2007-06-19 PacketCITYOFALAMEDA.CALJFORNJA
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - -- JUNE 19, 2007 - - 7 :25 P.M.
Location: Council Chimers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - Community Improvement Commission
2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2 -A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure
Project. (Development Services)
3. MINUTES
3 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on May 15, 2007. (City Clerk)
4. AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
6. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Commissioners)
7. ADJOURNMENT - Community Improvement Commission
AGENDA
CITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNJA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY
JUNE 19, 2007 -- - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:31 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by gay and
lesbian residents and encouraging the community to recognize
these contributions, particularly during the month of June,
Gay Pride Month.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Planning Board
Meeting held on May 31, 2007; the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings held on June 5, 2007; and the Special City
Council Meeting held on June 6, 2007. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. (City Clerk)
4 -D. Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco Manteca,
LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas Generation for
a twenty -year term at a fixed price of $73.25/MWH. (Alameda
Power & Telecom)
4 -E. Recommendation to accept and authorize recording Notices of
Completion for the Bayport Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC)/East Housing Residential Phase 2 Public Backbone
Infrastructure Improvements along Fifth Street and Stargell
Avenue and the Storm and Sewer Trunkline Project. (Development
Services)
4-F. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $330,000,
including contingencies, to Arborwell for pruning of City
trees within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending
June 30, 2008, No. P.W. 04- 07 -13. (Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to award Contact in the amount of $200,000,
including contingencies, to Dowling Associates to update the
Transportation Element of the General Plan and conduct an
associated traffic and environmental Review. (Public Works)
4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Grant
Funding Agreement with Alameda County Transportation
Authority, Committing the Necessary Match and Stating the
Assurance to Complete the Project. (Public Works)
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda Police Officers Association
Non-Sworn Unit and the City of Alameda for the Period
Commencing December 24, 2006 and Ending December 19, 2009.
(Human Resources)
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Executive Management
Compensation Plan for the City Clerk, Assistant City Manager,
Deputy City Manager, Human Resources Director and the
Executive Management Team Established by Resolution 13545 and
Amended by Resolutions 13626, 13689, 13977, 14008 and 14034,
Commencing June 24, 2007 and Ending June 20, 2009. (Human
Resources)
4 -K. Final Passage 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 -L. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving
Parcel Map PM06 -0002 to Allow the Division of an Existing
14,400 Square Foot Residential Lot into Four Parcels at 471
Pacific Avenue The property is Located in a R -4 -PD,
Neighborhood Residential Planned Development Zoning District.
Applicant: William De Mar. (Planning and Building)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Bill Sonneman as a Member of
the City Recreation and Park Commission.
5 B. Public Hearing to consider Certification of a Final
Environmental Impact Report and approval of Northern
Waterfront General Plan Amendment (GPA 07 -0002) and Citywide
Childcare Policies: General Plan amendment to designate
approximately 110 acres of northern waterfront industrially
designated properties to a specified mixed -use designation and
adopt certain general plan policies to guide the future
development of the area, guide future development citywide,
and guide decisions regarding childcare citywide. The
Northern Waterfront project area is generally bounded by
Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista Avenue on the south,
Grand Street on the east, and the Oakland /Alameda Estuary on
the north; and
• Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2002102118);
• Adoption of Resolution Making Findings Regarding
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making
Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations in Accordance With the
California Environmental Quality Act for the Northern
Waterfront and Child Care Policy General Plan Amendment
(State Clearinghouse #2002102118); and
• Adoption of Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment,
GPA07 -0002: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the
General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of
Approximately 110 Acres Within the Northern Waterfront to
Specified Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential, and (B)
Amend Sections and Associated Tables of the General Plan.
(Planning and Building) (Planning and Building)
5-C. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
an Agreement to Allow the City of Alameda to Participate as a
Member of the East Bay Regional Communications System Joint
Powers Authority and Also Submit A Good Faith Payment Not to
Exceed $54,100 to Support Formation of the East Bay Regional
Communications System. (Police and Fire)
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 nominations for appointment to the
Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability, Film
Commission, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals
Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board,
Public Art Commission, and Social Service Human Relations
Board.
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.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) , AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 19, 2007 -- - - 7:31 P.M.
Location: City Council Chimers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board/Commission on agenda
items or business introduced by the Council/Board /Commission may
speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject
is before the Council /Board /Commission. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak.
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. CONSENT
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/Board/Commission or a member of the public
2-A. Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Operating
and Capital Improvement Budget for the Bayport Project.
(Development Services) [City Council, CIC]
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Public Hearing to review and approve development of affordable
rental housing at Island High as an eligible use of the
District Housing Fund. (Development Services) [City Council,
CIC]
3 -B. Adoption of Resolutions Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain
Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2007 -08
for the City of Alameda, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and the Community Improvement Commission. -OR-
Adoption of Resolutions Approving Interim Expenditures Prior
to Adoption of the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 for the City of Alameda, the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the Community
Improvement Commission. [City Council, ARRA, CIC] ;
I. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda
Business Travel. (Finance) [City Council] ; and
II. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a
Grant Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Alameda
Historical Museum. [City Council]
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, ARRA, CIC
Beverly Johnson, Mayor
Chair, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
Construction Update
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved
construction contracts with C. Overaa & Co. (Overaa) on July 26, 2006, for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the design -build new
construction of the Civic Center Parking Garage. The CIC approved the Theater
construction contract for $8,800,000 and approved the parking garage design -build
contract for $9,'104,000 with the condition that the garage project be value- engineered
within the CIC's budget before the construction phase commenced. Since contract
approval in July, CIC staff and Overaa finalized the value - engineering for the garage
design, reducing the contract price to within the CIC's budget. The original contract
price of $9,'104,000 was reduced by $604,000, resulting in a final contract price of
$8,500,000.
The Theater construction contract commenced in October 2006; the design phase of
the parking garage project started in August 2006; and the construction phase of the
parking garage began in October 2006. The overall project consists of an eight - screen
movie theater, including a 484 -seat, single - screen theater in the historic Alameda
theater and seven screens in the new Cineplex, 6,100 square feet of retail, and a 341 -
space parking garage.
DISCUSSION
The status of both the Theater and parking garage projects, including the budget with
contingency, payments, and schedule, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively. Both projects are expected to be substantially complete by the end of
2007. Subsequently, Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), the movie operator, will
install tenant improvements in the historic Theater. The grand opening for the Alameda
Theater is currently anticipated for early 2008 (see Attachment 3). A summary of the
status of each project is provided below.
CIC
Agenda Item #2 -A
06-19-07
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Alameda Theater
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 3
The major concrete seismic work for the Alameda Theater rehabilitation and restoration
is complete. Current work on the Theater includes commencement of the improvement
of the eastern alleyway and continued fire sprinkler installation, plaster repair,
decorative painting, and marquee and blade sign removal and repair. Overaa has also
continued electrical, plumbing, and mechanical system installation. Due to unforeseen
conditions related to the marquee and blade sign work, approximately $30,000 was
allocated from the contingency line item for replacement of the deteriorating porcelain
casings that brace the signs' neon tubes. Also, additional seismic strengthening was
required by the structural engineer for non - structural walls in the Theater, resulting in a
potential change order of $45,000.
Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $459,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 46 percent of the CIC's
contingency budget, including the $100,000 allowance for additional plaster repair and
decorative painting approved by the CIC on May 15, 2007. The total contingency budget
for the Theater is $1.1 million (Attachment 1).
Parking Garage
Overaa poured the second floor deck and columns of the parking structure and is
currently working on forming and pouring the third and fourth decks. The "deck cycle"
for all levels of the garage will be completed by the end of the summer. There were no
new pending or executed change orders for garage construction. Current and pending
contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $248,000 in
contingency funds, or approximately 60 percent of the CIO's contingency budget. The
total contingency budget for the garage is $415,000 (Attachment 2).
Cineplex
Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. (TECS), the contractor for the
Cineplex, completed construction of the foundation and slab -on -grade for the Cineplex.
TECS is currently working on erecting concrete masonry units interior and exterior
walls.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total budget for the Alameda Theater,
Cineplex, and Parking Garage project.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action B1.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda
Theater.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 3
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 - Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only. No action is required.
Res ect submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
anger, Business Development Division
Bv: n ' ;e Ot
elopment Manager
DK/LALID ES /JO
Attachments:
1. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and
Restoration
2. Monthly Progress Status Report for Civic Center Parking Garage
3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update
Monthly Progress Status Report
Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration
City of Alameda
June 19, 2007 CIC Meeting
BUDGET.' : .' .'..,•:• , , „ . :- y.. .' ::,:' ,..,.,''.- ,::' .,'' .,.,..,,,.:
CONTIT , '.-:!', l'..',:,:',.,"':,.‘',..;.:.,.;,,,;.':,'-•:z,,,,,;:,,::::. -.,,.•.-!, ;71f ,:.•,I:i. ;,'1::;!.',,,,,,;''';:a:„
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
$8,800,000
$1,106,040
Original Contract Amount $8,800,000
Previous Changes $29,475
Executed Change Orders
Power and Telephone Conduit for Retail $6,222
$9,906,040
AT&T Connection Conduit $5,122
Curtain Escalation $4,603
Subtotal Executed Changes $15,947
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Add'I Paint and Plaster Work Allowance $100,000
Seismic Clarifications $60,000
Seismic Issues for Non-Structural Walls $45,000
Add'I Hazardous Materials Abatement $5,000
Water Fountain and Plumbing Issues $34,000
Unforeseen Alleyway Improvements $44,000
Acoustical Panel Removal $5,000
Marquee/Blade Sign Unforeseen Conditions $30,500
Value-Engineering Enclosure $58,000
Natural Gas Line Stub Outs $5,000
Electrical Room and AP&T Changes $70,000
Temporary Alleyway Trash Enclosure $2,500
PAYMENTS -,;.::.',. '-'',,,',,,n.--!:,',"':',."!:', -:::::'::',,' .''''-:"L2 '''' ,;.'`:' ,:,Y,.' :'::', 4 :,.,'4,'`;''',..;;:::`'',,:.,::',"
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
$3,736,557
$693,073,
$4,429,630
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $459,000
Total Changes $504,422
Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,304,422
Remaining Contingency $601,618
CONTRACT'.STATUS,.4.,:,.,,y1::;,•',,;,:`;'•:,', .::•::::'$;;'.f;':::,..•;.,,,
PICTURES .:-,:,A;:z:'?",:: ',.''-''',' '`:..:.r.,',.,;;1',.'g',=,,, :•_.:..'c.;',i''':'. i :'.:'.• -:::;:.:: :;-'..':':'•'!•,:;::•:'
"77.F.',,;r,
.4;. .
_01,-. •
, : ,i;r, „ ,_ .,:, - ,
,. -
::k: ,,• •••:4, th •.,
' ', l','
I. r ' '
- • i,
f
' k' s , •
. , .,!. , ,
- .[,- _ , ._
,..
,.. ,
, ,.
: ,
r -, .
-: '
•
•0,
=
0:
o
, i•
',:,..1:
• : 1:. , ......: '::' ' '; . ',."',.' ,N lidelo-Proded:"
':::-• - -: ::,‘ ' : ..= ifiti , '.0,6
. ..„ .
---Cdtitrat' Calendar. Days:
. : •-. • •
, . , ..
' l.:-',.:1:': : • 1,...',,'410
. ., : , . .. ;
.• .::: :. . : '..- - ,:. • Time ',' Extensions:
.. , , ,,-; .:,'
'.:...,',„•,V9
... ' ' • ,,SdhedUled.'COM011etion:
'.=:,:.'•:,..: - '66=01
.: . -_,-:. ,..,,:i.:-::.:.:.,,,.„.:,,:.•,..:;.. : 6: ,Oecl:
',:-.::::,,i,A.:.:',..-:J..',.:,::,:l 2
. ,:,-,,:,. :,, ;::,':'''.. ,1- ,TirileRelfiaiiiing.:.
,.',;;,(:::':::;').:s..:3.,
7';`,1• ' P' 'idetitTIT '0:1'EXpOiided,I''',::'.-.:',';;;'':':-,:::':'.:
Base Bid Amount:
°9
$8,800,000
n.
t
o
0
Amount Paid to Date:
$4,429,630
Percent Cost Expended:
50%
Change Orders to Date:
$45,422
Pending Change Orders:
$459,000
Project Cost:
$9,304,422
Percent Contingency Expended:
46%
MILESTONES
Milestone
Baseline
Forecast
Approved
11/10/2006
Notice to Proceed
11/10/2006
11/10/2006
Substantial Completion
11/10/2007
11/10/2007
Final Completion
12/15/2007
12/15/2007
STATUS
Work Completed
This Period:
This Period:
• Commenced Alleyway Improvements
• Continued with Fire Sprinkler Installation including Drops
• Completed Concrete Pour for Front Columns and Beams
• Continued with Decorative Painting and Plaster Repair
• Continued wtih Marquee/Blade Neon Removal and Repair
Work Projects
Next Period: • Commence Fire Sprinkler Testing
• Commence Alleyway Trench Drain Installation
• Commence Primary Electrical Routing
Status: • Project is on Schedule
CIC
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #2-A
06-19-07
Monthly Progress Status Report
Civic Center Parking Garage
City of Alameda
June 19, 2007 CIC Meeting
B D T �i "�['
u � t
;F: . �.
R wrt
C NT Err i ��i �i !v
CO NT r�r ,
' •fi .. � r
... .. py =,;r :. ^ ..
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
$8,499,889
$415,000,
Original Contract Amount
Value Engineering (Credit)
Revised Contract Amount
Previous Changes
Executed Change Orders
Subtotal Executed Changes
Pending Change Estimates)
ge orders (Cost Estimates
Blade Sign and Marquee Canopy
Dewatering of Site Groundwater Budget
Groundwater Contamination Budget
Conduit for eLockers (Bike Lockers)
Owner Provided Field Office
Potential Site Work Budget
Deletion of Handheld Device (Credit)
Subtotal Pending Change Orders
Total Changes
Estimated Revised Contact Amount
Remaining Contingency
$9,104,000
($604,111)
$8,499,889
$1,363
$0
$128,000
$55,000
$65,000
$3,000
($550)
$17,000
($21,000}
$8,914,889
PAYMENTS '_. . _ - ,
�° ��� `�� r'
�.v,... t _�.''
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
$3,173,754
$522,228
$246,450
$247,813
$8,747,702
$167,187
$3,695,982
!. y.
CC)NTRACT STATLJS�� -; ;�
:kp ..r,: _:'i �.., i.
Y..,. �: +: r.
: is -, i .
:�� ,w. ��� '
:,':
7,-,:!,--,,,,';'.i
1_ =..
J :,, ,,
�-
CD
��R'
• CO
.
,6y;- •',.•i " -; fit .c ,!•:' �,
�r: ; Notice; +to Pr•ceed �
•.
: •
..� :f `i`•;
. 1 Q- Nov-O6
"���•.Y�'qp�. - `4.s:/'r
, 4. _- � __
I.s.•- r
- �-::_ � _:;�;
gF rte:. .. r.+' a'dti
':.
- n .�;.F �. ,s '• {, mac: �r r.i. %tr.•a,is
,.iw �f.��'�. •r•. -1•s.. �.'' '•. %./Y .R7
1.� r ; �
. :,
��-
�^ :ice ;tom, ..R: -.:' i.r "�:•��
Contract Well ar`: Days:::
l;;i" , ::445
... �� = r�T�me E•xten`s�ans.:
r .�::� :.D
.t _
. .. r :S u�e���om� w letion:
�
'� : c •
'�9 =J:an
- -
Tim
.. .. .. _ .. .. ... ..• .. - 2'r.. rf. ..
.J.::�
±r.
.. .. .. ., .. :i`r , .,.
.. ,. . ,.r. r:-.ir -
Time F�ema�n�n .'
. S.- �,
;•. 43
ercent:�T�me�'Exi endec�::.
�.,
o'
o
Base Bid Amount:
$9,104,000
s 5
i; ° :'.,
Amount Paid to Date:
$3,695,982
Percent Cost Expended:
43%
; :{ - `r
ate" ;M I.• ��' '
; : i'3
>t - *... _
^ ^ -Y.
Value - Engineering:
($604,111)
$247,813
Previous /Pending Change Orders
Project Cost:
$8,747,702
Percent Contingency Expended:
60%
MILESTONES-
Work S
.
iaslr. rr = k
Milestone
Baseline
Forecast
Appro'ved~HL_
11/1 0/2006
Notice to Proceed
11/10/2006
11/10/2006
Substantial Completion
12/15/2007
12/15/2007
Final Completion
1/29/2008
1/29/2008
Completed
This Period:
Work Projects
Next Period:
Status:
• Formed and Poured Second Floor Deck
• Formed and Poured Second Floor Columns
• Forming and Pouring Third Floor Deck
• Form and Pour Third Floor Columns
• Form and Pour Fourth Floor Deck
• Project is on Schedule
cIc
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #2 -A
06-19-07
ameda Theater Project Schedule Update
provements
and (Completed)
0 [` ■] 0)
0.
w
0 CC
Ew
0 ti
� W
_
= 1-
0 w x
Z W
_0 1
2Q a
cc cc W
aQ z
a0
cic
Attachment 3 to
Agenda item #2 -A
06 -19 -07
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 15, 2007- -7:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11 :47 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(07- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting
held on April 17, 2007, and Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and CIC meeting held on May 8,
2007.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(07- ) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking
Structure Construction Project;
(07- A) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve a Change
Order for up to $100,000 for preserving and restoring the
auditorium bas relief niches and ceiling; and
(07- B) Recommendation to release $250,000 in project budgeted
funds to Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. for Cineplex site
work.
* * *
(07- ) Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* * *
Commissioner Matarrese requested that photographs of the Historic
Theater restoration be posted to the City's website.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 1
May 15, 2007
Chair Johnson inquired whether two action items are being
considered tonight, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson stated there would never be another opportunity to
work on the entire ceiling; the work needs to be done; inquired
whether 34% of the contingency budget would be used.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Chair Johnson stated staff should come back to the Commission once
there is a better idea of the amount of the contingency budget that
will be used; money should not be left in the contingency budget;
money should be spent on additional theater restoration; people
thought only the lobby would be restored and will be happy to see
the extent of the restoration; further stated the historic theater
is being restored as a one screen theater; the screen will be one
of the largest in the area.
The Development Services Director stated the entire amount
requested [$100,000] might not be used on the ceiling.
Chair Johnson stated the maximum amount of work that can be done
should be done while the scaffolding is up.
The Development Services Director stated completing the entire
ceiling should be around $80,000; keeping some of the historic
paint features would cost less; further stated money should be left
in the contingency budget at the end of the project for tenant
improvements in the retail spaces.
Chair Johnson inquired whether holes in the ceiling would be
repaired, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he was impressed with the art
treatments that were uncovered; he would like to see the latest
technology used on light fixtures; there will never be another
opportunity to get back up in the ceiling; a lot of electricity
would be used for individual light sockets; the matter should be
reviewed with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T).
The Development Services Director stated the matter could be
reviewed very quickly; new technologies will adapt to old sockets;
there is also the challenge between using the historic lighting
versus modernizing it [lighting].
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
2
Commissioner deHaan stated as people walk into the theater, they
will look directly at the concession area; it [lobby] is a
beautiful area and people should not look at the concession area;
he would like to see a dummy wall in front of that [concession
area], which would allow people to walk around into the concession
area; that he discussed the matter with the Project Manager; a
simple wall would break it up so your eyes would have to go into
the rest of the area [lobby].
The Development Services Director stated staff could explore the
matter and bring it back to the Commission; that she would have to
check with the historic architects because the lobby is being
completed as a restoration.
Commissioner deHaan stated what he is talking about is extremely
simple.
Chair Johnson questioned whether the lobby should be broken up.
Commissioner deHaan stated there is a penetration going to the
concession area now that was never there; he is requesting a dummy
wall that people can walk around to get to the concession area; the
popcorn machine would not be seen and would be buffered; the
developer would understand what he is talking about.
The Development Services Director stated the matter could be
explored; there were conditions put on moving just door hinges.
Chair Johnson stated the historic integrity of the lobby should not
be disturbed.
Commissioner deHaan stated it is not coming close to that; further
stated $250,000 was allocated for hazardous materials and site
conditions; inquired whether there was a loan for the elevator and
escalators.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount being allocated
was being taken from contingency.
The Development Services Director responded the exact cost of the
site work was now known; stated the developer has spent in excess
of the amount; the City did a fine job of crafting the Disposition
and Development Agreement; the City capped its exposure.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
3
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR) Executive
Director, urged approval of the staff recommendations; stated
perhaps $150,000 should be allocated for the ceiling to provide
additional flexibility.
Chair Johnson inquired whether $100,000 is sufficient, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what is being done with the Fox
Theater, to which the Development Services Director responded it
would be used for educational purposes.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations
with direction that as much restoration work be done as possible in
the historic theater so that the project does not end with money
left in the contingency budget.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 12 :18 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 15, 2007
4
C;e1"--1.\"4.0 It./;--'4'1\4, 4,
*.A4V4Vete0.44tesAteic
V *---V• Zeie40 i.N._-•:44 4616_.- V.
NO)
�j
el ))
$1 N44))
te f#
'4 t4i)
( CV
*, -4
e.")
4 4
cC 1 eti :Nit
AN
i4;:i
49)
V 64
cf;\49):
dc,,,,
(6:9)
*\/*
t:3)
v A
0 *, /*
0)
4v.e*
(6))
\i,
*A,#
ifi•
*,,,e#
(f.\:0.
111.:*N4NIN.
44V-4-S\, fiNot
*,•.,,e,*,...,,,,.. , ,..4*,,,e,*
(A %-__W%_N-zdeiP&.A. zt-too.
Whei'ea4 e,
Whereok,
Whe4'ec(4;
NOW
1.-M,409e7'4r
wis,VoevVe te Pt" ‘4 V 1"N .3\V r-NN
,,,t4sk,tvIsstfAvi.sizots,Ate„. ./;%,SSife
or,:$
*qv
6:to
40:400),
(Ift,
Nir
4,0\40
e4P
#d \
:41
0,9
tele.
Nos
e,400
•
•
sv
40, •
•
1?roc(amation
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
recognize June as their international month of pride
and celebration; and
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
recognize June as their international month of pride
and celebration; and
members of our gay and lesbian community
contribute to and participate in activities beneficial to
members of our gay and lesbian community
contribute to and participate in activities beneficial to
the City of Alameda; and
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
share in and contribute to our collective culture of
strong, loving, and enduring friendships and families;
and
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
have and continue to dedicate their lives to our
country in every capacity, including the military and
military reserves, in times of peace and war; and
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
have made numeroup material and financial
contributions in support of various City -wide activities
and projects; and
members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
serve on various City boards, commissions, and
committees, such as the Social Service Human
Relations Board, the Restoration Advisory Board, and
the Library Board.
ThEEFO1E BE IT 1ZESOLVED, that 1, Beverly J.
Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the month of
June as
Gay PrCde'Month'
and encourage the community to recognize the contributions to our City
by our gay and lesbian citiz
•
Mayo
eNot irivt
l'*F 4 3 1*> vAtViNe. et*
City Council
Agenda Item #3 -A
06 -19 -07
-4
to.
•
•
r
s -
4•410,
• N3
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY- - MAY 31, 2007- - 7: 0 0 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson;
Planning Board Members Cook, Ezzy
Ashc ra f t , Rohl s trand Parsons, Lynch,
Mariani , and McNamara -- 11.
[Note: Mayor Johnson arrived at 8:02
p.m.]
Absent: Planning Board Member Cunningham -- 1.
AGENDA ITEM
(07- ) Work Session to discuss Planning Board Accomplishments,
Future Planning Projects, and Planning Board Activities
Speakers: Bill Smith, Alameda; Mike Sheppard, Alameda; Chris
Buckley, Alameda.
The Planning and Building Director provided handouts on the
Planning and Building Department work program and provided a brief
presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Planning Board
May 31, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2007- -6:40 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 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 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 reached a tentative
agreement with the Alameda Police Officers Association Non -Sworn
bargaining unit; Council also received a briefing on Alameda Police
Officers Association issues, and the Executive Management group.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 5, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
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 honoring volunteers for planting King Alfred
Daffodils in the Park Street Business District as part of its
ongoing revitalization.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lars Hansson
and other members of the Park Street business community.
Mr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Mary Amen
had the idea for planting the daffodils.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to set a
Public Hearing [07- ] and the recommendation to reject bids [07-
] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
( *Q7- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 15, 2007. Approved.
(*07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,134,635.80.
( *07- ) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative
advocacy services. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
1
( *07- ) 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.
Accepted.
( *04- 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. Accepted.
( *07- ) 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.
Accepted.
(07- ) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent
Integrated Waste Management charges for July 17, 2007.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure whether tying
delinquent bills to property taxes is the best way; he has
requested that the City Manager look into the cost related to the
City overseeing the process.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04- ) 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.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he wants to ensure that the Police
Department is completely comfortable with the Dodge Charger and
compromises are not being made.
The Police Captain stated a lot of time was spent reviewing both
the Crown Victoria and Dodge Charger platforms; the Crown Victoria
package will be phased out; Dodge is re- entering the market; a
number of agencies have purchased the Dodge Charger; the Police
Department is satisfied that the Dodge Charger meets the
requirements; the vehicle will be evaluated and tested to see
whether the Police Department will continue with the Dodge
platform.
Councilmember Matarrese commended the Police Department; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
2
Dodge Charger is a more fuel - efficient vehicle; he appreciates the
research that has been done to ensure that risks are not taken.
The Police Captain stated the Dodge Charger has better
maneuverability, is more responsive, but does not reach top speeds;
top speeds are not needed in Alameda; the braking is better.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his major concern is that
compromises are not made; standards and safety requirements need to
be met.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14094, "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." Adopted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14095, "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." Adopted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14096, "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." Adopted.
( *07- ) 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. Introduced.
( *07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14097,
"Approving Planned Development, PD07 -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." Adopted.
( *07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14098,
"Approving Tentative Map 9387, TMO6 -0003, for the Purpose of
Establishing Up to Eight Commercial Condominiums within One
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue. This property is located
within the M-X Mixed use Planned Development Zoning District."
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit
(Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008; and
(07- A) Resolution No. 14099, "Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008." Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Finance Director for providing
a clear set of tables; stated the City's revenues were a higher
percentage of the allowed limit in the early 1990's.
The Finance Director stated a law changed the formula in 1991; the
City was allowed to use the County population increase, not just
the City population increase; the City has elected to continue to
use said formula; the City is using the County population increase
and per capita personal income change for 2007 and 2008; the two
factors create the compounding factor for the increase; previously,
the City was using the City population.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent
business license fees via the property tax bills.
The Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that a significant amount of effort has gone
into contacting business owners; total uncollected fees are
approximately $7,000; inquired whether the business associations
have been able to assist in communicating with the business owners.
The Finance Director responded a great deal of support has been
received from the business associations in other actions; she is
sure the business associations would come forward if questions were
asked; the majority of delinquent license fees are for businesses
that are not active in the business associations.
Mayor Johnson inquired on what property is the lien placed.
Regular Meeting 4
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
The Finance Director responded the lien is placed on the Assessor's
parcel number.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same dames appear every
year.
The Finance Director responded a few reappear; stated the majority
are new.
Mayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City paid Municipal Auditing
Services $13,000 in the month of May; outstanding liens are $7,145;
questioned what is the cost benefit.
The Finance Director stated Municipal Auditing Services performs
two types of audits; one audit reviews documentation to ensure the
correct fee is paid and the other reviews businesses that are not
paying a business license fee; the fee is 50% of the amount
collected; the City received $26,000 in revenue for the $13,000
fee; $262,000 additional revenue was received in the current fiscal
year; $132,000 was paid in fees through May.
Councilmember deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed not
renewing the Contract; inquired whether a decision has been made.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated a verbal
notice has been given to the Contractor advising that the Contract
will not be renewed past June of this year.
Rob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated PSBA
works hand and hand with the Finance Department to ensure that all
members have paid business license and Business Improvement Area
(BIA) fees; liens are only against business owners who own the
property; PSBA takes business owners who rent to Small Claims Court
if someone refuses to pay the BIA fee; PSBA has collected every
time.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Municipal Auditing Services
has been used for four years.
The Finance Director responded the service started in January 2005;
stated the process has been going smoothly; the City works closely
with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills.
Courncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, "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." Adopted.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponent (In favor of resolution): Kathy Moehring, West Alameda
Business Association (WABA).
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming
the BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07- ) 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;
(07- A} 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;
(07- B) 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
(07- C) Resolution No. 14101, "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
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
6
Agreements Necessary to Secure these Funds for Fiscal Year 2007 -
2008." Adopted.
The Ferry Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the city's contribution to the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, to which the Ferry Manager responded
approximately $600,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Port of Oakland is cutting its
contribution from $83,000 to $79,000; inquired why the contribution
is lower.
The Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland argues that there
are no non -port revenues; stated money is taken from the [Port's]
General Fund; payments are made for security and maintenance of the
Clay Street ferry terminal as well as providing free parking for
ferry riders.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the proportion of riders who board
the ferry at Jack London Square versus Alameda.
