there are two vessel capital projects that will be completed during the 2007/2008 year. These projects include the Bay Breeze haul out and water jet up -grade ($135,000), and the Express!! haul out ($40,000). These projects will be funded through TI F monies, as detailed in the attached TI F Capital Improvement Projects plan (see Table 7). BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted under CI P# 621.10,with public funds available for operations for fiscal year 2007/2008 of $866,800. The farebox revenue estimate of $609,150 assumes continuation of the existing $0.25 fuel surcharge and 131,000 tickets sold at an average cost of $4.65 each. The AHBF Pro Forma Budget is provided as Table 1. Total fiscal year 2007/2008 revenue for both the Alameda /Oakland and Alameda Harbor Bay ferries is provided in Table 8. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with AHBF operations. The project is supplemented by the T1 F, which is comprised of 50% of the tax increment realized on the property within the HBBP and an Improvement Tax collected as part of the building permit process. The TIF was established to finance mitigation measures designed to alleviate various transportation impacts due to the construction within the HBBP. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 proposed fund budget for the TIF (350) fund (see Table 4) includes the requested allocations as mentioned in this report. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.f. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to execute a one -year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt associated budgets. Respectfully submitted, `Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director fv\v2,4j- By: Ernest Sanchez c/o_ Ferry Manager MTN:ES:gc Attachments: 1. Table 1 - AHBF Operating Expenses 2. Table 2 - City Expenses 3. Table 3 - AHBF Revenues Fiscal Year 2007/2008 (Public and Private) 4. Table 4 - Transportation Improvement Fund (350) Budget 5. Table 5 - AHBF Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) 6. Table 6 - AHBF Operator Subsidy 7. Table 7 - Capital Project Detail 8. Table 8 - City Ferry Services Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry) Table 1 - AHBF Operating Expenses ITEM 1. Commute Service Vessel Expenses Fuel (1)(2) Labor: Wages, P/R taxes, Health, Pension (3) Insurance (Vessels) Vessel Maintenance Total Vessel Expenses Non Vessel Expenses SF Pier 48 rent Utilities, auto, legal, payroll processing Admin Salaries Ticket printing, web site, directory advertising Total Non Vessel Expenses Operator Fees: Overhead /Accounting Operator Contingency Total Commute Service Cost 11. Charter/ Concessions Vessel Expenses Fuel Labor Insurance Vessel Maintenance: Total Vessel Expenses _ Non Vessel Expenses Docking fees (Sacramento, SF) Utilities, auto, legal, payroll processing Admin Salaries Marketing Misc. (concessions, catering, ground transportation) Total Non Vessel Expenses Operator Fees: Overhead /Accounting Operator contingency /profit Total Charter /Concessions Cost III. City Contractual Expenses (Table 2) Total (Operator commute + charter + City) Total (Operator commute + City) FY 2007/2008 BUDGET $0 $494,000 $134,000 $96,000 $724,000 $12,000 $58,900 $48,000 $12,000 $130,900 $15,000 $9,275 $879,175 $1,700 $2,000 $0 $1,400 $5,100 $1,000 $1,200 $0 $1,000 $30,700 $33,900 $105,000 $6,000 $150,000 $850,028 $1,879,203 $1,729,203 FY 2006/2007 BUDGET $0 $479,000 $131,000 $83,000 $693,000 $12,000 $61,572 $92,000 $12,000 $177,572 $15,000 $9,253 $894,825 $18,000 $16,000 $2,000 $12,000 $48,000 $12,000 $6,000 $17,000 $16,000 $62,000 $113,000 $105,000 $6,000 $272,000 $617,619 $1,784,444 $1,512,444 (1) Including in City contractual expenses; fuel costs are paid on a pass - through basis. (2) In 2006, City and HBM split fuel payments, HBM paid $165,655, City paid $178,893. (3) Assumes a 3% increase City Council Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06-05-07 2006 ACTUAL $165,655 $477,832 $133,779 $111,760 $889,026 $11,340 $56,167 $87,562 $8,395 $163,464 $15,000 n.a $1 ,067,490 $14,829 $16,300 $o $12,325 $43,454 $1,638 $1,200 $0 $23,006 $55,462 $81,306 $105,000 $6,000 $235,760 $363,269 $1,660,518 $1 ,430,759 Table 2 - City Contractual Expenses ITEM Operations: Docking fees: Ferry Building (1) Fuel (120,000 gals @ $2.80 ea.) (2) HB Ferry Terminal Maintenance MUNI Marketing (excl charter) CityAdmin Facility Security Officer Office supplies /misc. admin /utilities Back Up boat Audit (Maze) Misc. Long Term Reserve Accounts: Vessels: HB Terminal Contingency: Capital Projects r Total Harbor Bay Express 11 Bay Breeze Subtotal reserves Vessel Maintenance Fuel contingency (2) Subtotal contingency FY 2007/2008 BUDGET $30,000 $10,100 $336,000 $78,253 $21,600 $20,000 $29,575 so $2,000 $o $2,000 $0 $10,000 $25,000 $30,500 $65,500 $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 $175,000 $850, 028 FY 2006/2007 BUDGET $23,000_ $9,500 $324,000 $61,444 $20,000 $25,000 $29, 575 $o $1,800 so $2,200 $0 $15,600 $35, 000 $30,500 $81,100 so $40,000 $40,000 so $617,619 (1) Assumes a 50% landing fee increase. (2) Since July 2006, City reimburses HBM for actual fuel cost on a pass - through basis. 2006 ACTUAL $19,870 $9,500 $178,893 $61,444 $20,531 $17,300 $29, 575 so $1,864 $o $1,936 so $16,300 $37,000 $30, 500 $83,800 so N/A so so $424,713 City Council Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5-D I. 06-05-07 Table 3 - AHBF Revenues Fiscal Year 2007/2008 (Public and Private) Source MTC RM1 -5% Measure B '07/08 revenue Transportation Improvement Fund: Operations HB terminal Capital projects Harbor Bay Business Park Association Concessions LLMD 84 -2 (1) Charter Farebox Subtotal Total Amount $450,000 $144,400 $231,800 $40,600 $175,000 $106,000 $32,000 $78,253 $12,000 $1,270,053 $609,150 $1,879,203 Less Charter & Concessions (1) Harbor Bay Terminal maintenance. $106,000 $32,000 $12,000 $150,000 Adjustments Net Public Funding $450,000 $144,400 $231,800 $40,600 $175,000 $78,253 $1,'120, 053 $609,150 $1,729,203 Total Public Funding (2) $450,000 $144,400 $o $231,800 $40,600 $175,000 $1,041,800 $609,150 $1 ,650,950 Public Funding for Operations $450,000 $144,400 $0 $231,800 $40,600 $866,800 $609,150 $1 ,475,950 City Council Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06 -05 -07 Table 4 — Transportation Improvement Fund (350) Revenue Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Beginning Balance 955,091 Property Tax increment 376,200 Improvement Tax 157,500 Investment Income Total Revenue 533,700 Expenses Maitland Drive Bike Path Reserve 1 10,000 East End Ferry Subsidy 231, 800 HB Ferry Vessel LT Maintenance (Reserve) & capital projects (1) _+ 282,695 HB Ferry Facility Maintenance Reserve 101,600 Reserve for Projects Identified in Settlement Agreement 605,695 Admin and Engineering 150,000 Port payments for ARP overruns (reserve) Total Expenditures 1,478, 585 Projected Ending Balance 7,001 (1) consists of $175,000 for proposed Capital Projects; a proposed reserve allocation for FYO8 of $50,600 and the remainder allocation as catch up for previous annual allocations approved by the City Council but not reflected in the TIF budget. City Council Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06-05-07 Table 5 — AHBF Operator Subsidy ITEM Operator expenses (1): Budgeted Actual/ projected Farebox revenue (1): Budgeted Actual/ projected Public subsidy /yearly Monthly subsidy payment (1) Commute Service Only FY 2007/2008 $879,175 N/A $609,150 N/A $270,025 $22,502 FY 2006/2007 $894, 825 $911,000 $584,200 $595,000 $310,625 $25,885 FY 2005/2006 $1,112,625 $1,190,553 $498,000 $575,928 $614,625 $51,219 City Council Attachment 5 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06 -05 -07 Table 6 — AHBF Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) ITEM AMOUNT LESS CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS and Local Subsidy (1) NET OPERATING COST Operator costs subsidized by public revenue $270,025 $0 $270,025 $531,275 City Expenses 771,775 $318,753 Total $1,041,800 $801,300 Farebox revenue $609,150 $609,150 Total operating cost subsidized by farebox and public funds. $1,650,950 $1,410,450 FRR (2) 43.19% (1) (2) Assumes expenditure of $80,000 maintenance and fuel contingency. FRR= fareboxloperations City Council Attachment 6 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06-05-07 Table 7 — TIF Capital Project Detail PROJECT TIF Bay Breeze Haul Out $75,000 Water Jet Upgrade $60,000 Express 11 Haul Out $40,000 Total /TIF Capital Projects $175,000 City Council Attachment 7 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06 -05 -07 Table 8 — City Ferry Services Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Revenue REVENUE /operating Total Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry AOFS Farebox (1)(2) $2,553,465 $609,150 $1,944,315 MTC RM 1 -5% $1,621,022 • $450,000 $1,171,022 Measure B: '07/08 revenue $838,078 $144,400 $693,678 Reserves /carry over $0 $0 $0 Subtotal /MB $838,078 $144,400 $693,678 Port of Oakland $79,159 - $0 $79,159 Transportation Improvement Funds: Ferry operations $231,800 $231,800 $p HB terminal $40,600 $40,600 $0~ Capital projects $175,000 $175,000 $0 LLMD 84 -2 /terminal $78,253 $78,253 $0 Harbor Bay Business Park Association $106,000 $106,000 $0 Harbor Bay Isle Associates $0 $0 $0 Concessions $32,000 $32,000 $0 Charter $12,000 $12,000 $0 Total $5,767,377 $1,879,203 $3,888,174 1 } AOFS: Approximately 410,200 tickets © $4.74 each. (2) Assumes AOFS fare increase implementation in Sept. '07 City Council Attachment 8 to Agenda Item #5 -D I. 06 -05 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to Extend the Term for One Additional Year at a Cost of $79,159 BACKGROUND On July 1, 2004, the City Council approved the Ferry Service Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland (the Parties), whereby the City provides, through its ferry operator, ferry service to and from Jack London Square for a set fee paid by the Port of Oakland (Port). In June 2005, the Parties entered into the Amended and Restated Ferry Service Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Port (Agreement). In June 2006, the Parties entered into the First Amendment to the Agreement extending the term of the agreement and setting the fee to be paid by the Port for ferry service. The Parties now want to enter into the Second Amendment to the Agreement (Second Amendment) to set the Port's cost for ferry service and extend the term for one year. DISCUSSION The principal terms of the Agreement are: • Term: The Agreement term is one year beginning July 1, 2007. • Fee: As consideration for the City's provision of ferry service through the ferry operator to and from Jack London Square, the Port will pay the City $79,'159 for fiscal year 2007/2008. This is a 5% decrease from the $83,325 provided by the Port for the last two years. The Port attributes the decrease to a fiscal year 2006/2007 and a fiscal year 2007/2008 revenue shortfall, and a consequent mandatory across - the -board 5% decrease in funding for Port projects. A copy of the Second Amendment to the Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's office. City Council Agenda Item #5 -D II. 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT This project is funded under CIP# 621.20. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service operations. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.f. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one additional year at a cost of $79,159. Respectfu Ilysubmitted, ( Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director f_en.(2_,-4- -aartkz_... By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager MTN:ES:gc cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry) u(Yfr CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into all Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year 2007/2008 BACKGROUND In November 1989, voters approved Regional Measure 1 (RM1) authorizing a toll increase of $1.00 for vehicles on all state -owned bridges in the Bay Area. Up to three percent of the revenues derived from the toll increase are made available for transportation projects that reduce congestion on these bridges. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approves projects and distributes RM1 Bridge Toll Funds. The RM1 funds are divided into north and south bridge groups, as well as operating funds and capital funds. Alameda Ferry Services are eligible for the southern bridge group operating and capital funds. On April 9, 2007, MTC issued a Call for Projects for fiscal year 2007/2008 with an application deadline of May 11, 2007. Staff submitted a draft application to meet the deadline with the understanding that the application would be modified based on the City Council's review and approval of the draft application on June 5, 2007. DISCUSSION Applications for Operating Funds: MTC estimates that the southern bridge group operating funds will be $1,691,022. Of this total, City staff estimates that $1 ,621 ,022 will be available for ferry operations. • Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) -- The City requests $1,171,022 in RM1 revenue. The AOFS operating budget is estimated at $3,888,174. Adoption of the final pro forma budget is a separate action item on the June 5, 2007, City Council agenda. Projected AOFS revenue consists of: City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #5 -D III. 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 • RM1 - $1,171,022 ■ Measure B - $693,678 • Port of Oakland - $79,159 ■ Farebox Revenue - $1,944,315 (assumes Council approval of proposed fare increase) • Alameda /Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) -- The City requests $450,000 in RM1 revenue. The AHBF operating budget is estimated at $1,475,950. Adoption of the final pro forma budget is a separate item on the June 5, 2007, City Council agenda. Projected revenue consists of: • RM1- $450,000 • Measure B - $144,400 • Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) - $272,400 • Farebox revenue - $609,150 Applications for Capital Projects: Southern bridge group funds available for capital projects are $642.,342. The City is submitting three capital projects for RM1 -2% funding. These are: • Peralta Main Engine Replacement - This project provides for the purchase and installation of two Tier 2 main engines for the Peralta. Tier 2 engines meet the current most stringent Environmental Protection Agency - established emission standards for marine engines of this size and class. This project is partially funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Carl Moyer Program (Carl Moyer). Work includes engineering, materials purchase, and installation. The total project cost is $798,700. Funding consists of: $317,250 from RM 1 -2 %, $2,841 from countywide Measure B half -cent sales tax, and $478,609 from Carl Moyer. • Peralta Dry -Dock and Accessibility Modification - This project provides for dry- docking and modification of the Peralta for improved accessibility for disabled customers. Work includes conversion of two starboard rest rooms to one wheelchair accessible restroom. Funding consists of: $17'1,719 from RM 1 -2 %; and $49,081 from the countywide Measure B half -cent sales tax. • Main Street Terminal Dock Replacement - This project provides for refurbishment and installation of a dock at the Alameda Main Street ferry terminal. Project tasks include: a) rental and modification of a temporary dock; b) dry - docking, repair, and modification of a City owned dock; and c) replacement of the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 temporary rental dock with the refurbished City -owned dock. This is the final phase of a project that began in fiscal year 2006/2007 with the removal and emergency stabilization of a dock that had been in service at Main Street since 1991. Funding consists of $153,373 from RM1 -2% and $317,627 from the Tidelands Trust Fund. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service: The AOFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.20. The RMI grant request is for $1,171,022. The AOFS is funded through RM 1, Measure B, farebox revenue, and a contribution from the Port of Oakland. Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry: The AHBFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.10. The RMI grant request is for $450,000. The AHBFS is funded through RM'1, Measure B, Transportation Improvement Fund, Lighting & Landscape Assessment District 82 -4 funds, and farebox revenue. Capital Projects: The City is submitting three capital projects for a total RM1-2% grant request of $642,342. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3.f. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the capital improvement projects are Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll funds, including Five Percent Unrestricted State funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Reserve funds for the operating subsidy and capital projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to enter into all agreements necessary to secure these funds for fiscal year 2007/2008. Respectfy.Ily submitted, atthew T. Naclerio Public Works Direc A_____ iL By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager MTN:ES:gc cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry) E u_ 0 2 y 3 - 0 v 0. 0. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR REGIONAL MEASURE 1 BRIDGE TOLL FUNDS, INCLUDING FIVE PERCENT UNRESTRICTED STATE FUNDS AND TWO PERCENT BRIDGE TOLL RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE OPERATING SUBSIDY, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FERRY SERVICES, AND TO ENTER INTO ALL AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE THESE FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 WHEREAS, Regional Measure 1 (November 1988) created revenues for allocation by Metropolitan Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, the monies can be used to fund planning, operating and capital projects for water transit purposes which are designed to reduce vehicular traffic on the bridges; and WHEREAS, the public entities are eligible applicants; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda operates the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS); and WHEREAS, staff has identified the need for an operational subsidy for Y these ferry services; WHEREAS, the City has identified the need for six capital projects necessary for the efficient operation of these ferry services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Cit y of Alameda does hereby approve the applications for both the AHBFS and the AOFS for fiscal year 2007/2008 and authorizes the City Manager to apply for Five Y Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects, and to enter into all agreements necessary to secure these funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Resolution #5 -D 06 -05 -07 1, 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 June 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of June 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Services Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. (ACI) for Rate Period 6 (July 2007 to June 2008) BACKGROUND On April 16, 2002, the City entered into a ten -year franchise agreement with Alameda County Industries, inc., (ACI) for the curbside collection of solid waste, the collection and processing of recyclable materials, and the collection of organic materials, collectively referred to as integrated waste. Through a separate agreement, the City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. (WM), for the transferring and landfilling of the solid waste. ACI is responsible for managing and paying all costs and fees, including WM charges, associated with the collection, processing, and disposal of the integrated waste, as well as directly billing all residential and commercial customers. DISCUSSION The agreement with AC1 specifies that the ceiling rates for the collection and processing of integrated waste will be set by the City Council at a Public Hearing. The ceiling rate is established to generate sufficient revenues to fund all costs and fees associated with the agreements with ACI and WM. The agreement with ACI specifies two types of annual rate reviews: a cost -based or detailed rate review, which is conducted every third year of the agreement; and an index -based rate review, which is adjusted by three specific Consumer Price Index (CPI) categories, for the interim years. The current rate review is for Rate Period 6 (Fiscal Year 2007/2008) and is a cost -based review. Proposed Cost -Based Ceiling Rate Adjustment: In accordance with the agreement, ACI submitted a rate application for contractor's compensation on January 1, 2007. This application projected a revenue shortfall of $1,613,167 and requested a 12.6 percent increase in rates. The City contracted with Hilton, Farnkoph & Hobson Consultants (HF&H) to provide staff with a comprehensive analysis of the application. Based on HF &H's review, a 9.5% increase to residential City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -E 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2 of 5 and commercial integrated waste collection ceiling rates is recommended. A report of their findings can be found in Attachment 1. The recommended increase is attributed to the following factors: • 3.5% is required to restore ACI's allowable level of profit in accordance with the franchise agreement. Three years ago, when the City conducted the first cost -based adjustment, ACI requested a substantial rate increase due to a greater than projected customer base. This resulted in increased costs for personnel, equipment, 1 etc., that had not been anticipated in ACI's initial proposal when it was granted the franchise agreement. Since the projected number of customers was partially based on information provided by ACI, and to keep rates low, the City and ACI agreed to reduce ACT's profit level by reducing its operating ratio from 90% to 95% for a three - year period. The operating ratio is a profit calculation methodology used to determine the franchise holder's allowed return as a ratio of operating expenses to revenues. This is consistent with industry standard. The three -year period ends June 30, 2007. • 3.3% is due to increases in labor - related costs (i.e., union hourly wage rates, health and welfare premiums, workers