The Ferry Manager responded approximately 420,000 riders take the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry; stated approximately 53% come in and out of
Jack London Square; the vast majority [of Oakland riders] are
excursion riders who pay the maximum walk -on rate.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should be more resistant to the
Port of Oakland's 5% cut; she would be surprised if every budget
line item was cut 5%; the Port of Oakland is getting a good deal
for $83,000 and should be expected to pay a fair share.
counncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 5% cut was because of
airport revenue losses, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the
affirmative.
councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an overall loss;
stated the airport is not the majority of funds generated by the
Port of Oakland; further inquired what are the plans for increased
ridership on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry.
The Ferry Manager responded ridership is already up 3% for the
current year; stated advertising on AC Transit buses and
participation in four free transit days for Spare the Air day would
continue; the Alameda /Cakland Ferry would be participating with
CalTrans in the awareness campaign for the three or four day bridge
closure for Labor Day; a direct mail campaign would be conducted
for the Harbor Bay and Fernside District areas offering a two -for-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
7
one free commute on the Harbor Bay Ferry or Alameda/Oakland Ferry.
Councilmember Mararrese inquired whether anything is being done for
the new development in Oakland, particularly the waterfront area.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a free ride
coupon and brochure were provided last year and would be repeated
this year.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired why there is a deferential in fuel costs
between the Harbor Bay Ferry and Alameda /Oakland Ferry; further
inquired whether bio- diesel is an option.
The Ferry Manager responded the two operators get fuel in a
different manner; stated the Alameda /Oakland Ferry has an
underground tank; the Harbor Bay Ferry receives fuel by truck,
which results in a ten to fifteen cent increase; the cost of bio -
diesel was approximately 50 cents per gallon higher several years
ago; now the cost of bio - diesel is within ten cents per gallon;
engine manufacturers have not agreed that the warranty protection
extends to operators who use bio- diesel.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether San Francisco received a warranty
from the engine manufacture.
The Ferry Manager responded Cummins requested that the Red and
White Fleet change from B20 bio - diesel to Blo bio - diesel; the Red
and White Fleet is in negotiations with Cummins to do a six -month
test to see the effect of the B20 bio- diesel; the quality and
consistency of bio - diesel is concerning.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Cummins has already agreed
to use warranted B10 bio - diesel in Red and White Fleet engines.
The Ferry Manager responded Red and White Fleet is in negotiations
with Cummins for a six -month trial.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the engines are under
warranty now, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Table 1 shows an 18% increase in fuel
costs; inquired whether maintenance reductions would off set the
increase.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated maintenance
expenses would be reduced with the new Cummins engines; the engines
would be under warranty.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
8
Councilmember deHaan stated Harbor Bay Business Park requested a
reduction also.
The Ferry Manager stated the Harbor Bay Business Park contribution
is not noted in the Tables because the contribution is not part of
the public funding.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Harbor Bay Business Park
would be requesting a reduction, to which the Ferry Manager
responded that he did not know.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Oakland benefits from having the
ferry service.
The Ferry Manager stated Oakland contributes 53% of the ridership;
the riders pay the walk -on rate.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Oakland's share has increased
over the years.
The Ferry Manager responded he does not recall whether the level
has fallen below 50 - 50.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Port of Oakland seems to be
defaulting on the agreement; every year another five percent
reduction is requested; inquired what would happen if the reduction
was not accepted.
The Ferry Manager stated that he will be meeting with the Port of
Oakland Commercial Real Estate Committee tomorrow to discuss the
proposal; he can pursue the issue if Council requests.
The Public Works Director stated staff has negotiated hard with the
Port of Oakland; the City relies heavily on passengers paying full
fare at Oakland; staff is requesting a 25 cent fare increase for
riders who buy a ticket book; a 50 cent fare increase is requested
for excursion riders.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of legal position the City
would be in if the reduction was not accepted.
The Public Works Director responded the City has a year -to -year
agreement; requested that Council approve the fare increase; stated
staff can negotiate with the Port of Oakland to see whether the
contribution could be increased.
Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of the fare box recovery is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
9
contributed by riders boarding at Jack London Square.
The Public Works Director responded estimates show that the City
could make a 40% fare box recovery without Oakland; stated the fare
box recovery is approximately 53% now.
Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's percentage of fare box recovery
should be known.
The Public Works Director stated the fare box recovery may exceed
75%; conservatively, the fare box recovery is 65%.
Mayor Johnson stated that the fare box recovery needs to be
factored in if the increase is approved and staff negotiates with
the Port of Oakland.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the fare increase should be
approved; staff should negotiate with the Port of Oakland; the Port
of Oakland should contribute as well as help with the effort to
capture commute riders from the new population south of Highway 880
in the Jack London Square area; the Harbor Bay marketing was
successful; he would like to see the same increase on the Oakland
side.
Mayor Johnson inquired where the money came from for the Harbor Bay
marketing.
The Ferry Manager responded the Water Transit Authority (WTA)
funded direct mail pieces from San Leandro; stated the City funded
the Alameda component; the WTA paid for some signs throughout the
City.
Mayor Johnson stated the marketing was successful; the City should
work with the Port of Oakland to develop a similar marketing
campaign.
The Ferry Manager stated the key to the campaign was a direct mail
piece for a free ride offer.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that [paying for a marketing
campaign] is the hook if the Port of Oakland refuses to come up
with the 5 %; residents in the hundreds of lofts units south of
Highway 880 should be ferry riders; negotiations should include the
Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland; Alameda is responsible to
the voters, the Port of Oakland is not; negotiations should be
broadened to include the District 3, District 5, and at -large
[Oakland] Councilmembers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
10
Councilmember deHaan stated it would be worthwhile to see what
efforts are being made to bring new residents on board, such as
offering EcoPas s ; the Joint Council Task Force might be a starting
point for dialogue with the Oakland Council; inquired what position
Alameda would be in if the Port of Oakland did not want to pay.
The City Attorney responded the agreement would expire if not
renewed or amended.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda could be out $79,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Alameda /Oakland Ferry would be
restricted from docking at Jack London Square.
The Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland could restrict
Alameda from coming into Oakland or could require a landing fee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City cannot let the matter
lapse; the ferry service takes 400,000 people off the freeway; the
fare increase should be approved; staff should request that the
Port of Oakland restore the cut because the airport revenue loss is
a not a legitimate reason; staff should also request the Port of
Oakland to produce a campaign to get ridership from the new Oakland
development.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations
and adoption of the resolution with direction to have staff
negotiate with the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland to
request a restoration of cuts made and to provide a marketing plan
for new Oakland residents south of Highway 880.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Harbor Bay one -year extension
would be included, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the $79,159 additional year cost
would be pending negotiations with Oakland, to which Councilmember
Matarrese responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount would be accepted now; staff would
continue to negotiate.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the matter be addressed when
the Alameda /Oakland City Council subcommittee meets.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
11
(07 ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14102,
"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) ." Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Rick Simonson, Hilton Farnkope & Hobson, LLC, Director, Solid Waste
and Recycling Rate Services, gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired why garbage carts are disappearing; stated
the new ceiling rates and fee schedule propose a $15.00 cart
replacement fee.
The Public Works Director responded Alameda County Industries (ACI)
is experiencing an unusually high request for cart exchanges;
stated the franchise agreement requires that the Contractor provide
a once -a -year cart exchange; the franchise agreement states that
any cart damaged by ACI needs to be replaced or repaired by ACI at
ACI's cost.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the phrase "cart replacement
fee" should be clarified; stated carts are guaranteed for ten
years.
The Public Works Director responded "cart replacement fee" is the
term given in the franchise agreement; stated the rates could spell
out cart replacement, non -ACI related.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is happening in other
municipalities.
The Public Works Director responded services offered vary from one
jurisdiction to the next; stated Alameda is the only city in
Alameda County to offer food waste collection for commercial and
multi - families; Alameda has curbside collections for motor oil and
battery drop off at Blanding Avenue; said services increase costs;
the City of Livermore has very low rates because similar services
are not provided and landfill is in close proximity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other areas are having
similar rate increases.
The Public Works Director responded seven cities are in the rate
increase process; stated some rates are increased because of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), other increases are as high as 14%.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
12
Councilmember deHaan stated redemption fees have changed; inquired
whether there is a windfall for recycling.
Mr. Simonson responded a windfall is difficult to determine; stated
there is a net zero cost to process materials in the franchise
agreement; ACI retains all commodity revenue; the amount of profit
is not known because the processing costs are unknown; many
jurisdictions receive a per ton processing revenue; $15 to $20 per
ton is typical; commodity prices have risen over the last couple of
years; ACI is taking a risk that the commodity revenues could fall
below what was originally proposed.
Councilmember deHaan stated redemption has increased almost 100%.
Mr. Simonson stated redemption has no impact on the franchise
agreement.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Neutral: Len Grzanka, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the opportunities
for rate increases.
The Public Works Director stated a major franchise review occurs
every third year; cost of living adjustments are made in rate years
four and five; the next true up will be in rate year nine.
Councilmember deHaan stated the CPI does not cover operational
costs.
The Public Works Director stated a risk analysis was done; ACI
agreed to take the risk on the commodities market; ACI took the
risk that the CPI would not keep up with expenses.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda has a good Contract; the City of
Hayward's contract does not include food waste; Alameda is one of
the first to provide food waste recycling and expand the service to
commercial.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that complaints were received at the
beginning; now ACI has the system down and citizens are used to the
system; other cities will be forced to recycle because recycling
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
13
will be mandated due to landfill limitations; forward thinking was
important in making a substantial portion of the fleet alternative
fuel; inquired what other mandates might arise that would affect
Contract renegotiations, such as electronic waste.
The Public Works Director responded batteries are now considered
Universal Waste; stated a pilot program is being initiated which
will allow residents to drop off Universal Waste items such as
batteries, cell phones and florescent tubes; an educational program
will be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a sorting facility might
be necessary to ensure that florescent light bulbs do not end up in
a landfill; stated cost considerations would need to be addressed
at the next Contract negotiation, if a sorting facility is needed.
The Public Works Director responded the hope is to avoid the
situation through education and resident cooperation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda has a drop off location for
computers and other electronic equipment.
The Public Works Director responded the City provided a drop off
location last year; stated staff is looking into providing a drop
off location twice a year.
Mr. Grzanka stated E-Waste is a drop off disposal facility for
Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated information should be put on the City's
website.
Councilmember Mataresse stated that nothing is free; the City needs
to be forward thinking regarding mandates or new programs which
would affect the Contract; cost evaluations would need to be made
in addition to determining how to educate people.
Councilmember deHaan stated that not all residents are recycling to
the highest level; an awareness program should be reinforced; ACI's
operation is separated and thorough; ACI does a very good job.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the
Planning Board's action to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
14
for the Safeway Gas Station Project located at 2234 Otis Drive.
[PDAO5 -OO1, DRO5 -O01O, UPO6 -003, UPO6 -OO1O, UPO6 -0013] .
The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Call for Review) : Eugenie Thomson, Alameda
(provided handout); David Howard, Action Alameda; Dorothy Reid,
Alameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; Debra Banks, Alameda (provided
handout) .
Opponents (Not in favor of Call for Review): Debbie Kartiganer,
Cassity, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami; Chris Ferko, Safeway
Consultant.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the project plans are different
from the proposed plans; the largest change is the number of
pumping stations; questioned whether tonight's discussion is
premature because the Planning Board has not seen the site plans;
stated staff has stated that Council's position on the
environmental document tonight would not be linked to the Alameda
Towne Centre environmental document; requested legal clarification
before going forward; stated the matter should be adjourned to the
correct order if tonight is not the right time and place.
The Planning Services Manager stated typically the Planning Board
or Council addresses the adequacy of the environmental document and
then makes a decision on the project the same evening; the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
decision needs to be made on the environmental document first; the
Planning Board requested that the number of pumps be reduced from
eighteen to twelve and that the project provides driveways and a
raised sidewalk; the changes are very minor relative to the
environmental affects.
The City Attorney stated an action on the mitigated negative
declaration would not tie the legislative body's hands regarding a
future action on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Alameda Towne Centre expansion project; the two projects are
separate, an two separate parcels of land, and have two separate
owners; each project has been analyzed in accordance with CEQA;
CEQA requires that the mitigated negative declaration consider
whether the environmental analysis is adequate for the project as
described and includes accumulative impacts for any future project;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
15
an action on the mitigated negative declaration does not pre -
suppose a same or different action on the EIR.
Councilmember deHaan stated that an additional work request was
made in August for Target; the City oversees the contracts for the
Target and Safeway gas station studies; Target was scheduled to
come back to Council this month; inquired whether there has been a
change.
The Planning Services Manager responded the administrative draft
has not been received; stated a huge stack of comments were
received regarding the EIR; staff does not expect to get the
preliminary draft responses back for two or three weeks; plans are
to go to the Planning Board in July or early August; queuing was a
concern; stated fewer trips would be generated by reducing the
number of pumps from eighteen to twelve; staff anticipated that the
community might want to downsize the number of pumps; an analysis
was performed to see whether downsizing would result in longer
lines; OmniMeans Traffic Engineers provided the research and field
testing which determined that downsizing the project would not
result in longer ques.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is referred to as a
discount refueling station; inquired whether there is a difference
between refueling stations and gas stations.
Mr. Ferko responded the names change, but roughly the stations are
the same.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project would be
considered a high volume, discount refueling station, to which Mr.
Ferko responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the anticipated pumping
volume.
Mr. Ferko responded that the fuel pump estimates is something that
the client calculates based upon the market analysis.
Councilmember deHaan stated the previous gas station was a
neighborhood gas station; cars were repaired at the station; fuel
costs were not the cheapest in town; the station was full - service.
Mr. Ferko stated the proposed gas station would not offer full
service; the station would offer some convenient goods for sale.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the proposed gas station would
differ from Costco.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
16
Mr. Ferko responded typically Costco sells gas at a cheaper rate
than Safeway and drives a higher volume of cars; stated queuing is
longer because of the higher volume.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the queuing for the
proposed station, to which Mr. Ferko responded there is enough queu
to accommodate two to three cars.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much daily fuel would be
purchased.
Todd Paradise, Safeway Real Estate Manager, Fuel Center Northern
California Division, responded the design is set up to carry the
volume that Safeway anticipates would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many tanker trucks there would be
per day, to which Mr. Paradise responded one per day.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the volume would be
approximately 88,000 gallons.
Mr. Paradise responded volume would be between 88,000 to 90,000
gallons on a weekly basis.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many gallons Costco receives per
day.
Mr. Paradise responded he would guess a couple of trucks per day.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Costco receives 90,000 gallons per
day and a minimum of four trucks.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long Safeway has been in the gas
business, to which the Safeway representative responded seven
years.
Councilmember deHaan stated that gas stations have been a major
sales leakage for the City; questioned why the gas station and
Alameda Towne Centre EIR would not be reviewed at the same time;
stated the Transportation Commission was not requested to review
the matter; input was requested from the Transportation Commission
Chair and was peculiar at best; there is an overlapping impact; the
Alameda Towne Centre has been an extremely good project; the last
portion has some concerning factors; intersections, transportation
corridors, and traffic generated are concerns; he will yield to
legal counsel to verify that the two contracts are not connected;
other legal counsels advise that the situation could be concerning
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
17
at a later point; the proposed station is nowhere near what a
Costco would be; queuing has been requested for three cars; Costco
has queuing for four cars; inquired whether the Planning Board had
additional design requirements.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted
to limit truck delivery hours to early morning; stated no other
design aspects were requested.
Mayor Johnson clarified that other design changes were not made.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the entire issue goes back
to the Planning Board regardless of what action is taken tonight
because the Planning Board still needs to approve the site plan;
further inquired whether tonight's CEQA decision is binding.
The City Attorney responded the CEQA document is final if Council
upholds the Planning Board's decision; stated any member of the
public can appeal if Council remands the document to the Planning
Board with specific direction and the Planning Board follows the
direction and takes action on both the CEQA document and the
project; the CEQA document can be appealed as well as any action
taken on the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council is addressing the mitigated
negative declaration, which has nothing to do with the approval of
the project; the project can still be denied; the project is still
an independent issue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be upholding
or denying the Planning Board's approval of the mitigated negative
declaration rather than approving the mitigated negative
declaration.
The City Attorney responded the options are to either uphold the
Planning Board's approval or remand the document back to the
Planning Board for further review with specific direction as to
what Council wants the Planning Board to review.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project would be
measured against the document whether the document goes back to the
Planning Board or not, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she agrees with Councilmember deHaan and
many of the speakers regarding having a mitigated negative
declaration that looks at the project as a whole, including the
interactions between the contemplated expansion, including Target
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
18
at the Alameda Towne Center, and the proposed fueling station; the
mitigated negative declaration does just that [looks at project as
a whole]; the impacts of six different intersections are fully
disclosed in the mitigated negative declaration; there will be
opportunities to have a full discussion regarding the impacts of
the proposed fueling station, Target or other expansion projects at
Alameda Towne Center if the matter comes to Council or the Planning
Board; Council is being requested to review the adequacy of the
mitigated negative declaration; she concurs with the Planning
Board's findings that the mitigated negative declaration is
adequate because she does not see anything that would need an
additional analysis; the Planning Board considered the most
conservative assumption for the Alameda Towne Center expansion and
larger fueling station.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated that
he appreciates the detail that the Planning Services Manager
outlined regarding the differences between the 2003 and 2006
numbers; it is important to review the potential of a worse case
for impact of the entire project on the adjacent parcel.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning
Board's decision to adopt the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the Safeway gas station project.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a Happy
Father's Day.
(07- ) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, stated
Councilmembers work a great number of hours; suggested that
Councilmembers give themselves a raise or consider hiring a staff
person; stated the City deserves to have officials who are able to
concentrate and are well advised.
(07- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed waste and transit systems.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Bill Sonneman.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
19
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that the AC Transit
Liaison Committee met on May 31; staff will provide an update on
the High Street Bridge issue; AC Transit has been cooperative; Line
51 and Line 63 bus bunching and frequency were reviewed; data is
being gathered on the affects of moving Line 63 to Shoreline Drive
off of Otis Drive; AC Transit provided an update an the potential
of EcoPasses as a pilot program for City employees.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hopes to receive
some recommendations from the Climate Protection Task Force
Committee on environmental steps that can be taken; he would like
the Committee and City to consider a City car share program for
employees; provided information to the City Manager; stated the
City of Oakland and City of Berkeley are participating in a car
share program.
(07- ) Vice Mayor Tam stated on June 2 she attended a session in
San Francisco to meet with Admiral Mike Mullen, US Navy Chief of
Naval Operations; there were discussions on whether Alameda would
be willing to endorse having the battleship USS Iowa ( "IOWA ") move
from Suisun to Mare Island; the plans are to turn the "IOWA" into a
naval museum similar to the USS Hornet.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter can be reviewed; other ideas are
being discussed for the "IOWA ".
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he heard rumors that
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering moving its
District office from Harbor Bay Business Park; requested an update;
suggested that Council consider sending a request to maintain the
District office and associated laboratories at Harbor Bay Business
Park, if the rumor is true.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a letter has already been sent.
The City Manager responded she would look into the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought a portion of the
operation was next to Foster Freeze.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the USFDA sampling lab and District
Director office are at Harbor Bay Business Park.
Mayor Johnson stated a letter should be sent right away; a
resolution should be brought back to Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 5, 2007
20
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:48 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
June 5, 2007
21
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2007- - 7:01 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(07- ) Recommendation to review and approve Asset Management
Guidelines for Tidelands Leasing.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the context should be balancing off
the public recreational component; the tidelands trust allows for
maritime industry; part of the public benefit might be 200 skilled
trades jobs at a shipyard which provides the benefit of local jobs;
all uses must be viewed with a balanced risk benefit; a global view
must be taken; everything along the shoreline does not need to
change to public recreational open space; the guidelines are
reasonable; the uses are varied enough; each lease cannot be
expected to be viewed the same way.
The Development Services Director stated maritime uses are
valuable; leases will ensure facilities are maintained and kept in
a condition to become valuable assets to the community; there are
ways to accomplish public benefit, such as view access versus
physical access.
Councilmember Matarrese stated public benefit is not necessarily
allowing people to be able to walk up to the water'; there are other
benefits, such as sales tax revenues, job creation and shoreline
access for recreation; the term public benefit needs to be
stretched; that he supports the Bay Trail, however, commercial
endeavors providing revenues to the general fund should be viewed
as public benefits.
The Development Services Director stated tideland funds can be used
to develop public assets in other locations; the goal of trying to
figure out public benefit is a good start.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the City's policy on going
out to bid when long -term leases expire; stated there have been
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2007
1
complaints from the public about not being able to bid when other
long -term leases have expired.
The Development Services Director stated staff was considering
putting notices in the newspaper; the adjacent property owners
manage most of the leases; in some cases, buildings cross property
lines; staff would try to define property lines and make trades to
have property lines not go through buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said policy should be included in
the guidelines.
The Development Services Director stated something could be
inserted; further stated public notification would be determined on
an individual basis.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the leases have been off the market
for so long that the level of interest will not be known until
noticed; further stated what is developable might have changed over
three decades.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether only a handful of
opportunities are being discussed, to which the Development
Services Director responded there are three immediate
opportunities.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether some of the leases have
options [for extension] .
The Development Services Director responded the option in most
existing leases is up to the lessee, not the City.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore's
comments; stated there might be better and higher opportunities;
staff would have to discuss whether having forty to fifty leases is
in the City's best interest; a shorter lease could give an option
later on.
The Development Services Director stated setting up a performance
based lease extension is being discussed for one lease; the term
would be extended to the extent that there is investment made or
performance on the lease.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese
regarding maritime use along the waterfront; public access to the
waterfront should be maximized to the extent possible, but not if a
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2007
2
maritime use would have to be shut down to allow public access;
many uses along the waterfront are not maritime; there should be a
high priority for public access to the waterfront.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not
want to strip the waterfront of industrial uses; walking on the
path by Bay Ship and Yacht is interesting; there is a lot to see;
that he would be upset if the use were stripped and houses were put
in; the jobs are needed ;.the public access goes hand in hand but is
not the driver.
Mayor Johnson suggested a goal be added regarding maintaining
maritime uses.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she prefers to keep the language more
general: maximize revenue - generating opportunities.
Councilmember Matarrese added the language "as a public benefit ;"
stated some examples of public benefit should be included;
requested the guidelines be posted to the City's website for the
public and leaseholders.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the guidelines could be sent to the
three upcoming leases, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was
seconding the motion with a caveat.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated it
[caveat] is to ensure the guidelines are posted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether said caveat was the caveat to which
Councilmember deHaan was referring.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative; stated there are a
couple [caveats], including maritime uses.
The Development Services Director stated one of the goals of the
tidelands trust is to regulate the types of uses; maritime uses are
high on the priority list.
Councilmember Matarrese stated describing the public benefit, as
not just recreational use, should also be included.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the additions covered what Vice
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2007
3
Mayor Tam mentioned.
Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; stated [her
recommended language is] to enhance revenue- generating
opportunities as a public benefit.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 6, 2007
4
June 14, 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 chargeswagainst the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
160072 - 160452
E1666.4 - E16800
EFT 359
EFT 360
EFT 361
EFT 362
EFT 363
EFT 364
EFT 365
EFT 366
EFT 367
Void Checks:
$1,564,409.20
$95,612.01
$12,943.50
$12,943.50
$684,759.47
$76,084.39
$250,000.00
$338,050.00
$30,155.71
$24,814.00
$12,943.50
113973
116048 ($96.00)
117004 ($37.00)
117381 ($60.00)
122204 ($11.99)
160072 ($225.00)
157827 ($1,800.00)
($6,600.00)
GRAND TOTAL $3,093,885.29
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sible
Council Warrants 06/19/07
BILLS #4-B
611.91.2007
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Award Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 2007 -08
BACKGROUND
At the Regular City Council meeting held on May 1, 2007, the City Council authorized
the City Clerk to advertise for bids for legal advertising. City Charter Section 3 -18
requires the Council to: "award a contract to the responsible bidder who submits the
lowest and best bid for publication of all legal advertising of the City in a newspaper
adjudicated to be a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Alameda. The
newspaper published by the successful bidder is known as the Official Newspaper of
the City."
DISCUSSION
Two bids were received on May 31, 2007. Bid results were are follows:
Newspaper Rate Per Column Inch
Alameda Journal
Inter -City Express
1st insertion 2nd & subsequent insertions
$3.68
$3.30
$3.53
$3.30
The Inter -City Express bid documents indicate it is an adjudicated newspaper of general
circulation for the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, and the State of California.
The Inter -City Express bid is rejected as non - responsive because the publication is not
a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Alameda as required by Charter
Section 3 -18.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Budget appropriations for legal advertising are approved by the City Council during the
budget process. The City spends approximately $14,000 annually for legal notices.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -C
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Award Legal Advertising Contract, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, for Fiscal
Year 2007 -08 to the Alameda Journal.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Approve Agreement with Ameresco Manteca, LLC, for the Purchase of
Power from Landfill Gas Generation for a 20 -year Term at a Fixed Price
of $73.25 /MWH
BACKGROUND
At its May 21, 2007, meeting, the Public Utilities Board approved a power purchase
agreement for a proposed landfill gas project, which will be built at the Forward Landfill
near Manteca, CA. Since the term for this agreement exceeds 15 years, the agreement
must be ratified by the City Council as required by the City Charter.
DISCUSSION
The following table provides an update on the wind and landfill gas power purchase
agreements that have been approved by the Council over the past few years, as well as
the current status of the projects:
Project Description
1.5MW* Santa Cruz LFGTE ** for 20 yrs
(Ameresco)
10MW Solano County Wind, for 23 yrs
(PPM Energy)
Date Approved by
Council
November 16, 2004
December 7, 2004
Status
Deliveries 211106
Deliveries 1/1/05
5.7MW Half Moon Bay LFGTE for 20 yrs
(Ameresco)
1.9MW Keller Canyon LFGTE for 20 yrs
(Ameresco)
January 27, 2005
Expected mid -08
August 15, 2005
Expected mid -08
* MW = megawatts; ** LFGTE = landfill gas -to- energy project
The proposed power purchase agreement is between Ameresco Manteca, LLC
(Ameresco), a limited liability subsidiary of Ameresco Incorporated, and Alameda Power
& Telecom (Alameda P &T) for the delivery of between 0.9 and 1.9 net MW of power
(depending on the plant's permitted size) and the associated environmental attributes.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -D
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
This agreement is the fourth agreement undertaken with Ameresco.
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 4
Based on the life -cycle fuel availability, Ameresco plans to build a 4 MW facility at the
site in Manteca with an associated net capacity of 3.8 MW delivered at the point of
interconnection with the PG &E system. However, under the terms of the agreement,
Ameresco can choose to build a smaller plant, as small as 2 net MW. A permit is
required from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District)
and will be the primary factor determining the size of the plant. The power production
will be shared equally with the Port of Oakland (Port). Alameda P &T's 50 percent share
of the maximum and minimum capacity plants would be 0.9 and 1.9 net MW,
respectively. If built to the maximum size, output from this plant would serve
approximately four percent of Alameda's total demand. Ameresco must commit to the
specific plant size within seven days of obtaining the authority to construct the project
from the Valley Air District.
A provision in the contract incorporates the possibility of a cogeneration project to
deliver heat to a nearby prison, and to share the resulting revenues. Any net revenues
above an initial minimum rate of return for Ameresco will be shared 50% to Ameresco,
25% to Alameda P &T, and 25% to the Port. While these benefits are unknown and may
not materialize, there is a potential for lowering the overall cost of the agreement.
The major provisions of the power purchase agreement, which is on file in the City
Clerk's Office, are:
• Price: The price is fixed over the life of the contract at $73.25 per MW -hour.
This price is competitive with projected wholesale electricity prices. The annual
cost to Alameda P &T for the maximum sized plant will be $1,1 34,000, for a total
of $22.7 million over the life of the contract;
• Term: 20 years commencing with the commercial operation date, projected in
late -2008;
• Milestones: Ameresco must meet certain milestones in the development of the
project. If it does not, it will be subject to penalties or termination. Overall,
Ameresco has approximately three years to complete the plant. However,
Ameresco has indicated that it actually expects to have the plant operating much
sooner, perhaps in less than a year;
• Performance: The project is expected to generate base -load power with a
capacity factor in excess of 90 percent. If the plant's availability drops below 70
percent over a 24 -month period, the price will be reduced by 7.5 percent.
• Environmental Attributes: Alameda P &T will receive all of the environmental
attributes, including Renewable Energy Credits (REC's), associated with its
share of the generated energy;
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 4
• Expansion of Plant: Alameda P &T will have a 00 -day g
right of first refusal to
purchase any energy resulting from expansion of the plant;
• Environmental Regulations: Ameresco will comply with all environmental
regulations and comply, at their expense, with future changes in law;
• Cogeneration: Potential revenues from sales of heat to the nearby p rison will be
shared 50% to Ameresco, 25% to Alameda P &T, and 25% to the Port.
The power to be delivered under this agreement meets Alameda P &T's g oal of
obtaining economic and stably priced power. Since the ested lant is located in a congested
g
load pocket, there is possible protection from transmission congestion pricing exposure osure
and some contribution to area reliability.
This purchase power agreement provides Alameda P &T the ability to obtain power that
is competitive with current and projected power
future market prices. In addition, this p
comes from a renewable energy source with the associated environmental attributes.
These attributes have monetary value and could be sold separately if desired.
p Y
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The annual cost to Alameda P &T for the maximum sized plant will be $1,134,000, for a
total cost of $22.7 million over the life of the contract. The cost of this power will be
taken into consideration in developing Alameda P&T's Power Cost Budget et for Fiscal
in g
Year 2008 -2009 and n longer -term projections.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
All environmental review and CEQA compliance will be completed by Ameresco as
required. Air pollution permits and requirements will need to be approved by the Valley
Air District.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Agreement with Ameresco Manteca, LLC, for the p
urchase of power from
p
landfill gas generation.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
Irish Balachandran
General Manager
Alameda Power & Telecom
By: Donald W. Rushton
Utility Planning Supervisor
DWR:msw
cc: Public Utilities Board
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Accept and Authorize to Record Notices of Completion for the Bayport
F1SC /East Housing Residential Phase 2 Public Backbone Infrastructure
Improvements Along 5th Street and Stargell Avenue and the Storm and
Sewer Trunkline Project
BACKGROUND
Catellus Development Corporation was selected as the Master Developer for the
approved East Housing /Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") mixed -use development
in 2000. Pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), Development
Agreement, Joint Implementation Agreement, and Construction Reimbursement
Agreement between the Master Developer, the City, and the Community Improvement
Commission for the Bayport Project, Catellus Construction Company ( "CCC ") serves as
the General Contractor for the CIC and is subject to a Project Labor Agreement.
The scope of work for the Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure included construction of the
following:
1. Fifth & Stargell Improvements:
• The construction of Fifth Street, from the Intersection of Neptune Gardens
Avenue to its intersection with Stargell Avenue;
• The construction of Stargell Avenue, which forms the northern boundary of
the Bayport;
• New 12- to 84 -inch diameter storm drain lines beneath Fifth Street and
Stargell Avenue;
• A new eight -inch diameter, gravity -flow sanitary sewer line beneath Stargell
Avenue from Mosley Street to Main Street, and a ten -inch diameter gravity
flow sewer line from Mosley Street to the new Sewer /Storm Drain Trunk Line
Project;
• A new six -inch diameter sanitary sewer force main from the existing pump
station at Main Street to Mosley Avenue; and
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -E
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 4
• New joint trenches and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water
lines along the entire length of Stargell Avenue and the remaining portion of
Fifth Street.
2. Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure Improvements:
• The installation of a 48 -inch diameter low pressure force main from the
northern discharge of the new Storm Water Pump Station to a new storm
water treatment pond where water collects before being discharged through a
new out-fall structure into the Estuary;
• The installation of a six -inch diameter sanitary sewer force main from Stargell
Avenue to a stub -out approximately 270 feet north of Stargell; and
• The installation of an 1,800 foot long, 15 -inch sanitary sewer line from Stargell
to a northern EBMUD connection point.
Both projects were competitively bid based on plans and specifications approved by the
Public Works Department. Fifth and Stargell was bid on June 30, 2004, and DeSilva
Gates was selected as the lowest qualified bidder. Construction started on July 27,
2004, and was completed on May 18, 2007.
The Phase 2 backbone infrastructure improvements were bid on September 28, 2004,
and Mountain Cascade, Inc., was selected as the lowest qualified bidder. Construction
started on October 25, 2004, and was completed on May 18, 2007.
DISCUSSION
1. Fifth & Stargell Improvements:
The engineer's estimate for the project, including bid alternatives and contingency, was
$5,034,491. The total final project cost was $5,453,289, which is $571,202 lower than
the original estimate. Work related to the improvements was performed in accordance
with the approved Master Plan; Master Grading, Demolition and Improvement Plans;
Site -wide Landscape Improvement Plans; Site Management and Air Monitoring Plan;
Demolition Plan; Traffic Management Plan; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Marsh Crust Ordinance; and AP &T plans and specifications. A certificate of final
completion was issued by the project engineer on April 20, 2007, and is acceptable to
the Public Works Department.
As the CIC's General Contractor, Catellus Construction Company has requested the
release of the retention. Pursuant to the Construction Reimbursement Agreement with
Catellus, Harris & Associates, acting as the City Engineer for the Project, approved final
completion of the improvements on May 18, 2007 and recommends that the City
Council formally accept the improvements as substantially complete. This will release
the contractor's retention of $540,330, less credit adjustments of $124,151, for a total of
$422,178. A copy of the certification documentation is on file with the City Clerk's Office.
Honorable Mayor and June 19, 2007
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
2. Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure Improvements:
The engineer's estimate for the project, including bid alternatives and contingency, was
$829,320. The total final project cost was $072,189, which is $157,131 lower than the
original estimate. Work related to the improvements was performed in accordance with
the approved Master Plan; Master Grading, Demolition and Improvement Plans; Site -
wide Landscape Improvement Plans; Site Management and Air Monitoring Plan;
Demolition Plan; Traffic Management Plan; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Health and Safety Plan; Construction Debris Management Plan; Utility Abandonment
Plan; Marsh Crust Ordinance; and AP &T plans and specifications. A certificate of final
completion was issued by the project engineer on August 2, 2006, and is acceptable to
the Public Works Department.
As the CIC's General Contractor, CCC has requested final payment of the amount of
funding held in retention. Pursuant to the Construction Reimbursement Agreement with
Catellus, Harris & Associates approved final completion of the improvements on May
18, 2007. Harris recommends that the City Council formally accept the improvements
as substantially complete in order to release the contractor's retention in the amount of
$87,2'19. A copy of the certification documentation is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The costs for the two Bayport Residential Phase 2 projects are included in the
Catellus /Bayport Project Budget approved by the CIC and City Council in April 2005,
and have been funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Catellus /Bayport
Project.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Plans and specifications were prepared and implemented in accordance with the
Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Work related to the improvements has been performed in accordance with the approved
Master Plan and Master Grading, Demolition and Improvement Plans. No additional
CEQA review is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Bayport FISC /East Housing Residential Phase 2 Public Backbone
Infrastructure Improvements along 5th Street and Stargell Avenue and the Storm and
Sewer Trunkline Project improvements, and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice
of Completion for the Improvements.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
R -sp7 Lilly submitted,
ge,...
at e
Development Services Director
aU-S CCLQ Of C
By: Douglas Cole
R- development Manager
ebbie 'o "'er ote._
Base Reuse & Community
Development Manager
DKILALIDC:dc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $330,000, Including Contingencies, to
Arborwell for Pruning of City Trees within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 2008, No. P.W. 04 -07 -13
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2007, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call
for bids for the pruning of City trees within the City of Alameda for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2008, No. P.W. 04- 07 -13. The proposed project will prune approximately 4,000
city street trees, 75 trees within the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 400 trees for Alameda
Power & Telecom, and 100 trees for the Recreation and Park Department. The contract
also includes costs for directional pruning and structuring of young trees, root pruning of
young trees, and tree removal /stump grinding, on an as- needed basis.
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 30, 2007. A total of four contractors submitted bids, however,
one was disqualified for not having the required bid bond. The Iist of bidders from Iowest to
highest for total project cost is as follows:
Bidder
Location
Total Bid
Arborwell
Hayward, CA
$295,005.80
West Coast Arborists, Inc.
Anaheim, CA
$315,595.00
TruGreen Arbor Care
San Jose, CA
$318,920.77
With a total bid of $295,507, Arborwell submitted the lowest qualified bid. As provided in
the specifications, the contract for this project may be mutually amended on a year -by -year
basis, for up to four additional years, based on satisfactory performance. If awarded, the
unit prices will be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index as listed in the Engineering News
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -F
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Record for the associated trade. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted under annual maintenance C1P project number 43 -8301 with funds
available from the General Fund for annual street tree pruning and park tree pruning, the
Golf Complex enterprise fund under Contractual Services, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission funds.
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(h), Maintenance of Existing
Landscape.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $330,000, including contingencies, to Arborwell, for
pruning of City trees within the City of Alameda for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008,
No. P.W. 04- 07 -13.
Respe -- submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
i
~�1 ecuao:„..).
r �
By: Pete J. Carrai cr___
Public Works Superintendent
MTN:PJC:gc
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $200,000, Including Contingencies, to
Dowling Associates to Update the Transportation Element of the General
Plan and Conduct Associated Traffic and Environmental Reviews
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2006, the City Council authorized staff to update the Transportation
Element of the General Plan. The Transportation Commission approved a draft
Transportation Element at its March 2007 meeting, and that draft is currently being
reviewed by other City boards and commissions. The draft Transportation Element
includes policies for the multi -modal circulation plan, the pedestrian plan, the review of
Environmental Impact Reports, Transportation Demand Management and
Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM) programs, and the street functional
classification system.
DISCUSSION
The update of the Transportation Element is accomplished through a General Plan
Amendment and requires traffic and environmental analyses. On April 18, 2007, the
City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for consulting services to perform this
work. In addition, a notice of solicitation was published in the Alameda Journal.
The Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) were opened on May 10, 2007. The following
consultants submitted SOQs: DKS Associates, Dowling Associates, and TJKM
Transportation Consultants. Staff from the Planning and Public Works Departments
reviewed the SOQs and interviewed the three consultants. Based upon evaluation of
the consultants' past experience on similar projects, qualifications of the consultant
team, and interview results, staff recommends that the City enter into a consultant
services contract with Dowling Associates, Inc., for a total amount of $200,000,
including a 1 O% contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Dowling Associates will perform the following work: modify the latest countywide traffic
model maintained by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -G
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
by incorporating more detailed information about Alameda's land uses and street
networks; ensure compatibility with the ACCMAA model; use the updated model to
evaluate the impacts of the proposed policies; develop "Thresholds of Significance" for
the multi -modal transportation system; and prepare a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR). Staff anticipates bringing the Transportation Element update to
the City Council by May 2008.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is funded from Measure B through the following projects: Transportation
Master Plan, Transportation Systems Management, Congestion Management, Transit,
and Safe Routes to School. All of these projects are components of the Transportation
Element update.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The Transportation Element update will amend the General Plan and, by definition, will
be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $200,000, including contingencies, to Dowling
Associates to update the Transportation Element of the General Plan and conduct
associated traffic and environmental reviews.
Respec submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
OCOAA V6AL
By: Obaid Khan 61 cr_
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN:OK:gc
cc: Transportation Commission
Watchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Bicycle /Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Program Grant Funding
Agreement with the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority,
Commit Measure B Funds as Local Match, and State the Assurance to
Complete the Proiect
BACKGROUND
On November 21 , 2006, the City Council authorized the submittal of a Bicycle /Pedestrian
Countywide Discretionary Grant Program application for $100,000 to prepare a feasibility
study to improve pedestrian and bicycle access across the estuary between Alameda and
Oakland. The goal of the grant program, which is administered by the Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), is to expand and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian access, convenience, safety and usage in Alameda County, focusing on
projects and programs with countywide significance. The City's application was accepted
by ACTIA for its Fiscal Year 2007/2008 funding cycle, and the adoption of a resolution is
required before staff can commence work. The grant requires a 50% local match.
DISCUSSION
Staff estimates that the total project cost to prepare the feasibility study is approximately
$200,000. When the City applied for the ACTIA Bicycle /Pedestrian Countywide
Discretionary Grant Program, it also applied for a Caltrans' Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) grant. If received, that grant would fund the required $100,000 Iocal match. Staff
discussed the status of the BTA application with Caltrans and received word that the
application will not be on the recommended funding list. As a result, the ACTIA grant
requires $100,000 in Iocal matching funds.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
This project is funded under CIP# 07 -20. This project requires a local match in the amount
of $100,000. When the City Council authorized the filing of the ACTIA grant application,
$100,000 in Measure B (Bicycle /Pedestrian) funds were appropriated in the event that the
BTA grant would not be approved.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -H
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
The estuary crossing was identified as the highest priority in the City's adopted Bicycle
Master Plan. The proposed project does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a bicycle /pedestrian countywide
discretionary program grant funding agreement, committing Measure B funds as local
match, and state the assurance to complete the project.
Respejc,submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Lalli‘o/k,
Barry Bergman
Transportation Coordinator
MTN:BB:gc
cc: Watchdog Commmittee
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT
WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COMMITTING
THE NECESSARY MATCH, AND STATING THE ASSURANCE TO
COMPLETE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda ( "APPLICANT ") has submitted an application
to the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ( "ACTIA ") for $100,000
in Measure B funding for the Alameda /Oakland Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
( "PROJECT ") for Cycle 3 of the Bicycle /Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary
Program ( "PROGRAM "); and
WHEREAS, The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the
Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, California Public Utilities Code
Section 180000 et seq., approved the reauthorization of Measure B at the General
Election held on November 7, 2000, thereby authorizing that ACTIA be given the
responsibility to administer the proceeds from the continued one -half cent transaction
and use tax. The duration of the tax will be 20 years from the initial year of collection
that began April 1, 2002, with said tax to terminate /expire on March 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT represents that APPLICANT is an eligible grant
recipient for Measure B funds; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application for Measure B funding, ACTIA requires
a resolution adopted by the responsible grant recipient stating the following:
1) the commitment of the amount of project sponsor matching funds
specified in the grant funding agreement; and
2) that the APPLICANT understands that the amount of Measure B
funding is capped at the amount awarded as specified in the grant
funding agreement, and therefore any cost increase cannot be
expected to be funded with additional Measure B funds; and
3) the assurance of the APPLICANT to complete the project as described
in the grant funding agreement; and
4) that the project will comply with all the project - specific requirements as
set forth in the grant funding agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to
submit an application for Measure B funding for PROJECT.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APPLICANT by adopting this resolution
does hereby state that:
1) APPLICANT will provide $100,000 in matching funds; and
2) APPLICANT understands that the amount of Measure B funding for the
Resolution #4 -H CC
06 -19 -07
project is capped at the amount awarded as specified in the grant
funding agreement, and that any cost increases must be funded by the
APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect
any cost increases to be funded with additional Measure B funding; and
3) PROJECT will be implemented as described in the grant funding
agreement and in this resolution; and
4) APPLICANT and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as
set forth in the grant funding agreement; and therefore be it further.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an p
eligible sponsor of
g
Measure B funded projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation
that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of
APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its City Manager to
execute a funding agreement with ACTIA for Measure B funding for the PROJECT as
referenced in this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted
to ACTIA in conjunction with an executed grant funding agreement.
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:
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 19, 2007
Re: Approve a Resolution Revising the Memorandum of Understanding
Between the Alameda Police Officers Association Non -Sworn Unit and
the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing December 24, 2006,
and Ending December 19, 2009.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Alameda Police
Officers Association Non -Sworn Unit (PANS) and the City of Alameda is for the period
commencing December 24, 2006, and ending December 19, 2009.
DISCUSSION
The City of Alameda Labor Relations Representatives have met in closed session with
the City Council to discuss negotiations with PANS. The revised MOU is a result of
those negotiations and falls within the parameters authorized by the City Council. The
MOU provides for a three percent wage increase on June 24, 2007, along with a lump
sum amount to reflect the wage increase deferred from December 2006; a wage
increase on December 23, 2007, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) with a minimum of two and one -half percent and a maximum of three percent; a
wage increase on December 21, 2008, based on the change in the CPI with a minimum
increase of two percent and a maximum increase of four percent; and benefit
adjustments and language modifications through the term of the contract. The
proposed MOU is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost for implementation of salary and benefit adjustments to the General Fund for
Fiscal Year 2007-08 is approximately $94,955 and is included in the Strategic Alignment
Initiatives. For budget purposes, the December 2007 wage increase is calculated
based upon a CPI maximum of three percent.
The cost for implementation of salary and benefit adjustments to the General Fund is
approximately $59,168 for Fiscal Year 2008 -09 and approximately $53,115 for Fiscal
Year 2009 -10. These amounts will be appropriated in future year's budgets. For
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -I
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 2of2
budget purposes, the December 2008 wage increase is calculated based upon a CPI
maximum of four percent.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution revising the Alameda Police Officers Association Non -Sworn Unit
Memorandum of Understanding for the period commencing December 24, 2006, and
ending December 19, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE ALAMEDA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION NON -SWORN
UNIT AND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING
DECEMBER 24, 2006, AND ENDING DECEMBER 19, 2009
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Alameda Police Officers Association Non -Sworn Unit
and the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined said
proposed Memorandum of Understanding, a copy of which is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk, and thereby finds and determines adoption of said documents to be
in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
y
Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said revised Memorandum
of Understanding.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall
supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith.
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
Resolution #4 -I CC
06 -19 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Approve a Resolution Revising the Executive Management
Compensation Plan for the City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Deputy
City Manager, Human Resources Director, and the Executive
Management Team Established by Resolution 13545 and Amended by
Resolutions 13626, 13689, 13977, 14008 and 14034, for the Period
Commencing June 24, 2007, and Ending June 20, 2009.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Executive Management Compensation Plan is for the period
commencing June 24, 2007, and ending June 20, 2009.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Executive Management Compensation Plan provides for a three percent
wage increase effective June 24, 2007; a wage increase on June 22, 2008, based on
the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a minimum increase of two percent
and a maximum increase of four percent; and benefit adjustments and language
modifications through the term of the Plan. The Plan eliminates the Informational
Technologies Director classification, which was vacated in February 2007. The General
Manager — Golf Complex classification will remain at the June 25, 2006, salary
schedule. The proposed Executive Management Compensation Plan is on file in the
City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost for the implementation of the Executive Management Compensation Plan for
Fiscal Year 2007 -08 will be approximately $91,915, of which $66,739 is from the
General Fund and is included in the Strategic Alignment Initiatives. The cost for Fiscal
Year 2008 -09 is approximately $124,037, of which $90,063 is from the General Fund
and will be appropriated in future year's budgets. For budget purposes, the June 2008
wage increase is calculated based upon a CPI maximum of four percent.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -J
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 19, 2007
Page2of2
Approve a resolution revising the Executive Management Compensation Plan for the
period commencing June 24, 2007, and ending June 20, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
v
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
1
Approved as to Form
.CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING REVISED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY CLERK, ASSISTANT
CITY MANAGER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, HUMAN
RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND THE EXECUTIVE
MANAGEMENT TEAM ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION 13545
AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTIONS 13626, 13689, 13977,
14008 and 14034, COMMENCING JUNE 24, 2007, AND ENDING
JUNE 20, 2009
WHEREAS, THE City Clerk is appointed by Council and serves at
the pleasure of the Council and as such is not a classification included in
any bargaining group or union; and
WHEREAS, the Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager,
Human Resources Director and Executive Management Team Members
(who include General Manager — Alameda Power and Telecom,
Development Services Director, Public Works Director, ,Chief Financial
Officer, Library Director, Plannin g Building and Buildin Director, Recreation and
Parks Director, Executive Director — Housing Authority, and General
Manager — Golf Complex are at -will employees appointed by the City
Manager and as such are not presently included in any bargaining group
or union; and
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council an
Executive Management Compensation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined
said Compensation Plan, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, and there by finds and determines adoption of said
documents to be in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said
Compensation Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution
shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith.
Resolution #4 -J CC
06 -19 -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, 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 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 ("City
Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2754 on March 3, 1998, approving and
pp �
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, 1994; Ordinance No. 2835 on June 6, 2000;
Ordinance No. 2844 on September 19, 2000; Ordinance No. 2857 on April 17,
p
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 Cit y 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
Code Section 33000 et seq) ( "CRL ") and to implement the APIP, BW1P, and
WEC1 P Plans;
WHEREAS, section 111 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
Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -1( CC
06-19-07
of the redevelopment agency's program to acquire real ro ert by eminent
domain; and
p p Y Y
Y
WHEREAS, Section 33373 of the CRL was amended by SB 1809,
which took effect on January 1, 2007, and requires a legislative body that
adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before
Y
January 1, 2007, to record with the County Recorder a revised statement
containing a description of the land within the Project Area and a g eneral
description 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 APiP, BWIP, and WECIP Project Areas is
set forth in Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference. The Commission's program to acquire real property by eminent
P Y Y
domain in each Project Area may be amended only by amendin g the relevant
Community improvement Plan pursuant to Article 12 of the CRL commencin
� g
with Health and Safety Code Section 33450).
Section 2. A revised statement containing a description of the land in
the API P Project Area, and a general description of the scope of the
Commission's eminent domain authority is set forth in Exhibit D 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 3. A revised statement containing a description of the land in
the BWIP Project Area, and a general description of the scope of the
Commission's eminent domain authority is set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto
and incorporated by reference. The City Council hereby approves roves 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
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
this gp
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
g
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 e. assa
p g
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 Less than a fee. The power of eminent domain is necessary because the APIPProject
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 p ersons to
live or work. In order to eliminate these blighting conditions and prevent their recurrence, it 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 rnent 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 (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 21942/0001
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
. q
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 tine.
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 ("BWIIP 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 ("Conimission") 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 provided 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 finding 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 21942/0001
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 BWIP 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 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 B
Page 2
998382v4 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 P 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 terns 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
Scifel Consulting Inc.
Alameda Merger Amcadments
ATrAC -IMENT NO. 1
EXHIBIT C
Li f Non-
WECIP
AI N Tax Rate Arc Address
074 133400800 021002 1094 MA1tIh1A VII.LAGE PKWY
074 133404900 021002 1092 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401000 021002 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401203 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 I33401204 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401404 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 1440 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401700 021002 1010 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
.074 133401800 021002 1030 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401901 021002 1000 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402300 021002 1100 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402400 021002 1210 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402901 021002 1111 MARINA VII -LAGS PKWY
074 133403201 021002 80I MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074133403345 021002 815 NI`ARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403405 021002 817 MARINA VLL- LAGE PKWY
074 133403505 021002 901 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403604 021002 931 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403701 021002 933 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074133403800 021002 951 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404100 021002 1390 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404600 021002 1090 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404700 021002 1082 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404800 021002 861 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074133404900 021002 871 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074133445300 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 VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406100 021002 1301 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406200 021002 1305 MARINA VILLAGE ?KY
074 133405300 02I002 1151 MARINA VILLAGE PKY
074 133406400 021002 1141 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406600 021002 .1101 MARINA VaLAQE 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 MARIlYA VILLAGE PKWY
074 134000500 021002 1 PACIFIC MARINA
074 134001702 021002 1061 PACIFIC MARINA 1 7 G
074 134002300 021002 1115 ATLANTIC
074 134002400 02 1002 1125 ATLANTIC
074 134002500 021002 1135 ATLANTIC
Parcels No Longer Blighted - WECIP
074 134062600 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 134004600 021002
074 134004700 021002
074 134004000 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
074134102200 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
3000 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 CT
19 KINGSBURY CT
21' 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
1 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 COURAGEOUS 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 CI' F62
29 COURAGEOUS CT A63
31 COURAGEOUS CT B64
18 COURAGEOUS CT A65
20 COURAGEOUS CT 066
16 COURAGEOUS CT 067
14 COURAGEOUS CT G68
10 COURAGEOUS CT A69
Scifcl Consulting Inc. Parcels No Longer Blighted - WECIi'
2!26/03
Alameda Merger Amendments 2
074 134104500 021002 12 COURAGEOUS CI' 070
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 1376
074 134105400 021002 935 INDEPENDENCE DR A77
074 134105500 021002 937 INDEPENDENCE DR
074134105700 021002 11NV1NCIBLE CT C1
074.134105800 021002 31NVINCIBLE CT D2
074134105900 021002 5 INVINC®LE CT G3
074 134106000 021002 7 INVINCIBLE CT G4
074 134106100 021002 9 INVINCIBLE CT L5
074 134106200 021002 11 INVINCIBLE CT E6
074 134106300 021002 13 INVINCIBLE CT G7
074134106400 021002 15 INVINCIBLE CT G8
074 134106500 021002 17 INVINCIBLE CT C9
074 134106600 021002 19 INVINCIBLE CT D 10
074 134106800 021002 21 INVINCIBLE CT All
074 134106900 021002 23 INVINCIBLE Cr B12
074 134107000 021002 25 INVINCIBLE CI' P13
074 134107100 021002 27 IN\91NCIBLE 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 52 INVINCIBLE CT B18
074 134107700 021002 48 INVINCIBLE CT P19
07413.4107800 021002 46INVINCIBLE CT F20
074 134107900 021002 42 INVINCIBLE CT A21
074134108000 021002 44 INVINCIBLE CT B22
074 134108200 021002 40 INVINCIBLE CT B24
074 134108300 021002 38 INVINCIBLE CT A23
074 134108400 021002 36 INVINCIBLE CI'
074 134108500 021002 34 INVINCIBLE c 7' F26
074134108608 021002 30 INVTNCIBLE CT A27
074 134108700 021002 32 INVINCIBLE CI' B28
074 134108900 021002 10 INVINCIBLE Cr C37
074 134109000 021002 121NVINCI3LE CC D38
074 134109100 021002 8 INVINCIBLE CT P39
074 134109200 021002 6 INVINCIBLE CT P40
074 134109300 021002 2 INVINCIBLE CT C41
074 134109400 021002 4 INVINCBLE CI' D42
074 134109600 021002 26 INVINCIBLE CT C29
074 134109700 021002 28 INVINCIBLE CT D30
074134109800 021002 24 INNVINCIBLE CT G31
074 134109900 021002 22 INVINCIBLE CT G32
074 134110000 021002 20 INVINCIBLE CT E33
074 134110100 021002 18 1NV1NCIBLE CT E34
074 134110200 021002 14 INVINCIBLE CT A35
074 134110300 021002 16 INVINCIBLE CT 036
074 1341 10600 021002 050 MARINA VILLAGE PKY
074 134110700 021002 2060 CHALLENGER DR
Scitcl Can9u1t1ag Inc. Parcels Na Langer Blighted - WECIP
Alamcda M .rgcr Amendments
2f26/03
074 134110800
074 134110900
074 134300100
074 134300200
074 134300300
074 134300400
074 134300500
074 134300600
074 134300800
074 134300900
074 134401900
074 134402100
074 134402300
074 134402400
074 134402500
074 134402600
074 134402800
074 134402900
074 134403000
074 I34403100
074 134403300
074 134403400
074 134403500
074 134403600
074 134403700
074 134403800
074 1344{ 4000
074 134404100
074 134.40.4200
074 134404300
074 134404500
074 134404600
074 134404700
074 134404800
074 134405000
074 134405100
074 134405200
074 134405300
074 134405500
074 134405600
074 134405700
074 134405800
074 134406000
074 134406100
074 134406200
074 134406300
074 134406500
074 134406600
074 134406700
074 I34406800
074 134406900
074 134407000
074 134407200
021002 2020 CHALLENGER DR
021002 965 ATLANTIC
021002 850MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
021402 2061 CHALLENGER DR
021002 2021 CHALLENGER DR
021002 815 ATLANTIC
021002 801 ATLANTIC
021002 860 ATLANTIC
021002 960 ATLANTIC
021002 980 ATLANTIC
021002 985 ATLANTIC
021002 1000 ATLANTIC
021002 1 REGULUS CT
021002 3 REGULUS CT
021002 5 REGULUS CT 81
021002 7 REGULUS CT
021002 9 REGULUS CT
021002 11 REGULUS CT 84
021002 • 13 REGULUS CT
021002 15 REGULUS CT
021002 17 REGULUS CT
021002 19 REGULUS CT
021002 21 REGULUS CT
021002 23 REGULUS CT
021002 25 REGULUS CT
021002 27 REGULUS CT
021002 14 REGULUS CT
021002 16 REGULUS Cr
021002 10 REGULUS CT
021002 12 REGULUS CT 96
02I002 6 REGULUS CF
02 1002 8 REGULUS CT
021002 2 REGULUS CT 99
021002 4 REGULUS CT
021 002 981 INDEPENDENCE DR
021002 983 INDEPENDENCE WAY 102
021002 985 INDEPENDENCE DR
021002 987 INDEPENDENCE DR
021002 1 ECLIPSE CT
021002 3 ECLIPSE CT
021002 S ECLIPSE CT
021002 7 ECLIPSE CT
021002 9 ECLIPSE CT
021002 11 ECLIPSE CT
021002 13 ECLIPSE CT
02I002 15 ECLIPSE CT
021002 17 ECLIPSE CT
021002 19 ECLIPSE CT
021002 21 ECLIPSE CT
021002 23 ECLIPSE CT
021002 25 ECLIPSE CT
021002 27 ECLIPSE CT
021002 14 ECLIPSE CT
Sclfol Consulting Inc.
Alameda Merger Amendments 4
Parcels No Longer Blighted • WEC1P
2/26/03
Solid Consulting Inc.