compensation expenses); • 1.0% is associated with non -labor related costs such as increases in fuel, liability insurance premiums, vehicle insurance premiums, rent, telephone expenses, and outside repairs. • 1.0% is due to additional franchise fees as a result of the increase in costs described above. • 0.7% is due to the elimination of $94,564 in one -time credits provided in previous rate years. The following Table lists the proposed increases for residential services. Cart Size (Gallons) 20 32 64 96 Quarterly Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Rates Existing Rates Proposed Rates Senior Low Income Senior Low Income IWM Discount Discount IWM Discount Discount Rates Rate Rate Rates Rate Rate $45.27 $38.48 $38.48 $49.57 $42.14 $42.14 $71.25 $60.56 $60.56 $78.02 $66.31 $66.31 $118.94 N/A $101.10 $130.24 N/A $110.70 $166.13 N/A $141.21 $181.91 N/A $154.62 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council The list of all proposed ceiling rates and fees is included as Attachment 2. Rates Charged By Other Alameda County Agencies June 5, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Staff obtained information on the rates and collection service features available in the 17 agencies in Alameda County that provide integrated waste collection. Since many agencies are considering a rate increase within the next few months, staff was unable to conduct a direct comparison. However, based on current rate information, a typical 32- gallon service varies from a high of $28.43 /month (Union City) to a low of $10.08 /month (Emeryville), an approximate 260% difference. This broad variation illustrates that rates are directly affected by the type and diversity of collection services as well as proximity to a transfer station or landfill. It should be noted that the services offered by ACI are more comprehensive and numerous than found in other agencies in Alameda County and therefore the rates should be expected to be higher than the average rate in the county. These include: the drop -off of household batteries and latex paint; the curbside pick -up of used oil; and the collection of food -waste for multi - family units and restaurants. ACI is also required to maintain a fully- staffed local office, offer a senior discount rate, and provide no -cost collection services at 12 citywide events for non - profit agencies, which is not typical for other Alameda County agencies. In addition, unlike other cities in the county, Alameda is responsible for the post - closure costs associated with the maintenance and regulatory requirements for the Doolittle Landfill. The rate provides a funding source for these expenses. Proposed Changes to Non - Collection Related Activities In addition to determining ACI's allowable compensation for the upcoming Rate Period, HF &H and City staff reviewed AC1's current administrative obligations in an effort to streamline the administrative tasks without impacting the quality of service provided to the ratepayers. City staff and ACI management propose to modify the following administrative obligations: • Submitting Monthly Reports - Currently, ACI collects and reports tonnage, account, and customer data on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. Staff ro oses to p p eliminate the obligation to submit monthly reports to reduce the number of hours spent compiling reports. ACI wilt continue to collect and report the data on a quarterly and annual basis. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page4of5 • Commercial Recycling Audits - The franchise agreement requires ACI to conduct a minimum of 100 recycling audits of commercial businesses each year to assist in the development of source reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. To date, ACI has audited over 500 commercial businesses, and many companies have been audited more than once. City staff proposed to temporarily eliminate the obligation to audit 100 commercial businesses each year because all the major businesses have been audited multiple times, and recycling programs implemented, where appropriate. This obligation, however, may be reinstated at any time at the City's request. Cart Replacement Fee The existing franchise agreement requires ACI to provide one replacement cart per year at the request of the customer. ACI reports that it is receiving a fair amount of requests for multiple cart replacements from the same customers, thereby increasing labor costs. While the agreement states that a cart replacement fee is to be charged for replacements exceeding the one per year allowance, the City has not established this fee. The proposed new ceiling rates and fee schedule propose a $1 5.00 cart replacement fee. Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Service Feasibility At Council's request, staff is working with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and AC1 to determine the opportunities and constraints associated with having ACI provide integrated waste hauling services for the District. The District has identified operational issues, such as site limitations, additional custodial requirements, and on- going lunchroom monitoring, as well as legal procedures to allow these to be funded through a future rate increase. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI on gross receipts. The proposed increase in the ceiling rates will provide approximately $135,000 in additional franchise fees to the City. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The City's Integrated Waste Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health & Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION June 5, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Adopt a resolution establishing integrated waste collection ceiling rates and services fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc., (ACI) for Rate Period 6 (July 2007 to June 2008). Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director J)11 /21,91.0 Maria F. Di Meglio Environmental Services Manager MTN:MFD:gc ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 - Hilton, Farnkopf, & Hobson Rate Review 2. Attachment 2 - Proposed Ceiling Rates and Services Fees HF &H CONSULTANTS, LLC Advisory Services to Municipal Management Northern California Southern California 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 990 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925/977-6950 Fax: 925/977-6955 www.h.fh-consultants.com May 15, 2007 Mr. Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director City of Alameda Public Works Department Alameda Point, Building 1 950 West Mall Square, Suite 110 Alameda, CA 94501-7552 Robert D. Hilton, CMC Sohn W. Farnkopf, PE Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Subject: Review of Alameda County Industries Rate Year Six Contractor's Compensation Application Reference Number: S3727 Dear Mr. Naclerio: This report documents HF &H Consultants, LLC's (HF &H's) findings and recommendations to the City of Alameda (City) from our review of Alameda County Industries' (Company) Rate Year Six (RY6) Contractor's Compensation Application (Application). Company's Application for Franchised Services The Company's Application requested Company Compensation of $14,371,560 to provide current franchised services, requiring a 12.6% rate increase for RY6. Based on our recommended adjustments to the Application, we have determined that Company Compensation of $13,969,035 (a reduction of $402,525 from the Company's Application) is appropriate and that this amount results in a 9.5% rate increase to provide the services currently required in the franchise agreement. Our adjustments to the Company's Application are described in more detail in Section V - Proposed Adjustments. The 9.5% rate increase to provide current franchised services is due to the following: • A 3.5% increase due to an increase in the Company's allowable level of profit in accordance with the franchise agreement (beginning in RY6, the Company's profit level increases from a approximately 5% of allowable operating costs to approximately 10% of allowable operating costs); • A 3.3% increase due to increases in labor- related costs (i.e., union hourly wage rates, health and welfare premiums, workers compensation expense); • A 1.0% increase in non -labor related costs resulting from increases in fuel, liability insurance premiums, vehicle insurance premiums, rent, telephone expenses, and outside repairs. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -E 06.05 -07 HRH :�-- HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Matt Naclerio May 15, 2007 Page 2 • A 1.0% increase due to additional franchise fees as a result of the increase in costs described above; and, • A 0.7% increase due to the elimination of a $94,564 annual credit provided to the City in rate years 3, 4, and 5. It is our understanding that Company management is in agreement with our recommended adjustments to its Application and to our calculation of the corresponding rate increase. We would like to express our appreciation to ACI management and staff for their assistance. In addition, we express our appreciation to you and Maria Di Meglio for assistance and guidance during the course of the review. Should you have any questions, please call Rick Simonson at 925-977-6957. Very truly yours, HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC Robert D. Hilton, CMC 'Richard J. Simonson 'President Director, Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Services cc: Mr. Louie Pellegrini, Alameda County Industries Mr. Kent Kenney, Alameda County Industries S:\Clients\ A l Alameda, City of \ 2007 5372 7 Rate Year Six Ralf Review \ .Final Report \ aciat iachl.doc City of Alameda E;xei:utiv(. Sunman' Review of A Ci's RY6 Corr. tractor Compensation Application SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 1, 2007, Alameda County Industries (Company) submitted its Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Compostable Materials Rate .Year 6 (RY6) Rate Application (Application) to the City. The City contracted with HF &H Consultants (I-fF&H) to review the Application. The scope of our review is described in Section III. This report presents the City with our specific findings and recommendations. The Company's Application, For RY6, the Company projected a $1,613,167 revenue shortfall and requested a 12.6% rate increase to compensate the Company for providing current franchised services. The revenue shortfall was based on a calculated compensation of $14,371,560 for RY6. A description of the Application is included in Section IV. -HF &H Adjustments to the Company's Application for Current franchised services Based on our review, we have calculated compensation for the Company of $13,969,035 resulting in a reduction of $402,525 based on projected revenues and requiring a 9.5% rate increase for ACI to provide current franchised services. Our $402,525 net reduction in the Company's projected revenue shortfall is a result of the following recommended adjustments, presented in order of amount, which are described in more detail in Section V: • A $135,215 reduction in projected labor- related costs as a result of projecting costs based on the methodology described in the Franchise Agreement, rather than the Company's estimate of the results of current labor negotiations; • A $115,594 reduction to the Company's calculation of its RY4 revenue reconciliation which, in accordance with Article 8.7.B, is added to or subtracted from the Company's RY6 compensation if actual RY4 revenues exceed or fall short of the Company's allowable compensation. The Company calculated a RY4 revenue shortfall of $57,303; therefore, adding $57,303to its RY6 compensation; however, our review found the actual revenue in RY4 did not fall short but rather exceeded the Company's allowable compensation by $58,291. As a result, the net change in the Company's RY6 compensation is a decrease of $115, 594; • An $83,659 reduction in solid waste disposal costs as a result of decreasing both the projected tons of solid waste to be collected during RY6 and a decrease in the per -ton disposal rates; • A $49,544 reduction in General and Administrative costs as a result of the Company incurring cost in excess of the agreed -to maximum in accordance with the Franchise Agreement; T May '15, 2007 City of ' A lame is Review of A CI's RY6 Contractor Compensation Application Executive Surnrniiny • A $28,693 reduction in franchise fees due to the net reduction in the RY6 revenue requirement; • A $27,638 increase in organic material processing costs as a result of increasing the projected tons of organic material to be collected during RY6, partially offset by a decrease in the per -ton processing costs; and, • A $17,458 reduction in allowable profit due to the recommended net reductions in the operating costs eligible for profit described above (i.e., labor- related costs, organic material processing costs; and, General and Administrative costs) . Changes in Non - Collection Related Activities In addition to determining the Company's allowable compensation for RY6, HF &H, City staff, and Company management reviewed the Company's current administrative obligations in an effort to streamline the Company's administrative tasks without impacting the quality of service provided to the rate payers. City staff and Company management agreed on two changes to the Company's administrative obligations: • Submitting Monthly Reports. Currently, the Company collects and reports tonnage, account, and customer data on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. City staff proposes eliminating the Company's obligation to submit the reports monthly to reduce the amount of hours spent compiling reports. The Company will continue to collect and report the data on a quarterly and annual basis. Relieving the Company of the monthly collection and reporting data obligation is anticipated to reduce future labor costs. • Commercial Recycling Audits. Section 4.5.3 of the Franchise Agreement requires the Company to conduct a minimum of 100 recycling audits of commercial businesses each year to assist in the development of source reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. To date, the Company has audited over 500 commercial businesses, many, more than once. City staff proposed to eliminate the Company's obligation to audit 100 commercial businesses each year because all the major businesses have been audited multiple times, and recycling programs implemented, where appropriate. In addition, City staff and the Company agree that the obligation may be reinstated at the City's request. Relieving the Company of this obligation is anticipated to reduce future labor costs. • Cart Replacement Fee. The existing Franchise Agreement requires ACI to provide one replacement cart per year at the request of the customer. ACI reports that they are receiving a fair amount of requests for multiple cart replacements from the same customers, thereby increasing labor costs. While the agreement states that a cart replacement fee is to be charged for replacements exceeding the one per year allowance, the City has not established this fee. The proposed new ceiling rates and fee schedule proposes a $15.00 cart replacement fee. 2 May 15, 2007 City of Alameda Backgr•nrtrul 1111111111.011.111 iiiii1111111111111111.1111■Iililililili1111.11.011011111.1.110111111.11111•1111MINU■111111111111•1181=1•110.1mmi..11•111111111•111Milil....M11111•11111111111111111111111111•11MIIMMI Review of A C ~I's R YG Contractor Compensation Application SECTION II. BACKGROUND General The City issued a request for proposals for solid waste collection and disposal services, and recyclables and organic materials collection and processing services, in August 2001, for services that were scheduled to commence in October 2002. With,. and subsequent to, the implementation of the new Franchise Agreement, several significant changes have been made to the City's solid waste collection system including: • Eliminating backyard solid waste collection service at no additional charge; • Replacing customer-provided solid waste containers with carts provided , by the franchisee; Switching from biweekly to weekly residential recyclables collection and expanding the list of acceptable materials; • Switching from biweekly to weekly residential yard waste service and incorporating food scraps; and, • Expanding the commercial yard waste collection program and incorporating food scraps; • A 96- gallon commingled recyclables collection cart and 96- gallon organics collection cart to commercial customers, with their solid waste collection container, at no additional charge • Providing a local office in Alameda; • Education program/ outreach to schools; • Abandoned waste collection; • Gratis Integrated Waste Collection services at 12 City selected special events per year; • Collection from 100 additional public litter containers; • Household battery and latex paint collection at local Alameda office; and, • 50% of the collection vehicles are clean -fuel vehicles. Rate - Setting Process In accordance with Article 8 of the Franchise Agreement, the Company's compensation was fixed for RY1 and RY2 and shall be adjusted annually, with City Council approval, commencing in RY3 (July 1, 2004 -- June 30, 2005), through the remaining term of the Franchise Agreement, including any extension periods. The adjustments to the Company's compensation shall be 3 May .15, 2007 City of Alin n da Background Review of ACI's RY6 Contractor Compensation Application determined using one of two methodologies: (1) an index -based adjustment, or (2) a cost -based adjustment (detailed rate review). The following table summarizes the methodologies to be used during each rate year. Following the table we summarize the results of the annual rate reviews completed to date. Table 1 Rate Setting Methodology Schedule Rate Year Commencement Date I October 6, 2002 2 July 1, 2003 3 July 1, 2004 4 July 1, 2005 5 July 1, 2006 6 July 1, 2007 7 July 1, 2008 8 July 1, 2009 9 July 1, 2010 10 July 1, 2011 11* October 12, 2012 12* July 1, 2013 13* July 1, 2014 14* July 1, 2015 15* July 1; 2016 Adjustment Method Not Applicable Not Applicable Cost -Based Index -Based Index -Based Cost -Based Index-Based Index -Based Cost -Based Index -Based Index -Based Cost -Based Index -Based Index -Based Cost -Based RY1 and RY2 Compensation. The Company's compensation for RY1 and RY2 was set based on the Company's proposal. RY3 Compensation (Cost -Based Adjustment). For RY3, a detailed rate review was conducted which reviewed the Company's actual RY1 expenses and actual year -to -date RY2 expenses for reasonableness. The review included forecasting costs for RY3 based on actual costs incurred during RY1 and RY2. Because the Company had significant loses in RY1 and RY2 compared to their allowable compensation, which was based on their proposed costs in their response to the City's request for proposals in August 2001. Council approved a restated Franchise Agreement that increased rates an average of approximately 20 %, depending on the type of service provided. In addition, the restated Franchise Agreement capped the future RY4 and RY5 rate increases at the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed 5 %, and increased the Company's operating ratio (which lowers profit) from 90% to 95%. In addition, it was found that the Company experienced, and could document, increased costs due to additional volume and workload during RY1 and RY2 compared to the volume and workload anticipated by the City and Company when the Franchise Agreement was entered into. The City and Company agreed that the compensation for the additional costs incurred in RY1 and RY2 would be spread over the remaining term of the Franchise Agreement. Therefore, 4 May 15, 2007 City of A1Cl1U(:dct RackgJO(tiic1 Review of AC['s RY6 Contractor Compensation Application the Company's compensation for each subsequent RY shall include $351,353 for additional costs incurred in RY1 ($145,207) and RY2 ($206,146). RY4 Compensation (Index -Based Adjustment). In accordance with the Franchise Agreement, the Company's RY4 compensation, and subsequent rate increase, was calculated by escalating the Company's RY3 allowable compensation by the percentage change in: 1.) the Urban Wage Earners Index for labor-related costs; 2.) Motor Vehicle Repair Index for vehicle - related costs; and, 3.) All Urban Consumers Index for all other costs). Based on the changes to these indices (1.65% increase in labor-related costs, 2.88% increase in vehicle- related costs, and 1.56% increase in all other costs) and the increase in disposal costs and government fees (which are pass - through costs in accordance with the Franchise Agreement), the overall rate increase was 1.96%. RY5 Compensation (Index -Based Adjustment). In accordance with the Franchise Agreement, the Company's RY5 compensation, and subsequent rate increase, was calculated. by escalating the Company's RY4 allowable compensation by the percentage change in the indices described above (2.64% increase in labor - related costs, 4.62% increase in vehicle- related costs, and 2.93% increase in all other costs) and the increase in disposal costs and government fees (which are pass - through costs in accordance with the Franchise Agreement), the overall rate increase was 2.57%. RY6 Compensation (Cost -Based Adjustment). For RY6 (the current year), a detailed rate review was conducted which reviewed the Company's actual RY4 expenses and actual year -to- date RY5 expenses for reasonableness. The review included forecasting costs for RY6 based on actual costs incurred during RY4 and RY5. Our report recommends, and we understand the Company agrees with, a 9.5% increase for current franchised services. 