Alameda Merger Amendments
074 134407300 021002 16 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407400 021002 14 ECLIPSE CI'
074 134407500 021002 12 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407700 021002 6 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407800 021002 S ECLIPSE CF
074 134407900 021002 2 ECLIPSE CT
474 134408000 021002 4 ECLIPSE CT
074 134408200 021002 1 051 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134408300 021002 1053 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134-408400 021002 1055 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134408500 021002 I057 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 1344 08 700 021002 1005 ATLANTIC
074 134408800 421002 1015 ATLANTIC
074 134408902 021402 1025 ATLANTIC
074 134409004 021002 l 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 021002 13 R EDONDO 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 134410900 021002 18 REDONDO CT
074 134411000 021002 20 REDONDO CT
074 134411100 021002 14 REDONDO Cr
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 134411700 021002 8 REDONDO CT
074 134411800 021002 2 REDONDO CT
074 134411900 021002 4 REDONDO CT
074 134412100 021002 1081 INDEPENDENCE DR 157
074 134412200 021042 1083 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134412300 021002 10S5 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134412400 021002 1087 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134412700 021002 1010 ATLANTIC
074 134412800 021002 1020 ATLANTIC
5
Pnrccls No Longer Blighted • WECIP
2/26/03
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
Governntertt 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 Cit y Council of the
City of Alameda ( "City Council ") adopted Ordinance No. 2754 on March 3, 1998, approving and
pp g
adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, as
s
amended to date ( "APIP Plan "). The Community Improvement Commission of the Cit y 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 Cit
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 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
APIP Plan, have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health
and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.).
Exhibit D
Page 1
998382v4 21942/0001
COMMISSION'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY. Section III of the APIP,
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
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 l
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 10/03/41
2) Civil Action No. 23109 dated 12/12/44
3) Civil Action No. 22463 dated 01/29/43
b) Executive Order.
I) Order No. 7467 dated 10/07/36
c) Exception to Executive Order No. 7467
1) Grant deed Reel 2568 Image 76, Official Records recorded 2/18/70
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 Peralte
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:Southeasterly along a non - tangent curve having a radius of 700.00 feet, concave to the
Southwest, a radial line of said curve through said paint bears North 15% 27' 47" East, through a
central angle of 4591 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% OP 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 comer of that parcel of and described in the lease to the United States of
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 5
49.42" West, 505.94 feet" as described in said deed (Reel 1821 D.R. forage 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 an length of 396.52 feet and South 2% 47' 17" East, 1251.57 feet to a point on
northern Iine 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 line (6691$ 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 Parcel maps;; at
page 1 in the Office of the Recorder of said Alameda County; thence along the western line
thereof and the western line of Parcel 1 of said parcel map (131 PM 1) Sot,th 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 line 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 Iine thereof, being the northern line
of said Atlantic Avenue as follows: North 86% 34' West, 726.99 feet; South 88% 43' D4" 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. 30735 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 deed recorded June I8, 1963 in .Reel 924 of
Official Records at Image 879, Alameda County Records, and being all of the parcel described in
that certain deed 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 °5I'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 Iine, 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. Atlantfd •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 85 °25'42" 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 Recorded Return to:
City Clerk
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380
Alameda, CA 94501
Exempt from recording fees pursuant to
GoPerlunent 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, 1991, approving 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 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 BWIP 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
p P P y
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 Expander! B W I P
.Project Area Boundaries
REAL PROPERTY in the City of Alc,7ad'
described as follows:
PARCEL "A ":
County of aianeda, State of Cal i forme,
BEGINNING at the intersection of the c
by the N U.S. Ate the Corp, ec d. S. Pierhead Line (Alameda)
San he . S. Bay Engineers, and shown on their Map of as established
Syr California, Oakland-- " Line
paints gf and 5.�, and the Alameda", dated d,y Sept. Harbori -� i=nl
points l . and 5Z, Street southeastern right-of -way line of Mariner tretDriv
80 feet wide) as described (in Parcel ;her n the West
Community Improvement Plan, adopted by City f
certified copy of said ordinance Y AZaaeda 0"dinance�Noir, the des' End
No. 43ied11cop in the Official Records been recorded August 4, = 21ni, a
ord5 of Aka�ada County; ' -$3+ under' Series
THENCE southeasterly along said Pierhead Line to intersection a
corner of said Parcel 2; n wit;
THENCE southwesterly along a northern
courses s and distances the boundary of said Parcel 2, ,the follow
South l;8" ono nas..i
South i 7" E�r i5" West, 211.5► feat
South ►+�3' ].2' fi�� i 1 +�.elb feet;
Southerly, We=t, 19ia.C4 feet;
radius of ierly,77 feet, arc of a curve, concave yo the east
radius 11, a` 17orf� Street , an arc distance of 4 feet, sore or east, tz to
(40' wide; now abandoned) ; I _ss, t o �r;,
THENCE westerly alone said line of Work Street, r�
eastern line of said Mario ...� r`�5 feet oaro or les~s, to the
THENCE northerly and northeasterly er Square Drive;
���[1 neat, more or less, ng said line, 850 feet, nor
' respectively, to the BEGINNING_ ' e n-- 1 es z, And
Containing seven (7) acres, mar. er 1 °,,.
PARCEL 'El":
BEGINNING at the paint or intense
(1G') ING arly a o ang ction of a line drawn parallel
right angles s from 4 with and 'pay
Street (60 feet wide) and "Segregation .n. eastern :^iaht- of-way ling r ten
she a. StedaoR
certain map •entitled, "Official i y Line ", as shown
r ial Resur.►ey o f Pbreian of Segregation delineated a do ;.,ti2!
Vicinity", ty„� fled and recorded A� � �,, • 9 9a�ton
Vicinynr', at pdca 16 in t �g.�,. 13, 1951 in Book O of Surveys Lino cod
is also ar, angle ' he Office of the AI���reda Con,: ye by Licensed
9 point in the eastern bctJndar of Parcel Ras desc; which point
We End Community Ispr^aveocerat p � Y �, as described in the
i;141, a certified copy Plan, adapted by City of A1'aneda Ordinance No.
Py off`. said ordinance having been recorded August k , 1983,
under Series Na. • 3 - 140981, in the Official Records of Aiaasda
THENCE northerly along said County;
eastern boundary, the following naaed enur Se5 and
distances: 1r
North 22" OP East 220.06
' North 13" ti=' Oa" West, 424.,11 feet feet;
Nor';h t, a feet,
to a poi
nt the aa$t 7V+n baee
eer% d the lands G; Al a7 tdl Marina Village North 85° 43' 1 West, 66.21 feet; Nor ;h 4° i6! 11 c, '`,
',••44+ )set
Oescriotion of the Survey elrea, Parcel "8" Rev.: 2S Uct )0 - teentinued)
Nortn 58' 00' 44" West, ao.00 feet:
Mor:h 31' 59,' 16" East 150.0: fee:;
South 58- 00' 44" East,
North 4' 1.6' 11" East, 357.16 feet;
South 58' 02' 24" East, 254.10 fee: te a point on the U.S. Pierhead and
Bulkhead Line (Alaeeda), as eetablished by the U.S. ;Irey Corps of Engineers,
and shown on their Map of "Harbor Lines, for San Francisca Bay, California,
Dekland Alaeeda", dated 23 Sept 1563, which point beers northweeterly 4.54
feet, more or less, from Point No, 105 thereof, and which 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" Eat, 143.93
feet to another corner thereof at intersection with the Peralta (rant Line, si5
said Line is delineated and so desinnated on the "Map of Alameda Marsh Land,
as partitioned among the owners thereof, in the suit numbered 8923 and
entitled, Pacific Improvement Coxpany, plaintiff, vs. James A Wayeire et
al., defendants, Superior Court of Alameda County, State of Ca)ifornea.",
filed for record July 30 1900 in Book 2 of Maps at page 74, . in the Office'
the Alameda County kecorder;
THENCE southeasterly along said Grant Line, 295 feet, wore or less, ta inter-
section with the aforesaid Pierhead and Bulkhead Line;
1HENCE leaving the said Grant Line, southeasterly along said Piernead and Bulkheed
Line, 530 feet, •re or Le5S, to intereection with another point on the said
Grant Line;
THENCE northeasterly and in a general southeasterly direction along the said Grant
Line, 1235 Feet, Imre or less, to Paint No. 109 of the said Pierhead and
Bulkhead line, point of separation;
THENCE continuing southeasterly alai the said Pierheed Line 3,662 Feet, 3cre cr
less, to Point No. 139, a junction point;
THENCE continuing southeasterly aiong said PierheEd and Bulkhead Line !,i22 feet,
more Or less, to the nortnweetern line of Oak Street, (43.24 feet wide, more
• or less; now abandoned), ae shown on the "Map of Part of the M:nturn Tract",
dated Deceeber, 1876, filed for record March 3rd, 1377, in the Office of th.2
Alameda County Recorder;
THENCE northeasterly along said In of Oak Street, ar the direct production
northeasterly thereof, td the near channel line in the U.S. Tidal_ Cenal, Ei
the sae? now exists and as shown on saie Harbor Liees Map;
THENCE soothvasterly along said channel hit,: 7E0 feet, moreeor less, to the
southeastern right-of-way line of Park 1::treet;
THENCE southwesterly along said right-of-wa• Line to the said Pierhead end
Bulkhead Line;
THENCE southeasterly along last said line, -.20 feet more or less, to inter-
sectian with the northwestern baundary thale trac; or parcel of land the•,:
an "Parcel Map No. 1264", Filed for re- d August 28, 1975 in Soak 86 of
Parcel Maps, page 1-2, Official Records -7- Alameda County;
THENCE northeasterly along the direct prodm•z:ion northeasterly of said boundary to
the said near channel line;
THENCE eoutheasterly along said channel lin:. 1065 feet, more or less, to inter-
section witn the direct producticn nart—nsterly oF tne soiltheastern beelndery
of said parcel;
THENC southwesterly alor s. said d:-?:: cr•od 7o t7,e salc eeef
Bulkhead Lne;
THENCE contInuir.o southeasterly alohl: :.!.-hear; BulkPead Lile; l50 f22t,
mor2 or lesi, :o inte-sectien 1:--e of
1:1dzn 1.4ay ias t:le seat •o• eeiets);
Description of the Survey Prea, Parcel .a.
Ti-IE,�CE sa +ath.� � ?;. f �A May g�) -- (e;;,t-- ; + ;a,�)
southwesterly along said
intersection E outh est with lon Ss�Jid line of Tilden Way 3,000 fett
THENCE southwesterly w1 st:,•n line of Everett , r�ore e,. 1 id ) ;
Lincoln weste yiarlong said line of E. a et Street t :a the, i6+? e wide);
� r ..t � :d )
THENCE no In Avenoe, feet wide, as the sane now ' ° the southwestern
lY' along Last Said � exi5:s1; '► line o;'
ZE3n the a to of which was s 10 line to the northwestern
boundary d f Tract
filed for record 25 October
Maps, �'a9° ��� Official Re 197
THENCE southwesterly , pab92, cords of Alameda Co.ty; in Book 75 of
said
thereof, said direct al along boundary and the direct production s ,
lh Block of production being the common boundary between lotss1 a
the Alameda Station Hracte3•. ead Traci
for record 14 "! b_,.�,�an It7ts S,
March 1866 i n Book-17 7 of Maps, Page Tract, Official an,
Alameda County, _ ' p of which was filed of
Y, to the northeastern line of Webb Avenue, 60f t wide, a
_ sane now exists;
THENCE southeasterly feet wide, a5 the
Street;
y along said lira to the said southeastern line -
a r said E.1 ^r.a.
THENCE southwesterly along said line l:;?,�
south-
western boundary of she � .,► feet, mere or r,,
western bounty lo_ commonly et St Street, sb i7o
/ Assessor's Parcel kna1r. a; 1Jl,y Everett
.THENCE southeasterly along ?I °. �r.i- 1ry9 -,;1, $ rs ° -ti bei -�a
THENCE astern line of said lot;
boundary J' :.s., ao: vr. ins, to the
northeasterly S Sc,ti t
along last said line the 2, as shown v� that L to she sv`1Lb�+ #titer
Blocks„ at certain ma entitled ^ n of the a; lot 4
, which yap was filed for record 3Mal "Subdivision of the ,
in the Office of the Aleneda County May n Book y of Maps, Chipman
THENCE sQ��t,h.astarlY elan ! Recorder;
being also the northwestern said lot line to the southeastern
' tnwe t + a5t.rn boundary 2;
THENCE northeasterly s4-rn by +lndar•y of lot 6, � - of said 1c:
north-
easterly asterly along last said boundary and the said t pro `:i
to the northeastern to direct production Ct i vn ,7D7 eet
wide et this point, as the w 1 ist of said Webb Avenue,
THENCE sv��theq$ ;ar.l,. sa.�e now 2�ti s.sf • r ��1. t~� feet
along said line f Webb
direct production northeasterly Q , } ••Aa5 Avenue 12r,� feet, Acre-
• of the northwestern line ar• Lassi to :ck
�' or lot
THENCE southwesterly 1r', said 8!,:c4
drawn parallel wiahong said lot line and direct
and lr :iu feet ¶ L production thereof, t
western line of said Webb a,,n�rles�erly at right anc�lp
THENCE southeasterly bb Aven,.,,; s Tree, glono sa
id parallel
common boundary of Said C�txr�a, 1__ lane t�r.t.s refit, tor?
co, onap of Part of alid. , Chipman Mocks Su dieision or less, to the
Hays e: Cape: -ton ��r•ooer• and ri l Block r, as shown vii
9, 1873 in Bonk 5 of Maps, •- , filed for record
9, 187e; , Wage F, in the Office of the Alameda AQ..:I
da Caun ►. y
THENCE northeasterly along said common
ommon b ornd ary,
14
. 6
+
ee
t
0,
less,
to
o
the h
„ northeastern boundary of the let cosm known as :509 Broadway, being Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Ma. 70 -169 -2E. T►ENCE southeasterly along said boundary and the direct ion southeasterly tha- to t 5ath_asL ern line of Broadway, Em feet wide; THElCc southwesterly along said s,l,he,}te „n line, t o the southwestern line of Central Avenue (80 feet wida3; THEACE northwesterly along said line of Central Avenue to intersection with the direct production southwesterly of the southeast ern boundary o f Tract 3 L J, f;' n d for record 27 February 19'5 in caw 77 of ht -s, pages i4} in the zdi al Records or Alameda rd.:ntr i`c,C� no•tners`?r;, a'Jna 'a.- : a -• - _f.c :: C7 anc •7uny3' f .a the nCr`, C= rn l � said trSC t rS:+CE northwesterly
along !Asti 7r'..�� i - s to )
•1 line .n ?�•r'c :
Description of the - Survey Area, Parcel "3 ",
25 Oct 94 - Scent :need1
TSENCE3southwesterly along said northwestern ,ine to inner' ee
line of lot 21, ;,1G4�, 1Y 5 _ r0� +;.i.
THENCE northv►asteriy oleo c ►:� se id Cis :a ;pan decks y'J�di�• :S :Crr; -
said i .ne of lot 2i, 6v feet,
northwestern line nF the lot known more or less, � tr��
ca�scron .y �rna:+;� as �5 07 Central A��nJ =, Assas;ar' s Parcel No. 7t- 17 ;;. i�`
THENCE southwesterly along said lot
line and the di�a }
production SpUC7r? -t�r
l'► thereaF•to the southwestern l ine of said Centre. Avenue;
THENCE northwesterly along it said line to ine southeastern
camaon ly known as 2,,a-2440 � 13d +�ndar�� of the ►.
186 -1 ; Cer r•al Aver ?, = :�7g E75iN SSar' ; �'art?i wa. 70 -
T HEi'1C sa +athwe s t er 1 y al ong said bo�Jr.dar• ! f
western boundary of last said lot. , 1:::,. ; � ?�, acre or las:, to the scut:-
THENCE northwesterly along last said boundar• !32
so�Jr:haastsrn line - ��_. Y, . , re?t, eat•a ar t ass to +•' s
ar ark Avenue (8'.0 Feat wide as the s L��.
T.�ENC'E southweste:-1y oleo task � �� 5dF1A nary ex15:s', ;
lion 5th $terL g said line to intersection with trip dire_:
fly of the n►:rti eas t ar.n bounda. ► Gy g
a5 ! :1s -1357 P rk d ..y ine or tine 1�t ca�a�n1y .•:
Avenue, tieing Asseesor' s ;•areal No. 70.- - _
THENCE nor•thwester•l y along said bo+_r�dary l irre anti dir eat et o
following courses and distances: R' od'� =�ian F�.sr•a�r`,
northwesterly 186 feet, more or less, to an angld 45 oint;
so'sthwcst l
erly S feet, sores or ess to an angle point. r
7ar•thwesterl. f ►- -
feet, ao.•e or- lass, to the northwestern l ine of tih e
lot cdemonly known a5 13;1 Park Avenue, being A5ses eor' s Parcel Me. ► +0�--
155 -7;
THENCE sauthwesterly along last said line to th6
s, as Shawn on the naa o a= �� L na'r•theas � ern 1 S ra o r 1 a: A, � !
Alameda Park Hoores t eed , filed far• c + 5
in Boor 17 of Naps, page 2, Official Records of Alameda County�_or•d hlGy Fs0r,
THENCE northwesterly along last said line to tare northweste••
being also the co.1�ran boundary of lots A and C of said. 31ockn3, oas s;now-' c
said map;
THENCE souithwesterly along said cooraon boundary and the eetension thereof threes.
block 3 and beyond to the northeastern boundary of the lot commonly known a;
1339 Park Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 7G- 185 -- 28-•1;
THENCE southeasterly alongg said boundary, 1541.92 feet, more or less, to the
northwestern line of- said Park Avenue;
THENCE southwesterly along said 1 ine, 9G feet, pore or less, to the southwestern
boundary of said lot, being also the northeastern boundary of Block 5, as
shown on said sap of Alameda Park 'Homestead; .
THENCE northwesterly along last said boundary, 144 fee
drawn parallel with and 140 Feet northwesterly from t hersaiiid northwestern + t i
of Park Avenue;
THENCE southwesterly along said parallel line 8 fast,
;o�JFhwzstern ki,-rz Gr" the mn► a or 1255, to the
Property commonly known as 1323 Park Avenue,
being Assessor's Par .?1 ,No. 70- 185 --1Z;
THENCE southeasterly along said line -5. 23 feet more
western line cr she ' ► or lass td the north- -
kot commonly known as t414 end 2415 Mart it ee Coulrt, ae , n
Assessor's Parcel No. 7ir- 185 -17•
TNc�iCE S a �.�1 hr +ester• 1 z! o n '
l1 ine E .E• th 7, rlyshow g sa`d line, 120 feet, more or less, to the nor:np,s_ e
i•ine o .Block 7, ei-; n on :he said map o' A :aa_ja Pa►•k Hoaesteedi
S ?Uth :�S� ?r'. � �'Yl_ •a4rg 5nld noitti93St a -:� .l l:+e a. "i-.�a t�`'.e� ❑ :`^'or.�
%'lay 1 r n,e o T is 1 � r a!•k 1 Avery -,o AOr4 �. _ _ s, �: _ . ��� 10'1 ;ii ?c5 . ?: .f
T•r:E�'ICE southwesterly ..long saido.� -
C:lr'd'�C' 1:A ::lp 5 _ :;h - � •',��•r : �... •7 2 a^ �..
:.e$t, as show,n on said nab
ADescription of the Survey Area, Parcel "9" Rev.: 26 Odt 90 - (continoedl
THEUCE along the arc of said curve, haviog a rad:us of 1•0 fe+t, oor+ or less. o:
the northeastern right-of-way line of Encinal Pvnue, E. felt wide, as th:
same now exists;
THENCE vouthwesterly at rightangles to sa:d line of .Ehcina! Avenue, 60 f„1. to
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 line to the direct production southeaster
of the northeastern boundary of Lot A, Block 10, as shown on the aforesaid ke,
of Alameda Park Homestead;
THENCE northwesterly along Eaid boundary and production 176 feet, mere or less to
the common boundary of Lots A and C of said Block 10, as shown on said oap of
Alameda Park Homestead;
THENCE southwesterly in said boundary and the southwesterly extension thereof,
through Blocks 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of last said map to the.northeasteon
line of San JOS? Avenue, 60 feet wide, as also shown on said map;
THENCE southeasterly alono said northeastern Line, 5 feet, rOVe.01".
direct production northeasterly of the sootheaste•n line of'the int
commonly known as 1ME. Park Street, beino Assessor's Parcel No. 70-1E1-1;
THENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line.and production thereof C.7"::!.-
said San JOSE Avenqe 4nd beyond to the southwestern line of said lot/parro:1
70-181-1;
THENCE northwesterly alono said southwestern line 122 feet more op let:, to the
southeastern riaht-of-way line of Park Street, (SO feet wine, as the SSAE no.
exists;
THENCE southwesterly along said line of Park Street, 100 feet, pore or 1+1E, to
the direct production southeasterly of the northeastern lint of Lot 7, Block
0, as shown on the "Map of Lands adjacent te the Town sf Eocinal, Alameda
County, Cal., Surveyed by Jas. T. Stratton," Filed feo record May ZEith, 1SE-7
in Book 19 of Naps, at Page 52, in the Office of the Alameda County Recerder;
THENCE northwesterly alone said line o lot 7 aod the production thereof to the
northwestern line of that certain lot or parcel commonly known as 1117 Park
Street, beino Assessor's Parcel No. 7-206-7;
THENCE southwesterly alone at said lioe, 30 feEt, more or less, to the south-
western line of last said lot;
THENCE northwesterly alone last said line, 28.75 feet, more or less, to the
ooutheastern boundary of the lot commonly known as ‘1±,ak Street, •ird
Assessor's Parcel No. 71-208-19;
THENCE northeasterly alono said boundary to the aforesaid northeastern line c• lot
7, Block D;
THENCE northwesterly along said lioie to the southwestern line of the lot commonly
knowvas 2306 San Jose Avenue, being Assessor's Pexcel No. 71-208-6-1;
THENCE northeasterly elono said_southwestern line and the direct production
northeasterly thereof, 160 feet, nore or less, to the northeastern rioht-o:-
way line of said San Jose Avenue; •
7HENCE southeasterly along said richt-of-way line to the tootheastern boundary of
the lot commonly known Z5 2309 San Jose Avenue, •eino Assessor's ParcEl No. •
71-207-12;
THENCE northeasterly /ono said boundary, 150 feet', more or less, to the wester o line of lot 7, Bloc.. S, as Olown on the agorestd 11.;,c of Land:
docent
TENC1. norohwesteoly Edon.: las-t !:r.e, SO f&et, ev le:s,
western line of said loo 7; to thi
THENCE noetheaste•ly alone :C.Et sz:f hfl! 5c., feet, more or lese, to thE oortn-
eastern line of said lot 7;
5
Desceiption of the SUT•e? 2A - ieom:ieeerli
THENCE southeesterly along liket sAid line, 50 T? or less, to the seeth
" eastern line of the lot commenle Imciwn .A5 2.ie:8 E'en .entonio Avenue,
Assessor's Parcel No. 71-207-2;
THENCE noetheasteely along lest said line And the direct peoduction noet'r.easterly
thereof, 160 feet, more or less, ea the northeastern liee of San Antonio
Avenue, at the intersection of thesoutheaste• n line of lot 6, Bleck S, as
shown an the said dap of Lends adjacent ...;
THENCE northeasterly along seid line of lot 6, 150 feet, more or less, to the
northeaetern line of said lot;
THENCE northwesterly along last said line, SO feet, mope or less, to the north-
western line of lot .3 of said Block S, as shown on said mapi
THENCE northeasterly along last said.line SO feet, more or less, to a line drawn
parallel with and 's0 feet, southwesterly from the southwestern line of Encinal
Avenue, (80 feet wide, as the same now existe);
THENCE northwesterly along sAid parallel line and the direct peoducticn
northwesterly thereof, 160 feet, more or less, to be northwesteen line of Del:
Street (60 feet wide, AS the see. new exists);
THEMCE northeasteely'along said line CT Oak Street (at varying widt▪ hs, as the same
- now exist), to intersection with the southwestern boundary of a paecel of Cite
property ithe Main Library 4nd the Children's Libeaey),commonle known as .142'11
• Oak Street, and 2264 Santa C14ra Avenue, being-Aseessor's Parcel NO. 7E-2:6-1;
THENCE in a eneral northaa3terly direction along said boundary, the following
courses:
northwesterly, 150 feet, more or less;
northeesterl. , S2.55 feet, more or less;
southeasterly, 15 feet, more or less; and,
northeasterle, 98.75 feet, more or less, to the soethwestern line o;
Santa Clare Avenue, (80 feet wide);
THENCE noethweeterly, S4 feet, more Err less, along the said southwestern line te
-intersection with the direct production southwesterly of the noethwestern
boundary of the City Hall property, which consists of all of lots'6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, and 12, and the southeesteern 33 feet of lot 13, ell in Block 37, as
shown an the aforesaid Map of Lands adjacent...;
THENCE noetheasterly along said direct production, to the n•etheaetern line of
Santa Clara Avenue, (6) feet wide, as the same now exists) as shown on seid
map;
THENCE generally northeasterly along said boundary and the direct peoduction
northeasterly thereof, to the northeastern line of Linceln Avenue (SO feet
wide, as the same now euists);
THENCE southeasterly along said line wf Lincoln Avenue, In feet, more OT less, ta
the aforesaid northwestern line of Oak Street (43.33 feet wide, as the same
.now exists) ;
THENCE northeasterly along said line of Oak Street, to the southwestern line of
Buena Vista Avenue.00 feet wide, as the same now exists);
THENCE northwesterly alone said line 98.5 feet, more or less, to intersection
with the direct.production southWesterly of northwestern boundary of that
certain peopeety, commonly known as 2275 Buena Vista Avenue, being Assessoe's
Parcel Ho. 71-2E2-2;
THENCE northeasterly along said boundery and production thereof, 2l5 feet, MOT? C-
less, the eauthwestern boundiry of that certain lot cemmonly known as 1345
Street, being Assassoe's Peeee! No. 71-222-L;
THENCE lA p•5r:1 alchng SAii lOt line the f=ilawi4;
courses:
n orthwssteT11 , 351. feet;
n eetheasterle, 460 feet; :lee
Description of the Survey Area, pa.-eel
northwesterly, 130 fee: to the scuteeastern lime o: Elm StTees (€.) fee%
wide) , AS said street is shown OA tnar. certi.in map entitled, "Subdivision of
Blocks 30 a 31, Lands Adjacent to the Town of Encinal Alameda Township, Cal.-,
filed for recor.J, Auut, 1'3.'4, 2n F.'eole. 20, po 5 OHj e':ecord of
Alameda County;
THENCE continuing northwesterly along the dieect production noethwesterly of last
said course to the northwestern line of said Elm Street;
THENCE northeasterly along last said line, 50 feet, to the southwestern line of
Clement Avenue C60 feet wide, as the same now exists), and as sAid Avenue it
shown on said subdivision map;
THENCE northwesterly along said line of Clement Avenus, 260 feet, more or /ess, to
the southeastern line of Walnut Street (40 feet wide, As the same now exists);
THENCE southwesterly along said street line, 725 feet, more or less, to the
southwestern line of said Buena Vista Avenue (70 feet wide, as the same now
existS);
THENCE northwesterly aloho last said line to intersection with direct produc
tion southwesterly of the northwestern boundary of a tTact or parcel of City,
owned land, commonly known as Mc4inley being Aesesser:Parcel _-
2!-2-4:
THENCE northeasterly Along said boundary and production thereof Aeld beyond, 42S
feet, more or less, to. the southwestern bound, of a parcel of land owned by
the Alameda Unified'School District, being Assesso,'s Parcel Ho. 7i-229-2-1;
THENCE northwesterly Along last said boundary ta the southesstarn line of MuLhere.,
Street (60 feet wide, as the same now exists);
THENCE southwesterly Along said line GO feet to the direct production south-
easterly of the southwestern line of Eagle Avenue, (6) feet wide, as the same
now exists);
THENCE northwesterly along said line'of Eagle Avenue, 540 feet, more or 1e55,. to
the northwestern line of Willow Street, (60 feet uide, as the same now s.iists;
THENCE northeasterly Along said line to the southwestern liee of Mement 'Avenue,
(60 feet wide as the same now exists)•
THENCE northwesterly along said southwestern line, 103.5 feet to the southeastern
line of lot 1L, Block 13, as shown on that certain map entitled, "Plan of the
Subdivisions of ?locks 1, 2, 3, 124 13 i f Land Adjacent to the Town of
Encinal."; filed for record July 20, 1885 in Bock 10 of Maps, pAge i4, in the
Office of the Alameda County Recorder; -
THENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line, 105 feet, more or less, to an
intermediate southwestern boundary of that lot commonlyiknown aa 2060 Clement
Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 71-255-3;
THENCE northwesterly along said boundary, 34.8 feet, more of less, to a point;
THENCE southwesterly along said boundary, 4; feet, more or less, to the south-
western boundary of said lot, being also the mid-block boundarybetween lots
in said Block 13, AS shown on said 3ubdivision5 of Elocs map;
THENCE northwesterly along said boundary to fftersection with the southeastern
boundary of thAt certain -lot, commonly known as 1112 Stanford Street (60 feet
wide, as shown on last said map): being Asaessor's Parcel No. 71-255-21;
THENCE southwesterly along said boundary, 35 feet, more or less, to the south-
western line of said lot;
THENCE northwesterly Along last said line and the direct production northwesterly
thereof, 11-;.7,.25 feet, more or le;s, to the northwestern right-s-feway line of
said Stanford Street;
THENCE noTtheiisterly iAst line to e liege cllel with-and ILL
feet, more or Less, southwesterly of the sonth•estere .c7' Clement Avenue,
(60 feet wide, AS 7.he Si-ue nCw exlst5);
7
Description of the Suave./ Area, C- rr ..
THENCE northwesterly along said parallel I:A; 1��.:r ��,�
southeastern line of Lot i:i Bloc', ! LiUre pr l'S;i to t e
map; , �o F} shc..n +,:.. Said Subdivisions o. ',
r LGCI :s
THENCE southwesterly along said lc;. lint;, 35 f?2t, mere Car lass
southwestern line thereof; to th°
THENCE northwesterly along last said line, and along the southwestern lines of
, of
to the northwestern l i ne of said lot ice
; THENCE northeasterly alas last saidl ineti o intersection with a line drnwy p ara l ti Y1 with and 110 feet, more or less, sou thwesterly from • the
said south -
western Fine of Clement avenge;
THENCE northwesterly along last said line 68 feet, more or less, to a line drawn
parallel with and 70.: feet, 41G•rE o.r less, southeasterly from the southeastern
line of Chestnut Street, (60 feet wide), as shown on said Subdivisions of
Blocks map, and on that certain map entitled, "Flap of Encino!. Station, Town of
Alameda, owned by Columbus Bartlett ", filed for record April 17
c Book
17 of flaps, at page 44, in the Office of the Alameda County Recorder;
in
THENCE northeasterly ()olio said var;11E1 line 110 feet, more or less, to yhe
southwestern right -of -,lay of said Clement Avenue;
THENCE northwesterly along_ said right-or-way line 70.5 feet more L
inte *section with the said line of Chestnut Street, °•r IeA$, �o
THENCE southwesterly along last said line to the .direct production soutc,eastariy
of a lot line parol1e! with and ,30 feet, mare or less, southwesterly of said.-
l ine al Clement Avenue;
THENCE northwesterly said lot kind and production thereof, 158 feet, more o'r 1 ?-s,
to the southeastern boundary of lot 1E, Block 60, as shown on said Encino'
Station/ Colusbits Bartlett map;
THENCE northeasterly along said boundary to the said southwestern line of Clement
THENCE northwesterly an last said ling
L03 feet more OT less, to'the south-
, eastern line of Lafayette Street, (60 feet wide), as shown on said E;icinal
Station map;
THENCE southwesterly along said southease•rn line, 75 feet, More or less
direct production southeasterly ' , to the
y ar i lot line parallel with and 75 feet, more
or less, soutfwec.ter 1y of said line ai Clement Avenue;
THENCE northwesterly along said parallel line And production e
more ❑•r less to the southeastern � , p ,, an the'r o,T 1Ea fast,
boc.i•rdary of lot 1r; Hoch 5�
s.Nid Encimal Station map; ? , as shown on
THENCE southwesterly along last said line, and the direct production southwesterly
therer,, 75 feet, more or less, to tip common boundary of lots 3 and 10, or
said t toc): 53;
THENCE na- =nwesye•r1y along said common boundary and the direct production narth-
wes e•- .yr toe-, eof, 168 feet, Mc.-ra or lass, to the northwestern line of Schiller
as shown on .said Encinal Station map;
��.rse' c.
THENCE nc•� 'neAsterly along said line, 50 feet
line •, lot 1�, �- , a1o•r "E or lg$g, to the northeastern
Block 58, as shown on said Encino' Station map;
THENCE no nwe$te•rly along said no-rt7east &-rn line and the direct production
- northw,- s ter ly thereat', 133 feet, more or less, to the southeastern line of lot
15, s. :d Bloc): 58;
THENCE no771easterly along last said Line, 100 feet, more or lass to the afore-
said ( ?men t Avenue; -
Ti -HENCE no )westerly along s,; ± d line
141i.?'r' -:tin with L��a rr•� 1�� of Cl�'r119ri Avenue, a.7 feet, r�'�;"`@ C: : ?Say :a
in'_eT. r `"' a�..i7.lr?= stern line of Union Street, A150' AS shown on said
Station map;
l €'10E SQL •':waste•r1% along :�Z;.; said line,
Fr•ad�,1r : 0 1 _ s i _ n ?, 153 faq t, rr�c re or ''35, to '-;:e
:on iorith ts?5t ?�' a r. rr (called r ,
.he 503 :hwy st ?.•'i line N •60° 1 1' .!!0 _*
i
Description of the Suroei Ar,,,,, ;:i..:?1 %, i1 •.y•i.:, - (.:ontiom2d)
feet and ia6.oa feet) of Lots i i. 21 s.r.owr on tr? an of "Trct f0169,
filed for record August 2. :.E2 in Bco,, 'A 0:' MApS, at page 33, Official
Records of Alameda County;
THENCE northwesterly aiong ssid southwestern line and production thereof, together
with the direct production n3rtnwesterly thereof, 23.: Feat, more or less, to
the northwestern line of Ninturn Street, also as in on said Encinal Stet!
nap;
THENCE northeasterly along said line oF Ninturn Street, 53 feet, more or less, to
the northeastern corner of a lot conmonly known as 1119 Minturn Street, being
Assessor' ; Parcel N. 72-292-4;
THENCE northwesterly along the northeastern boundary of said lot, 108 feet, more
or less, to the northwestern corner of said lot;
THENCE southwesterly alma the northwestern boundary of said lot, and the north-
western boundary of lots II, 12 and 5, Block 56, as shown a said Encinal
Station map, 10( feet to a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet northeasterly
of the northeastern it of Eagle Avenue, (60 feet wide, as
xists); the. sane now .
e
THENCE northwesterly along said porellel lioe, 75 feet, more or less, to tme
northwestern boundary a;' :hat cerain Assessor's Parcel No. 72-292-11;
THENCE southwesterly along said boondary, 160 feet to the southwestern line oe
Eagle Avenue, also as sho..on on said Encinai Station map;
THENCE northwesterly the'reon, 33 feet, or or less, to the sout.otestern Line of
Grand Street also as shown on said Encinal Station aap;
MENCE southwesterly along said southeastern line, 360 feet, aore or less, to
intersection with the southwestern line of Buena 9ista Avenoe, (7(j feet wide,
as the saxe now exists);
THENCE northwesterly and westerly along said soutnwestern line ci,' Buena Vista
Avenue, (70 feet Hide, but narrows to 65 feet, and then to 60 fett), 1466
feet, more or less, to intersection with the southeastern line of Arbor
Street, (45 feet wide, as the same now exists); •
TriENCE southwe'sterly along ssid line of Arbor Street, 104 feet, more or less, to a
line drawn porpendicular 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, 1588, in Map Book 9, at page
22 in the office of the Alameda County Recorder;
THENCE northwesterly on said perpendicular line, 45 Feet to :he northwestern
right-of-way- line of said Arbor Street, and the said mast oastern corner;
THENCE northwesterly along the southwestrn line of Lot; 12 'ch,ouch 2•, in said
Block B, to the eastern line of Jay Street, (15 feet wide, ,s the same now
exists);
THENCE westerly at right angles to said line of „ley Sti-2 ?t itT ,'?et to the western
line of Jay Street;
THENCE northerly on said western line, 3.6 feet, more or le. , to the south-
eastern corner of Lot 13, Block A, of the aforesaid Fitch ' act;
THENCE westerly along the southern line of Lots 15 through 24 ,- said Block A to
the eastern line of Benton StreeE, (60 feet wide);
THENCE southerly alonb les: said line to intersection with the :outhern line or
Pacific Avenue, (60 feet w:dei;
THENCE westerly along said southern line, 400 feet, mr...r? Or It? • ;0 ti i direC7
production souther!:/ o: the eas:.irn oc,ndi-/ of ti-,2 P:?.— c3aTt=ollY "''' ''
1321 •acHif: AYInue. ,.::. -",ssefs?r's Parcs: No.
THEMCE noethe•iy along Si: s;:r1?!'1, proouct:sn, 6) feet, aor. or less,
northern line of said :a.7ifi= f-1,?7,,,i
THEME continuing norzherl7 el:no sa:o eastero noonr2E:-./, Nort '3='10" E:::::30
feet, more or iss, to •:-,E- r:7--tn;AL:-.7.,r1 G' 1st sa:: :i•7i;
9
Description of the S•reey Psreli "6', ES Mae (coneinuen
,THENCE westerly along a somthern boundary of a payee of Cite on prperty,
coamonly knewn as Geene Vista Park, being Assessorie Parcel No. 72-35,i-1,
feet, glor t. oe less, to the eastern line of Sheraan Street (6(' feet wide);
THENCE southerly along $aid eastern line, 476.64 feet, aore or less, ta the
northern line of lot 9, as shown on the "Map of Re-Subdivision of Western
Portion of block 33, Fitch Sharon Tract", recorded in Book 13 or Maps, page
55, Official Receords of Alaseda County;
THENCE easterly alarm said line 105 feet, more or less, to the eastern line of
said lot;
THENCE soutnerly along said eastern line, 39.7 feet, more or less, to the northern
line of Lincoln Avenue (approx. 100 feet wide);
THENCE easterly along said northern line, 5 feet, mdre.or lass, to the direct
production northerly of the eastern line of the lot coaeenly known as 1506
Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor's ParcelNo. 72-346-2;
THENCE southerly along said eastern line and prodection thereef, 2•• Feet, acre e-
less, to the southeastern corn of said parcel;
THENCE westerly along the southern line of said parcel and of the adjacent parcel
172-34;-1/, 110 Feet, more or less, to the aforesaid eastern line of Sherman
Street;
THENCE southerly along said eastern line, 35 feet, more or less, tothe direct
production easterly, of the northern line of the lot conaonly knoWn es 1545
Sheraan 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, 1 feet, more or less, to the
southern line of the lot coanonly known as 1208 Lincoln Avenue, being A55253-
or's Parcel No. 72-366-4;
THENCE westerly along said southern line, 50 feet, more or less, to a point on the
eastern line of the lot comaonly known as 1544 Bay Street, being Assessor's
Parcel No. 72-368-36; -
THENCE southerly along said eastern line, 10.5 feet, more or less, to the southern
line of said parcel;
THENCE westerly along said southern line and the direct .production thereof
westerly, 160 feet, oore or less, to 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 61., as shown an the "Map of the Encinal Park
Tract", filed For record in Mao Book 13A, page 88, Official Records of Alazee:e
County;
THENCE westerly along the northern line of said lot 81, 150 feet, more or less, to
the northwestern corner of said lot, being also a point on the eastern line of
Lot 74, as shown an last said Map;
THENCE northerly alonn said eastern line, 25 feet, yore or lees, 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
C60 feet wide)
THENCE northerly along said western line, 12; feet, more or less, to intersection
with the soethern line of the aforesaid Lincoln Avenue (100 feet wide);
THENCE westerly along said southern line 1136 feet, more or !ess, to the nort:ewe;-.
corner of the lot connonty known as 912 Lincoln Avenue, beino qssess,r's
Parcel No.
THENCE southerly along the we3tern line of said parcel 150 feet, 'lore or less, ta
the northern lino •of the loc commonly known as 1540 Ninth Street, (60 feet
belne Assessor's Parcel M. 73-390-53;
10
Descriotion of the S.Jrvey Aroo,
;.td., ',0 - :7.*:::-.:i.2.
rNCE wes:erly along said nco.tnern line, Eoa feet, oaee or less, ta a olio: •
the weltern liot cf said hin:h Et-eit i6,) feet wide) being ths 7.ortheastern
73-406-35;
corner of tne lc; comooniy Oncwn EL -..2'... Ninth 3:reez
No. , .oeing Assessor's Parce:
Ti,ENCE westerly along t'o:. nortarn line of said paocel and .tht direct proouczion
55;
thereof weste.-iy, li7 feet, more or less, to the southwestern corner of the
lot conoonly known as E2E Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor. s Parcel No. 7-406-
TH&ICE northerly lono tne western lioe of said lot, 150 Feet, more or less, to
the southern line of said Lincoln Avenue;
THENCE westerly along said southern line, 1150 feet, 3ore or less, to the north-
western corner of the lot comoonly known as 725 Lincoln Avenue; beino Asset'i-
or's Parcel No. 73-419-43;
THENCE southerly'a/ong the western line of said parcel and the continoetion
thereof as the western line of Parr:els 73-4li-44 anc 7a-41i-23, and the.dire:t
Haight Avenue, (i0 feet w id?)
production southerly thereof, '225 feet, more or less, to the s,:othern line of
TH.NCE westerly along said southern line, 1 foot mare or less, to. t:oe eAste-o
. .
Mo. 73-4:-:0-38;
line .3 the lot c•noonly known as 728 Halqht Avenue. t'einc.A5ieSS.:0'S PE-XC::
THENC& southerly along the.eastern boundary of said parcel and the continoation
thereof as the eastirn boonda,iy of lat 73-4::0-15, and the dire.:..t prcd=tion
Avenue, (60 feet wide);
southerly thereof, 345 fee or to to the soothern line of Sonta
THENCE westerly along said southern line, lE, feet, more or less, to the eastern
Parcel No. 73-42a-li;
line of the tat commonly known as 726 Santa Clara Avenue, !zeing Rssessor's
T),.ENCE southerly along the said eastern line and tne continoation tnereof as the
eastern line of Parcel 73-422-7 arid the direct production thereof southerly
RCrOSS Taylor Avenue (66 feet wide), ano ths eastern line of Parcels 73-4.i'3-7,
and 7-423-L-1, 465 feet, 'lore -or less, to the northern boundary of lots 20
and 21, 81ocix 2, as shown on the "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 along said eastern line and the direct production soocherly
thereof' across Central Avenoe (75 feet wide), 13.5 feet, :lore or less, :0 the
southern line of said Central Aveaue;
THENCE westerly along said southern line, 136 feet, more or,les), to. the north-
western corner of Tract 5045 a, shown on the map thereof, filed far record 3
September 1582 in aook i3, of :qaps, page 78, Of
Canty; ficail Records of Alai:Co
•
THENCE sootherly along the westirn line of said track, South la 35' Weir., /60
feet, more or less, to tne northeastern corner or Tract 1!374, as shown on tne
map thereof filed for record 25 December 1980 in Book 123 of Maps, page 3A,
Official Records of Alameda County;
THENCE westerly and southerly along the boundary of said trac,
t
courses and distancos. the following
North 87* 09' Oi" West 74.99 feet;
North 2" 50' 51" East, li,.00 feet;
North 87° 09' Oi" West,
Nor;h 2* 50' 51" East,
Nor;n 2° 50' 5!" East 3.f.:6 feet;
Mo•:h 87" 6i.' 09" we fe?t;
S•u:h ,::'' 50' Sl" Wes:, !,....i.; feet;
Description or the Survey Ares Parcel ,.a„
North 67° 09' Oyu West, 1C.6.59 feet;
d
Scuth 50' 31" West, 40.00 feet;
Norm 87' (i3' 07" West, 234.78 fee: to the northwest
tract, being at the eastern line of McKay Avenue (a northwestern reef, of feet
wide, as the save now exists)
1 private street, 6�� rest
i
THENCE South 2' 50'51" West along said pastern line and the direct production
southerly thereof, 733 feet, more or.less, to the southern terminus of said
McKay Avenge;
THrdCE westerly along said Southern terminus 60 feet to the southeastern corner of
a tract of federal property, commonly known as Federal Center being Parcel N. 7A-1205-26; 9
THENCE North ar 49' 06" Gust along the southern boundary of said tract, ').l2
'feet, more or less, tQ a boundary corner;
THENCE South 2° 43' 16" We along said boundary, 132.86 feet, mere or less, to
the northeast corner of Tideland Low 25, Section 11, T.2 S. , R.4 W., Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian, as shown on "Map No. 2 of Salt Marsh and Tide Lends,
situate in the County of Alaaeoa, Sca`.e of California, 1871".,-certified copies
thereof having been filed with the County Recorder of the City and County of
San Francisco; and in the orrice of the department of Finance, Division of
State Lands;
THENCE North 87' 57'42" West along tht northern line of said tideland lot, !dd
Feet, more or lest, to the eastern boundary of Tract 3663, as amended filed
for record in Aaok ii:, of Maps,'page 68, Official Records of Alae_da County;
THENCE North l ' 0 ' 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 fedoral tract, 1:,9 feet, flare
or less, t o a boundary corner;
THENCE North along said boundary, 296.66 feet Dore or less, r,
THENCE South 03' 25' East along said boundary, X65 feet more to a less, t f caonn`;
Ys , nQ. a ar less, to a point
an a 17 root offset of the western right -of -way line of said McKay Avenue;
THENCE northerly along said right -of -way line, 45 feet, more or less, to an angie
paint therein;
THENCE easterly 17 feet, 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, Hare or less, to the northern line of aforesaid Central
Avenue;
,THENCE South 88' 3 ' East, 92 feat, none or less, to intersection with the western
line of a lot commonly known as 633 Central Avenue; being Assessor's Parcel
Na. 74- 426 -9 -2;
THENCE northerly .:Tong said western line and the direct production northerly
thereof, 333 feet, more or less, to Hie northern line of Taylor Avenue (50
feet wide) ;
THENCE easterly along said northern line, 52 feet, mare or less, to the eastern
boundary of the lot commonly known as 633 Taylor Avenue; being Assessor's
Parcel No. 74- 427 -10;
THENCE northerly along said eastern boundary, 133.92 feet,•eor-e or less, to the
northern boundary of said lot;
THENCE westerly along said northern boundary, And the continuation westerly
thereof, 100 feet, Bore or less to the eastern line of the � h. log commonly known
as 621+ Santa Clara Avenue, beint Assessor's Parcel Ma. 74-4.F:7-30;
7;,.E:NCC norther!? a i or•p, s _._ a s`err line ard the direct production no.-72.1 y
thereof, 210 feet, more or 1 eee, to the northe'e.n 1 i n? of Santa Clara Avenge
(6') feet wide) ;
1�
Description o tne Survey Aree, Pe•cil "2.", nee
THENCE easterly along said nortnern line, AL Feet, 70:.9 or less, te :ne eesteen
line of the ist comaonie kno..en al 6.::7 Senee Clara :ereeue, being Assesear's
Parcel No.
THENCE nartherly along said eastern line, feet, msre or :est, to tne
sauthern line of the lot nonmanly known as 628 Haight Avenee, being Assessor's
Parcel Na. 74-428-27;
THENCE easterly along said southern line, 10 feet, nor? or less, to tlne eastern
line of last said lot;
'THENCE northerly along said eastern line, 103.75 fett, more on less, to the
southern right-of-wey line of Hi-t Avenue, (60 feet wide);
THEMCE.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 629
Haight' Avenue; being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-421-13;
THENCE northerly along said western line and production thereof end its eeee!hee-
tion 25 the western line or the lot comnonly known as 523 Liecoln Avenu;
being Assessor,e Parcel No. 74-425-.7.2, 330 feet kn the soethern line of
Lincoln Avenue, (100 feet wide);
THENCE weeterly elong.said southern line, 2') feet, more or less, 'to the direct
production southerly of the eastern line of the lot comoenly known as 6.F.:5
Lincoln Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel N3. 74-420-12;
THENCE northerly along Jas l said eastern line and prodection thereof 20 Let,
Pore or less, co the southern line of the lot commonly known as 626 Pacific
Avenue, being Asse.ssor's Parcel No. 74-430-29;
THENCE easterly along said southern line, 10 feet, more or less, to the eastern
line of said parcel;
THENCE northerly along said eastern line and direr: production northerly
thereef, 210 feet, eore or 13E, to the northern line o Pacific givenee, (60
. feet wide);
THENCE eaeterly alono said northern line, 22.5 feet, more or lesi, to the eastern
line of Parcel 2, as shewn an "Parcel Nap No. f.47.9', filed for record in Ea:
180 of Maps, page 7l, Official Records of Alameda County;
THENCE North 2" 44' 5!• gest aleng eaid eastern line, 145.00 feet, more ar lees,
to the southern lint of Assessor's •arcel No. 74-431-26, (no aumress);
THENCE North 87' 22' 29" West, along said southern line, 75.50 feet, more or 123'
to the westera line of said parzel;
THENCE North 1° 35' 00" East along ;aid weetern line, 56 fett, uare or less, to
the northern line of the It addressed as 617 Pecific Avenue, being Alseseor's
Parcel No. 74-431-11;
.THENCE in a general westerly directian along said northern line, the following
coerses and distances:
North 88" 34' West, 47.40 feet, more or less'
-Squth !" 35' West, 3.80 feet, more or
North 88' 34' Weet, 40 feet, more or less, to intersetion with the
eastern lime of theloi: commonly known as 612 Buena Vista Avenue, being
Assesso....s Parcel No. 74-431-28-4;
THENCE Nor th 1 33. East, along said'eastern line, 83.00 feet, more or less, to
the northern line of last said parcel, being on the southern line o Buena
Vista Avenue, (60 feet wide);
THENCE North 5 5I 14st, along said southern line, 209.6 feet, eere or less, :a
a penile on the direct productzon neeeherly of the cente-line of Sixth EtrEt
se:it centerline beina w•" Atg.nieteeen
:4ort.1 i" IL1 Ea;: along said Aeoh:nbaegn line 73Q feet aore or
the northern 1:n2 ;;= :o: cenmoniy 11-1-1r. aE Z57-51-1 aeine Vista Aveeue.
being Assessee's Prc e! 7L-434-2.;
:.3
Description of the Surve7 ee..
Mei (Con
LNCE North 68° 26' Wes said eoet•he-n .ee ere %he continuetion thereof
a5 the northern line of tee ac)aceee lot eeee•nly keown 465 547-545 Buena leieee
Avenue, being Assessor's Parc? ! Mc. 74-42-4-2 a.5.f.e feet, bort or lees, to,
the western lino of last said earoel;
THENCE South 1 35' West, along as said western in 670 feet, more or less, to
the northern Line of said Buena Vista Avenuee
THENCE South 86° 26' East, along said northern line, 45 feet, nor? or les, to the
direct prodoction northerly of the eeetern line of Asseisor's Parc'el No. 74-
46-2 (no address);
THENCE South 1° 35' West, along said eastern line and production thereof, 2i
Feet, more or less, to the southern line of said parcel;
THENCE North 68° 26' West, along said southern line, 196.29 feet, more or less, to
the western line of said parcel;
THENCE North 1° 35' East, along said western line and the direct production
northerly thereof and its contineatien as the eastern line of the let carmen!?
known as 501-S25 Buena Vista Avenue, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-434-4-4,
37i.6 feet, more or less, to the eouthern right-of-way iine of the Al;neda
Belt tine Railroad;
THENCE in a general westerly directicn along said rignt-of-way lint and toe direot
production westerly thereef, 3123 feet, more or les;, to the western r1Oht-ee-
way 1ine of Main Street, (generally 80 feet wide);
THENCE northerly alone said western line of Main Street, the following courees end
distances:
North 0° 34' East, 2369.16 feet, more or less, to a point of beginnins
of curve, concave to the eouthwest, having a radius of 960 feet;
Northwesterly along the arc of said curve, an arc distance of 47a.33
feet, more or lass;
Wirth 26° 49 West, 520.60 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 or
558.58 feet, aare or l'ess;
THENCE leaving said line of Main Street, North, 486.66 feet, more or less to a
point on the aforesaid U.S. Pierhead Line, said point beino distant thereon,
North 79° 03' 26" East, 346.54 feet, more or 16ss, from US Pierhead Station
No. 67;
THENCE easterly along said Pierhead line, 5200 feet, more or less, to the north-
western line of Mariner' Square Drive, (formerly Webster Street, 80 feet wide).
as described (in Parcel 2) in the West End Community relprovement Plan, •
aforesaid, being a point on the boundary line of said Parcel 2;
THENCE southwesterly along last said line, 236 feet, more or less, to an angle
point;
THENCE continuing southerly along last said line, 810 feet, more or leis, to an
angle point; •
THENCE North 89° 41' 14" Weet, 2.00 feet, as described in the aforesa0 Parcel Zi
THENCE in a general southwesterly and westerly direction along the northeastern
and northern lines of the Posey Loop right-of-way, as widened to 93.82 Feet,
on a series of compound curves, concave northerly, arc distances totaling
171.14 feet, to a point of tangency;
THENCE North 56° 05 50" West, tangent to the last of said curves, along the
northeastern right-of-way line of Posey Lcop and the direct preducttce
northwesterly thereof, a)re or !2-ss, t7.
TriENCE Souto 24° 33' 30" West, feee, mare or less. to a point oe' tangeee
curve, concave to the east, having 2 radios of 125.1' feet, as tleseribel in eoe
said Parcel 2;
14
Description of the Survey Area, Parcel '8 ", Rev.: 26 Cct 90 -- (continued)
THENCE soutner n
Felt to erly along the arc of said tangent c,; -ve, en arc d'
of Beginning of the descr• p: distance area or ►'��w.5;
THENCE continuing alone' the bv'anr Parcel i � -.n a �' said F'3ree! � i
37-y of said 2 North ,°
Feet, more or less t the � BC ,,;,'3+ ��
Feet, having a radius t�h_ beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave East, i ;�,
9 of 949.93 feet; to the
THENCE along the arc of said
curve, an arc c
distance p r aBr feet, mbr a o' less;
.THENCE North 23° .6' 12" East, 34.2; feet; TtiENCE South ;r ° 05' 50" East 350 feet,
nor or lass, to the western i ine or the
Posey 'Loop right-of-way;
THENCE southerly along said right --of --way, 950 feet, more or Jess, to the direct
production westerly of the northern line of Tynan Avenue S 100
THENCE easterly along the last said northern feet w,d3i ,
feet, more or less, to the western line oF�theaSoutherncPacific,aRaoF, 3d��
right --of -way; Railroad
THENCE southerly along last said line, 590 feet, yore or ]e55, to the southern
line of Bethlehem Avenue;
THENCE easterly along the direct production easterly of the said "southern ..
100 feet, 'ore or less, to the eastern line of the said S.P. 1lye'
THENCE southerly along the last. said line, 420 feet, tore or less, ,totthe southern
line of Marina Village Parkway, as the same now exists;
THENCE along the last said southern line, North 89° 10' East, 620 feet, eorr 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 86" b2' West, 0.17 feet;
THENCE continuing along said eastern line, South 3' 08' West, 182.26 Feet to the
northern line of Thau Way, as the same 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 ' mo
THENCE southeasterly and easterly along said right -of -way lane, 680 feet more or
less, to intersection with the direct production northerly of the western line
of Eighth Street (77 feet- wide) ;
THENCE southerly along said direct production, bO feet to the northern line of
Stewdrt Court (40 feet wide) ;
THENCE .along said northern line, North 87° 34' West, r
eastern corner of the lot commonly known as 1850 ThauyWay, being the Assessor's No. 73-- 426 --'8; Way, being Assessur's
THENCE along the nort.-5rn line of said parcel, North 83° 10' 28" West, 192.78 'fee:
to the eastern li. ;e of said Thau Way CO f, feet wide) ;
THENCE westerly acro.- , said Thau Way to the western line thereof and the north--
eastern corner of the lot codeonly known as 751 Eagle Avenue, being Assessor's
Parcel No. 73-42E-17;
THENCE along the nort. :-.rn line of said parcel, North 83° to 09" W t
to the northeast e-•• �'i corner of Parcel 3 as shown on Parcel Map West, Bl. 0, filed
for record in Bac' 125 of Parcel Maps, at page 68, in the Offce of the filed
Alameda County He. :. ;r•der;
1 J
Dead ptSo¢ of tba Survo7 Aran, Psre'I ",R', 7d Yxy AO - (found.