5 May 15, 2007 City of'Alameda Table of Contents Review of A C / 's RY6 Contractor Compensation Application SECTION II. RATE REVIEW APPROACH Scope of Work Our approach to this engagement was to work objectively to follow the compensation adjustment terms of the Franchise Agreement between the Company and the City. When performing the procedures described in Article 8 of the Franchise Agreement, we relied on the Company's audited financial statements, current year-to-date financial results of operations data, copies of transactions, reports of operations and other information provided by the Company, the Company's proposal to the City, and industry standards. The results of our review and our findings have been documented by the staff performing the engagement and objectively reviewed by the Engagement Manager and Engagement Director. While taking direction from the City, we worked cooperatively with the Company to ensure that they: understood the procedures we performed; understood our findings; had an opportunity to correct any misunderstandings we may have acquired; and, understood the reasons for any adjustments to their application that we recommended to the City. We believe that Company management is in agreement with our recommended adjustments to the Company's Application and our calculation of the necessary rate increase. HF &H staff performed this review based upon procedures agreed to between the City and HF &H; as documented in our proposal, dated November 9, 2006, and upon the agreement between the City and the Company. These procedures included the following activities: • Reviewing the Company's application to determine completeness, mathematical accuracy, and the reasonableness and logical consistency of the assumptions supporting the projected revenues and expenses; • Testing projected revenues to ensure that they are consistent with past trends and anticipated conditions; • Testing projected expenses to ensure that only reasonable, necessary, and actual expenses are included, and that expenses of the Company are reasonably allocated between its franchised and non - franchised operations; • Reviewing the support for assumptions regarding key factors affecting future costs; • Comparing actual results to projections; • Calculating the Company's projected revenue requirement (expenses plus profit) for RY6, and the related rate adjustment based on the results of our review; • Reviewing our recalculation of the Company's projected results of operations and our recommendations with ACI and the Franchisors representatives; and • Preparing a written report that documents our findings and recommendations. 6 M ay 75, 2007 City of Alameda Table of COrr.[ents Review oJA C!'s R} 6 Contractor Compensation Application Limitations Our review was substantially different in scope than an examination in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Such a review was conducted and an opinion expressed by the Company's independent accountants Freeman and Williams, LLP. Our conclusions are based on the review of the Company's projections of its financial results of operations. Actual results of operations will usually differ from projections, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the difference may be significant. 7 tv1ay73,2007 City of. AIar1 eclat fable of Co]'t.teItis Review of ACT's RY6 Con tractor Compensation Application SECTION IV. ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES' PROJECTION METHODOLOGY The Company's RY6 Rate Application On January 1, 2007, the Company submitted a rate application to the City requesting a 12.6% increase in compensation. The Company's calculation is summarized in the table below. Table 2 Company's RY6 Rate Application Rate Year 6 Revenue Requirement Operating Exp. Eligible for Profit Labor - Related Costs $ 3,226,811 Vehicle - Related Costs $ 844,778 Processing Costs $ 235,464 Other Costs $ 567,196 Depreciation $ G&A and Billing Costs $ 1,215,418 Vehicle Maintenance Costs $ 637,362 Container Maintenance Costs $ 175,026 Total Operating Exp. Eligible for Profit $ 6,902,055 Profit (90% Operating Ratio) $ 766,895 Pass - Through Costs Disposal $ 2,380,293 Lease Costs $ 1,267,586 Franchise Fees $ 1,396,290 City Fees $ 1,249,784 Interest $ Total Pass - Through Costs $ 6,293,953 Total Revenue Requirement $ 13,962,904 Revenue Requirement Adjustments RY1 Comp. Adj. (Sec. 8.12) $ 145,207 RY2 Comp. Adj. (Sec. 8.12) $ 206,146 RY4 Revenue Recon $ 57,303 Subtotal Rev Req Adjustments $ 408,656 Adjusted Revenue Requirement $ 14,371,560 RY5 Compensation $ 12,758,393 Increase /(Decrease) Rate Increase/(Decrease) $ (1,613,167) 12.6% 8 May 15, 2007 City of Alainecla Table of C:o7L1erzts Review of A CI's RY6 Contractor for C.'onipen safion Application The Company's Projection Methodology The Company projected the RY6 compensation using the following procedures: Operating Expenses Eligible for. Profit • Labor - Related Costs. The Company projected labor - related costs (i.e., wages, workers' compensation, health benefits, pension benefits, and payroll taxes) by multiplying the current rates (i.e., union hourly wage rates, workers compensation premiums, health care premiums, etc.) by its allowable number of personnel and allowable annual labor hours. Where the allowable number of personnel and annual labor hours are based on the Company's proposal. • Vehicle- Related Costs. The actual RY4 vehicle-related costs (i.e., fuel, tires, parts, supplies, taxes and licenses, etc.) were adjusted to exclude non - allowable costs, and multiplied twice (once for RY5 and again for RY6) by one plus the percentage change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index -- All Urban Consumers - Motor Vehicle Repair from November 2005 to November 2006. • Other Costs. The actual RY4 other costs (i.e., liability insurance, property damage insurance, damage claims, continuing public education, rent, corporate overhead, utilities, accounting fees, etc.) were adjusted to exclude non - allowable costs and multiplied twice (once for RY5 and again for RY6) by one plus the percentage change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers - All Items from November 2005 to November 2006.. • Processing Costs. Actual organic material tonnage collected from December 2005 through November 2006 multiplied by the RY6 allowable organic material processing fee in accordance with Exhibit J of the Agreement. • G &A and Billing Costs. The actual RY4 labor - related, vehicle- related, and other costs related to general and administrative and billing activities are increased by the percentage change in the applicable indices described above. • Vehicle Maintenance Costs. The actual RY4 labor - related, vehicle-related, and other costs related to vehicle maintenance are increased by the percentage change in the applicable indices described above. • Container Maintenance Costs. The actual RY4 labor - related, vehicle-related, and other costs related to container maintenance are increased by the percentage change in the applicable indices described above. Profit The Company calculated its RY6 profit of $766,895, by applying a 90.0% pre -tax operating ratio, in accordance with the Franchise Agreement, to its RY6 projected operating expenses eligible for profit. 9 May T5,2007 City of'Alwnedci Review of A C l's 1016 Contractor Compensation Application Table of Contents Pass- Through Expenses • Disposal. Actual solid waste tonnage collected from December 2005 through November 2006 multiplied by the projected disposal fee ($66.98 per ton) at the City- approved disposal location (Davis Street Transfer Station). • Lease Costs. Forecasted lease costs of $1,267,586 as specified in Exhibit J of the Franchise Agreement (lease costs are fixed for the term of the agreement based on the Company's proposal). • Franchise Fees. Franchise fees are 1O% of the projected RY6 revenue requirement. • City Fees. Forecasted City fees of $1,249,784 as specified in Article 7 of the Franchise Agreement. 10 May 15, 2007 C_'i 1y of A laJnedcl Table of Colt tents Review of ACT's .RY6 Contractor Compensation Application SECTION V. PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS Table 3 presents a summary of HF &H's proposed adjustments to the Company's projected RY6 operating expenses eligible for profit, profit, pass - through costs, and the Company's RY4 revenue reconciliation. The proposed adjustments calculate a total rate adjustment of 10.8% (9.5% for current franchised services), as summarized below and in Attachment A. A description of the recommended adjustments follows this table. Table 3 HF &H Adjusted Rate Application RY6 Rev. Req. HF &H HF &H Adj per Rate App Adjustments Rate App Rate Year 6 Revenue Requirement Operating Exp. Eligible for Profit Labor - Related Costs $ 3,226,811 $ (126,585) $ 3,100,226 Vehicle- Related Costs $ 844,778 $ - $ 844,778 Processing Costs $ 235,464 $ 27,638 $ 263,102 Other Costs $ 567,196 $ - $ 567,196 Depreciation $ $ $ G &A and Billing Costs $ 1,215,418 $ (46,862) $ 1,168,556 Vehicle Maintenance Costs $ 637,362 $ (7,749) $ 629,613 . Container Maintenance Costs $ 175,026 $ (3,562) $ 171,464 Total Operating Exp. Eligible for Profit $ 6,902,055 $ (157,121) $ 6,744,934 Profit (90% Operating Ratio) $ 766,895 $ (17,458) $ 749,437 Pass - Through Costs Disposal $ 2,380,293 $ (83,659) $ 2,296,634 Lease Costs $ 1,267,586 $ - $ 1,267,586 Franchise Fees $ 1,396,290 $ (28,693) $ 1,367,597 City Fees $ 1,249,784 $ - . $ 1,249,784 Interest $ $ - $ Total Pass - Through Costs $ 6,293,953 $ (112,352) $ 6,181,602 Total Revenue Requirement $ 13,962,904 $ (286,931) $ 13,675,973 Revenue Requirement Adjustments RY1 Comp. Adj. (Sec. 8.12) $ 145,207 $ $ 145,207 RY2 Comp. Adj. (Sec. 8.12) $ 206,146 $ - $ 206,146 RY4 Revenue Recon $ 57,303 $ (115,594) $ (58,291) Subtotal Rev Req Adjustments $ 408,656 $ (115,594) $ 293,062 Adjusted Revenue Requirement $ 14,371,560 $ (518,119) $ 13,969,035 RY5 Compensation $ 12,758,393 $ 12,758,393 Increase/(Decrease) Rate Increase /(Decrease) $ (1,613,167) $ (1,210,642) 12.6% 9.5" /n- 11 May 15, 2007 City of AIamruerlci Table of Coriteiits Review of A C1's ifltG Contractor actor Compensation Application Review of the Company's RY6 Revenue Requirement for Current franchised services HF &H recommends reducing the Company's requested RY6 revenue requirement for current franchised services by $402,525 (from $14,371,560 to $13,969,035). The following provides an explanation for our recommended adjustments to the Company's projected: 1) Operating Costs Eligible for Profit; 2) Profit; 3) Pass - Through Costs (i.e., disposal, lease costs, franchise fees, other City fees, and interest); and 4) Revenue Requirement Adjustments (i.e.; RY1 and RY2 additional compensation and the annual Revenue Reconciliation). Adjustments to Operating Costs Eligible for Profit for Current franchised services HF&H recommends the Company's RY6 Operating Costs Eligible for Profit for current franchised services be reduced by $157,121. Labor - Related Costs for Current franchised services HF &H recommends reducing labor - related costs by $126,585 as a result of calculating projected labor - related costs for RY6 in accordance with the Franchise Agreement. Section 8.3.2.B.5.a of the Franchise Agreement states that forecasted RY6 labor-related costs shall be calculated based on actual RY4 labor - related costs incurred, adjusted to exclude non - allowable costs (i.e., costs incurred due to actual annual route hours or increase in the number of personnel which exceeds the Company's proposed annual route hours or number of personnel) and multiplied twice (once for RY5 and again for RY6) by one plus the percentage change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index - Urban Wages Earners - All Items from October 2005 to October 2006. The Company's rate application calculated the projected labor- related costs based on projected union hourly wages, projected workers compensation rates, projected health care premiums, etc. The recommended adjustment is the difference between the Company's projected labor- related costs and the allowed labor - related costs in accordance with the Franchise Agreement. Vehicle- Related Costs for Current franchised services HF &H reviewed the Company's projected vehicle - related costs for current franchised services and found the Company properly projected costs by applying the appropriate index to actual RY4 allowable vehicle - related costs. In addition, we reviewed the actual RY4 costs for reasonableness compared to industry benchmarks. No adjustments are necessary. Organic Materials Processing Costs for Current franchised services HF &H recommends increasing the projected organic materials processing costs for current franchised services by $27,638 as a result of the following: • A $43,185 increase due to the Company mistakenly including yard waste processing costs as disposal costs, causing an overstatement of disposal costs; partially offset by, • A $15,547 decrease due to the Company overstating the organic material (food waste and yard waste) tonnage collected from residents and business from December 2005 to November 2006, by approximately 289 tons. 12 May 1 5, 2007 City of'Alameda Table of Contents Review of ACT's «Y6 Contractor Compensation Application Other Costs for Current franchised services HF &H reviewed the Company's projected "other" costs for current franchised services (i.e., rent, uniforms, equipment and liability insurance, outside repairs, etc.) and found the Company properly projected costs by applying the appropriate index to actual RY4 allowable vehicle - related costs. In addition, we reviewed the actual RY4 costs for reasonableness compared to industry benchmarks. No adjustments are necessary. General and Administrative (G&A) and Billing Costs for Current franchised services HF &H recommends decreasing the projected G&A and billing costs for current franchised services by $46,862 as a result of the following: • A $49,544 decrease as a result of the Company exceeding the cap amount for G &A and billing costs in accordance with Section 8.3.2.B.2 of the Franchise Agreement. The Franchise Agreement disallows any G &A and billing costs greater than the Company's allowable RY5 G &A and billing costs multiplied by one plus the percentage change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index -- All Urban Consumers - All Items from November 2005 to November 2006. This adjustment is the difference between the Company's projected costs and the allowable costs calculated in accordance with the Franchise Agreement; partially offset by, • A $2,682 increase in G &A and billing costs as a result of calculating the labor-related cost portion of G &A and billing activities in accordance with the methodology provided in the Franchise Agreement which differed from the Company's projection methodology, as discussed above under the Labor - Related Costs subsection. Vehicle Maintenance Costs for Current franchised services HF &H recommends decreasing the projected vehicle maintenance costs for current franchised services by $7,749 as a result of calculating the labor- related cost portion of vehicle maintenance- related activities in accordance with the methodology provided in the Franchise Agreement which differed from the Company's projection methodology, as discussed above under the Labor - Related Costs subsection. Container Maintenance Costs for Current franchised services HF &H recommends decreasing the projected container maintenance costs for current franchised services by $3,562 as a result of calculating the labor- related cost portion of container maintenance - related activities in accordance with the methodology provided in the Franchise Agreement which differed from the Company's projection methodology, as discussed above under the Labor - Related Costs subsection. Adjustments to Operating Profit for Current franchised services HF &H recommends decreasing operating profit by $17,458 as a result of the net recommended reduction to the Company's Operating Costs Eligible for Profit ($157,121), described above ($157,121 divided by 90% minus $157,121 = $17,458). 13 May 15, 2007 City o f Alameda Table of Col t tel i is Rccric ?) of ACI's RY6 Contractor Compensation Application Adjustments to Pass - Through Expenses for Current franchised services HF &H recommends reducing pass - through expenses for current franchised services by 112,352. Disposal Costs for Current franchised services HF&H recommends reducing disposal costs for current franchised services by $83,659, as a result of the following: • A $43,185 reduction in disposal costs due to the Company mistakenly including yard waste processing costs as disposal costs, therefore, overstating disposal costs; and • A $40,474 reduction in disposal costs due to a combination of the Company overstating total solid waste tonnage collected from residents and business from December 2005 to November 2006 (by approximately 94 tons) and overstating the projected solid waste tip fee at Davis Street (which is set in accordance with a separate agreement between the City and Waste Management) by approximately $0.98 per ton. Lease Costs for Current franchised services Exhibit J of the Franchise Agreement specifies that annual lease costs shall be $1,267,586 for the entire term of the Franchise Agreement. The Company properly included $1,267,586 for lease costs in its RY6 revenue requirement calculation; therefore, no adjustment is necessary. Franchise Fees for Current franchised services HF&H recommends reducing franchise fees by $28,693 as a result of the recommended reductions in Operating Expenses Eligible for Profit, Operating Profit, and the Pass - Through Costs, described above. City Fees for Current franchised services Article 7 of the Franchise Agreement specifies City fees (i.e., AB939 fee, infrastructure impacts mitigation impacts fee, etc.) that the Company shall remit to the City on a monthly basis. Current City fees are $1,249,784 and the City has not projected an increase in such fees. The Company properly included $1,249,784 for City costs in its RY6 revenue requirement calculation; therefore, no adjustment is necessary. RY4 Revenue Reconciliation Adjustment Section 8.7.B of the Franchise Agreement states "In the event actual rate revenues as reported at the end of the Rate Period are greater than or less than those rate revenues anticipated for such Rate Period at the time the rates were set, then Contractor's Compensation shall be adjusted by the difference between the actual Rate Period revenues . and the anticipated Rate Period revenues in the year following the year in which the difference is known... ". In accordance with this Section, the Company reconciled its actual rate revenue received in RY4 to its allowable compensation for RY4. The Company calculated that its RY4 franchised rate revenues were $57,303 less than its allowable compensation based on calculated franchise revenues of $12,381,791 and allowable compensation of $12,439,094 ($12,381,791 revenue - $12,439,094 guaranteed compensation = ($57,303) shortfall) . 14 May-15, 2007 City of Alameda Table of Con.lcltts Review of A C['s 1 <Y6 Contractor Compensation Application Based on our review of the Company's general ledger and audited financial statements, we calculated a RY4 revenue surplus of $58,291, a difference of $11 5,594. Our review found the Company understated its RY4 franchised revenue, therefore overstating the RY4 revenue shortfall. The following table summarizes the calculations. Explanations of the variances follow the table. Table 4 Revenue Reconciliation Summary Company HF &H Calculation Calculation Difference Total Revenue per General Ledger $ 13,282,276 $ 13,282,276 $ - Less: Non- Franchised Debris Box Revenue (120,579) (120,579) $ Non - Franchised Comm Recyc Revenue (171,234) (171,234) $ Amended Franchise Revenue (190,967) (190,967) $ Recycling and Salvage Revenue (291,952) (291,952) $ Late Fee Revenue (66,175) 0 $ (66,175) Audit Adjustment (12,468) (10,159) $ (2,309) Rate Period 3 Revenue Reconciliation Adj (47,110) -- $ (47,110) Adjusted Revenue $ 12,381,791 $ 12,497,385 $ (115,594) Allowed Rate Period 4 Compensation $ 12,439,094 $ 12,439,094 $ Rate Period 4 Revenue Surplus /(Shortfall) $ (57,303) $ 58,291 $ (115,594) Late Fee Revenue The Company's calculation of revenue received in RY4 excluded $66,175 in late fee payments made by the City's residents and businesses. We recommend including the late fee payments as franchise revenue because the late fees are paid by the rate payers and is related to the franchise services provided by the Company. Including late fee payments as franchised revenue reduces the revenue required from the City- approved service rates, allowing for such service rates to be reduced. Audit Adjustment The Company mistakenly understated its RY4 franchised revenue by $2,309 which is the difference between what the Company's independent auditor reported in audited financial statements as a reconciling item ($12,468) and the actual amount of the reconciling item ($10,159) RY3 Revenue Reconciliation In preparing the RY6 application, the Company discovered it was not fully compensated for its RY3 guaranteed compensation because they had mistakenly overstated their RY3 revenue received by $47,110 in their calculation of their RY3 revenue shortfall prepared during last year's review. As a result, the Company has requested to be made whole for RY3 by receiving 75 May 15, 2007 City of Alameda Table of Contents Review of ACT's R '6 Contractor Compensation Application these funds as a credit to its RY6 revenue requirement. HF &H recommends removing the credit because there is not a provision in the Franchise Agreement to make changes to Rate Years that have been closed, either to the City's favor or the Company's favor. 16 May 15, 2007 PEP itt a x H b c• Lv M 1 " 00 N L!') rn-I N. c6 EA. Eft EA. TA- Ef} EA} EA} TA. Ef} TA - LO ' CO 1 N C [1 r Ld°n CO n to 1/4.0 t t c( N LO s-� 00 Ln EF} EA- EA. EA. ka Eft EA. EA- EA EA- CO Sr] EFL N 0, N 00 o CO LO LO 2 N• �' .�� c� N H 1-1 00 c+7 00 00 VD CO Lrj n■ N LLB] CO N '0 di n• Lori 1-1 CO N 1-1 EA- EA} EA- EA. EA- EA- EA ar Ti E P':,' -P6, A w 4 u aCC o G w 'ti V G :� ,a .ca 0 1 kn A .2 U .g g .6 .2 � � � •� i'51 a�i � D .F. 6L. Ef} CO LO Eft r-I EA- 10 0, EA. 10 In Ef} r-I v cr.) Ef- N LC? 0, 00 '0 '0 Profit (90% Operating Ratio) Ef} EA- EA- EA. Ef} EA. EA. E!