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE
along the Northerly line or said Parcel 3,
North 83 °10'09" Weata 268,68 feet to the Northwesterly
corner or said Parcel 3;
Southerly along the Westerly linen of last said
3, South 2 °47155" West, 187.10; Parcel
North 87 °17 t O5n ' Weat, 10,00 feet;
THENCE South 2 °47'55h West, 149.86 to the Northerly line of
Eagle Avenue;
THENCE across Eagle Avenue South 2°42155" West, 60 Peet to the
Southerly lane of Eagle Avenue;
THENCE along last said Southerly line North 87°17'05" Wea t.. 90 '
feat more or lees to the Westerly line of Parcel 2 of
Raid Parcel Map No, 2430;
along said Westerly sine of Parcel 2 South 2 °47155"
West, 295+ ,re•et more or lens to the Northerly line of
Buena Vi a to Avenue;
along said Northerly line of Buena Vista Avenue South
87'27'164 Eaet, 457.37 feet more or leas to the Westerly
line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way;
THENCE
THENCE
:THENCE Southerly-along lent said right -of -way line and
pro, eotion thereon aoroaa -Buena Vita Avenue 360feet
more or leas to the Eaat erly pro j eotiori ,or the Northerly
line of Pacific Avenue;
THENCE across Pacific Avenue South 2'52105" West, 70 feet to
the Southerly line of Pacific avenue;
Wea to r1y along the Southerly-line of Pacific Avenue 23
feet more or lean to the Westerly line of Aaaeaaor' a
Parcel No. 73-414-20-1, commonly known ea 736 Pacific
Avenue;
THENCE
THENCE
Southerly along the last said Westerly line 110 feet
more or leas to the Northerly 'line of As season' a Pared. ;
No. 73-414-19-2, ❑omrmonly known CS 1616 Co-noordia street
THENCE Easterly along the Northerly line of lent sold
As season a Parcel 4 1-, 4 feet more or leas to the Eagle- ;y
line of said Assessor's Parcell .
THENCE Southerly along the Easterly line of Last said
Aaaensor' a Parnell 40 feet more or less to the Norther. y
line or An ee5 eor1 a PG.rcel No 73-- 414- -:7, ccmmcn1y knc 1
as 737 e.nd 739 Lincoln Avenue;
ueacr1ptioti al Lb. Einrr.7 A...a Ptr¢.i " )3' 24 ]day 94 - (cont' d,
THENCE
THENC.:a
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE
Westerly along the Northerly line or last said
Aeseas ❑r's Parcel 41.4 fist more or leas to the
line of last said Assessor's Parcel; Westerly .Y
Southerly s
rryalong the Westerly line of last
sal 150 feet more or leas to the Northerly
line of Lincoln Avenue;
Easterly along the Northerly line
its projection across the SouthernePaeificln Avenue and
and Eighth Street 1165 f eet more or rthe Westerly
line of Assessor's lean to the r�eaterly
as 831 Lincoln Parcel No, 73- 407-8, commonly known
Avenue
Northerly long said Westerly line of
last a Assessor's
Parcel 150 feet to the Northerly line of l ast said Paroel ;
Easterly along tha Northerly line
Nos, 73 -�0� -g y of Asae.asor' S Parcel
a37, 839 and ��13LinQaln 73- 407-3, oorronanl
Avenue and i known
St /15 B 31,
respectively and the Easterly 611 Ninth Street
feet to the Easterly Prof eatian thereof 285
Y line of Ninth Street!
THENCE Southerly along said Easterly line .o,f
feet to the Southerly line of Assessor's Street 51'.l�8
73-408-11, commonly known an 16],0 Ninth aStreet;
Street;
THENCE Easterly along last said line 90 feet mo
the Easterly line or last said Assessor'sePar less to
eel;
Northerly along the Easterly-line last said
Parcel to she Southerly Assessor's
73-�IQ8 -i2-2, commonly knv;�neGS� �asessor a Parcel No.
1 24A Ninth Street`
Easterly along last said Southerly line, its, f
Easterly line of Asaeaor' a Parcel No. -, rest "ta the
commonly known as 901 Lincoln Avenues 73 10,
THENCE Southerly along se.id Easterly line 6r lac
Assessor's Parcel 100 teet,to the Northerl said
Lincoln Avenue; .- Y line of
Easterly along said Northerly _Line or
its projection across woad Street Lincoln Avenue and
Charles Street 1290 feet or , G�ispin Street and St.
line or Assessor's 4lmore v. lass to the Weatar?y
known 5.9 1109 Lincoln rAYenue: 72-- 375 ~15 -�, commonly
Northerly along lases
said Weswer?y line end the Wester:4 line of Assessor's
Parcel No. 72-376-15-3, commonly
kncwnaa1113 Lincoln Avenue, l 8 t
line o 1
or as � said Assessor's Paroe1l to the Nartnc; ly
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE
riE,NCE
/7
Dureription of th+ SurTel Aria, Parcel .B", Zt Mai 94 - leoat'd.)
THENCE Easterly along last acid Northerly line 72 feet to the
WLsterly line. of Aeseasor's Paroel No 72- 376 -7-1,
commonly known as 1617 Bay Street; .
THENCE Southerlydlong last /laid Easterly line 8.64 feet to the
moat Southerly line of last said Assessor' a Parcel;
THENCE . Eaat a rly along the l ant said Southerly line, the
Southerly line of Ae aeaaor' a Parcel No. 72- 376 -8 -2,
commonly known as '1613 Bevy Street and its Easterly
-prof ection to the Easterly line of Bay Street 225,41
feet more or lea's;
Southerly along paid Easterly line of Bay Street 17,66
feet more or lean to the Southerly line of Aeaeesor' a •
Parcel No. 72-- 367 -17, oonmonly known as 1612 Bay
Street; '
THENCE Easterly along last said line 130 feet to the Easterly
line or last said Assessor's Parcel;
Northerly along last /said line 12.59 feet more or less
to the Northerly line or A /laeaaort a Parcel No. 72367 ~12
commonly known as 1211 and 1213 Lincoln Avenue;
Easterly along Last' said Northerly line 20 reet to the
moat Westerly line or Aaaesaarl a parcel No, 72-367-8,
commonly known as 1615 Sherman Street;
Southerly along last said line 10.75 feet to the
Southerly line of last geld Assessor's Parcel;
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE
THENCE Easterly along last said line 150 feet to the Westerly
line of Sherman street;
Deecr'iption of t.ie SUreey Aree Parcel "5n Ze May ti
THENCE northerly along the said western 4a: 2 •
= C'S% rn line, e.,�.M� �.� fs'9�� to a point L �':a�=
thereon 50) feet 5a'Jthwesterl1 of the southwestern line of Buena Vista Avenue;
THENCE southeasterly at right engies, 60 feet, to the southeastern line of sand
Sherman Street-;
THENCE northeasterly along last said line, 50 feet, to the said southwestern line
nF Buena Vista Avenue;
THENCE southeasterly along said southwestern line, 66 feet;
THENCE northeasterly along a line parallel with the centerline of Sherman 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 line 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, gore or less
to the BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING AND EXCLUDING THEREFROM all that. portion ther eaf included in Parcel 1 of
the aforesaid West End Coneunity laarovesent Plan,
EXCEPTING ALSO AND EXCLUDING THEREFROM all of that tract or parcel of lane.,
described as follows;
BEING a portion of Tracts 39 and 40, as said tracts are delineated and so desie-
nat ed on that certain nap entitled, "Map of Alameda Marsh Land, as partitioned
among the awnere thereof, in the suit numbered 8923 and entitled Pacific Iaproee --
oent Company, plaintiff, vs. .]asses' A. Waymire, et al., defendants, Superior Court
of Alameda County, State of California.", filed for record July 30, 1900 in Book
25 of Maps at page 74, Alaaada County Records, and further described as f of lows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the western line of said Tract 39 t
northern line of Atlantic Avenge as described in tare afore '' Per, e l ry_
1
said Rare_ �, in
the West End Community Improvement Plan;
THENCE northerly along said western line, 2516 feet, are or less, to the southern
line of Singleton Avenue, as shown on Alameda.Coujnty Assessor's ,Mop 74 -905;
THENCE along said southern line, 446 feet, more or less;
THENCE in a general northerly direction along the western boundary, or pradiect i
thereof of a 55 acre, more or less, tract or parcel of Federal property,
being Assessor's Parcel Na. 74-905-10-2, the following courses:
northwesterly, 5u6 feet, more or less;
northeasterly, 199.25 feet, more or less;
northwesterly, 515.35 feet, or or less, to the northern boundary
thereof; ,
THENCE.in a general easterly direction along said northern boundary, 1240 feet,
more or less, to the w? 5 t ern boundary of another parcel (18.2 acres, acre or
less) of Federal property, being Assessor's Parcel No. 74- 905 -12; •
THENCE northerly along said boundary, 43 feet, more or less, to the nor -them
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, Dore or less) of Federal preee- y,
being Assessor's Parcel No. 74-505-5;
T+-HENCE easterly aloe said boundary, 855r _ _
5: ,... 9 `. mod:^ , ..:.�. �� feet, �7r° cr' less, � tr„ ,���
w� t:rn corn . o, that p:•vp rz e.noraced oe and as shown, on "Parcel `a
33 '39 , filed for record CCvcher 1951 is Book 131 f 1 page Y_'
Records of - -cea "' o Maps, cd,� i...a.
Cis -� •, CO f1�y
i
19
Description of the Survey Area, Parcel "S', 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 (1'6.3 acres, nor or lessl, as described in the
instrument to Feral to Junior College District, recorded August 24, 1967 under
Series No AZ C'951:9, Official Records of Alameda County;
THENCE westerly along said northern line '499,73-feet, more or less, to the
northwest corner of last said parcel, as shown on Record of Survey No. 295,
filed for record. in Nook 6 of Records of Surveys, at page 42, Alameda County
Records;
THENCE southerly along the western line of =said parcel, 624.82 feet, more or less,
to the most southern southeastern corner of the aforesaid Assessor's Parcel
No. 74-905-9;
THENCE. westerly along' the southern line of last said parcel,' 155.2:y feet, more or
less, to the western line of two (2) successive parcels as described in the
instrument to Feral to Junior College District, recorded May 6, 196& under
Series No. NY 057967, Official Records of Alameda County, and being Assessor's
Parcels No. 74- 915 -7 -2. and 74- 905 --8 -1, respectively;
THENCE southerly along said western line, 1214 feet, sore 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 74+9 aci.es (net), more or less.
- ENG -
REVISION #
REVISED PER ri:tt' l
❑ESC! 1PTIOH DA; E APPROVAL
EXHIBIT F
Recording Requested by
and When Recorder! 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 ("Cornrnission") 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,
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
9983 82v4 21942/0001
COMMISSION'S EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY. Section V of the WECIP
Plan 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
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 Con aission
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 th.e 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 structure and its use is consistent with the objectives of the
WEC1P Plan and that no owner participation agreement is necessary so long as the structure is
adequately maintained and landscaped; (e) the power of eminent d.oniain shall not be exercised
when the property in question is owned by a public body, unless prior consent is obtained from
that public body; (1) 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 Non - 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
i ty Improvement Plan, ad west End Commun-
ity by City of Alameda Ordinanc
No. 2141, a certified copy of said ordin e
recorded 'August 4, lg g ante• having been
g 1983, Series No. 83-- 144981, official
records of Alameda County: al
REAL PROPERTY in the City of
5 tat � Alameda, county of Alameda
e of California, comprising seven arc
P e1s which are
depicted on the attached
map (Exhibit A hereto, incorporated
herein) and are futher described as follows
PARCEL ONE:
All that certain portion of Lot 2, Parcel Ma
September 26, 1983, in B P Nor • 3963,
filed
Book 141 of Parcel Maps at Pages
through 23, Alameda County Records , State 20
5 to
described as follows • of California,
f vrnia ,
BEGINNING at the most - northern corner of Lot 1 °f said Parcel
Map No. 3963, said corner having the coordinates: Y
473,762.97 feet and X = 1,487,219.10 feet
� �- based on the
California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearin s
and distances in this description (Note: multiply g
tances .shown her ltiply all di s-
and
by 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
the most
northern corner of that certain easement for
public utilities public
access and
P lities purposes, .78.00 feet
wide, as shown on said map of Parcel Map No. 3963,
being the beginning �
g g of a non - tangent curve concave
to the southwest having a radius of 439.00
feet (a
radial line to said
point bears North 3O °28'36"
East);
THENCE leaving last said western line of Lot
along 2 and south-
easterly g the general northeastern line of
said easement for public access and public utili-
ties purposes, bein g along the arc of said curve,
126.90 feet, through a central angle of 16°33'45";
THENCE continuing southeasterly g
g s terly along the general north-
eastern line of said easement, following ts vari-
ous courses, South 42°57'39" g
East 123.59 feet to
the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 439.0Q feet;
Page 1 of 10
Attachment No. 1
Marina vial, 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°30'56";
THENCE North 64°00'56" West 271.68 feet;
THENCE leaving said general southwestern line, North
80°42'53" West 20.88 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 27'2.98
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°05'09";
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 23 through
23, Alameda County Records, State of California, described as
follows:
.COMMENCING 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, 339.95 feet, based on the
California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearings
and distances in this description (Note: 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 _! Legal Descriptions
September 7, 1984
THENCE South 89°40'53" East 715.17 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the g g
he northWe st 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
TREJE 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 8 9 ° 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 °12'45" 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' 4 5 " East 22.50 feet;
THENCE North 4 4 ° 4 7 ' 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 Villt. Decal Descriptions
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, 1983, in Book 141 of Parcel
Maps, at Pages 20 through 23, Alameda County records, said
corner having the coordinates: Y = 472,316.10 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 89°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 70.28
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 ° 4 6' 53 " West along the eastern line of
said
Tract 31, being also along the eastern line of
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. right-of-way, -wa Y + 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 3 9 ° 4 8 ' 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 Transporta-
tion 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'D6" to a
point on the eastern line of said Tract 31;
THENCE South 4 ° 4 6 ' 5 3 " 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 Legal 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 an 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°50'25" 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 jal Descriptions
September 7, 1964
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 cont inu ing . 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 4
473,816.38 feet and X = 1,486,976.31 feet;
THENCE North 0°18'46" 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 on the eastern line of said Tract 32, being
the western line of said Southern Pacific Transpor-
tation Co. right-of-way;
THENCE South 4 ° 4 5 ' 5 3 " 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
g.
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 = 1,488,329.19 feet, based on the
California Coordinate System Zone III, as are all bearings
and distances in this description g
ipta.on (Note : multiply alb. di s -
tan.ces shown herein by 1.0000707 to obtain ground dis-
tances);
Page 9 of 10
Marina VillC 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 beginning of
non -- tangent curve concave to the southeast g a
outhea s t having a
radius of 13.50 feet, a radial line from said oint
bears South 0 °00'00" West; P
THENCE southwesterly and southeasterly along the arc of
said curve 30.69 feet through a central angle of
130°15'00";
g
THENCE South 40°15'00" East 15.94 feet;
THENCE South 49°45'00" West 328,50 feet;
THENCE North 40°15'00" west 17.50 feet;
THENCE South 49°45'00" West 21.04 feet;
THENCE North 40°15'00" West 214.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 1.417 acres, more or less.
Approved By:
Donald L. Smith, ' L. S. 3361
Prepared By:
Tillson-- Nuessmann & Associates
525 Middlefield Road, Suite 110
Menlo Park, California 94025
Page 10 of 10
Scirel Consulting Inc.
Alameda Merger Amendments
ATTACHMENT 2
TO EXHIBIT F
List of Non- Blighted Parcels as_of Augjlst 240
W ECEP
A 'N Tax Rate Ar: Address
074 133400800 021002 1094 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133400900 021002 I092 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401004 021002 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401203 021002 1470 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401204 021002 1070 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401404 021002 1076 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY 074 133401504 021002 1050 MAUNA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401506 021002 1054 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401606 021002 1040 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401607 021002 1040 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
474 133401700 02I002 1010 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401800 021002 1030 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133401901 021002 1000 MAGNA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402300 021002 1100 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402400 021002 1210 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133402901 021002 1111 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403201 021002 801 MARINA VELLAGEPKWY
074133403305 021002 815114AR1NA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403405 021002 817 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403505 021002 901 MAR1N'A VILLAGE PKW Y
074 133403604 ■ 021002 931 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 13340370] 021002 933 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133403840 021002 951 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133444100 021002 1390 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404604 021002 1090 MARIA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404700 021002 1082 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404800 021002 861 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133404900 021002 871 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133405300 021002 1001 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133405500 021002 1001 MARDIA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133405600 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133405800 021002 1201 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133405900 021002 1301 MAMA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406100 021002 1301 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406200 021002 1305 MARINA VILLAGE PKy
074 133406300 02f002 1151 MARINA VILLAGE PKY
074 133406400 021002 1101 MARINA V11.LAGE PKWY
074 133406600 021402 1101 MAMA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406800 021002 1190 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133406900 021002 1290 MARINA VILLAGE PKWY
074 133407000 021002 1380 MARINA VLLAGE 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 134402300 021002 1115 ATLANTIC
074 134002400 021002 1125 ATLAN, TIC
074 134002500 021002 1135 ATLANTIC
Parcels Na Longer Blighted • WECIP
1►hr►n0
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
074134102200 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 02I002
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 CI'
3 KINGSBURY CT
5 KINGSBURY CT
7 KINGSBURY CT
9 KThIGSBURY CT
11 KINGSBURY CT
25 KINGSBURY CT
13 KINGSBURY CT
15 KINGSBURY CT
17 KINGSBURY CT
19 KINGSBURY CT
21' KINGSBURY CF
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
1 COURAGEOUS CT A49
3 COURAGEOUS CT B50
5 COURAGEOUS CT C.51
7 COURAGEOUS CT 052
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 B60
25 COURAGEOUS CT F61
27 COURAGEOUS CT F62
29 COURAGEOUS CT A63
31 COURAGEOUS CT B64
18 COURAGEOUS CT A65
20 COURAGEOUS CT 866
16 COURAGEOUS CT G67
14 COURAGEOUS CT 068
10 COURAGEOUS CT A69
Segel Consulting Inc. Parcels t+lo Langer Blighted • WBCIP
Alameda Merger Amendments 2 2/26103
074 134104500 021002 12 COURAGEOUS CT B70
074 134104700 021002 6 COURAGEOUS CT C71
074 134104800 021002 8 COURAGEOUS CT D72
074 134104900 021002 2 COURAGEOUS CT A73
074 13415000 021002. 4 COURAGEOUS CT B74
074 134105200 021002 931 INDEPENDENCE DR A75
074 134105300 021002 933 INDEPENDENCE DR B76
074 134105400 021002 935 INDEPENDENCE DR A77
074 134105500 021002 937 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 13.4 105700 021002 1 INVINCIBLE CT C 1
074 13.41 05800 021002 3 INVINCIBLE CT D2
074 134105900 021002 5 INVINCIBLE CT C3
074 134106000 021002 7 INVINCIBLE CT G4
074 134106100 02I002 9 INVINCIBLE CT E5
074 134106200 021002 11 INVINCIBLE CT B6
074 134106300 021002 13 INVINCIBLE CT 07
074 134106400 021002 15 INVINCIBLE CT G8
074 134106500 021002 17 INVINCIBLE CT C9
074 134106600 021002 19 INVINCIBLE CT DIO
074 134106800 021002 21 INVINCIBLE CT Ail
074 134106900 021002 23 INVINCIBLE CT B12
074 134107000 02I002 25 INVINCIBLE CT F13
074 134107100 021002 27 INVLt lCIBLE CT F14
074 13.4107200 021002 29 INVINCIBLE CT A15
074 134107300 ' 021002 31 INVINCIBLE CT }316
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 134107900 021002 42 INVINCIBLE CT A21
074 134108000 021002 44 INVINCIBLE CT B22
074 134108200 021002 40 INVINCIBLE CT B24
074 134108300 021002 38 INVINCB3LE CT A23
074 I34108400 021002 36 INVINCIBLE Cr F25
074 134108500 021002 34 INVINCIBLE CT F26
074 134108600 02I002 30 INVINCIBLE CT A27
074 134108700 021002 32 INVINCIBLE CT B28
074 134108900 021002 10 INVINCIBLE CT C37
074 134109000 021002 12 WV7CI3LE CT D38
074 134109100 02 1002 8INVINCIBLE CT F39
074 134109200 021002 6 INVINCIBLE CT F40
074 134109300 02/002 2 INVINCIBLE CT C41
074 134109400 021002 4 INVINCIBLE CT D42
074 134109600 '021002 26 I VINCIBLE CT C29
074 134109700 021002 28 INVINCIBLE CT D30
074 134109800 021002 24 INVINCIBLE CT G31
074 I34 109900 021002 22 INVINCIBLE CT G32
074 134110000 021002 20 INVINCIBLE CT E33
074 134! 10100 021002 18 INVINCIBLE CT E34
074 134110200 021002 14 INVINCIBLE CT A35
074 134110300 021002 16 INVINCIBLE CT B36
074 134/10600 021002 950 MARINA VILLAGE PKY
074 13€110700 021002 2060 CHALLENGER DR
Segel Consulting Inc.
Alarneda Margcr Amendments 3
Parcels No Longor Slighted - WHOP
u261D3
■ 1
•
074 134110800 021002 2024 CHALLENGER DR
074 134110900 021002 965 ATLANTIC
074 134300100 021002 850 MARINA 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
074 134300900 021002 980 ATLANTIC
074 134401900 021002 985 ATLANTIC
074 134402100 02 1002 1000 ATLANTIC
074 134402300 021002 I REGULUS CT
074 134402400 021002 3 REGULUS CT
074 134402500 021402 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 CT
074 134403600 021002 23 REGULUS CT
074 134-403700 021002 25 REGULUS CT
074 134403800 021002 27 REGULUS CT
074 134404000 021002 14 REGULUS CT
07.4 134404100 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 134404700 021002 2 REGULUS CT 99
074 134404800 021 002 4 REGULUS CT
074 134405000 021002 981 Th DEP.NDENCE DR
074 134405100 021002. 9831N'DEPENDENCE WAY 102
074 134405200 021002 985 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134405300 021002 987 INDEPENDENCE DR
074 134405500 021.002 1 ECLIPSE Cr
074 134405600 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 Cr
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
ScIFcI Consulting Inc.
Parcels Na Lange!' Blighted • WECIP
Alameda Merger Amendments 4 2126103
074 134407300 021002 16 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407404 021002 10 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407500 021002 12 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407700 021002 6 ECLLPSE CT
074 134407800 021002 8 ECLIPSE CT
074 134407900 021002 2 ECLIPSE CT
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 134409100 021002 3 REDONDO CT
074 134409200 021002 5 REDONDO CT 133
074 134409300 021002 7 REDONDO CT
074 134409500 021002 9 RONDO CT
074 134409600 021002 11 REDONDO CT
074 134409700 421002 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 REDON 3O Cr
074 134410600 021002 29 F.EDONDO 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 154
074 134411300 021002 10 REDONDO CT
074 134411400 021002 12 REDONDO CT
074 134411600 421002 6 REDONDO CT 153
074 134411700 021002 8 REDON DO Cr
074 134411800 021002 2 REDONE/0 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 1020 ATLANTIC
SdIcl Consulting Inc.
Alameda Merger Amendments 5
Parcels No Longer Blightml - WECJP
2)26/03
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
ng
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 official seal
this 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 19, 2007
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider PMO6 -0002 for 471 Pacific Avenue to
Approve the Division of an Existing 14,400 Square Foot Residential Lot
into Four Parcels: One With an Existing Single -- family Dwelling, One
With a New Single- family Home, and Two, Each With an Attached
Single- family Dwelling. The Property is Located Within an R-4 -PD
(Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District.
Applicant: William De Mar
BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to approve Development
Plan DP05 -0001, Design Review DRO5 -0116, and to recommend that the City Council
approve Parcel Map PMO6 -0002. The applicant proposes the division of an existing
14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels to provide a 6,618 square foot (44' x
150.49') parcel for the existing dwelling at 471 Pacific, a 3,826 square foot parcel (52' x
73.67'), and two 2,002 square foot parcels (26' x 77'). Pursuant to Alameda Municipal
Code (AMC) development regulations in the R -4 district, newly created parcels must be
a minimum of 5,000 square feet and have a minimum width of 50 feet. With the existing
Planned Development overlay, exceptions may be made to these minimum standards.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Board's analysis and recommendation, which can be found in
Attachments 1, 2, and 3, is based upon an analysis of the project in regards to its
consistency with Zoning standards and the General Plan. The Parcel Map has been
reviewed by the Department of Public Works, and it has been determined to be
technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved conditions of
approval. The following findings can be made for approval of the 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.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #4-L
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page2of3
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.
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
be comparable in size to the surrounding single- family parcels. Additionally, the
site and surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Residential District
Planned Development (R -4 -PD) and are designated for Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The General Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a
minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. This density will be
maintained for this proposal.
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.
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 471
Pacific Avenue is already connected to water, sewer, and electric utilities.
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. City encroachment permits will be
required for any work within the right -of -way.
7. 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. All parcels would have
continued direct access to Pacific Avenue.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of this application will not result in any financial impacts for the City of
Alameda or the need for any General Fund expenditures.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The project is consistent with the Alameda General Plan and Municipal Code.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 3
The subdivision of one parcel into four lots will not have a significant effect on the
environment and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 15303 and 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
• Section 15303 exempts the construction of up to three new, small structures on
any legal parcel.
• Section 15315 exempts the division of property into four or fewer parcels in
urbanized areas zoned for residential use when the division is in conformance
with the General Plan and zoning, no exceptions are required, all services and
access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was
not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years and the
parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Parcel Map PMO6 -0002 to allow the division of the existing 14,400 square foot
residential lot into four parcels and direct staff to approve the Final Parcel Map, subject
to compliance with City of Alameda standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy odbury
Mann! g and Building irector
By: LS7
Simone Wolter
Planner
SW:eg
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Board Minutes, May 8, 2006
2. Planning Board Resolution, PB- 06 -18, May 8, 2006
3. Planning Board Staff Report, May 8, 2006 (without attachments)
cc: William De Mar, 935 Marina Village Parkway, Alameda, CA 94501
8 -B.
DP05- 00011DRO5- 01161PM06 -0002 — William De Mar -- 471 Pacific Avenue
(EP). The applicant is requesting Development Plan and Major Design Review
approvals to establish a new single family home and two attached single - family
homes in an existing R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development)
p )
district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the division of the existing 14,400
square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is developed with an
existing, single family home. The property is located within an R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential Planned Development) Zoning District. (Continued
from the meeting of April 24, 2006.)
Ms. Pudell presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. William De Mar, applicant, noted that he and his wife Kelly were available for
questions.
Mr. Sam Koka, 650 Pacific Avenue, spoke in support of this item, and believed the
applicants would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch why he would not divide the site into two
lots that conformed with existing codes, Mr. De Mar replied that at first, he and his wife
had to move out of Alameda to buy a home. They were trying to provide entry -level
housing for two families, and that he and his family would live in the third lot.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham expressed concern about the potential for every lot in this district
being subdivided, and noted that it was already densely developed.
Ms. Pudell could not speak to every lot in the district, but believed that some other lots
could be similarly subdivided.
Member McNamara noted that she could not support the parceling with the proposed
number of units with the current measurements. She believed there would be too many
Variances proposed for her to consider.
Ms. Pudell noted that the Planned Development Overlay allowed for this type of
development, as well as for the creation of smaller lots to obtain the General Plan policies
regarding affordable housing. Staff noted that this particular project was well within the
density range of 8.8 to 22.8 units per acre based on the General Plan Medium Density
Overlay. This project was consistent with the General Plan and the zoning regulations.
Member Kohlstrand supported the addition of affordable units, even with additional
density. She was concerned that there were four parking spaces at the front of the house,
and wondered whether two parcels would be better than three for that reason.
Planning Boar ' nutes
May 8 : r 6
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #4 -L
06-19-07
Ms. Pudell noted that the entryway to the homes was on the side elevation, so the
residents would not exit directly into a parking space.
Member Lynch noted that he supported the Housing Element policies, and complimented
Ms. Pudell on her creative approach in applying them. He believed that when Housing
Element policies were applied with respect to the regulatory body of HCD, looking at
costs associated with median incomes, a publicly funded project may be maintained
within a certain band. Privately funded projects such as this, they would increase in
value. He suggested that the project be approved or disapproved on the merits of the
project, not how it would impact Housing Element policies, either positively or
adversely.
In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the size of the rear fenced
private areas behind each dwelling, Ms. Pudell replied that Parcel 2 had a 180 square foot
area, and Parcels 3 and 4 would have areas of ax 15 by 26 feet, or 3 96 square feet for
each unit.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the concerns expressed by the other Board Members, and
had walked the neighborhood. She noted that the other multiple dwelling sites had more
openness on their sites.
Mr. Will Harrison, project designer, addressed President Cunningham's concern relating
to the zero lot line between Lots 3 and 4, and noted that the intention was so there could
be ownership of each individual unit. The double wall drawn on the floor plans has an
airspace between them, through which the lot line runs. He noted that there would be no
conflict if the project was developed in a clear and concise way; the applicant intended to
encourage entry -level ownership or rental in Alameda.
Vice President Cook noted that while Measure A worked well to protect Victorians, when
it came to housing for regular people, it had become very difficult to find a way to
provide the middle range of housing for people who don't meet affordability
requirements, but cannot afford a million - dollar house. She believed this project met that
need.
President Cunningham noted that the site plan appeared to have very intense planning,
but noted that when he visited the site, it appeared to be in character with the existing
homes in the neighborhood.
Ms. Pudell displayed the plans on the overhead to clarify that the portion of the lot behind
471 Pacific Avenue would remain open and vacant.
MIS Cook/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -18 to approve a
Development Plan and Major Design Review approvals to establish a new single family
home and two attached single - family homes in an existing R -4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development) district, and a Parcel Map approval to allow the
Planning Board Minutes Page 8
May 8, 2006
division of the existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels, where one is
developed. with an existing, single family home.
AYES — 5 (Mariam absent); NOES — 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN — 0
Planning Board Minutes Page 9
May 8, 2006
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB -06 -18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN DPO5-0001 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR05-
0116 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCII, APPROVE PARCEL MAP
PM06 -0002 TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 14,400 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO
FOUR LOTS AT 471 PACIFIC AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN R-4-
PD (NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, an application was made on November 1, 2005 by William DeMar
requesting approval of a Development Plan, DPO5 -0001 and Major Design Review, DRO5 -0116
to construct a new single - family home and two attached single- family homes; and
WHEREAS, the applications were deemed complete on January 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 15, 2006 by William DeMar requesting
Parcel Map, PM06 -0002 to allow the division of a 14,400 square foot parcel at 471 Pacific
Avenue into four lots; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on April 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on May 8,
2006, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, 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 creation of diversity in the housing product in response to variations in
income levels the changing live -work patterns of residents, and the needs of a diverse
population as well as opportunities for homeownership. Establishment of a Development
Plan would not change the density of the neighborhood.
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 four individual parcels which will be developed with new housing. In
order to create this housing, the Planned Development overlay allows the necessary
flexibility in the development standards, such as lot width and setbacks to permit this
development to occur.
3. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the
City. The site is already developed with a single-family home. The Development Plan
and Parcel Map would allow for three additional homes to be constructed in such a way
that the density of the area would not change above existing vicinity conditions.
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #4 -L
06 -19 -07
Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in
the City.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings with regard to the
proposed Major Design Review:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in
the vicinity. The proposed intensity of the development meets the lot coverage
provisions identified for the R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District and is similar
to the density of existing vicinity properties. Applicable off-street parking provisions are
being met for the existing home at 471 Pacific Avenue, as well as the three new homes.
The proposal would, therefore, have no significant impacts on persons or property in the
vicinity.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area. The area is already substantially developed with single and multi-
family dwellings ranging from apartments (Harbor Island) to duplexes and other smaller
multi --unit buildings, to single - family homes. The proposed stand -alone and attached
single- family homes would compatible on this area based on the wide . diversity of
existing housing opportunities. The proposal would, therefore, be harmonious and
compatible.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The
existing and proposed single - family residences and proposed zero lot -line duplex are
consistent with the limitations of the R -4-PD, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District,
designation of the site and poses no detriment to the immediate vicinity. The proposed
homes will also utilize window/ casing, shingle siding material, double -hung, casement
and awning window styles, roof pitches, and other architectural details are reminiscent of
the architectural styles of the homes in the area that were constructed during the early
1900's,as well as the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board 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 Housing Element policies for the creation of opportunities for
homeownership and development of a variety in housing product through infill
development projects.
2. The proposed design/improvements are consistent with applicable General and
Specific Plans. The proposed development respects the density, physical, and aesthetic
character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. It recognizes that these types of
projects satisfy important goals thereby qualifying them for "special treatment or
protection" under the Planned Development process.
2
3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically
suitable for this type of development because the site and surrounding properties are
already substantially developed with other single and multi - family buildings.
Additionally, the site and surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Residential (R-
4) and are designated for Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General
Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of
2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of 8.8 to 21.8
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 an urban area that is not environmentally sensitive. Furthermore,
the proposal will only result in construction activities that would typically be allowed for
vacant residential properties within the City.
6. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements. Improvements,
common to residential neighborhoods (i.e. installation of sewer laterals, connections to
existing electrical and telecom services, provision of municipal solid waste collection,
etc.), are already available on Pacific Avenue. Additionally, access and utility easements
will be required for the common driveway and utilities. City encroachment permits will
be required for any work within the right -of -way.
7. 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 471 Pacific Avenue is already
connected to water, sewer, and electric utilities. Police, Fire, and garbage services are
also available along Pacific Avenue. Establishment of utilities to all newly created
parcels will be required before recordation of the Final Map. The proposal to create
parcels will allow for additional development on the property that is similar to existing
neighborhood and vicinity conditions.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning . Board of the City of Alameda
determines that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 —
New Construction of Small Structures and 15315 — Minor Land Divisions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves
Development Plan, DPO5 -0001 and Major Design Review DRO5 -O 11 d and recommends that the
City Council approve Parcel Map PMO6 -0002 to allow the subdivision of 471 Pacific Avenue in
to four legal parcels, subject to the following conditions:
3
General
Approved Plan. The approved project shall be completed in substantial compliance with the
plans submitted for Development Plan, Major Design Review, and Parcel Map prepared by Will
Harrison, dated November 1, 2005, consisting of four (4) sheets, and the site survey re ared b
P P by
Andreas Deak, dated March 15, 2006, consisting of two (2) sheets, 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. Development Plan I Ma for Design Review
a. A cut -sheet or brochure of the proposed window material, showing a ' cross-
sectional detail including window trim and drip -sill, must be submitted to the
Planning and Building Department for final review and approval by the Planning
and Building Director, prior to installation.
b. Parcel #1 has two existing driveways. Only one driveway per lot is allowed per
the Alameda Municipal Code, Subsection 30 -7-9, F.2. The driveway at the west
property line, including the portion behind the property line, shall be removed,
and standard City of Alameda curb shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
c. 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 Design Review Staff prior to expiration. Only one (1)
extension may be granted.
d. All Time and Material charges shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a building
permit.
e. Any changes to the exterior details from the approved plans shall be submitted for
Planning Staff review and approval.
f. Section 30 -84.12 of the Alameda Municipal Code states that drainage across
interior property lines is not permitted. New construction must not cause storm
runoff to be diverted to an adjacent parcel.
g. Additional comments and conditions of approval may be forthcoming from other,
departments once an application is made for building and other construction
relater permits. Please note: if plans change substantially due to other
departments required conditions of approval, additional review by the Planning
Division may be required.
4
2. Parcel Mau
a. The subdivider shall prepare a reciprocal access easement and common
maintenance agreement for all common areas, with an agreement that parcels # 2,
# 3, and # 4 share responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the shared
driveway and common areas to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the
Planning and Building Director. This agreement shall be included on the
Certificate Page of the Parcel Map.
b. Vesting. The subdivider shall record the Parcel Map within twelve (12) months
of approval or conditional approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, subject
to compliance with all of the conditions of this approval. An extension of time,
not to exceed an additional twelve (12) months, for the filing of the Parcel Map
may be granted by the City Council providing written application is made by the
subdivider prior to the expiration of the approved Parcel Map. Only one (1)
extension may be granted.
c. Public Works. 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.
d. 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.
e. The subdivider shall execute and file an agreement to the approval of the City
Engineer and City Attorney between himself and the City specifying the period in
which the subdivider shall complete all improvement work. Improvement shall
include all utilities, grading, drainage, access and parking improvements, and any
other items necessary so that each parcel is accessible and can stand-alone.
f. A bond, letter of credit, or other acceptable instrument of credit shall be provided
to assure that the construction improvements are completed. The amount shall be
based on the subdivider's engineer's estimate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and shall include 20% contingencies.
g. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $400 to
guarantee that a mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Maps is provided in the form
approved by the City Engineer.
5
h. After the Parcel Map has been approved by City Council, the subdivider shall
submit a mylar copy of the recorded parcel map to the Planning and Building
Department.
i. The subdivider shall fulfill the construction improvement requirements as
specified under Item # e. 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 construction improvement/building permit plans
and construction inspection.
3. Miscellaneous
a. Utilities. An exception is granted to the requirement that all overhead electrical
lines within the proposed subdivision shall be placed underground pursuant to
Section 30 -84.7 of the City Subdivision Ordinance.
b. Codes Compliance. All improvements shall conform to the Alameda Municipal
Code.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
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 notify the applicant of any claim,
6
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDmONS. 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
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 8th day of May 2006 by the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Cook, Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch
NOES: (1) McNamara
ABSENT: (1) Mariam
ATTEST:
Cathy 1 w odbury, Secret
City Planning Board
7
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
8 -B
DPO5 -0001; DRO5 -0 116; PMO6 -0002 — William DeMar — 471
Pacific Avenue. The applicant requests approval of a Development
Plan for an existing Planned Development overlay of an existing R -4
(Neighborhood Residential) district, and Major Design Review and
g
Parcel Map approvals to allow the division of an existing 14,400
square foot residential lot into four parcels: one with an existing
single - family dwelling, one with a new single- family home, and two,
each with an attached single - family dwelling. The property is
located within an R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development) Zoning District.
Medium - Density Residential
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 —
New Construction of Small Structures; 15315 — Minor Land
Divisions.
Emily Pudell, Planner II
Approve the Major Design Review and Development Plan and
recommend that the City Council approve. the Parcel Map to create
four Lots.
AMC -- Alameda Municipal Code
R -4 PD — Neighborhood Residential, Planned Development District
1. Draft Resolution
2. Parcel Map
3.. Site Plan/Landscaping Plan/Elevations
I. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL SUMMARY
A. Existing Site Conditions
The subject parcel is 14,400 square feet and is 96 feet wide
located on the north side of Pacific Avenue and contains a
Alameda Plannin
Staff Report
Meeti f ! • May 8, 2006
by 150 feet deep. The parcel is
single - family cottage - style, high
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #4 -L
06-19-07
basement home that was constructed in 1908. The building is set back approximately 16 -feet
from the property line and an existing driveway leads to parking in the basement area. The
building fs not listed on the City's Historical Building Study List. No modifications are
proposed to this building at this time.
Site fir
pre ppcy-sed n
110IHeS
- 1 ) :ieif-c
%ef1Li'
B.
Under the development regulations in the
R -4 district, newly created parcels must be
a minimum of 5,000 square feet and have a
minimum width of 50 feet. Due to the
property's existing 96 foot Pacific Avenue
lot frontage, dividing the lot would create a
properties with less than the 50 foot
required frontage. With the existing
Planned Development overlay, exceptions
may be made to these minimum standards.
As a result, the parcel subdivision may be
processed with a Parcel Map application in
conjunction with a Development Plan
application.
Establishment of a Small Lot Planned Development
In 1992, the Alameda Municipal Code was amended to provide for a Planned Development
Overlay Zone for certain small parcels (under two acres). According to City records, the
property was rezoned from R -4 to R -4 PD prior to 1958. Additionally, there is no record of an
approved development plan being associated with the rezoning.
C. Proposal Summary
Due to the proposed lot widths-of 44, 52, 26 and 26 feet, where 50 feet is required for newly
created parcels, the applicant is requesting Development Plan approval to allow subdivision of
the lot into four parcels that do not meet the minimum width or square footage requirements in
the R -4 district. The Planned Development process allows development standards such as lot
size and lot dimensions to be customized to the characteristics of the site, and only under a
Planned Development may the subject property be subdivided into four parcels.
The applicant proposes to establish a Development Plan to utilize the exist ing R -4 PD zoning.
This Development Plan would allow the applicant to
split the parcel into four lots allowing for the existing
residence to be on one parcel, and three additional
homes to be constructed on the other three parcels.
The 14,400 square foot lot would be divided to provide
a 6,618 square foot (44' x 150.49') parcel for the
existing dwelling at 471 Pacific, a 3,826.1 square foot
parcel (52' x 73.67'), and two 2,002 square foot
parcels (26' x 77'). An aerial photograph (right)
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
2
shows that a 15' setback, proposed for the new home on Lot # 2, will maintain the continuity of
the other homes along the Pacific Avenue street face. The proposal also includes providing
fenced private areas at the rear of each parcel for each dwelling even though the AMC does not
require single- family homes on individual lots to provide designated private open -space areas
(Parcel # 2: 15' x 12' (180 square feet) and Parcels # 3 and # 4: 15' x 26' (390 square feet)).
Each of the three buildings would have a hip -style roof, wood shingle siding, clad wood frame
windows with cedar trim, and wood brackets located beneath second -story overhangs and
covered entrances. Additionally, the roofline of the attached single - family dwellings would be
adorned with a cupola that would serve as the vents for the attic and an arbor with climbing
plants would soften the visual appearance of the carports on the front elevation. The entrance to
these attached single - family dwellings would be located on the side of each unit. Access would
not be available directly from the carport area.
The proposal also includes providing all of the eight required off-street parking spaces: two
would be located at the rear of the new single - family home, four more would be located in
carports along the front of the two new attached single - family homes, and two more would be
located in a new driveway along the west (left) property line at 471 Pacific Avenue. The parking
configuration would require the establishment of a shared access easement and "auto court" for
the three, newly created parcels (Parcels #2, #3, and #4), but would allow for adequate turn-
around space so that all vehicles could drive rather than back -out of the property. Space would
also be maintained for the creation of two off- street parking spaces for 471 Pacific Avenue.
Maintenance of the parking areas would be the responsibility of each of the property owners,
with the maintenance of the shared access and utilities easement being shared among the owners
of Parcels #2, #3, and #4.
D. Surrounding Land Use
North --- Single and Multi- family Residences, Buena Vista Avenue, Harbor Island Apartments
West — Vacant land (site adjacent to 471 Pacific Avenue), Single and Multi- family Residences,
Chipman School
South — Pacific Avenue, Single and Multi - family Residences, Longfellow School
East --- Single and Multi - family Residences, Fifth Street
E. Permit Process
The Alameda Municipal Code provides that an approved Development Plan constitutes a Final
Development Plan. The applicant has chosen to proceed concurrently with the Parcel Map
application.
The City Council must act on the Parcel Map and, if approved, also confirm that the conditions
of approval have been satisfied before the Parcel Map may be recorded. This can occur at the
same City Council meeting if the applicant has satisfied all conditions. Otherwise, the City
Council can take action:at two separate meetings.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
3
H. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 — New
Construction of Small Structures and 15315 — Minor Land Divisions.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Zoning Compliance
The need to establish a Development Plan with the proposed Parcel Map is because three of the
four parcels would be less than the minimum width requirements for new lots. The parcels
would be 44, 26 and 26 feet wide where 50 feet is required in the R-4 Zoning District. The
following table compares the project conditions with those required by the Alameda Municipal
Code (AMC).
Table 1: Compliance with Development Standards
Description
AMC
Standard
Parcel 1
(471 Pacific)
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
.
Parcel 4
Front Setback
20'
_ 15'
15'
22'
✓ 22'
Right Side Setback
5'
5'
6'
6'
6'
Left Side Setback
5'
11'
15'
6'
6'
Rear Setback
20'
78.5'
8'
15'
15'
_
Lot Size (sq. ft.)
5,000
6618
3826.1
2,002
n
2,002
Lot Width _
50'
44'
52'
26'
26'
Lot Coverage
50% (max.)
24%
37%
40%
40%
Parking
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
Data highlighted in bold text denotes standards that are non - conforming with the AMC
development regulations for the R -4 district. These standards include the existing front yard
setback and lot width for the house at 471 Pacific, and the proposed front and rear yard setbacks,
lot size requirements, and lot width requirements for the three new homes. According to the
Planned Development regulations, the proposed Development Plan, with the proposed Parcel
Map, would permit these nonconforming conditions.
B. General Plan Consistency
The General Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot
density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of 8.8 to
21.8 units per acre. This density will be maintained for this proposal, and will not change the
density of the surrounding neighborhood. This project also supports the General Plan and
Housing Element policies that define the creation of opportunities for homeownership and
development of a variety in housing product through inf ll development projects. It recognizes
that these types of projects satisfy important goals thereby qualifying them for "special treatment
or protection" under the Planned Development process (Subsection 3- 4.13(c)(2)). Pertinent
General Plan and Housing Element policies are:
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
4
General Plan Policies:
• 2.4.a Maintain and enhance the residential environment of Alameda's neighborhoods.
• 2.4.c Where a suitable residential environment can be created. Give priority to housing
on land to be developed or redeveloped in order to meet the quantified objectives
of the housing element.
Housing Element Policies:
• a.v. Maintain the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods by protecting and
enhancing the historic architecture and ensuring that new development respects
the density, physical, and aesthetic character of the neighborhood and surrounding
areas.
• a.vi Ensure that new neighborhoods seamlessly integrate with older residential
neighborhoods by designing new housing developments that complement the
historic, architectural and physical qualities of existing neighborhoods.
• b.i. Support efforts to increase the homeownership rate in Alameda to 60 percent by
promoting homeownership opportunities for all Alameda residents and employees
of all income groups, including lower • income renters and newly formed
households.
• b .iii . Create rental and homeownership opportunities for people of all incomes, ethnic
origins, cultures, gender, family structures, and special needs populations such as
the elderly and physically and mentally challenged persons.
• c.i. Designate an adequate amount of land for residential use to encourage housing
development that will meet the needs of all income groups.
• c.v. Ensure that the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance encourage residential
development that provides variety in the housing product in response to variations
in income levels the changing live -work patterns of residents, and the needs of a
diverse population.
• c.vi. Encourage development of homeownership units priced to meet the needs of
families with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of area median income.
• d. ii. Promote, the development of a full range of housing (rental, homeownership and
service- enriched) to meet the needs of special populations, including people
physical and/or developmental disabilities, single- parent households, young adults
and seniors.
C. Development Plan Findings
In order to approve the Development Plan application, the Planning Board must make all of the
following findings:
1. All Planned Developments shall be consistent with the General Plan. The General
Plan supports the creation of diversity in the housing product in response to variations in
income levels the changing live -work patterns of residents, and the needs of a diverse
population as well as opportunities for homeownership. Establishment of a Development
Plan would not change the density of the neighborhood.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
5
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 four individual parcels which will be developed with new housing. In
order to create this housing, the Planned Development overlay allows the necessary
flexibility in the development standards, such as lot width and setbacks to permit this
development to occur.
3. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the
City. The site is already developed with a single-family home. The Development Plan
and Parcel Map would allow for three additional homes to be constructed in such a way
that the density of the area would not change above existing vicinity conditions.
Therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in
the City.
D. Design Review Findings
In order to approve the application for Major Design Review, the Planning Board must make all
of the following findings:
1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in
the vicinity. The proposed intensity of the development meets the lot coverage
provisions identified for the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District and is similar
to the density of existing vicinity properties. Applicable off- street parking provisions are
being met for the existing home at 471 Pacific Avenue, as well as the three new homes.
The proposal would, therefore, have no significant impacts on persons or property in the
vicinity.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area. The area is already substantially developed with single and multi-
family dwellings ranging from apartments (Harbor Island) to duplexes and other smaller
multi -unit buildings, to single- family homes. The proposed stand -alone and attached
single - family homes would compatible on this area based on the wide diversity of
existing housing opportunities. The proposal would, therefore, be harmonious and
compatible.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines. The
existing and proposed single - family residences and proposed zero lot -line duplex are
consistent with the limitations of the R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District,
designation of the site and poses no detriment to the immediate vicinity. The proposed
homes will also utilize window casing, shingle siding material, double -hung, casement
and awning window styles, roof pitches, and other architectural details are reminiscent of
the architectural styles of the homes in the area that were constructed during the early
1900' s, as well as the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
6
E. Parcel Map Findings:
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 Housing Element policies for the creation of opportunities for
homeownership and development of a variety in housing product through infill
development projects.
2. The proposed design /improvements are consistent with applicable General and
Specific Plans. The proposed development respects the density, physical, and aesthetic
character of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. It recognizes that these types of
projects satisfy important goals thereby qualifying them for "special treatment or
protection" under the Planned Development process.
3. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The site is physically
suitable for this type of development because the site and surrounding properties are
already substantially developed with other single and multi- family buildings.
Additionally, the site and surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Residential (R--
4) and are designated for Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The General
Plan designates this property Medium Density Residential, with a minimum lot density of
2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and an overall expected density range of 8.8 to 21.8
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 an urban area that is not environmentally sensitive. Furthermore,
the proposal. will only result in construction activities that would typically be allowed for
vacant residential properties- within the City.
The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements. Improvements,
common to residential neighborhoods (i.e. installation of sewer laterals, connections to
existing electrical and telecom services, provision of municipal solid waste collection,
etc.), are already available on Pacific Avenue. Additionally, access and utility easements
will be required for the common driveway and utilities. City encroachment permits will
be required for any work within the right -of -way.
7. 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 471 Pacific Avenue is already
connected to water, sewer, and electric utilities. Police, Fire, and garbage services are
also available along Pacific Avenue. Establishment of utilities to all newly created
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
7
parcels will be required before recordation of the Final Map. The proposal to create
parcels will allow for additional development on the property that is similar to existing
neighborhood and vicinity conditions.
Iv. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Building Director recommends that the Planning Board approve Development
Plan DPO5 -0001 and Major Design Review DRO5 -0 116 and recommend approval to the City
Council on Parcel Map PMO6 -O002, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft
Resolution.
G: 1PLANMNGIPBIReports12006i05- 08- 061Paci rc 471 DP05 -000I DP05 -0116- PM06- 0002.doc
Alameda Planning Board
Star Report
Meeting of May 8, 2006
8
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PARCEL MAP PMO6 -0002 TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF AN
EXISTING 14,400 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO FOUR
PARCELS AT 471 PACIFIC AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A
R -4 -PD, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, an application was made requesting approval of Design
Review DRO5 -0116, and Development Plan DPO5 -0001 on November 1, 2005, by
William De Mar and for approval of Parcel Map, PMO6 -0002 on March 22, 2006,
• to divide an existing 14,400 square foot residential lot into four parcels: one with
▪ an existing single - family dwelling, one with a new single - family home, and two,
each with an attached single- family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the applications for Design Review DRO5 -0116 and
Development Plan DPO5 -0001 were approved by the Planning Board on May 8,
2006; and
WHERERAS, the application for Parcel Map PMO6 -0002 was deemed
complete on May 10, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R-4-PD, Neighborhood
Residential Planned Development District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on
May 8, 2006, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, on date May 8, 2006, 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 19, 2007, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
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.
Resolution #4 -L CC
06 -19 -07
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.
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 be comparable in size to the surrounding single - family parcels.
Additionally, the site and surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood
Residential District Planned Development (R -4 -PD) and are designated for
Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development. The General Plan designates this property Medium Density
Residential, with a minimum lot density of 2,000 square feet per dwelling
unit. This density will be maintained for this proposal.
5. The proposed subdivision and its related improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or cause injury in 1 u 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.
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 471 Pacific Avenue is already connected to water,
sewer, and electric utilities. 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. 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.
All parcels would have continued direct access to Pacific Avenue.
NOW, 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 Parcel
Map PMO6-0005 to allow the subdivision of 471 Pacific Avenue into 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 Andreas Deak, dated March 15, 2006 and the site survey prepared
by Andreas Deak, dated September 10, 2005 consisting of one (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. 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 Parcel #2, #3 and #4 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
2. 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. Alt 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.
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
a
u serve until his successor is
appointed and is qualified.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING BILL SONNEMAN AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-
7.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, BILL SONNEMAN
is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Recreation and Park Commission of the
City of Alameda commencing June 19, 2007, and expiring on September 30 2010,
and to
1, the undersigned hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
Y g Y
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in 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 official seal of said
City this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #5 -A
06 -19 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 1 9, 2007
Re: Adopt Resolutions Certifying the Environmental Impact Report Making the
Necessary Findings for the Adoption of the General Plan Amendment and
Approving the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and
Citywide Childcare Policies
BACKGROUND
The proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan amendment and Citywide Childcare
policies would amend the General Plan to: 1) designate approximately 110 acres of
northern waterfront industrially designated properties to a specified mixed -use
designation; 2) adopt a set of guiding policies to guide future development within the
Northern Waterfront Specified Mixed Use Area; and 3) adopt certain policies prepared
by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Social Service Human
Relations Board. The Northern Waterfront project area is generally bounded by
Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista Avenue on the south, Grand Street on the
east, and the Oakland /Alameda Estuary on the north. The area is within several zoning
districts, including R -2 (Two Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden Residential District),
R-4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M -1
(Intermediate Industrial), M -2 (General Industrial), C -M (Commercial- Manufacturing
District), and M -1 -PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned Development District).
The Planning Board held public hearings on the Final Environmental Impact Report
(E1R) and proposed General Plan Amendments on February 26, 2007, and March 26,
2007. On March 26, 2007, after considering the public testimony and written
comments, the environmental information, and all pertinent maps and documents, the
Planning Board unanimously adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council
certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed General Plan Amendments. The
attached Planning Board staff report includes a detailed description of the proposed
amendments and the few remaining issues that were resolved at the final Planning
Board hearings.
DISCUSSION
The recommended amendments to the General Plan include the Northern Waterfront
amendments prepared by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee in 2003 and the
City Council
Public Hearing
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -B
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
2 of 3
Childcare policies prepared by the Social Service Human Relations Board in 2001. In
summary, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) includes two documents;
which are attached:
• The Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment includes text for a new chapter
to the General Plan providing policy guidance for the development of the Northern
Waterfront. The new chapter includes an introduction that describes the overall
objectives for the area and a series of area -wide policies regarding land use,
transportation, housing, and open space. These area wide policies are followed by
a series of site- specific policies that were tailored by the Advisory Committee to
address the specific issues and opportunities that arise with each of the major
development sites within the plan area.
• The Citywide General Plan Amendments document includes a table of revisions to
existing text, diagrams and policies to the existing chapters of the General Plan that
are necessary to achieve and maintain internal consistency between the new
chapter and the existing chapters of the General Plan. This document also includes
the proposed Childcare policies prepared by the Social Service Human Relations
Board in 2001.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional General Fund expenditures are necessary to complete the Northern
Waterfront General Plan Amendment process. Future property re- zoning will be funded
through Community Planning Fee funds or as part of the entitlement for a
redevelopment project within the planning area.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed amendments support and reinforce the City of Alameda General Plan by
introducing policies to support Childcare and facilitate redevelopment of the Northern
Waterfront consistent with existing housing, open space, recreation, and waterfront
access General Plan objectives and policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed amendments to the
General Plan. On January 31, 2006, the City of Alameda circulated a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposal. The Draft EIR has been posted on the City website since January 2006.
On February 27, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to review the DEIR.
On March 30, 2006, the City received all the final written comments on the DEIR from
the public and interested agencies. Responses to the seven letters and the Planning
Board's oral comments are provided in a Final EIR Response to Comments document.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
3 of 3
The EIR for this project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and all local guidelines. The community, adjacent jurisdictions, the State Clearinghouse
and all relevant and responsible agencies were notified early and regularly throughout
the preparation and review process. The document was prepared by experts in their
respective fields, and the information was generally well received by the community and
reviewing agencies.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the EIR.
2. Adopt a resolution making the necessary findings for the adoption of the General
Plan Amendment.
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
and Citywide Childcare Policies. (GPA 07 -0002)
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy ,{ . odbury
Planning and Building irector
By:
ndrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
AT:at
Attachments:
1. March 26, 2007 Planning Board Staff report
2. Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
3. Citywide General Plan Amendments
4. Existing and Proposed Northern Waterfront Land Use Designations
CITY OF ALAM E DA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT
9 -A
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Citywide
Childcare Policies. (GPA 07 -0002) A General Plan
amendment to designate approximately 110 acres of northern
waterfront industrially designated properties to a specified
mixed -use designation. The Northern Waterfront project area is
generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena
Vista Avenue on the south, Grand Street on the east, and the
Oakland /Alameda Estuary on the north. The Northern
Waterfront project area is within several zoning districts;
including R -2 (Two Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden
Residential District), R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential District,
Special Planned Development District), M -1 (Intermediate
Industrial), M -2 (General Industrial), C -M (Commercial-
Manufacturing District), and M -1 -PD (Intermediate Industrial,
Special Planned Development District). The proposed childcare
policies would apply citywide.
Medium Density Residential, General Industry, Commercial
Recreation, and Parks and Public Open Space.
A Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify
the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve a General
Plan Amendment
STAFF PLANNER: Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
B. Additional Citywide Policy Amendments
C. Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
D. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations.
E. Proposed Clement Street Extension
F. Resolution recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
Alameda Planni : oard
Staff Repo
Mee . -• of March 26, 2007
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 1 to Report Re:
Agenda item #5-8
06-19-07
G. Resolution recommending Approval of the General Plan Amendment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) includes the Northern Waterfront
amendments prepared by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee and the
amendments related to Child Care prepared by the City of Alameda Social Service Human
Relations Board. The Social Services Human Relations Board prepared the Child Care
policies in 2001. The proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment is the result
of an intensive community planning effort conducted between 2000 and 2003 by the City
Council- appointed Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Northern Waterfront
Committee held a series of public meetings and community workshops to develop p a
comprehensive General Plan amendment to direct the future redevelopment of the area
known as the Northern Waterfront. On October 15, 2003, the Northern Waterfront Advisory
Committee completed its final review and revisions to their recommended Northern
Waterfront General Plan Amendment and recommended that staff circulate their
recommendations to the public and the Alameda boards and commissions for review and
adoption. The Advisory Committees' final October 15, 2003 actions are attached.
On February 26, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendments and FEIR. At the meeting the Planning Board heard public comment,
considered the proposed amendments and staff recommendations, and directed staff to:
1. Reformat the proposed amendments (Attachments A and B) to , include the
recommended revisions. Revisions to Attachment A are shown in strikeout/underline
format, and revisions to Attachment B are shown in bold text because Attachment B
already included strikeout/underline text.