- EA} EA- Eft Ef} Eft 0' Ef- rr] '0 0 Ln CO V 0, d, N r-i r-I-I EA- EA- EA- EA. EA. 0 w r-� CO r-1 '0 Ef} 10 r�^ Ef} Ef} r-� 'D Ef} Ln ['n 0; 00 Eft m r-1 M Ln 0• Ef} EA- r-1 rn a, 00 Ef} 0 • EA- OQ 06' LC) EA. 10 0, dI 0 0, w■ 0, 10 N �-I N it 00` 'KO N In Eft ff} Ee} rn Ln 0, v CA- S. r-1 Eh} LO TA- N'01-t4 cC0 0 In r-I N EA- Piz 00 00 a cn rid o :b^ ;'ct * 44 tr g i:4 f24 U U 0 0 0' Ef} 0ti O e-1 r-i EA- EA- EA- +.0 10 00` O Eft 10 cry v 0; 'L7 0, r-1 EA} r-1 00 Eft Eft r-i '-4 '0 EA. 00' LA 0' '0 EA} O Ln r-� a, M c, e-L, 6rc} r-1 M Increase/(Decrease) a ■ 10 0, v 0 d! 0 0 Ln v Rate Increase/(Decrease) Attachment 2 - Table 1 Table 1. Quarterly integrated Waste Management (IWM) Residential Rates -- Effective July 1, 2007 Size (Gallons) 20 32 64 96 IWM Rates $49.57 $78.02 $130.24 $181.91 Senior Discount Rate $42.14 $66.32 N/A N/A LIRA Discount Rate . $42.14 $66.32 $110:70 $154.62 Attachment 2 --- Table 2 Table 2 - Monthly Bin and Cart Rates - Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi- Family) Container Size (cy) Commercial Bin Service: Weekly Collection Frequency 1 2 3 4 6 1 $98.48 $198.94 $301.36 $405.75 $512.11 1.5 $147.73 $298.40 $452.04 $608.63 $768.17 2 $196.97 $397.87 $602.72 $811.50 $1,024.23 $295.45 $596.81 $904.08 $1,217.25 $1,536.34 4 $393.93 $795.75 $1,205.44 $1, 623.01 $2,048.45 $492.42 $590.90 $994.68 $1,193.62 $1, 506.80 $1,808.15 $2,028.76 $2,434.51 $2,560.57 $3,072.68 $689.38 $1,392.55 $2,109.51 $2,840.26 $3,584.79 6 $620.45 $930.67 $1,240.89 $1,861.34 $2,481, 78 $3,102.23 $3,722.67 $4,343.12 Container Size (cy) Commercial Bin Compactor Service: Weekly Collection Frequency 1 2 3 4 6 1 1.5 2 3 4 $196.97 $295.45 $397.87 $596.81 $602.72 $904.08 $811.50 $1,217.25 $1,024.23 $1,536.34 $393.93 $795.75 $1,205:44 $1,623.01 $2,048.45 $590.90 $1,193.62 $1,808.15 $2,434.52 $3,072.68 $787.87 $1,591.49 $2,410.87 $3,246.01 $4,096.91 $984.83 $1,989.36 $3,013.59 $4,057.51 $5,121.13 $1,181.80 $2,387.24 $3,616.31 $4,869.02 $6,145.36 $1, 378/7 $2,785.11 $4,219.03 $5,680.52 $7,169.59 6 $1,240.89 $1,861.34 $2,481.78 $3,722.67 $4,963.56 $6,204.45 $7,445.34 $8,686.23 City Council Public Hearing Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5 -E 06 -05 -07 Attachment 2 --- Table 3 and Table 3a Table 3-Special Pickups, Same -Day Service, or Non - Collection Day Services Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi- Family) Container Size (CY) 1.5 2 3 4 5 5 7 Maximum Rate Per Collection $48.67 $73.00 $97.34 $146.01 $194.68 $243.35 $292.01 $340.68 Table 3a - Additional Services - Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi- Family) Service Locks, Keys, Hasps Steam Cleaning - Per Cleaning Cart replacement(s) in excess of one per year (Sec. 4.12.C) Rate $21.00 $74.31 $15.00 Attachment 2 -Table 4 Table 4- Monthly Cart Rates - Effective July 1, 2007(Commercial and Multi - Family) Cart Size 20 32 64 96 1 Commercial Cart Service: Weekly Collection Frequency $7.56 $17.04 $34.45 $5'1.67 2 $15.12 $34.08 $68.89 $103.34 3 $22.67 $51.12 $103.34 $155.01 4 $30.23 $68.16 $137.79 $206.68 5 $37.79 $85.20 $172.23 $258.35 6 $45.35 $102.24 $206.68 $310.02 Maximum monthly rate for weekly unlimited recycling collection is $3.37 per dwelling unit. Maximum monthly rate for weekly unlimited organic materials collection is $2.23 per dwelling unit. Maximum allowable rate for additional cart replacement(s) in excess of one per year is $15.00 per cart as specified in Section 4.12.C. Attachment 2 --- Table 5 Table 5 - Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service --- Effective July 1, 2007 Includes bringing container from its location on your property to the curb for servicing, and returning the container to your property when empty. (Commercial and Multi - Family) Linear Feet (range) 1 - 20' 21 - 40' 41 - 50' 51 -80' 81 - 100' 101 - 120' 121 -140' 141 - 160' 161 - 180' 181 -200' 201 - 220' 221 - 240' 241 - 200' 261 - 280' 281 -300' No push /pull $14.88 $29.75 $44.63 $59.50 $74.38 $89.25 $104.13 $119.00 $133.88 $148.76 $163.63 $178.51 $193.38 $208.26 $223.13 charges for 2 $29.75 $59.50 $89.25 $119.00 $148.76 $178.51 $208.26 $238.01 $267.76 $297.51 $327.26 $357.01 $386.76 $416.52 $446.27 Weekly Collection Frequency 3 $44.63 $89.25 $133.88 $178.51 $223.13 $267.76 $312.39 $357.01 $401.64 $446.27 $490.89 $535.52 $580.15 $624.77 $500.40 4 $59.50 $119.00 $178.51 $238.01 $297.51 $357.01 $416.52 $476.02 $535.52 $595.02 $654.52 $714.03 $773.53 $833.03 $892.53 recyclable /organic materials containers. 5 $74.38 $148.76 $223.13 $297.51 $371.89 $446.27 $520.64 $595.02 $669.40 $743.78 $818.16 $892.53 $966.91 $1,041.29 $1,115.67 5 $89.25 $178.51 $267.76 $357.01 $377.56 $535.52 $624.77 $714.03 $803.28 $892.53 $981.79 $1,071.04 $1,160.29 $1,249.55 $1,338.80 Attachment 2 -- Table 5a and Table 5b Table 5a - Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service - Effective July 1, 2007 Includes bringing the container to the curb for servicing. Container will be left at the curb empty. (Commercial and Multi - Family) Linear Feet 1 - 20' 21 - 40' 41 --60' 61 - 80' 81 - 100' 101 -120' 121 - 140' 141 -160' _ 161 -180' 181 -200' 201 - 220' 221 - 240' 241 -- 260' 261 - 280' 281 -300' 1 $8.92 $17.85 $26.77 $35.71 $44.63 $53.55 $62.48 $71.40 $80.33 $89.25 $98.17 $107.11 $116.03 $124.96 $133.88 2 $17.85 $35.71 $53.55 $71.40 $89.25 $107.11 $124.96 $142.80 $160.65 $178.51 $196.36 $214.21 $232.05 $250.02 $267.77 Weekly Collection Frequency 3 $26.77 $53.52 $80.33 $107.11 $133.88 $160.65 $187.43 $214.21 $240.99 $267.76 $294.53 $321.31 $348.09 $374.87 $401.64 4 $35.71 $71.40 $107.11 $142.80 $178.51 $214.21 $249.91 $285.61 $321.31 $357.01 $392.72 $428.41 $464.12 $499.81 $535.52 No push/pull charges for recyclable/organic materials containers. 5 $44.63 $89.25 $133.88 $178.42 $223.13 $267.76 $312.39 $357.01 $401.64 $446.27 $490.89 $535.52 $580.15 $624.77 $669.40 6 $53.55 $107.11 $160.65 $214.21 $267.76 $321.31 $374.87 $428.41 $481.97 $535.52 $589.07 $642.63 $696.17 $749.73 $803.28 Table 5b -- Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin/Cart Service -- Effective July 1, 2007 Includes returning container from curb to the property after servicing is performed. Linear Feet 1 - 20' 21 - 40' 41 - 60' 61-80' 81 - 100' 101 -120' 121 - 140' 141 - 160' 161 - 180' 181 - 200' 201 - 220' 221 - 240' 241 - 260' 261 - 280' 281 -300' $5.95 $11.90 $17.85 $23.80 $29.75 $35.71 $41.65 $47.60 $53.52 $59.50 $65.46 $71.40 $77.36 $83.30 $89.25 2 $11.90 $23:80 $35.71 $47.60 $59.50 $71.40 $83.30 $95.21 $107.11 $119.00 $130.90 $142.80 $154.71 $166.61 $178.51 Weekly Collection Frequency 3 $17.85 $35.71 $53.55 $71.40 $89.25 $107.11 $124.96 $142.80 $160.65 $178.51 $196.36 $214.21 $232.05 $249.91 $267.76 4 $23.80 $47.60_ $71.40 $95.21 $119.00 $142.80 $166.61 $190.40 $214.21 $238.01 $261.81 $285.61 $309.41 $333.22 $357.01 No push/pull charges for recyclable/organic materials containers. 5 $29.75 $59.50 $89.25 $119.00 $148.76 $178.51 $208.26 $238.01 $267.76 $297.51 $327.26 $357.01 $386.76 $416.52 $446.27 6 $35.71 $71.40 $107.11 $142.80 $178.51 $214.21 $249.91 $285.61 $321.28 $357.01 $392.72 $428.41 $464.12 $499.81 $535.52 Attachment 2 - Table 6 Table 6 - Debris Box per Pull/Tons Allowed and Additional Tonnage Rates -- Effective July 1, 2007 Material Type Loose Compacted Dirt C &D Debris Box Rates Concrete (No Rebar) Wood Yardwaste Debris Box Size 10 15 20 30 40 50 10 15 20 30 Per Pull Charge $395.80 $593.69 $791.59 $1,187.39 $1,583.18 $1,978.98 $424.28 $636.42 $848.56 $1,272.84 Tons Allowed 2 3 4 6 8 10 3 4 6 9 Overweight Charges - Per Ton (Applied to tons in excess of tons allowed in previous column) $68.99 $68.99 . $68.99 $68.99 $68.99 $68.99 $68.99 $6.8.99 $68.99 $68.99 40 50 10 10 15 $1,697.12 $2,121.40 $587.33 $206.13 $206.13 20 30 40 10 10 15 $206.13 $273.69 $400.80 $587.33 $316.64 $474.95 11 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 3 4 $68.99 $68.99 $76.65 $57.26 $57.26 $57.26 $57.26 $57.26 $76.65 $16.43 $16.43 20 $633.27 30 $949.91 6 $16.43 9 $16.43 40 $1,266.54 12 $16.43 50 10 15 $1,583.18 $316.6.4 $474.95 14 2 3 $16.43 $33.40 $33.40 20 $633.27 4 $33.40 30 40 50 $949.91 si ,266.54 $1,583.18 8 10 $33.40 $33.40 $33.40 Commingled Recyclables 10 15 20 30 40 50 $316.64 $474.95 $633.27 $949.91 $1,266.54 $1,583.18 NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Delivery Charge - Initial placement of box onsite = $83.44 Flasher Charge - Per pull for boxed placed in street = 41.80 Relocation Charge - To relocate boxes on site = $126.54 Demurrage Charge - For on -call boxes if not serviced in 7 days = $26.64 Per ton fees and rates are subject to change. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED WASTE (SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND ORGANICS) COLLECTION CEILING RATES AND SERVICES FEES FOR RATE PERIOD 6 (JULY 2007 to JUNE 2008) WHEREAS, in 2002 the City of Alameda entered into a Franchise Agreement with Alameda County Industries (Contractor), for solid waste, recyclable materials and organics materials curbside collection for a 10 -year period; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2007, Contractor submitted a rate application covering rate period 6 projections; and WHEREAS, City of Alameda staff and their consultant, Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, evaluated the request for rate increase applications in accordance the existing Franchise Agreement with Contractor; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the solid waste, recyclable materials and organic materials collection will be consolidated into one integrated waste management fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the integrated waste management rates approved by this resolution provide Contractor with a reasonable rate of return; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2476, passed by the City Council on February 20, 1990, states that all subsequent rates for collection, processing and delivery to the City specified disposal site of integrated solid waste shall be set by Resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2629, passed by the City Council on May 4, 1993, states that all subsequent changes to the method of collection surcharges shall be set by Resolution of the City Council: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the Council accepts and approves the increase in collection rates and hereby establishes the integrated waste management collection ceiling rates and services fees, for Rate Period 6 (July 2007 to June 30, 2008) as shown on the attached Tables 1 -6. Resolution #5 -E 06 -05 -07 Table 1 Table 1. Quarterly Integrated Waste Management (IWM ) Residential Rates--Effective July 1, 2007 Size (Gallons) 20 32 64 96 IWM Rates $49.57 $78.02 Senior Discount Rate $42.14 $66.32 LIRA Discount Rate $130.24 N/A $181.91 N/A $42..14 $66.32 $110.70 $154.62 Attachment 2 - Table 2 Table 2 - Monthly Bin and Cart Rates - Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi - Family) Container Size (cy) Commercial Bin Service: Weekly Collection Frequency 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 $98.48 $147.73 $196.97 $198.94 $298.40 $397.87 $301.36 $452.04 4 5 6 $405.75 $608:63 $512.11 $768.17 $620.45 $930.67 $295.45 $596.81 $393.93 $492.42 $590.90 $689.38 $795.75 $994.68 $602.72 $904.08 $811.50 $1,217.25 $1,205.44 $1,506.80 $1,623.01 $2,028.76 $1,024.23 $1,536.34 $2,048.45 $2,560.57 $1,193.62 $1,392.55 $1,808.15 $2,109.51 $2,434.51 $2,840.26 $3,072.68 $3,584.79 Container Size (cy) $1 ,240.89 $1,861.34 $2,481.78 $3,102.23 $3,722.67 $4,343.12 Commercial Bin Compactor Service: Weekly Collection Frequency 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 $196.97 $397.87 $602.72 $811.50 $295.45 $596.81 $904.08 $1,217.25 $393.93 $795.75 $1,205.44 $590.90 $787.87 $1,193.62 $1,591.49 $1,808.15 $2,410.87 $1,623.01 $1,024.23 $1,536.34 $2,048.45 $2,434.52 $3,246.01 $3,072.68 $4,096.91 $984.83 $1,989.36 $3,013.59 $4,057.51 $5,121.13 $1,181.80 $1,378.77 $2,387.24 $3,616.31 $2,785.11 $4,219.03 $4,869.02 $5,680.52 $6,145.36 $7,169.59 $1,240.89 $1,861.34 $2,481.78 $3,722.67 $4,963.56 $6,204.45 $7,445.34 $8,686.23 Table 3 and Table 3a Table 3-Special Pickups, Same -Day Service, or Non - Collection Day Services . � y Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi-Family) Container Size (CY) Maximum Rate Per Collection 1 $48.67 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 $73.00 $97.34 $146.01 $194.68 $243.35. $292.01 $340.68 Table 3a - Additional Services -- Effective July 1, 2007 (Commercial and Multi-Family) Service Locks, Keys, Hasps Steam Cleaning - Per Cleaning Cart replacement(s) in excess of one per year (Sec. 4.12.C) Rate $21.00 $74.31 $15.00 Attachment 2 -- Table 4 Table 4-Monthly Cart Rates - Effective July 1, 2007(Commercial and Multi-Family) Cart Size 20 32 64 96 '1 Commercial Cart Service: Weekly Collection Frequency 3 $7.56 $17.04 $34.45 $51.67 2 2 $15.12 $34.08 $68.89 $103.34 $22.67 $51.12 $103.34 $155.01 4 $30.23 $68.16 $137.79 $206.68 5 5 $37.79 $85.20 $172.23 $258.35 6 $45.35 $102.24 $206.68 $310.02 Maximum monthly rate for weekly unlimited recycling collection is $3.37 per dwelling unit. Maximum monthly rate for weekly unlimited organic materials collection is $2.23 per dwelling unit. Maximum allowable rate for additional cart replacement(s) in excess of one per year is $15.00 per cart as specified in Section 4.12.C. Table 5 Table 5 - Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service Effective July 1, 2007 Includes bringing container from its location on your property to the curb for servicing, and returning the container to your property when empty. (Commercial and Multi-Family) Linear Feet (range) Weekly Collection Frequency 1 -- 20' 21 -40' 1 $14.88 $29.75 2 $29.75 $59.50 3 $44.63 $89.25 41 - 60' 61 - 80' 81 - 100' $44.63 $59.50 $74.38 101 -- 120' $89.25 $89.25 $119.00 $148.76 $178.51 $133.88 $178.51 $223.13 4 $59.50 $119.00 $178.51 $238.01 $297.51 5 $74.38 $148.76 $223.13 6 $89.25 $297.51 $371.89 $178.51 $267.76 $267.76 $357.01 $446.27 121 - 140' 141 - 160' $104.13 $119.00 $208.26 $312.39 $416.52 $520.64 $357.01 $377:56 $535.52 $624.77 $238.01 $357.01 $476.02 $595.02 161 - 180' 181 -200' 201 - 220' 221 - 240' 241 - 260' 261 -- 280' 281 -300' $133.88 $148.76 $163.63 $178.51 $193.38 $208.26 $223.13 $267.76 $297.51 $327.26 $357.01 $386.76 $416.52 $446.27 $401.64 $446.27 $490.89 $535.52 $580.15 $624.77 $669.40 $535.52 $595.02 $654.52 $714.03 $773.53 $833.03 $892.53 $669.40 $743.78 $818.16 $892.53 $966.91 $1,041.29 $1,115.67 No push /pull charges for recyclable /organic materials containers. $714.03 $803.28 $892.53 $981.79 $1,071.04 $1,160.29 $1 ,249.55 $1 ,338.80 Table 5a and Table 5b Table 5a - Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service - Effective July 1, 2007 Includes bringing the container to the curb for servicing. Container will be left at the curb empty. (Commercial and Multi-Family) Linear Feet 1 2 Weekly Collection Frequency 3 4 5 6 1 - 20' 21 - 40' $8.92 $17.85 $17.85 $35.71 $26.77 $53.52 $35.71 $71.40 $44.63 $89.25 41 -60' $26.77 $53.55 $80.33 $107.11 61 -80' $35.71 $71.40 $107.11 $142.80 81 - 100' $44.63 $89.25 $133.88 $178.51 101 --120' $53.55 $107.11 $160.65 $214.21 121 - 140' $62.48 $124.96 $187.43 $249.91 141 --160' $71.40 $142.80 $214.21 $285.61 161 - 180' $80.33 $160.65 $240.99 $321.31 181 - 200' $89.25 $178.51 $267.76 $357.01' 201 - 220' $98.17 $196.36 $294.53 $392.72 221 - 240' $107.11 $116.03 $214.21 $321.31 $428.41 $53.55 $107.11 $133.88 $160.65. $178.42 $214.21 $223.13 $267.76 $267.76 $321.31 $312.39 $374.87 $357.01 $428.41 $401.64 $481.97 $446.27 $535.52 $490.89 $589.07 $535.52 $642.63 241 - 260' $232.05 $348.09 $464.12 261 - 280' $124.96 $250.02 $374.87 $499.81 $580.15 $696.17 $624.77 $749.73 281 -300' $133.88 $267.77 $401.64 $535.52 $669.40 $803.28 No push /pull charges for recyclable /organic materials containers. Table 5b - Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service - Effective July 1, 2007 Includes returning container from curb to the property after servicing is performed. Linear Feet 1 - 20' 21 - 40' 41 - 60' 61 - 80' 81 - 100' 101 - 120' 121 - 140' 141 - 160' 161 - 180' 181 - 200' 201 - 220' 221 - 240' 241 - 260' 261 - 280' 281 -300' 1 $5.95 $11.90 $17.85 $23.80 $29.75 $35.71 $41.65 $47.60 $53.52 $59.50 $65.46 $71.40 $77.36 $83.30 $89.25 2 $11.90 $23.80 $35.71 $47.60 $59.50 $71.40 $83.30 $95.21 $107.11 $119.00 $130.90 $142.80 $154.71 $166.61 $178.51 Weekly Collection Frequency 3 $17.85 $35.71 $53.55 $71.40 $89.25 $107.11 $124.96 $142.80 $160.65 $178.51 $196.36 $214.21 $232.05 $249.91 $267.76 $23.80 $47.60 $71.40 $95.21 $119.00 $142.80 $166.61 $190.40 $214.21 $238.01 $261.81 $285.61 $309.41 $333.22 $357.01 No push /pull charges for recyclable /organic materials containers. 5 6 $29.75 $35.71 $59.50 $71.40 $89.25 $107.11 $119.00 $142.80 $148.76 $178.51 $178.51 $214.21 $208.26 $249.91 $238.01 $285.61 $267.76 $321.28 $297.51 $357.01 $327.26 $392.72 $357.01 $428.41 $386.76 $464.12 $416.52 $499.81 $446.27 $535.52 Table 6 Table 0 - Debris Box per Pull/Tons Allowed and Additional Tonnage Rates - Effective ve July 1, 2007 Material Type i Debris Per Pull Charge Tons Overweight Box Size Allowed Charges - Per Ton (Applied to tons in excess of tons allowed in previous column) '10 $395.80 2 $58.90 Loose 15 $593.69 3 ( $68.99 20 $791.59 4 $68.99 30 $1,187.39 $68.99 40 $1,583.18 $68.99 50 $1,978.98 10 $68.99 Compacted 10 $424.28 3 $68.99 15 $636.42 4 $68.99 20 $848.56 $68.99 30 � $1,272.84 $68.99 40 $1,697.12 11 $68.99 50 $2,121.40 14 $68.99 Dirt 10 $587.33 7 C &D Debris Box Rates $76.65 10 $206.13 N/A $57.26 15 $206.13 N/A $57.26 20 $206.13 N/A $57.26 30 $273.69 N/A $57.26 40 $400.80 N/A $57.26 Concrete (No Rebar) 10 $587.33 $76.65 Wood 10 $316.64 ( 3 $16.43 15 $474.95 4 $16.43 20 $633.27 $16.43 30 $949.91 $16.43 40 $1,266.54 12 $16.43 50 $1,583.18 14 $16.43 Yardwaste 10 $316.64 $33.40 15 $474.95 3 $33.40 20 $633.27 4 $33.40 Commingled Recyclables 30 40 50 $949.91 $1,266.54 $1,583.18 6 8 10 $33.40 $33.40 $33.40 10 $316.64 N/A N/A 15 20 30 40 50 $474.95 $633.27 $949.91 $1,266.54 $1,583.18 Delivery Charge - Initial placement of box onsite = $83.44 Flasher Charge - Per pull for boxed placed in street = 41.80 Relocation Charge - To relocate boxes on site = $1 26.54 Demurrage Charge - For on -call boxes if not serviced in 7 days = $26.64 Per ton fees and rates are subject to change. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1, 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 5t day of June, 2007, by the following vote wit: Y g to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of June, 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: June 5, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Planning Board's Action to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Safeway Gas Station Project Located at 2234 Otis Drive. (PDAO5 -001, D RO5 -0010, U POO -003, U POO -0010, U P O6 -0013) . BACKGROUND In 2005 and 2006, Safeway submitted applications for a new gas station that would replace the existing U. S. Bank building, located at 2234 Otis Drive. An Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared that evaluated potential environmental impacts, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On April 23, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing and reviewed the project. Prior to that hearing, Safeway reduced the size of the proposed project, added an east -west sidewalk along the rear of the property, and withdrew the Use Permit application for alcohol sales. At the April 23 meeting, the Board voted to adopt the MND and then voted to continue the item to May 14, 2007, to allow the applicant to modify the design of the project to address Planning Board design concerns. On May 1, 2007, Councilmember deHaan called for review of the Planning Board decision to adopt the MND. Consequently, at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board hearing, this item was continued again to June 11, 2007. DISCUSSION The Safeway gas station site is under separate ownership from Alameda Towne Centre and consequently required. separate applications from the proposed shopping center's expansion. The project is adjacent to the Alameda Towne Centre, and access to the southern entrance of the site is from the Alameda Towne Centre parking lot and internal road network. The City is also currently evaluating an application to expand and redevelop the shopping center. The Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Safeway project, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, evaluated a wide range of potential impacts. Feasible mitigation measures were included in the MND that would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant level. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -F 06 -05 -07 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 5, 2007 Page 2of3 The traffic study and MND prepared for the Safeway gas station project includes new trips that would be generated by the proposed Alameda Towne Centre expansion project and full development of the shopping center. The studies also account for trips from other projects that have been approved but not constructed, and increased traffic due to population growth. This methodology incorporates a number of conservative assumptions that ensure potential impacts have been thoroughly evaluated. The full effects of these two projects have been evaluated both cumulatively and separately. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level under the full range of foreseeable development scenarios. The City retained professional engineering and environmental firms to prepare the traffic studies and CEQA documents for both the Safeway project and the Alameda Towne Centre project. The scope and methodology of these studies were determined in consultation with City staff, and the final documents were peer reviewed by Planning and Building and Public Works staff. Staff recommended adoption of the MND and approval of the gas station project by the Planning Board. The Planning Board reviewed the project, found that all potentially significant impacts had been adequately evaluated, and then voted to adopt the MND. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Uphold the decision by the Planning Board to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Remand the project to the Planning Board for further action consistent with direction from the City Council. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT This item will have no effect on the City's General Fund, MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE No modification of the Alameda Municipal Code is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Project impacts have been evaluated as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Council will not be taking action to approve or deny this project at this time. This call for review is not subject to environmental review. RECOMMENDATON Uphold the decision of the Planning Board to adopt the Initial Study 1 Negative Declaration for the Safeway gas station project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, Cathy Woodbury Planning and Building Director By: C41 Douglas Garrison Supervising Planner Attachment(s): 1. April 23, 2007 Planning Board Report without attachments 2. April 23, 2007 Planning Board Minutes cc: Chris Ferko, 18215 72nd Ave. South; Kent, WA 98032 ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.: APPLICATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFF PLANNER: RECOMMENDATION: ACRONYMS: Planning Bo Staff = • ort My ing of April 23, 2007 STAFF REPORT 9 -B Initial Study 1S05 -0001; Planned Development Amendment PDA05- 0001; Major Design Review DR05 -O01 U; Use Permits UP06-0003, and UP05- 0013; -- Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive. The applicant requests approval of a Planned Development Amendment, a Major Design Review and two Use Permits allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a twenty -four hour gas station. The site is located within a, Central Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C-- 2 -PD). Community Commercial An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner 747.6875 Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S05-0001 and approve Planned Development Amendment PDA -05 -0001, Use Permit UP06 -0003 (gas station), Use Permit UP06 -0013 (24 hour operation) and Major Design Review DR05 -0010, as modified on plans submitted to the City on April 13, 2007. The applicant has withdrawn UP06 -0012 for alcohol sales. No action is required on that application. AMC — Alameda Municipal Code PDA — Planned Development Amendment CEQA— California Environmental Quality Act CIP— Capital Improvements Program COPPS— Community Oriented Policing and Preventive Services DRM— Design Review Manual City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -F 06 -05 -07 MND— Mitigated Negative Declaration PDA — Planned Development Amendment ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolutions with Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2. Vicinity Map 3. Site Plan and Building Elevations 4. Comments _ 5. April 10, 2007 Omni Means Response to Comments 6. February, 2006 and March 13, 2007 Alameda Police Dept. Comments 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The original proposal included the demolition of an existing bank building and construction of a twenty -four hour gas station, with eighteen covered fueling stations (3 islands, containing 3 double sided pumps each), under a 7,500 square feet canopy with a 625 square feet building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items including beer and wine. In response to recent comments, the project has been reduced in size and Use Permit U P06 -012 for alcohol sales has been withdrawn. The current proposal includes demolition of the existing bank and construction of a smaller cashier's kiosk (500 square feet) that has been relocated to the center of the site, eliminating one multi -- dispenser pump (two fueling stations) in the center island and a smaller canopy (6,790 square feet). Additional landscaping, decorative architectural details and an east -west sidewalk along the rear of the property have been added to the project. The proposed monument sign has been moved further back from the street, reduced from 56 square feet per face to 34 square feet per face and redesigned to incorporate architectural elements consistent with existing and proposed shopping center signage. Vehicle access and egress remains unchanged and would be provided from a driveway on Otis Drive and from the shopping center internal roadway running parallel to the rear property boundary. The project incorporates landscaping around the perimeter, planters at the ends of the fueling islands and a vine covered trellis along the south side of the cashier's kiosk. This feature is integrated into the proposed pedestrian walkway and serves as a refuge to break up the otherwise wide expanse of project driveways. The proposed walkway will connect to existing and proposed sidewalks, providing enhanced access to the shopping center. Along the southern boundary of the project, the sidewalk will consist of a combination of traditional concrete sidewalk, where feasible, and a raised patterned walkway bisected by the vehicle entrances to the site. The walkway will be raised one to two inches above the adjacent asphalt and will be constructed of a patterned material of a different color than surrounding vehicle lanes, providing a clear demarcation between the different transportation modes. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 2 II. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity A vacant bank occupies the site. Other nearby businesses along Otis Drive in this area include banks, a fast food restaurant, an office supply store and a twenty-four hour pharmacy. Parking lots for the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center) separate these businesses from the main core of retailers in the shopping center. The Alameda Towne Centre is an existing shopping center established in the late 1950's. The shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial businesses. Previously, the shopping center included two gas stations on Otis Drive. These gas stations were replaced by retail stores in 1998 and 2005. The current proposal to replace the existing bank building is consistent with the ongoing redevelopment of the shopping center. In 2003, the adjacent shopping center proposed a 112,000 square feet expansion that included the removal of an existing gas station, located on the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street. In response to public support for the gas station, the Planning Board required as a condition of approval that the shopping center owner locate a suitable site for a gas station. The U. S. Bank that previously occupied this property has relocated to inside the newly constructed Safeway store in the shopping center, making this site available for redevelopment with a gas station. B. Surrounding Land Use North — Otis Drive, lagoon and residential West — Bank South — Parking lot and shopping center East — Driveway to shopping center and bank 111. ANALYSIS A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project (Attachment No. 7). Potentially significant impacts were identified in the MND. Feasible mitigation measures are included in the MND that will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The MND was circulated for public review for thirty days. Comments were received from the public and government entities (Attachment No.4). The comments are summarized in the following section of this report along with responses to these comments. Impacts / Mitigation Measures The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated a wide range of potential Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 3 impacts. Due to project design, location and existing regulatory requirements, the following impacts were determined to be Tess than significant: aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, utilities and service systems. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the following areas: air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and transportation and circulation. Feasible mitigation measures were included in the MND that would reduce these impacts to la less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impacts The following potentially significant impacts were identified in the MND: Air Quality: The MND identifies construction — related dust as a potentially significant air quality impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAMQD) CEQA Guidelines consider potentially significant construction — related dust impacts to be adequately mitigated with the implementation of recommended control measures. Mitigation Measure No.1 requires the implementation of these control measures. Cultural Resources: The MND identifies potential effects on archaeological and paleontological resources as a potentially significant impact. It should noted that the proposed project consists of the redevelopment of a commercial site, located within an existing shopping center that was constructed in the late 1950's on dredged bay fill. Consequently, the potential for adverse effects is quite low. Mitigation Measure No. 2 requires the applicant to stop work if archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered and implement a resource protection plan. Geology and Soils: The MND identifies construction related erosion as a potentially significant impact on water quality. Mitigation Measure No. 3 requires the applicant to submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of Building Permits and the implementation of best management practices (BMP) during the construction phase. Hydrology and Water Quality: The MND identifies contaminated stormwater runoff as a potentially significant impact, due to the potential for petroleum product spills and other debris. Mitigation Measure No. 4 requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Traffic and Circulation: A focused traffic study was prepared by Omni Means for this project. The traffic study is reproduced in Appendix B of the MND (Attachment No. 7). The study evaluated two scenarios: 1) Both the gas station and the currently proposed expansion of the shopping center (Target) would be approved; and 2) Only the gas station would be approved. Based on thresholds of significance established in the City of Alameda Traffic Study Guidelines, potentially significant impacts were identified at two entrances to the shopping center. These impacts would occur, although to a lesser degree, if the Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 4 shopping center expansion is not approved. If the shopping center expansion is approved, Mitigation Measure No. 5 requires the applicant to contribute a proportional share to left turn lane improvements at the intersection of Park Street and the north shopping center driveway (Whitehall Place). If the shopping center expansion is not approved, the applicant (Safeway) will be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure No. 6 requires the applicant to provide a proportional contribution towards the installation of a new traffic signal at the Otis Drive /Trader Joe's driveway intersection. Due to uncertainty over funding for the signal, the MND originally included an alternative mitigation measure that could be implemented if the shopping center expansion is not approved. Due to the inclusion of this signal in the City Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which assures full funding, the City is no longer considering the other mitigation which would have required converting this entrance to right turn only. The project driveway on Otis Drive was evaluated for full ingress /egress movements. With no traffic signal at the Otis Drive 1 Trader Joe's driveway intersection, the project driveway is projected to function properly. However, with the traffic signal installed, vehicles attempting left turns into or out of the site would potentially conflict with eastbound vehicles queuing at the new signal. Mitigation Measure No. 7 requires the applicant to limit the project driveway to right turn movements only, when the traffic signal is installed. Additionally, Mitigation Measure No. 8 requires annual monitoring for five years and identifies operational modifications that may be required to ensure compliance with projected conditions. Comments 1 Responses The City circulated the MND to the public, other government agencies and the public for review. Comments were submitted by six private citizens, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and from the City of Alameda Transportation Commission. In addition to comments on the MND that were received during the 30 - -day comment period, the City received a few comment letters that address the project in more general terms. The City held a Design Workshop for the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project (Target) on March 12, 2007. This onsite workshop included the Safeway site. The applicant also held a separate community workshop on April 5, 2007. Oral comments were received from the public at both of these meetings concerning the Safeway gas station project design and operations. Written comments are reproduced in Attachment No. 4. Most of the comments addressed potential traffic impacts and Traffic Study methodology.Omni Means provided written responses to these comments (Attachment No. 5). When responding to traffic related comments, the following discussion may summarize the more detailed responses prepared by Omni Means. Comment: Project Size. Commenters questioned the need for a gas station of this size Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 5 (three islands, containing nine pumps, for a total of 18 fueling positions with a retail store selling convenience items). Response: The size of the station potentially affects the visual quality of the site and traffic circulation. Since the publication of the MND, the applicant has redesigned the project. The original design included a 625 square foot cashier's kiosk / retail store. The current proposal reduces the size to 500 square foot and relocates the kiosk to the center of the site resulting in the elimination of one pump. This more compact design allows more landscaping and decorative architectural features, which reduces the apparent mass of the project and provides better pedestrian access. Visual impacts were determined to be less than significant in the MND. This revised plan further reduces potential visual effects. The applicant and City engineering staff raised concerns about reducing the number of pumps, due to the potential for additional vehicle queuing adversely affecting traffic flow on Otis Drive and interior roadways within the shopping center. Omni Means evaluated the effect of reducing the number of pumps and determined that this would not substantially alter the length of vehicle queues. This conclusion is based on observations at a Safeway gas station with a similar configuration. Omni Means noted that once vehicle queues reached two or three cars, drivers typically would leave rather than queue into adjacent vehicle lanes. Comment: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Data: Commenters questioned the appropriateness of relying on ITE trip generation data and requested that Omni Means use traffic data provided by Safeway from other Safeway gas stations. Response: Omni Means notes in their response that the study utilized vehicle trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)_ These rates are based on over 35 samples of various fueling stations including pay at the pump, traditional fueling stations, and discount fueling stations. Additionally, to confirm the applicability of the ITE rates, service flow rate data for Safeway Gas fueling stations was collected for the analysis. Supplemental vehicle count data was also collected at the Dublin Safeway gas station. Additionally, previous traffic studies were reviewed that surveyed the trip generation and pass -by characteristics of Safeway Gas Stations. This supplemental data on Safeway gas stations was collected to determine their service flow rate (for vehicle queuing), pass -by and linked trip ratios, and overall trip generation. The use of ITE rates supplemented by additional data from similar Bay Area facilities provides the best available data to evaluate potential traffic impacts of this project. Comment: Project and Cumulative Trips Commenters questioned whether the pass -by rate used for this gas station was appropriate considering that Safeway would be selling gas at discounted prices and whether the trips from the bank, that previously operated on this site had been overstated, due to differing peak hours. Response: Based on information provided by Safeway, Omni Means responded that the Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 6 typical discount is three cents per gallon when customers use their club card. Customers may earn larger discounts ranging from six cents to ten cents based on the amount spent on groceries and occasional special promotions. Based on their observations, these discounts generated trip levels consistent with published ITE data. Omni Means also notes that the traffic study relied on new trips and passby trips only. No credit was given for linked trips, where shoppers visiting the Safeway grocery store and then the gas station, as some other traffic studies have done. Since no allowance was given for these linked trips, calculated net new trip generation for the proposed project is likely conservative and does not underestimate peak hour vehicle trips related to the project. Comment: Bank Peak Hour Commenters questioned the appropriateness of offsetting new AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the gas station by peak hour trips for bank customer activity since the bank didn't open until 9:00 AM and the Bank closed at 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 6:00 on Friday only. Response: Omni Means notes that peak hour vehicle trips attributed to the bank were subtracted from overall project vehicle trip generation due to the fact that Bank trips were included in initial intersection counts analyzed for the project. Bank trips were subtracted in order to not overstate proposed project impacts. Vehicle trip generation attributed to the Bank would not be considered excessive. During the AM peak hour, the bank is projected to generate 15 vehicle trips. This accounts for bank employees (10 employees) arriving before 9:00 a.m. and some very minor bank traffic. During the PM peak hour, the bank is projected to generate 41 trips. Again, these trips represent employees leaving the bank and active use of the Bank's ATM /banking machines. The ATM /banking machines can be used during non - banking hours and generate vehicle trips consistent with estimated bank trip generation. Comment: Gas Station Peak Hour Commenters requested clarification ofwhyAM and PM peak hours were used in evaluating project trips in the MND and midday peak hours were used when observing traffic at the Dublin Fueling center. Response: Omni Means notes that observations and vehicle data from the Dublin Safeway Gas Station were collected during the 12:00 -2:00 p.m. period and the 4:00 -6:00 p.m. period. Both these time periods were studied to provide a "worst case" analysis for potential vehicle queuing and vehicle trip generation comparisons to ITE rates. From this data, it was determined that vehicle trip generation closely correlated to vehicle fueling service times. During both these times periods, the Dublin fueling station was at maximum demand with two vehicles queued behind each island (with all fueling stations occupied). This data was then used for vehicle queuing calculations and trip generation comparisons for both the AM and PM peak hours. Comment: Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP) Commenters requested that the project contribute to a TDMP or City Shuttle to help mitigate the added traffic and emissions that the project would cause in the same manner that other large projects have Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 7 been required to. Response: The project consists of the redevelopment of an existing commercial site from a bank to a gas station. The net increase in traffic is marginal when compared to other large projects that have been required to develop or contribute to a TDMP. It should also be noted that in some cases, it was determined that these large projects would cause significant and unavoidable traffic impacts; thus, there was a strong nexus for implementing a TDMP. In this case, feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce all potentially significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Omni Means notes that typically patrons must drive their vehicle to the gas station (rather than use transit, walk, or bicycle). The majority of the vehicle trips represent existing trips rather than new vehicle trips. There is no nexus, based on substantial evidence, for requiring contributions to a TDMP or a City Shuttle program. It should be noted, however, that in addition to project specific mitigation, the applicant will be required to pay city -wide development fees that fund transportation improvements throughout the city. Comment: Alternative Transportation Commenters raised concerns that the project could have an impact on transit operations at intersections and in the surrounding community and that the bike and pedestrian environment could be impacted by additional traffic. Response: The project location will not interfere with implementation of proposed transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements for the Alameda Towne Centre. The project includes new pedestrian walkways that will connect to existing and proposed sidewalks. There is no substantial evidence showing a nexus between the project and impacts to transit operations or bicycle and pedestrian environments. Comment: Truck Route Commenters asserted that the proposed truck route was not consistent with City regulations. Response: The City of Alameda Municipal Code requires trucks to use established truck, routes. When making deliveries, trucks are permitted to leave the designated truck route when necessary, to complete the delivery. Existing truck routes in the vicinity of the project include Park Street and Otis Drive, west of Park Street. The applicant has submitted plans to the City showing trucks turning left into the Center at the "Office Max" entrance and exiting back out onto Otis Drive via the project driveway. This approach has been reviewed by City Engineering staff and determined to meet the requirements of City truck route regulations. Comment: Consistency of DEIR and MND Data: Commenters requested information comparing the data used in the Alameda Towne Centre Draft EIR (DEIR) and the project MND. Response: Omni Means notes that the traffic study for the Alameda Towne Centre expansion was prepared prior to the study for the gas station. The project trip generation Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 8 for the proposed Safeway Gas Station in the DEIR was slightly less than that assumed for the Safeway Gas Station MND due to more specific project information provided by the applicant at that later date. The DEIR assumed 125 total PM peak hour trips (total) and the Safeway Gas Station MND assumed 154 total PM peak hour trips. These changes will be reflected in the updated traffic study and FEIR being prepared for the proposed Alameda Towne Center project. Comment: Mitigation Measure No. 6: Commenters questioned the appropriateness of providing more than one feasible mitigation measure to alleviate the waiting time for left turning vehicles exiting the shopping center from the `Trader Joe's entrance.' Response: The recommended mitigation measure for the proposed Safeway Gas Station project is to have the applicant contribute a proportional share towards the installation of a signal at the Otis Drive/Trader Joe's driveway intersection. The MND included an alternative mitigation requiring the modification of the `Trader Joe's entrance' to right -turn only in the event that the shopping center expansion is not approved. This was because full funding of the new signal was not assured without mitigation funding from the Shopping Center. This signal has been added to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP); thus, assuring full funding. Consequently, this alternative mitigation is no longer being considered by the City. Comment: Pedestrian Access Commenters noted that the project plans did not include an east -west sidewalk along the rear of the property. Response: The project has been redesigned and now includes this sidewalk. Comment: CEQA Piecemealing Commenters questioned the appropriateness of evaluating the Safeway gas station separately from the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project. Response: The Safeway gas station site is under separate ownership and the owner has submitted a separate application. At this time it is unknown whether the City will approve both projects. Therefore, the traffic study and DEIR prepared for the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project included trips that would be generated by the gas station. Similarly, the traffic study and MND prepared for the Safeway gas station project includes new trips that would be generated by the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project and full development of the shopping center. The studies also account for trips from other projects that have been approved but not constructed yet and increased traffic due to population growth. This methodology incorporates a number of conservative assumptions that ensure potential impacts have been thoroughly evaluated. The full effects of these two projects have been evaluated both cumulatively and separately. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level under the full range of foreseeable development scenarios. The two projects include integrated designs that ensure compatibility. Vehicle and Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 9 pedestrian circulation between the gas station, the shopping center and neighboring properties has been evaluated. The gas station design incorporates architectural features used in the shopping center. The project will be compatible architecturally with neighboring properties and will be integrated into existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicle circulation improvements. Comment: Utilities The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) requested confirmation from the City Public Works Department that the existing wastewater system has adequate capacity to accommodate the project. Response: Public Works has confirmed that adequate capacity exists. Comment: Public Safety: Commenters raised concerns about alcohol sales and increased crime. Response: The applicant has withdrawn the Use Permit Application for alcohol sales and reduced the floor area of the store. Alameda Police Department (APD) staff have reviewed the project and provided operational and design recommendations (Attachment 6). With the proposed modifications to the project and implementation of APD recommendations, the project will not cause substantial increase in crime. Other Comments: Some commenters noted that a service station with mechanics on duty would be preferable; others commented that an alternative use such as an In -n -Out Burger would be more appropriate for this location and others commented that Safeway should comply with State law concerning access for the disabled. Response: These comments are provided to the Planning Board to ensure a complete record of public input. The Planning Board may find these comments useful in evaluating this project, they are not, however, related to the adequacy of the CEQA evaluation and no responses are required. Summary Comments generally focused on traffic impacts and traffic study methodology. Other comments addressed CEQA procedure, and public safety. No new impacts have been identified that would require additional CEQA evaluation. The City has made minor modifications to some mitigation measures, to ensure timely implementation and that impacts will be fully mitigated. These changes do not have the potential to cause new impacts. The City can make all mandatory CEQA findings for this project. The applicant has reduced the project size, further reducing impacts that have previously been determined to be less than significant. B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 10 Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30 -4.13 Planned Development (PD) allows developers flexibility in establishing site design standards that differ from the underlying zoning district standards if this results in a more effective use of the property. The project is located in a C -2 Zoning District with Planned Development Overlay. In 1986, the City amended the Zoning Map and applied the PD zoning overlay to the existing South Shore Shopping Center. Because this was an existing development, no specific development standards were established, as part of the rezoning, that would modify the standards contained in the AMC for C -2 Zoning Districts. Since the City adopted the PD zoning overlay, the shopping center owner has applied for planned Development Amendments (PDA) that have resulted in reduced parking requirements and allowed larger signs. However, the subject property being under separate ownership was not included in these PDAs. Thus, those changes do not apply to this project. Substantial changes in use that could potentially adversely affect neighboring properties require a PDA. The Planning Director determined that the proposed project represented a substantial change in use with the potential to adversely affect neighboring properties. Consequently, a PDA is required. Table 1 summarizes the proposed project and compares to C -2 zoning district standards. Table 1. As shown above, the project generally complies with C -2 Zoning District development standards. However, the project does include setback encroachments, a larger monument Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 11 AMC Standard Project 1 Notes Setbacks Front Rear Side (east) Side (west) 0 12 0 or 12 0 or 12 5 (sign) 20 canopy 8 (kiosk) 3 (trellis) 13 (canopy) 20 (canopy) 4 (trash enclosure) Sideyard: May be 0. However, if a setback is provided it must be 12 feet. Rear: May be 0, unless adjacent to street, alley or parking lot, then 12 ft. Building Height 8 stories /100 ft 21 ft. Signage Monument 150 sq ft for business with two frontages 30 /face, 5 sq. ft. exempt for gas prices; 12 ft. hgt; 75 ft from nearest monument sign. 188 sq. ft. (includes 10 sq ft. exempt) 34 ft /face (including 5 sq. ft exempt), hgt: 7.5 ft Over 100 ft, to other monument signs. Monument sign includes appox. 26 sq. ft. of structural support and decorative design elements (wood trellis) and 5 sq, ft of gas price information / face that is exempt under the AMC Parking Retail: 1 / 250 sq ft 2 spaces 2 spaces No AMC standard for gas station / retail As shown above, the project generally complies with C -2 Zoning District development standards. However, the project does include setback encroachments, a larger monument Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 11 sign than would normally be allowed in this zoning district and exceeds the 150 square feet of maximum allowed signage for a business with two frontages. The recently redesigned project, relocates and reduces the size of the proposed cashier's kiosk /retail store. In this new location, the structure will encroach into the required rear setback. However, this site plan provides a more compact footprint that allows more landscaping, decorative architectural details and better pedestrian and vehicle circulation. The Safeway name and logo occupy 29 square feet per face of the monument sign. An additional 5 square feet, per face is provided for gas price information. The structural and decorative architectural elements add another 26 square feet per face. The AMC requires that structural supports and decorative architectural elements be included in sign area calculations. In this case, the total sign area exceeds the AMC standard, when the structural supports and decorative architectural elements are included. This proposed sign includes decorative elements including a heavy timber - supporting frame, which does not increase lighting and is an important design element found throughout the Alameda Towne Centre. The proposed monument sign is consistent in design and scale with existing and proposed signage in the Alameda Towne Centre. The AMC limits monument signs to a maximum height of twelve feet. The original proposal included a twelve feet high monument sign. The current proposal has reduced the height to approximately 7.5 feet. The AMC requires a minimum distance of 75 feet between monument signs. The current proposal meets this requirement. Overall, the project exceeds the 150 square feet of signage allowed for a business with two frontages. However, in this case the business actually has three frontages. One of the three proposed facade signs faces internally towards the shopping center. Consequently, the proposed signage is appropriate for this project and is allowed under PD zoning. Conclusion The project does not meet AMC standards for rear and sideyard setbacks and the proposed monument sign is larger than 30 square feet, including structural and decorative elements. However, staff can make the required PDA findings that the project enables a more effective use of the site and will be compatible with neighboring properties. C. Design Review New structures are subject to design review. The primary purpose of design review is to ensure that new buildings are compatible with neighboring properties and will not adversely affect historic resources or neighboring properties. The City Design Review Manual (DRM) provides guidance in reviewing projects. The DRM identifies six primary design elements: site planning, building design, landscaping, historic preservation, traffic and parking and signs. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 12 Site Plan The DRM notes that site layout should take into consideration the project's effect on adjacent properties. Important considerations, identified in the DRM, include locating buildings to avoid monotony and a monolithic appearance and thoughtful integration of site access and other outdoor activity areas into site design. The project incorporates landscaping around the perimeter, planters at the ends of the fueling islands and a vine covered trellis along the south side of the cashier's kiosk. This feature is integrated into the proposed pedestrian walkway and serves as a refuge to break up the otherwise wide expanse of project driveways. The proposed walkway will connect to existing and proposed sidewalks, providing enhanced access to the shopping center. Along the southern boundary of the project, the sidewalk will consist of a combination of traditional concrete sidewalk, where feasible, and a raised patterned walkway bisected by the vehicle entrances to the site. The walkway will be raised one to two inches above the adjacent asphalt and will be constructed of a patterned material of a different color than surrounding vehicle lanes, providing a clear demarcation between the different transportation modes. Building Design The DRM notes that building design should have a harmonious relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. In evaluating building design, important design factors include an appropriate design theme, scale, compatible roofline, and harmonious colors, textures, and building materials. Windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationships to one another. Review of project plans shows that the project includes decorative architectural features found in the recently renovated areas of the shopping center. These include wooden roof brackets, trellises, and stamped concrete. Colors and signage will be consistent with the new Safeway grocery store and shopping center monument signs. Proposed building height is consistent with other buildings fronting Otis Drive. The project will appear substantially different than the existing bank building. However, it is consistent with historic development patterns in this area, which previously included two gas stations. Landscaping The DRM notes that the landscape plan should be planned as an integral component of the project and should be harmonious with the building design. Landscaping includes extensive planting along the north, west and east frontages (Otis Drive, adjacent bank and one of the major entrances to the shopping center). The planting palette consists of a mix of trees and low growing plants. A trellis with vines is incorporated Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 13 into the southern facade of the cashier's kiosk. Decorative planter boxes and urns are incorporated into the fueling area. Landscaping is well integrated into the project and is consistent with that found in the recently renovated courtyard and walkways in the shopping center and along the adjacent street frontages. The landscaping serves to reduce visual effects of proposed lighting and reduces the apparent mass of the buildings. Historic Preservation The DRM encourages the preservation of historic resources and notes that new buildings should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed new design incorporates some design elements found in craftsman style buildings, throughout Alameda. The shopping center and neighboring properties were originally developed in the late 1950's and 1960's, on fill material dredged from the bay. No buildings in the center were constructed prior to 1942. There are no historic resources on this property. signage The DRM notes that signs should be harmonious with surroundings, improve the appearance of areas that are in need of upgrading and should be an integral part of the building design. Facade signs are proposed for the north, east and south facing facades of the canopy, consisting of the store name and logo. Each sign includes lettering approximately two feet tall and covers approximately 40 square feet. Proposed signs are well integrated into the project and shopping center design. As noted in the PDA Analysis section of this report, the proposed signage exceeds the area allowed under AMC sign standards. However, this may be allowed under PD zoning. Considering the project location, design and spacing of other business signage in this area, the proposed signage is well integrated with the overall project design and neighboring properties. Vehicle, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation The DRM notes that circulation systems should be designed to avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Truck loading areas should be located to prevent delivery trucks from interfering with street traffic. Offstreet parking should be attractively screened from the public right -of -way. Traffic circulation has been extensively evaluated and is discussed throughout this report. The project includes new pedestrian walkways that will connect to existing and proposed sidewalks. Site design allows for the orderly flow of vehicles through the site. Delivery trucks may enter and exit the site without blocking traffic or backing onto adjacent streets. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 14 Conclusion Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the DRM and determined that the project is consistent with the design criteria of the DRM. Staff can make the required findings for Design Review approval. Use Permit The City of Alameda requires Use Permits for businesses that are, due to their location or type of use, potentially incompatible with nearby land uses. In the C -2 zoning district, Use Permits are required for businesses that remain open between the hours of 1 0:00 PM and 7:00 AM and for businesses that that are not conducted principally indoors. Additionally, Use Permits may be required for some other types of businesses, which due to their nature may create a public nuisance. In the C-2 zoning district, businesses that require Use Permits include liquor stores, gas stations, car washes, drive- through restaurants, and other businesses that remain open later than 1 0:00 PM; such as, restaurants, taverns and convenience stores. The purpose of the Use Permit is primarily to ensure that late night or outdoor activities do not adversely affect neighboring residential areas. The applicant applied for Use Permits allowing the operation of a twenty -four hour gas station with alcohol sales. The Use Permit application for alcohol sales has been withdrawn by the applicant. The primary compatibility concerns that have been evaluated for these Use Permit applications include: light and glare, noise, traffic and public safety. Light and Glare The project is located within an existing shopping center. Other existing businesses, in the shopping center, fronting onto Otis Drive include banks and a fast food restaurant. The nearest residential uses are north of the tidal lagoon and Otis Drive and on the north side of Otis Drive, west of the site on Otis Drive. There is extensive landscaping along Otis Drive, between the project site and the lagoon. The apartment buildings on, Otis Drive to the West, are oriented towards the lagoon and do no have windows directly facing the site. Potential areas of concern are offsite impacts due to illuminated signs and other light sources. The replacement of the bank with a gas station will cause an increase in the amount of lighting due to building design and hours of operation. This potential impact was evaluated in the MND and determined to be less than significant. Project design includes shielded, downward pointing light fixtures and extensive perimeter landscaping that substantially reduces offsite effects. The photometric analysis submitted with the project application, shows no substantial offsite lighting effects on adjacent properties. As discussed in previous sections, the proposed monument sign, evaluated in the MND, has been relocated further away from the street and reduced in height and area. With these changes, light and glare will be further reduced. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 15 Noise The proposed gas station will be a relatively low intensity noise generator, when compared to some other uses that would typically require a Use Permit. The project does not include automobile repair facilities. The project is surrounded by other commercial uses and fronts onto a busy street. Consequently, the potential for project noise adversely affecting neighboring properties is minimal. This potential impact was evaluated in the MND and determined to be less than significant. Traffic The project consists of redevelopment of a commercial lot. Changing the use from a bank to a gas station will result in a net increase in local traffic. A focused traffic study was prepared for this project. Based on this study, the MND identified potentially significant impacts. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that wilt reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The traffic issues are discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Review Section of this report. Public Safety Project design, alcohol sales and proposed twenty -four hour operations have been evaluated by the Community Oriented Policing and Preventive Services (COPPS) Unit of the Alameda Police Department (Attachment No. 6). COPPS recommended denial of the alcohol sates Use Permit, due to documented alcohol related crime problems at other gas station / convenience stores in Alameda. The applicant has withdrawn this Use Permit application (UPO6-0012) for alcohol sales. COPPS also provided security recommendations for late night operations. Condition No. 22 requires implementation of security recommendations. With the project modifications proposed by the applicant and the implementation of security measures recommended by COPPS, it is not anticipated that the project will cause a substantial increase in nuisance crimes that could adversely affect neighboring properties. Conclusion Staff can make the required findings for approval of the two Use Permit applications for a gas station use and twenty -four hour operations. C. Summary Potential project impacts have been evaluated as required under CEQA. Feasible mitigation has been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant has reduced the size of the project and redesigned the site layout, further reducing the potential for adverse effects. The redesigned project has been Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 16 determined to be compatible with neighboring uses. Staff can make all required findings for approval of the PDA, Design Review and Use Permits for a twenty-four hour gas station. Iv. Recommendation Adopt Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S05-0001 and then approve Planned Development Amendment PDA05 -001, Use Permits UP06 -0003 and UP06 -0013 and Major Design Review DR05 -0010. G:IPLANNING1PB1Reports1200 7104- 23- 071Gtis_2230 PDA05 -0001 DR05 -0010 UP06 -0003 UPO6 -0013 Safeway Gas Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of April 23, 2007 Page 17 9 -B. Initial Study 1S05-0001; Planned Development Amendment PDAO5 -000 1; Major Design Review DRO5 -0010; Use Permits UPO6 -0003, UPO6 -0010, UPO6- 012 and UPO6 -0013; — Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive (adjacent Alameda Towne Centre) (DG). The applicant requests approval of Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review and Use Permits allowing the demolition, of an existing bank building and redevelopment of the property with a gas station. The project includes three covered pump islands, each containing three pumps, for a total of eighteen pumping stations. Fuel will be stored in three 20,0000 gallon underground storage tanks. In addition to the approximately 7,500 square -foot canopy covering the gasoline pumping facilities, the project includes an approximately 625 square -foot building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience items. The applicant is proposing twenty -four hour operations and the sale of beer and wine. An Initial Study 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The site is located within a Central Business District with Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C- 2 -PD). Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Todd Paradise, applicant, Safeway, noted that there were several Safeway fuel centers in the Bay Area, including Dublin, Livermore and Morgan Hill. He added that the fuel centers were owned and operated by Safeway, and that they were a vital part of the program, adding convenience to the grocery operations. He described the background of the site plan, and displayed a presentation of the proposed project. He noted that following a community workshop in early March, they dropped the request for alcohol sales. Mr. Chris Furcoe, noted that his company had worked on many hundreds of gas stations across the nations. He summarized the technological advances featured by the proposed gas station, and noted that California was on the leading edge of regulatory reform. He stated that the proposed station would be state of the art, and added that the tanks and piping would feature double- walled fiberglass. The gas station would meet the most stringent earthquake standard (Category 5 earthquake standard). The air quality would be aided by a Stage 2 vapor recovery system. Ms. Debbie Cartegener, land use attorney, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami, confirmed the applicant's understanding regarding condition of approval #8, regarding the monitoring of the driveways for five years. She understood that Safeway would provide the funding as necessary for that, and the actual monitoring would be performed by the City. She noted that a gas station project normally did not take two years to complete, and that the applicant was concerned about moving forward as quickly as possible. She noted that there was no guarantee that the Target application would be heard in two months, and requested that the Board consider this project at this time. City Council Planning : e . i mutes Public Hearing A s ' 3, 2007 Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5 -F 06 -05 -07 Mr. Garrison noted that Safeway would provide the funding, and that the City would likely hire a consultant to perform the monitoring. Ms. Debra Banks noted that she had offered an initiative to have a petition circulated through the St. Francis condominiums regarding the concerns raised during the early April meeting. She expressed concern about the mitigated negative declaration, and whether it was sufficient to cover the environmental concerns of the community. She also expressed concern about the traffic flow, and noted that it was almost impossible to make a left -hand turn from St. Francis. She was also concerned about the environmental integrity, and whether the ground and landfill would support this type of system. She expressed concern about safe waterways and structural integrity, especially with respect to earthquakes. She was also concerned about unmanageable traffic on Otis Drive. Mr. Mark Irons inquired about the mitigated negative declaration. He thought the traffic would flow in two directions, as is typical for gas stations in Alameda. He understood that the higher number of pumps would expedite usage, but was concerned that it would attract even more cars, causing congestion. He understood the urgency, but believed it may be best to wait. He was concerned about the cumulative effects of this project. Ms. Dorothy Reid wished to clarify the start of monitoring period, and would like to see it monitored five years after the shopping center is completely developed through the PDA. She believed it would take five years to build it up and see that effect. She inquired why the applicant wanted the gas station on the site at all. She noted that the original plan was to remove the existing gas station. She questioned whether the center needed a gas station in this spot at all, regardless of the quality of work that the applicant has done. She noted that the center has been without a gas station for three years, and that people have figured out where to go for gas. She noted that people really wanted a service station. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he usually bought his gas at a locally owned full- service Chevron station. He noted that the north side entrance of the gas station off Webster was not supposed to be used, although people did it all the time. He suggested that it be redesigned so that a driver could only enter on one side, and exit through another. Regarding pedestrian safety, he suggested that the exit be on the south side of the gas station into the shopping center, with a raised safe crosswalk barrier to slow traffic. He believed the post - completion monitoring period should be at least 10 years rather than five years because most gas tank failures and toxic waste problems occur long after five years. He emphasized that monitoring and mitigation was a cost of doing business. Mr. Randy Kyte noted that they had been working with Safeway gas for two years, and added that Safeway has been on the Island since 1958. He noted that they also had concerns about their earlier concerns, and believed they had done a very good job in revising the plan in conjunction with staff. He believed that the circulation from the shopping center to Otis made good sense, and added that they would work on their own mitigation plan to ensure there would be no queuing problems in the east -west drive aisle, Planning Board Minutes Page 9 April 23, 2007 which would be detrimental to the shopping center; Safeway agreed with that assessment as well. They believed the plan has progressed well, and acknowledged their effort to add the sidewalk. Mr. Bill Smith, 724 Central #9, noted that he had spent 20 years redesigning bicycles, and continued to work on alternative vehicles. He discussed charging stations for electric bikes and automobiles. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraff commended the applicant for their decision not to sell alcohol at the gas station. She appreciated the support of the east -west sidewalk. She did not believe the gas station for South Shore Center should be supersized, and noted that the previous gas station had fewer pumping sites. She noted that it was also busier, and meant more cars in the shopping center. She proposed that there be no more than 12 fueling stations with six pumps, and she liked the biodiesel proposal. She noted that the Dublin station had 12 fueling positions, and that there were usually fewer than three cars waiting to fuel. She inquired whether the hours for refueling from the big tanker trucks could be limited to off -peak hours, and whether the station should be a 24/7 station. She agreed with Mr. McKay's suggestion in his email that any light generated should be designed so it did not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors, and that additional landscaping should be added along the Otis Drive side of the lagoon to further shield neighbors on the other side of the lagoon. Board member McNamara noted that she had used the Dublin Safeway fuel center often, and enjoyed the orderly flow of traffic, which was a one -way flow. She remembered the gas lines of the 1970s, and noted that similar events may negatively impact the surrounding streets; she inquired how long the monitoring would continue. She added that traffic queuing was a serious concern for her. With respect to the emails on lighting impacts sent by residents of Laurel and Powell, she would like to know which landscaping view would be supported. Mr. Garrison explained the perspectives and scale of the illustrations. Mr. Thomas noted that the preliminary landscaping plan was on page PL -1, which was more reliable and specific than the perspective illustrations. A discussion of the photometric plan ensued. Board member McNamara expressed concern about the refueling times, and inquired about the anticipated refueling timeframe. Mr. Garrison replied that the CEQA document noted that truck deliveries were generally prohibited during the late night hours by the AMC (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). He noted that the specific truck delivery times had not been identified. Mr. Thomas suggested that the applicant be asked whether they would be willing to limit truck deliveries to early morning hours. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 23, 2007 The applicant noted that with respect to deliveries during early morning hours, there were physical limitations for deliveries; a full truck was the safest way to deliver fuel, and most drivers would not leave the site it they could not drop off the entire load because of the remaining vapors in the truck. They would need some flexibility for that reason, and he discussed the technical aspects of the fuel delivery process, which he noted was relatively quiet. Board member McNamara noted that the concern was regarding conflict with traffic and respecting the neighbors' noise concerns. Mr. Gold noted that it was important that the Planning Board and the residents felt comfortable, and invited them to talk with other cities who have the Safeway fueling stations. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether a year -long monitoring process would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gold replied that they would be willing to do so, and to discuss other items of concern at that time. He noted that they wished to be good neighbors, and added that they had a good reputation for doing the right thing with respect to their operations. Board member Kohlstrand . stated that she would like to remove the shopping cart restrictions between Trader Joe's and Safeway, and noted that they were often abandoned on the sidewalks. Mr. Kyte replied that the perimeter may have been too narrow, and added that they had many shopping carts scattered all over the center. Board member Kohlstrand shared the same concerns as her fellow Board members, and believed the lighting plan would be respectful of the neighbors across the lagoon. She believed that there were too many gas pumps on the site, and suggested reducing it by two or four. She was not comfortable with a continuous curb cut adjacent to the shopping center, and that it should be narrowed down with the same kind of circulation on the shopping center side as on Otis, while providing a safer environment for pedestrians. She noted that the truck traffic should be accommodated from the westernmost driveway as well. She was not comfortable on the proposal as shown because of its size, and believed it was too big for the site. She believed the architectural design was very positive, and liked the proposed treatment; she believed the landscape plan was reasonable. In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham question regarding the Category Five earthquake design criteria, Mr. Gold replied that California had seismic zones one through four, and there were higher zone levels that engineers use as a multiplied to determine the force of an earthquake. He noted that this site was in Zone 4- A, and that magnitude of earthquake would be approximately 7.4. He noted that when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, none of the tanks were damaged. He noted that the tanks were structurally secure sitting either above or below ground, and added that the piping was flexible. He noted that they had never had any problems with the underground storage systems because of earthquake activity. Acting President Cunningham inquired about monitoring in Condition 8, Mr. Gold replied that the purpose of the condition was to monitor traffic flow at the project driveway at the Planning Board Minutes Page 11 April 23, 2007 direction of Public Works over concerns of queuing into the public right of way. He noted that it was never intended to address other issues as such air quality because that was well addressed through monitoring and reporting requirements that gas stations go through. Mr. Peter Galloway, OmniMeans Traffic Engineers, noted that the queuing issue was put in as a safeguard. Their analysis indicated that they did not expect a maximum queue of over two vehicles per island when there was maximum demand at the station. After the study was completed, Public Works decided they would like to monitor the driveway for an additional five years as a safeguard to determine if there were any problems of the driveway traffic spilling onto Otis. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a larger station than the one that was there before, and noted that this existing shopping center was not an optimal location; she believed that the Park Street and Otis location was a better location. She noted that this was a response to the public's request for a fueling station in the center of the island. Acting President Cunningham noted that he has been concerned about overdevelopment on this parcel, and believed it would be in the community's best interest to mitigate that. Board member Kohlstrand would like a raised six- foot -wide sidewalk at the location. She did not feel comfortable establishing conditions on the project at this time. Acting President Cunningham called for a five- minute recess to allow staff and the applicant to confer. Mr. Dan Gold, Consulting Engineers, project architect, noted that the proposal of limiting the applicant to one smaller curb cut in the back would not work for the applicant. He understood that the quantity of pumps was an issue for the Planning Board, and proposed establishing driveways similar to the current driveways, with two driveway openings from the bank. They would be willing to maintain those driveway openings, give or take a few feet, to ensure there was proper truck circulation. They wished to move the kiosk forward, and demonstrated on the overhead screen one dispenser that would be eliminated as a compromise. An additional area of transition space would be gain, reducing the width of the driveway openings to approximately the same width existing now. He noted that it would be very difficult to make the station work if the driveways were restricted further. He noted that the opening was currently 23 feet, and that they would widen it to approximately 40 feet. A discussion of the proposed measurement changes ensued. Board member Kohlstrand suggested moving the kiosk all the way forward. Mr. Gold noted that in that case, the traffic would go through the major queues. Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about the presence of a continuous curb cut, which was not typical in Alameda. She did not believe it was the best solution for Planning Board Minutes Page 12 April 23, 2007 Alameda, and believed that too many pumps were being fit onto one site. She did not believe it was a good design. Mr. Gold noted that he was most concerned with the circulation, and that it made good design and business sense to keep them as open and flowing as possible. He was less concerned about the number of dispensers than making the wrong decision on the access. Board member Kohlstrand emphasized that the City was trying to accommodate pedestrians. Mr. Gold noted that reducing the width to 35 feet may work if the truck were able to pass through. In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand whether the raised, stamped pavement table would differ in height from the rest of the east -west sidewalk, Mr. Gold confirmed that it would. In response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham regarding the number of pumps requested by the Planning Board, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was looking for 12 pumps. Acting President Cunningham noted that the Planning Board wished to maximize the length of the raised sidewalk to encourage pedestrian safety. He noted that there should be access to accommodate four lanes. Board member Kohlstrand noted that she would like to see the final redesign before approving it, and would like an additional condition that the walkway along the southern side be a minimum of six feet. Mr. Thomas noted that would be part of a motion to continue and redesign for Planning Board final approval. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -07 -13 to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice vote — 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice vote — 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. Board member McNamara moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -07 -13 as revised on the supplemental staff report and amended by adding conditions 23, 24, and 25 as follows: Planning Board Minutes Page 13 April 23, 2007 1. The number of pumps will be reduced to 12; 2. No more than 70 feet be devoted to driveway access on the south side property line, with the rest being raised sidewalk; and 3. Tanker delivery would be limited to non -peak hour periods. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote --- 3. Noes: 1 (Kohlstrand) Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. The motion failed. Board member McNamara moved to continue this item to the meeting of May 14, 2007. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which passed with the following voice vote — 4. Absent: President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Board member Mariani. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS : None. 11. B O ARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland /Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand advised that no further meetings had been held. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Acting President Cunningham). Acting President Cunningham noted that the next meeting would be May 16, 2007 at which time the draft of the Task Force's findings would be reviewed. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, `Secretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the May 14, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 23, 2007 U or' RECEIVED Beverly Johnson, Mayor Lena Tam, Vice Mayor Doug deHaan, Councilperson Marie Gilmore, Councilperson Frank Matarrese, Councilperson May 25, 2007 1001 MAY 30 P 3: 42 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Appeal for the MND for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: The undersigned, residents of Alameda, urge you to overturn the adoption of the above referenced mitigated negative declaration ( "MND ") because the Initial Study, upon which it is based, fails to evaluate the environmental impacts of the gas station together with the entire Alameda Towne Centre redevelopment, which it is part of. Likewise, the Planning Staffs responses to our January 30, 2007 comments on the Initial Study were inadequate. The response to our concerns about building a gas station on a street that is not designated as a truck route was mistaken, if not misleading. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration looks at only the gas station/convenience store as the "project" to be evaluated. This is not permissible under CEQA. This gas station is part of one project - the overall renovation of Alameda Towne Centre - and must be evaluated within that context. What is being done here is unallowable piecemealing, the chopping up of all components of the proposed renovation into smaller pieces in order to minimize the impact of any one piece on the environment. It is not permitted under the provisions of CEQA for the obvious reason that all these `bite sized pieces' can add up to a very significant total impact. The California courts have made it abundantly clear that a public agency may not divide a single project into smaller subprojects to avoid responsibility for conscring the environmental impact of the project as a whole. Orinda Ass'n v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CA3d, 1145, 1171, 227 CR 688, Association For a Cleaner Env't v Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 CA4th 629, 638, 10 CR3rd 560.This is precisely what is happening here. Piecemealing is not permissible because: 1) It is forbidden under CEQA. 2) It understates the impacts on the environment of the entire development activity that is being proposed, and 3) It allows the developer to avoid thresholds that trigger the need for a more sophisticated and complex analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed development than would otherwise be required. To date Omni Means, the consultant that prepared the Initial Study, has piecemealed traffic studies for 3 different parts of the same project but at no time have Re: Agenda Item #5 -F 06 -05 -07 they produced a study for the project as a whole. In 2003 they studied the addition of 112,000 sq. ft. of retail space at the South Shore Center which resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 2006 they studied an additional 49,000 sq. ft. of retail space (to build a big box Target store) which resulted in a DEIR that is currently being finalized. The Initial Study for the Safeway fueling station is the third piecemealed study. To date, Omni Means has given us the following numbers: Proposed New Daily Vehicle Trips Alameda Towne Centre 112,000 sq. ft. addition -- 8,589 NEW vehicle trips* Alameda Towne Centre 49,000 sq. ``` . - tddition - 1,108 NEW vehicle trips Safeway Gas Station -- about 16 fueling stations - 2.930 NEW trips Omni Means has shown us 12,627 NEW daily trips in the Alameda Towne Centre area and claims these trips have almost no impact on the traffic because they have piecemealed the study --- exactly what CEQA tries to prevent! ! ! Piecemealing allows the developer to avoid certain numerical thresholds that trigger the need for a more sophisticated and complex analysis of the environmental impacts of the entire proposed development than would otherwise be required. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( "BAAQMD ") recommends "quantifying operational emissions from the project" when the threshold of 2,000 new daily trips is met. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ("CMA") requires that a "CMP analysis" be done when `current net peak hour vehicle trips' exceed 100. To our knowledge none of these studies have been performed. (Letters from these agencies, outlining these requirements, are appended.) In response to our comments, dated January 30, 2007, the Planning staff states that the "Safeway gas station site is under separate ownership ", suggesting that this somehow justifies the piecemealing. There is no such exception in CEQA. The responsibility for preparing the CEQA for a Project lies with the "lead agency ", the Planning Department/Board. The identity of the developer(s) is irrelevant. In our January 30, 2007 comments on the Initial Study, we questioned the appropriateness of allowing the construction of a fueling station on a street that is not designated as a truck route. In response, Planning Department staff stated that " Existing truck routes in the area include Park Street and Otis Drive(west of Park St.) " and that * Omni -Means published their final report with these numbers even though a note in the file says this number is a typographical error. What is the correct number? At this date the city has no idea what the correct number is because Omni Means is allowed to piecemeal the next increment and never has to address the error. If all parts of the project are not studied together the true traffic impacts will be known only after the fact and the City will be responsible for the costs of mitigating the impacts. the "applicant has submitted plans to the City showing trucks turning left into the Center at the Office Max entrance ". The part of Otis Drive that is next to the "office Max" entrance and west of Park Street) is not a truck route! Planning staff is mistaken. Appended to this letter is the map of Alameda truck routes, dated January 22, 2007, signed by both the Chief of Police and the City Engineer. It is very clear from this that � y the truck route on Otis does not extend west of Park Street and that the only part of Park Street, in the vicinity of the shopping center, that is on a truck route is a one block stretch south of Otis. The truck route signage in the vicinity of the shopping center is consistent with and confirms the attached truck route map. In response to our objection, Planning staff also states that "(w)hen making deliveries, trucks are permitted to leave the designated truck route when necessary, to complete the delivery." It appears that staff is suggesting that you permit out of town developers to undermine our local ordinances and regulations by intentionally •p "need" defacto creating a need to disregard our truck routes. The result would be a de ac# amendment of our local laws by the developers, without their having to comply with the procedures and protections that would normally be required. These include notice of p P the ro proposed amendments, open meetings, CEQA compliance and adoption of those P p amendments by this Council. In closing, we would like to point out that the objection to losing the Chevron Station at Otis and Park was more about service than about getting gas. Not one of the petitioners asked for a convenience store. They did ask for and hoped to have a full service g as station where someone would pump their gas for them and put oil in their engines. We hereb y incorporate orate by reference all of the comments, including our own prior comments both written or oral, and those of other individuals, entities and agencies who comment on this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, this appeal, and any other matters concerning the proposed Safeway fueling/gas station and convenience store. Respectfully submitted, ouy uers (io) 5c2/2a9? Pcv c U" Blau^ tRILL 014 ) Co - CiAadA, 3 Claire YeatoiRisley (3-/1')) g///t9i 05�/ l2/ 2003 11: 32 . 41592bd I • 1 k ' OW* BAY AREA AIR QUALJTY MANA(iF.MFN'I' D I S T R I C T ALAMEDA COUNTY Roberta Cooper Scott Haggy (Chairperson) Nate Miley Shelia Young CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnler Mark Rose Gayle Uilkerna (Secretary) MARIN couNTy Harold C. Brown, Jr. NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenkneoht SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Willie Brown, Jr_ Chris Daly Jake McGoldrick SAN MATEc COUNTY Jerry Hill Marland Townsend (Vice-Chairperson) SANTA CLARA COUNTY Liz Knlss Julia Miller Dena Mossar (Vacant) SOLANO COUNTY John F. Silva SONoMA COUNTY Tlm Smith Pamela Torflatt William C. Norton EXECUTIVE OFF10ERlAPCo BAY (tLA Alt( L# 11 f Y Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 May 12, 2003 Subject: South Shore Center Rebuild r Fx ansio p n Project Dear Mr. Fuz: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) , , staffhave received your agency's Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative ative Dec . (ISIMND) � I.aI''dt'� for the South Shore Center Rebuild / Expansion • . xpansson Project. The project consists of the demolition and rebuilding of an existing 543 0 shopping . , � � �0 square feet center in addition to the development of up to 112,000 square feet Wert retail floor area - q� of new on a 46.3 acre site. The Initi al Study concludes that the proposed project - Prep pr+o,] t will have a less than significant impact on air quality or any oar environmental . d y ental facctor, and the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (IEIR) is not ' . � required, Based upon the information provided in the Initial S we ' . . �� � your agency's air quality analysis to be incomplete, and we are concerned . about the proposed project's potential impacts upon air quality. As ex iced ' • . p in our comments below, we recommend that the City revise the air quality analysis. If . . � � 3� significant impacts are def�,e the City should commit to further ' . site mitigate the project's impacts through trzmsportatzon demand and site desi gn related n tigati on measures before considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Bay Area is currently a non - attainment area for federal and state ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and state standards andards for P matter'. The air quality standards are set at levels to rot and welfare. The protect public health major source of air pollution in the Bay Area is motor vehicles; therefore, we are concerned about the air impacts ' this quality impacts of automobile use from this pm j ect. The Initial Study/ Mitigated y g Negative Declaration failed to quantify the emissions that would � this � �' d result from implementing this project. On a IS mentions the District's �°� page 3 �, the istrict s recommended screening threshold of 000 new daily trips for quantifying operational ' g p emissions from a project. While the fir Qualiiy section of the IS left the number of new daily trips s generated by this s project hank, the Consultant's s Report on the T xansp artation and F arming Impacts Omni Means, April 10, 2003) estima ted that it would generate S � �9 trips. Therefore, - � 3 new daily we urge the City to undertake the necessary quantification ion _t �'Y 4 �hon ❑f the g earn operational impacts of this project to determine ' emissions .J whether project-related ns will exceed the District's s s� ifcan ce thresholds criteria � holds far crttena air pollutants.. 939 F LLiS STREET • ShNI FIzANCl.yc. � CALIFORNIA ' -- . 0 94109 • 415.771,6000 • Wwll T baa aid ozI �► B5/124003 X003 11: 32 4159288 q Mr. Gregory Fuz -2_ BAY AREA AIR QUALITY May 12, 2003 PAGE 02/03 We also find the Initial Study's discussion . n o f cumulative air quality 1 incomplete and misleading. . � � �y rnpa�cts to be g According to the District's C A Guide CE Q4 Guidelines: � hies document ��,� 1� � elri�es: ��ssessir� the Air � Quality Impacts of ProJecti and Plans agency should undertake (3999), the lead analysis of the .combined of the ' .reasonably foreseeable project and past, present and le future projects in order to determine • cumulative significance. With 8,589 new vehicle trips projected, . . P P J � implementation of this project will . significant air quality .. prof likely result in ty imp without mitigation. Therefore, we require implementation .. � �v strongly encourage the City to of all feasible mitigation tY City to consider site g measures to reduce those impacts. We urge the tY szte design principles that support g p ppart wa�,g, bicycling and transit use such provision of bike racks, bike Iaues and showers as the showers for employee use. In with Shore Cente addition, ' link the Saudi x• � the City should the local and regional bicycle trail network t bicycle access to the shopping cent to encourage � g �r. . Improving transit linkages to the project mitigating . P ,� t site are important for reducing vehicle trips gig �' quality impacts. The � M g ps and changing the location Means report suggests that AC Transit will be ation of nearby bus I and that additional signage aired. We City o�i direc�b�onal signaga may be urge the City to require raved signage ' to and from �° gntag in order to ensure easy pedestrian ac m t�sit. We also suggest P� access ggest the City make other traffic demand mitigation part of the car�di tsoris of project approval. measures J pproval. The Coznrnuter Check similar 1 ar transi t subsidies for employees helps to provide incentives for employees to ride transit instead of driving and can help to reduce the number of work trips to the project site. The oversupply of parking at the South . g th Shore Center is another air ale related ' In the project description, the quality $tad issue. P IS states that the proposed project ` parking spaces, which is more is Pi'°J will provide aver Z, ��p Pang than is needed on even the busiest • Although the City is redwing the - shopping 9• g he amount of required parking by over the City to reduce Parking g Y 300 spaces, we encourage p g even further. An over- supply of parking g why more employees � �P Y p g is one of the many reasons and customers do not consider alt erative5 to the single-occupant ieh lCie . TD make t71$ parking reduction on more effective, the District urges the City to work with project sponsors to Ana p lei ent a par - g cash out program for Sou th Shore Center employees. Parking cash-out requires the employer to provide transit and/or ridesharing benefits equivalent to the value of subsidized Parkin g , thereby encouraging e p 10 yeas who would normally drive alone to carsider a commute alternative. For more details on our agency's � . recommend guidance regarding environmental rev' end that the City refer to the B review, we Impacts QMD CEQA Guidelines: s: Asses ' Qua1iy p cis of �roaects card Pla� (1999). stt�� the � a r The document provides information assessing and mitigating ir quality F oartnation on best practices for g impacts related to roj ects and plans, i ncltdln.g construction � i$$14n$, laud u9e/desl neasures, project operations, motor vehicles nuisance more. if you do not already have a copy x once impacts and copy y opy of our guidelines, we reco$ pY by calling our public Information • • nd that you obtain a rmation Division at (415) 749.4900 or downloading • version from the District's webs ` v�aloadi zg the online site at h :ll vvw.b md. ovi Ian . � .Intrrnslceaaguid, bpi. 4 1 r-t'+ r s A.0 L U i.1 J 1.4-34 41.001:1013E1 Mr. Gregory Fuz . bAY AHLA AIR WUAL1 1 Y l'ACiE bTV eJ May 12, 2003 If you have any questions regarding .i�LJ r ■ � $ these comments, please contact Suzanne mignon, Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-5093. WN:SB co: IMA QMD Director Roberta Cooper BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty BAAQ1k4D Director Nate Miley .RAAQIVID Director Shelia Young Sincerely, Ob s o:715141:7 If William C. Norton Executive Officer /APCO AC Transit Alameda Coun October 10. 2006 cr •C' 1'- }ygery ce City of Alameda City of Albany Mayfir, Afar, Mar -s SAAT ronor Thomas eLakick City of Berkeley km, Afunir.con Lo nc r Dear Nr1r. Garrison: City of Dublin Mayor Thank you ror the opportunity to comment on the City of Alameda' s Draft Environmental Janet Lockrrt Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed expansion and renovation of the • �e f�ltimeda i ow ne J... -. -, trry �1 Mr. Douglas Garrison Planner III Planning and Building Department cir\ of ,ilanie_a 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 _4 • • /E AEF3 FE. ` i. CENTER ALAI-AE-0A, CA 94501 SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Re port for the Alameda ameda Towne Centre ( formerly South Shore Shopping ('enter ) Project car of Em.ri►vill. Centre (formerly South Shore Shopping Center) Project. t. iht proposal includes: Rum +kr construction of a new three -level parking structure; two new restaurants and . end a�sc },��attd City of Fremont public open space improvements along Shoreline Drive, a new approximately 145.000 �, r sq.ft. discount department store (Target) along with other related *merman #� ted i inprover��t�r�ts. If approved, the total gross leasable area (GLA) for the Alameda Towne me own e _ en ire w ill l he Mayr+y approximately 706.647 sq. ft. an increase of 49,132 sq.ft from the rsly revior ' p approved Accera Cecim 657,515 sq. ft. City of Livermore Mayor Mom! • Kaffir ra The ACCMA respectfully submits the followin g comments possible Where the D fA P City of Newark p`�g�• :lumbers at.: Nfer._ ilL .1. `re,r l CMP .Analysis: The DEIR states (Page 25. Appendix B Traffic Stud�l City of Oakland Study) that the net p.m. peak hour trips generated from the proposed expansion is 95. Since this is below the trip .:rr, •,-rt generation threshold of 100 p.m. peak hour trips to require re u ire a CND' analysis, and therefore the DEIR did not include a CMP traffic impact analysis. City of Piedmont City of Pleasanton Page 25. \ppendix B Traffic Study- Trip Generation: The follow-i ng are the comment..; elated to trip generation estimation included in the DEIR • " } R 1~ratfi� Study ./ppl'()/ , -larc f a/74./ (.1•t,.' iotre I•I]c DEIR used 1] E Trip Generation rates; � i t 1 F t i t i p f t , 1' City of San Leandro l and 1 . tit S'- S hoppi ng C enter' to estimate the trips generated Crum the project. Silk.... this expansion proposes to bring in a Discount Supermarket • •�f , , (Target) i c • _, p f �c.tt tc� the, shopping City of Union City center. a general 'Shopping ('enter' trip generation rate is not appropriate. 1he mor c Executive Director i5• Mr. Douglas Garrison October I 0. 2006 Page 2 appropriate Land use code of either 'Freestanding �dYI7g DiSL]L7t Store (815Y Jt ' F1t t s tanc r n t 7iscauat Superstore' � 8I 3} should be us ed to esti mate the trips for the Target store. e. Trip Generation Rates /bi• Existing Lit7 d Proposed Land t..e: To estimate generated from the approved existing nd the trips g proposed uses, two different trip generation rates have been used in the DEIR. For example, P � `_ r� �ple, for the p.�n. peak hour, for the existing rise tl�e trip generation rate used i s 3 , 3 0 trips. trip �. ps. ksr; whereas for the proposed Ian rip �eneration rate used is 3.22 tri s.'ksf P P d use the p . which is 0.08 trips,�ksf less than the r why different ate used x�,i- the existing use. Please clari fY y ferent rates were used �i ested that and how the c rates vti�ere calculated. It is s gS t same trip generation rates be used for proposed Iand uses. both existing and In view of the above, it is requested that the . project trip generation estimation in DEIR peak hour trips be revised. Since the current net p.m. CMP thr p rips estimated is on ly� 5 trips less than tine eshol d of I �� p.m. m. peak hour trips, i t . • . P , is anticipated that the revised trip generation will exceed this threshold, and therefore e a CMP analysis should he carried out as requested in . our response to the NOP dated February ry 1 6, 2006. Once again, thank you for the ❑ ortunit PP y to comment on this DEIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ex t -� 4 • • .. t �f you require additional information. Sincerely, Saravana Suthanthira Associate Transportation Planner cc: Chron file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses 2006 TO IMMORAL PARK STREET BROX MU •ns ur � MUIR- SMOKY BROX MOH TRUCK ROUTE: 24 HOURS --- SHOPPING CENTER: APPROVED BY: a � . CPL REF 0 LICE Abs.. CITY ENGINEER CITY OF ALAMEDA TRUE Date: May 26, 2007 To: The City Council of Alameda City R E C E I V E D Beverly Johnson, Mayor Lena Tam, Vice Mayor Doug deHaan, Councilperson 2001 MAY 29 A 11: 14 Marie Gilmore, Councilperson Frank Matarrese, Councilperson CITY OF qLqMEOq CITY CLERI'S OFFICE Re: Appeal for the MND for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: Background On April 23, 2007 the homeowners of the St. Francis Condominium complex submitted the following petition to the Planning Board.1 The homeowners of the St. Francis Condominium want to see the economic ventures of Alameda City continue and prosper. However, we object to the Safeway's fuel station proposed for Otis Drive at the cross streets of Willow Street, and Park Street regarding the following issues: • Safeway filed a mitigated negative declaration report for its fuel station, falling short of a full environmental report given the circumstances of traffic and airborne toxins as well as potential stored toxins into the environment. • The traffic flow on Otis Drive within the cross areas of Willow Street and Park Street is already unmanageable between the hours 7AM and 6PM. This blocks all left -turn entry ways onto Otis Drive for the homeowners/ renters across from Safeway and the traffic constantly introduces airborne toxins by traffic emissions into the environment. • The enclosed map shows how delicate our environment is. The liquefaction index indicates that during any earthquake the ground integrity [based on crustal support] in /around the South Shore/ Townes Center is in jeopardy. Thus, any toxins, regardless of newly containment technologies for ethanol and other gasoline components, will endanger the surrounding water ways and along the bayside. What this map does not illustrate is the collateral faults from the Hayward line. One such collateral is under Alameda City and has the potential of severe crustal failure given recent patterns of earthquake activity have occurred along the Hayward collaterals in Piedmont [R =3.2, 2005] and Lafayette [R =4.2, 2006]. Present On May 2, 2007 and speaking for the concerned homeowners at St. Francis l submitted the following questions to Doug Garrison for inclusion at the next Planning Board meeting. (It should be noted that the Safeway's fuel station topic was subsequently removed from the agenda pending a public hearing.) At the April 23, 2007 Planning Council Meeting, questions were asked in writing and orally by the taxpayers of Alameda City regarding the proposed Safeway fuel station. Since that meeting, a number of other issues and questions have arisen. 1) The final FIR is to cover the entire land being developed. Why are PDAs from separate entities being reviewed as different development projects when indeed they will have common water and land use? 1 This petition was circulated among 50 units of 60 possible units within the St. Francis Condominiums between April 9th — 18th [6 units are occupied by renters and 4 units are occupied by very elderly people with conservators or non - English speaking people]. This circulation was purposefully conducted since St. Francis is proximal to the initiative under question. The results of the possible 50 units are: 37 unit homeowners signed [74 %] with 42 signatures by husbandlwife habitation. 1 A case in point is the letter issued by the EBMUD [01/19/071 stating it will not install piping or services in contaminated soil. Given the porosity of the soil, the contamination could be emanating from any owner's jurisdiction. 2) The EBMUD letter also stated there would be proof of evidence and assurance that there would be available capacity within the sub -basin flow allocated specifically for this entire development. The MND does not provide this specific information nor does it address the replacement of the existing sanitation sewer collection to prevent and increase in infiltration /inflow. 3) Still not answered from the last Council session was the degree that the underground fuel storage tanks have been tested within a land-filled environment subject to potential extraordinary seismic - activity. l request that an independent structural engineer address this point. 4) Given a 20% increase of tanker trucks for Safeway and the Nob Hill fuel stations, what safeguard measures is Alameda City taking for maintaining structural integrities of the bridges and roads that the trucks will use, providing extra security for 24 -hr fuel station activity, and containing the already unmanageable traffic on Otis Drive between the cross areas of Willow Street and Park Street? 5) Last in 2003, Alameda residents were informally polled for maintaining a service station. This poll was conducted at the Chevron Station. An appropriate sampling methodology was not used and many of the signatures were from service station patrons citing the need for a full-service station, many addresses were missing and homeowner status was not declared. 1 find the 2003 question irrelevant compared to the present fuel-station status and the sampling technique disputable given the way the "poll" was conducted. Conclusion For environmental and safety reasons, the majority of St. Francis homeowners are very concerned about having a fuel station in the Townes Centre. If you believe the Omni Means consulting firm's traffic estimates and still want to promote "escalated" development in the Townes, we further raise the question as to why the City Council convened a Climate Protection Task Force to develop a local action plan for reducing gas and toxic wastes? Respectfully submitted, Debra L. Banks, Ph. D. [taxpayer] St. Francis Condominiums 2137 Otis Dr. 322 Alameda, CA 94501 510- 521 -7392 atiyo., iA,e(a4-i2.- 2 CURRENT APPLICATIONS RECREATION AND PARKS CONIMISSION ONE VACANCY (PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010) James Currier David Fritz Deborah Greene Joni Mahler Louie Martirez Bill Sonneman Gail Wetzork Council Communication #7 -A 06 -05 -07