2. Continue to work with the community to further clarify and improve policy text as
necessary to reflect community priorities and goals. Since the meeting, staff worked
directly with Jean Sweeney, Barbara Kerr, and Stuart Rickard to improve the document.
All changes made as a result of these discussions are shown in Attachment A and B.
3. Provide improved diagrams showing the proposed General Plan amendment. The
improved diagrams are included in Attachments C and D and as an attachment to the
General Plan Amendment resolution.
4. Provide information and diagrams showing the proposed Clement Street extension.
5. Provide information on the Pennzoil site remediation plan.
6. Provide an overview of the policies that pertain to height.
7. Strengthen the sound wall policy, and
S. Place display advertisements in the local newspaper to inform the public about the
Child Care policies.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Board adopt resolutions recommending that the
City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed General Plan Amendment as
revised.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
2
BACKGROUND:
The Northern Waterfront GPA includes:
• A new chapter to the General Plan that includes the new policies for the Northern
Waterfront. The new chapter includes an introduction that describes the overall
objectives for the area and series of area -wide policies regarding land use,
transportation, housing, and open space. These area wide policies are followed by a
series of site- specific policies that are were tailored by the Advisory Committee to
address the specific issues and opportunities that arise with each of the major
development sites within the plan area. (Attachment A)
• A table of revisions to existing text, diagrams and policies to the existing chapters of the
General Plan that are necessary to achieve and maintain internal consistency between
the new chapter and the existing chapters of the General Plan. (Attachment B)
The Northern Waterfront GPA area includes a number of properties generally located
along the Oakland Alameda Estuary between Grand Street and Sherman Street. The
following paragraphs provide an overview of the properties and the effect of the ro osed
p p
GPA on the future development of each property.
The Del Monte Site The Del Monte Warehouse is a designated City Monument and a
building of significant historical value. Built in 1927 to serve the food processing and
warehousing needs of the Alaska Packers Company (later, Del Monte Foods), the two
block long, gently curving brick facade along Buena Vista Avenue establishes a major
visual presence in the area. The 235,000- square -foot building has been occupied in recent
years by storage uses and other light industrial warehouse uses. In order to facilitate the
retention and rehabilitation of this important building, the Northern Waterfront GPA
proposes a Specified Mixed -Use land use designation (MU -6) for the site to permit a
variety of potential uses that could include work/live studios, residential, a hotel, office
space, commercial /retail, restaurants and/or office uses. The property owner, Mr. Peter
Wang is actively pursuing redevelopment of the site, consistent with the GPA. In 2005, the
Historic Advisory Board approved a Certificate of Approval for his proposed plans for the
building, and he is currently working with the U.S. Department of Interior to qualify the
project for Historic Building Tax Credits. Mr. Wang is tentatively planning to vacate the
building in the summer of 2007 to begin the rehabilitation work.
The Encinal Terminal Site The Encinal Terminal site is a unique 24-acre site, surrounded
by water on three sides. The site is currently occupied by a storage and cleaning facility for
freight containers used by shipping companies that are active at the Port of Oakland and
other Bay Area port facilities. The current use, Container Care and Storage, has a Use
Permit for the purpose until 2009. Container Care and Storage generates approximately
200 to 250 truck trips per day. Approximately six acres within the site are designated as
Tidelands Trust property. The City is the trustee and the property is leased to Mr. Peter
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
3
Wang, who owns the remainder of the site. The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would
require a mix of land uses on the site, including residential development, commercial,
,
(retail, restaurant and/or office), and parks and open space. The unusual configuration of
the site represents a significant opportunity to create unique new public access to the
waterfront for the Alameda Community. The property owner, Mr. Peter Wang has hired
Skidmore Owings, and Merrill LLP (SOM) to prepare a mixed -use plan for the site
consistent with the proposed GPA.
The Grand Marina Area The Grand Marina Area is the area generally located between
Clement Avenue, the Estuary and Grand Street. The area is comprised of a number of
uses that include the 400 berth Grand Marina, the Alaska Packers Building, the City of
Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard, the Pennzoil warehouse, office and tank
farm facilities. The Grand Marina area is designated for to allow a mix of uses that may
include residential, commercial, continued maritime related businesses and the marina. In
January 2006, the City Council approved a Master Plan and General Plan Amendment for
a portion of the area that consistent with the GPA to allow the development of 40 new
houses on a portion of the area. Under the proposed GPA, the Grand Marina MU -6
designation would be expanded to include the remainder of the Grand Marina Area.
Storage Site This "storage site" is located on the west side of Sherman Street adjacent to
the Alameda Beltline Site just north of the intersection of Sherman and Eagle Streets. The
property is currently occupied by a 65,000- square foot self- storage facility. The facility is
bordered on the south by residential uses. The property is zoned M -1 -PD intermediate
Industrial. Under the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA, the site would be designated for
Medium Density Residential use. The site would be rezoned to R -2 Two F amily Residential
to ensure that reuse of this site would be limited to residential development at a density
and scale that would be consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The existing
storage use would become a legal non- conforming use of the site.
Parrot Village Parrot Village is a residential development located at the end of Chapin
Street that consists of 56 multi-family dwelling units owned by the Alameda Housing
Authority. The current General Plan land use designation for this site is "Medium Density
Residential "; the site is zoned R -2 Two Family Residential. No changes to the General Plan
designation, zoning designation, or current land use are proposed for this site in the
Northern Waterfront GPA.
The Child Care Policies
The City of Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) is mandated by the
City Charter to assess and inform the Council of our community's social service and human
relations needs. in mid -2001, the SSHRB's Assessment and Awareness Work Group
concluded a survey of Alameda households and community service providers regarding
human and social service needs. The survey found a significant need for increased
childcare availability and affordability in Alameda. One -third of the surveyed Alameda
households with children, translating to 2,600 to 2,900 of the City's 31,000 households,
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
need more affordable or accessible childcare. The SSHRB then created the Child Care
Work Group to provide leadership to improve the community's child care availability,
affordability, accessibility, and quality. The Work Group, which includes childcare providers,
p ,
consumers, and technical assistance organizations, develops strategies to provide short-
and long- term solutions to these challenges. The Work Group found that:
■ There are approximately 2,700 part-time or full -time spaces in Alameda's licensed
eased
childcare centers and family childcare homes. In contrast, there are 7,800, almost three
times as many; children aged 0 to 13 in Alameda homes where all parents in the
household work outside the home.
■ Nearly all households, regardless of their income level, find childcare very expensive.
The California Budget Project found that the average Alameda County household with
two wage - earners and two children in child care spent 25% of the household's income
on child care in 1999, more than the 23% spent on housing and utility costs combined.
■ Investment in childcare infrastructure is critical not only to families' quality of life, but
also to the City's overall economic vitality. Alameda's childcare homes and centers
directly employ approximately 400 people and indirectly support almost 300 more jobs
in other sectors. Childcare now generates $14.5 million annually in gross receipts in
Alameda. Every five additional licensed childcare slots would represent approximately
$30,000 in increased annual spending. Improving the childcare system's capacity could
also improve employees' peace of mind and productivity, reduce employee
absenteeism, and allow parents of young children to work. Childcare system
investments have been shown to increase labor force participation, particularly among
g
low- and middle - income families, increasing their household income and business
formation.
■ The benefits of quality childcare and early education for children's healthy development
are well documented. Quality child care helps children start school ready to succeed,
can help address behavioral problems early on, and complements parents' and
communities' efforts to teach youngsters how to get along with others. Studies by
California's Fight Crime: Invest in Kids illustrate that every spent s ent on childcare returns
$5 to over $7 in public benefits.
■ Since 1992, more than 25 California cities and counties have included child care
objectives in their General Plans
Based upon these findings, a review of the Alameda General Plan, and a survey of the
child care provisions included in other Bay Area jurisdictions' General Plans, the SS H RB's
developed a series of recommended child care policies for the Alameda General Plan. The
recommended policies are included in Attachment B and have been in public circulation
since 2003.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
5
The proposal to amend the General Plan is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, an EIR was prepared because the ro osal
p p
entails an amendment the existing General Plan. On January 31, 2006, the Cit y of
Alameda circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the p otential
environmental impacts of the proposal. The Draft EIR has been posted on the City website
since January 2006. On February 27, 2006, the Planning Board held a public hearing to
g
review the DEIR. On March 30, 2006, the City received all the final written comments on
the DEIR from the public and interested agencies. Responses to the seven letters and the
Planning Boards oral comments are provided in a Final EIR Response to Comments
document (FEIR). Copies of the DEIR and FEIR were provided to the Planning Board at
the February 12, 2006 Planning Board meeting.
The El R for this project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and
all local guidelines. The community, adjacent jurisdictions, the State Clearinghouse and all
relevant and responsible agencies were notified early and regularly throughout the
preparation and review process. The document was prepared by experts in their respective
fields, and the information was generally well received by the community and reviewing
agencies.
PUBLIC NOTICATION AND COMMENTS
As described above, the proposed GPA is the result of an extensive public planning
process that began in 2000 with the Council - appointed Northern Waterfront Advisory
Committee and in 2001 with the work of the City of Alameda Social Service Human
Relations Board. All of the Northern Waterfront Committee's meetings were duly noticed in
compliance with the Brown Act, and the Committee held a series of well- attended public
workshops in addition to their regular meetings. In addition, the Planning Board held study
sessions on the proposed GPA on March 8, 2004, and October 25, 2004. The Board also
held a public hearing on the environmental document on February 27, 2006.
In 2005 and 2006, the draft GPA was circulated for review by the public, the Economic
Development Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Transportation
Commission. Each commission prepared a set of recommended changes for the Planning
Board and City Council's consideration during the review and adoption process. The
written recommendations received from the Transportation Commission, the Economic
Development Commission, the Recreation and Parks Commission Recommendation, and
Barbara Kerr were attached to the February 26th staff report.
In preparation for the February 26, 2007 Planning Board Public Hearing, notices were
placed in the Alameda Journal, the area was widely posted, and over 700 letters were sent
to property owners and residents in the surrounding area. Several residents visited the
Planning Department to review documents. On February 26, 2007, the Planning Board
held a public hearing on the proposed amendments.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
6
Since the February 26th hearing staff has worked individual) with Ms. Barbara . ara Kerr, Ms.
Jean Sweeny, Ms. Debra Arbuckle, and Mr. Stuart Rickard to further clarify improve
and im p
the proposed amendments. All of the proposed changes are now shown within either
Attachment A or B.
Additional Requested Information:
On February 20th, the Planning Board requested additional information- on
q the following
issues:
General Plan Diagram: Attachments C and D show the existing General Plan designations
and the proposed General Plan designations for the proposed Northern Waterfront
General Plan Amendment. As shown in the diagrams, The Encinal Terminal Site, the Del
Monte Site, the Pennzoil site, the Animal Shelter Site, and the City Corporation Yard site
would be re- designated to MU —6 Specified Mixed Use. All these sites are currently
Y
designated GI General Industrial in the General Plan. The Pacific Storage Site would be
designated Medium Density Residential. It is currently designated General Industrial. All
other existing General Plan designations would remain unchanged.
Future Zoning Amendments Once the General Plan Amendments have been adopted, the
City will begin the process of rezoning land within the GPA planning area to conform with
the new General Plan designations. These rezoning could occur as a single consolidated
set of rezonings, or they could occur incrementally over a period of time. As described in
the Northern Waterfront GPA, the following rezonings are anticipated: the Encinal
Terminal, and Grand Marina Area would be rezoned to MX Mixed Use. The MX zoning is
consistent with the Specified Mixed Use General Plan designation, and it requires
preparation of a Master Plan that describes how the mix of uses will occur on the site. The
Grand Marina Village project was entitled through a similar process. The Storage Site
would be rezoned to R -2 Two Family Residential District. The Del Monte Site could be
rezoned to MX or it could remain in its current M -2 zoning designation, which has the
advantage of conditionally permitting Work/Live.
Clement Extension: An important public infrastructure objective of the Northern Waterfront
GPA is to extend Clement Avenue from its current terminus at Grand Street, through the
Northern Waterfront area, to connect with Atlantic Avenue. (See the figure below.) The
extension would serve as the preferred truck route and eliminate truck traffic and reduce
through traffic on Buena Vista. A portion of the extension was constructed with the first
phase of the Marina Cove project. Although the second phase of that project did not occur,
the Final Map for the second phase reserves the right of way for the Clement Extension
behind the existing Chipman Warehouse. Attachment E provides a detailed drawing of the
proposed Clement Extension behind the Del Monte Warehouse. The third and final
segment of the extension would be the portion that extends through the Pennzoil site and
connects the Marina Cove portion with the intersection of Grand Street and Clement Street.
Shell Gil Company is aware of the proposed extension and notified prospective buyers of
the extension in 2003 when they listed the property for sale.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
7
0 &esti(); Cipe4
New Vocals
Mr
Gewal Pi
Pennzoil Site Remediation Plan: The Pennzoil site is owned by Shell Lubricants. The
facility is a distribution and re- packaging plant for motor oil products. Under order of the
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board (BWQMD), Shell has developed and begun to
implement an approved remediation plan for the site. The RWQCB approved clean -up
plan is designed to clean the site to residential standards.
Any future use of the site would need to be consistent with a site cleanup plan approved by
RWQCB. Under the proposed General Plan Amendment the site would be re-designated
g
Mixed Use, which would allow for a range of uses, including housing. However, housing
would only be allowed on the site, if and when the site is cleaned to residential standards
as requires by the RWQCB approved }'clean -up plan.
Development Policies regarding Heights
The proposed GPA includes the following policies that address the issue of building
height and provide guidance for future city actions regarding zoning designations and /or
development applications in the Northern Waterfront Area:
In the Urban Design Section:
• Require that buildings at waterfront locations be designed with attractive and
varied architecture style.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
8
• On large sites with multiple buildings and with individual tall buildings adjacent to
the water, require building heights to "step down" as they approach the water.
Note: The "stepping down" policy was added at the suggestion of the Planning Board after
a 2004 study sessions. It was not part of the Advisory Committees original 2003 proposal.
• Require that new development provide a pedestrian - friendly scale with building
sizes consistent with adjacent and historic land uses in the area.
In the Encinal Terminal Section:
• Cluster development to maximize open space and view corridors to the estuary.
• Maintain building heights between 1 and 4 stories. Consider tailer buildings if at least
30% of the Encinal Terminal site is maintained for publicly accessible open space
and/or on -site water features. The Encinal Terminal Site is defined as the entire
landmass of the peninsula north of Clement Street.
Note: The policy above was modified since February 26th to clarify how the 30% would be
calculated. The policy below was added since February 26th to clarify how the "stepping
� pp g
down" policy in the Urban Design section should be implemented on the Encinal Terminals
site, which is surrounded by water on three sides.
• Given that Encinal Terminals is surrounded by water on three sites, taller buildings
should be located at the southern end of the site.
Grand Marina Section:
• Where commercial buildings abut residential uses, building heights should be
stepped down to reflect the height of nearby residential buildings. Facades near
residential uses should restrict views from within the structure into nearby yards and
homes.
CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
In conclusion, the General Plan Amendment as revised is reflective of the community's
priorities and visions for the Northern Waterfront area and the findings can be made that
the proposed General Plan Amendment is:
• Consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, which focus on five broad
themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small town feeling,
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
9
respect for history, de- emphasis of the automobile, and retention of multi -use
development on the Northern Waterfront.
■ Will benefit the general welfare of the community because they will facilitate
development of former industrial sites with mixed -use development that includes
residential, commercial and/or research and development uses.
■ Are in the public interest as they would allow redevelopment of the sites with an
appropriate mix of uses consistent with the nearby uses and existing residential
neighborhoods, and
■ Will provide substantial public amenities, including affordable housing and public
waterfront open space and access.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve the
General Plan Amendment as revised.
G :I PLANNING \PB \Reports12007103- 26 -071NW GPA Staff Report.doc
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
10
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
June 19, 2007
10.0 Northern Waterfront
10.1 Challenges and Issues
This element addresses the redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront planning area.
Redevelopment of this area presents the City with unique and challenging opportunities. Successful
redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront will include:
*;t
Fostering a vibrant new mixed -use environment. The General Plan seeks to create a new and vibrant
district with a variety of uses that are compatible with the waterfront location and adjacent
neighborhoods. The General Plan encourages development of a variety of uses in the area to
create a pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented environment.
Reconnecting the community to the waterfront. With an emphasis on new public shoreline access,
replacing existing waterfront industrial and warehouse uses with residential, commercial, retail,
and open space, and extension of the existing street grid to the waterfront, the policies aim to
reconnect the community to its waterfront.
• Improving access through and around the district. Policies facilitate the extension of the existing
Alameda grid system into and through the district to allow for the extension of the Clement
Street truck route, reduce traffic volumes on Buena Vista, and increase access to the waterfront.
Policies also promote use of alternative modes of transportation -such as light rail, shuttles, water
taxis, and bicycles -to reduce present and potential future congestion.
Preserving the unique history and environment of the Northern Waterfront Area. The General Plan includes
policies to preserve the unique environmental, cultural, and architectural assets within the area
and to utilize those assets in the creation of a new, vibrant mixed -use district.
Financially Sound Development The General Plan policies and land use designations are designed to
ensure that new development will fund the public facilities and services that are needed to serve
the new development and that redevelopment of the area does not result in a negative financial
impact on the City's ability to provide services to the rest of the City.
Facilitating a Jobs/ Housing Balance. With an emphasis on mixed use development, the General
Plan policies for the area are intended to facilitate a jobs housing balance in the area and in the
City for the purpose of reducing citywide traffic and the associated environmental, economic
and social impacts of long commute trips.
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 2 to Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -B
06 -19 -07
10.2 Background
Since its initial development in the mid- 1800s, land uses and economic activities in the Northern
Waterfront area have been characterized by continual change. Prior to 1852, the area consisted
primarily of marshland. Boatyards, shipping facilities, warehouses, and residences were among the
first buildings constructed at the Northern Waterfront. Residential tracts were subdivided for
development in the 1870s, resulting in development of the first neighborhoods in the area. In the
1880s and 1890s, the shipping and commercial marine activities at the Northern Waterfront were
considered to be the best in the Bay Area. The Alaska Packers Association est '
the world's largest
g
salmon - packing company and subsidiary of the California Packing Corporation - now Del Monte).
started berthing its vessels in the area currently run by the Grand Marina around 1890. Durin g the
two world wars and the Vietnam War, large industrial, shipbuilding, and commercial uses such as
Encinal Terminals, Del Monte Warehouse, Weyerhaeuser, Pennzoil, and Listo Pencil Company
P y
emerged as leading economic activities at the Northern Waterfront. During the 1970s, the Northern
Waterfront area experienced a decline in activity when many of the commercial shipyards closed.
Although the predominant land use within the area continues to be light industrial and warehousing,
g
other land uses exist, including: residential, commercial, public /institutional, commercial
recreation /marina, parks and public open space, and vacant/undeveloped lands. Currently the area
consists of a patchwork of land uses; many former thriving industrial properties are now vacant and
underutilized.
Figure 10 -1 shows the Northern Waterfront planning area.
General Plan Amendment Area
In 2000, the Alameda City Council authorized creation of a plan to manage and direct future
redevelopment in the area. A 15- member Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee representing a
range of community, area property owner, and local business interests was appointed by the City
Council to manage an active community planning process to develop recommendations for the
reuse and redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront area. By May 2002, the Advisory Committee's
recommendations for a preferred land use concept were presented to both the Planning Board and
Draft Northern Waterfront - General Plan Amendment
1
City Council. The Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended policies, as amended
and adopted by the Alameda Planning Board and City Council, establish the overall lannin and
p g
regulatory framework that will guide redevelopment of the area.
10.3. Guiding and Implementing Policies
The guiding and implementing polices provide a regulatory framework and guidance for the
successful redevelopment of the area.
Guiding Policies: Land Use
10.3.a. Require that development in the Northern Waterfront is sensitive to the character of
Alameda and the unique waterfront setting.
10.3.b. Require a mix of uses and open space near the Estuary and shoreline that provides for a
lively waterfront and a pedestrian friendly environment both day and night.
Implementing Policies: Land Use
10.3.c. Allow the development and reuse of existing sites consistent with the land use
designations shown on the Land Use Plan, site specific development policies, and the
development Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee land use goals for each of the
following sites described below:
Del Monte Site. Replace the warehousing uses on the Del Monte site with commercial;
residential, and /or work /live uses.
Encinal Terminal Site. Replace the container care uses at Encinal Terminal with a mix of
new uses including residential, institutional, commercial, maritime, senior housing, and
public open space.
Marinas. Maintain the Grand and Fortmann Marinas and in-fill the adjacent sites with a
mix of new uses including residential, institutional, commercial, and public open space.
Pennzoil Site. Replace the industrial uses at the Pennzoil site with a mix of new uses such
as residential, commercial, and /or public open space.
Self - Storage Site. Replace the warehousing uses at the Self Storage site on Sherman with
residential development to match the surrounding neighborhood.
Parrot Village. Maintain the Parrot Village residential development, Parrot Park and
Community Garden.
Beltline Rail Yard Site. Consider opportunities to acquire the site for open space through a
public ballot measure. If acquisition proves to be infeasible, consider a re- designation and
Draft Northern Waterfront General. Plan Amendment
2
rezoning of the site to allow approximately 100 housing units. Maintain a right of way
through the site for pedestrians, bicyclists, alternative vehicles, and/or future rail.
The Be /dine site is a 21 -acre parcel located between Constitution Way and Sherman Street.
10.3.d. Provide for a mixture, both vertical and horizontal, of compatible residential,
neighborhood - serving commercial, commercial, retail, office, maritime, and open space
uses.
10.3.e. Encourage the preservation and imaginative adaptive reuse of historic structures in the
Northern Waterfront.
10.3.f. Allow for the development of public facilities; such as public or private schools and /or
fire stations within the Northern Waterfront plan area. Consider opportunities to relocate
Fire Station #3 to a location within the Northern Waterfront area adjacent to the Estuary.
10.3.g. Encourage commercial retail uses to locate adjacent to the waterfront that will contribute
to a lively pedestrian oriented waterfront day and night.
10.3.h. Rezone properties in the area to implement the Northern Waterfront Plan policies.
10.4 Housing
Guiding Policies: Housing
10.4.a. Provide for a mix of housing types, densities, and affordability levels throughout the Plan
area.
10.4.b. Encourage and support the development of both "for- rent" and "for- sale" affordable
housing units distributed throughout the Plan area.
10.4.c. Encourage and support the development of senior housing in the Northern Waterfront.
Implementing Policies: Housing
10.4.d. Rezone the Pacific Storage Site on Sherman Street for residential development.
10.4.e. Rezone the Encinal Terminals, Grand Marina, and Pennzoil sites for mixed-use residential
development.
10.4.f. Encourage the development of residential units on the upper floors of small commercial
buildings in the Mixed -Use designated areas, in compliance with the City Charter.
10.4.g. Consider opportunities for a houseboat community in the Northern Waterfront area.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
3
10.5 Commercial
Guiding Policies: Commercial
10.5.a. Encourage neighborhood serving retail and services in the plan area that will complement
and not compete with Bay Street Station and other commercial retail and services districts
in Alameda.
Implementing Policies: Commercial
10.5.b. Encourage water and maritime related job and business opportunities that relate to the
area's unique waterfront location.
10.5.c. Encourage retail uses that offer recreational products and services, such as windsurfing
and sailing equipment and lessons and bicycle and boat rentals.
10.5.d. Encourage a variety of restaurants and activities that meet the needs of people of all ages
and income levels.
10.5.e. Prohibit drive- through commercial facilities in the Plan area.
10.6 Circulation and Infrastructure
Guiding Policies: Circulation and Infrastructure
10.6.a. Require a safe circulation system through the Plan area that considers the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, transit riders, automobile and truck drivers, and adjacent
neighborhoods.
10.6.b. Design all new streets in the Northern Waterfront area for a maximum speed of 25 miles
per hour to eliminate the need for sound walls and minimize the need for future traffic
calming modifications to the street.
10.6.c. Require transportation and infrastructure improvements to support full build out of the
Northern Waterfront Plan area.
10.6. d. Provide docking facilities to encourage waterborne forms of transportation.
Implementing Policies: Circulation and Infrastructure
10.6.e. Extend Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront from Grand Street to
Sherman to facilitate the movement of trucks, transit and/or rail, bicycles, and
pedestrians.
10.6.f. Design the Clement extension to protect and enhance shoreline access and enjoyment.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
4
10.6.g. Designate the extension of Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront as a
Truck Route; remove the Truck Route designation on Buena Vista from Sherman to
Grand Street. Do not extend the truck route through the Beltline property.
10.6.h. Implement traffic caltning measures to slow and control traffic flow in and around the
Plan area and protect adjacent neighborhoods.
10.6.i. Prohibit any northerly extensions of the existing dead end streets at Eighth Street, Mason
Street, Ninth Street, Wood Street, Chapin Street, St. Charles Street and Bay Street.
10.6.j. Establish connections to the Bay Trail and other regional circulation systems.
10.6.k. Ensure that the public access path along the waterfront includes a separated path for
. p
bicyclists or is wide enough to minimize ize conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
1 0.6.1. Create pedestrian and bicycle pathways and visual corridors along the waterfront and
linking the waterfront to inland neighborhoods.
10.6.m. Create a Class I bicycle and pedestrian pathway through the Belt ine property from
Sherman to Constitution and along the shoreline wherever feasible.
10.6.n. Create safe pedestrian crossings at all intersections within the Plan Area.
10.6.o. Require new development. to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
riders.
10.6.p. Ensure that all streets and pedestrian pathways include tree plantings.
Transit and other Alternatives to the Automobile
10.6.q. Develop shuttle services to minimize parking demand and traffic in the area.
10.6.r. Establish a Transit District, amend the Citywide Development Fee Ordinance, or
establish a comparable mechanism to fund expanded Northern Waterfront transit
services in corridors through and between the Northern Waterfront and the high
ridership generators inside and outside the City such as Oakland BART stations, airport,
and transit hubs.
10.6.s. Maintain a public right of way for a future rail /transit corridor along Clement Avenue
from Grand Street to Sherman Street as part of a citywide transit corridor.
10.6.t. Provide opportunities for water transit facilities at the foot of Grand Street or at the
Alaska Basin.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
5
Parking
10. G. u. Develop a coordinated parking strategy for the area that maximizes utilization of shared
parking facilities or structures and minimizes the need for multiple surface parking lots.
10.6.v. Require that parking be located and designed in a manner that does not deter access to
the waterfront or reduce the quality of the waterfront experience. Require ample space
for pedestrians, landscaping, lighting, and benches in front of buildings.
1 0.6.w. Landscaping along Sherman, Buena Vista, and Clement, should be designed to screen
parked cars from view from the public access, adjacent neighborhood areas, Little John
Park and the Alaska Basin without compromising public safety or views of the water.
Infrastructure Phasing and Funding
10.6.x. Phase development in accordance with transportation and infrastructure improvements
necessary to serve the new development.
10.G.y. If necessary, require new storm drain facilities to meet current and future _demand and
minimize potential flooding impacts on adjacent properties.
10.6.z. Ensure that police, fire, educational, parks, opens space, and other public services are
adequately funded to serve new development.
10.6.aa. Consider creation of a Northern Waterfront Assessment District to fund public
improvements and or municipal services required to support new development in the area.
10.8 Urban Design
Guiding Policies: Urban Design
10.8.a. Improve the visibility and public access to the Northern Waterfront Plan area and
Oakland /Alameda Estuary.
10.8.b. Require that buildings at waterfront locations be designed with attractive and varied
architecture style that respects Alarneda's unique waterfront and maritime character.
Implementing Policies: Urban Design and Aesthetics
10.8.c. On large sites with multiple buildings and with individual tall buildings adjacent to the
water, require that building's height generally "step down" as they approach the water.
10.8.d. Require that new development provide a pedestrian - friendly scale with building sizes
consistent with adjacent and historic land uses in the area.
10.8.e. Require new buildings to "face" the street and the shoreline, where feasible.
Draft Northern waterfront General Plan Amendment
6
10.8.f. Prohibit the use of sound walls within the Plan area.
New development shall be designed and new streets shall be engineered to minimise noise impacts and
eliminate the need for sound walls.
10.10 Site Specific Development Policies
The purpose of the site- specific development policies is to ensure the redevelopment of each of the
major sites within the area is consistent with the area wide policies and citywide goals. The site -
specific development policies are intended to assist project developers in the preparation of
proposed development plans and provide additional guidance for the review of those plans by the
community and city decision makers. Where a certain facet of development and design is not
directed by the guidelines, the standards of the City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance or Design
Guidelines shall be used.
10.10.a The Mixed Use Designated Sites
The Mixed Use designation allows for the development of a wide variety of complementary uses to
create a lively, pedestrian- oriented environment containing a mixture of commercial, residential,
office, waterfront, park, and open space uses.
The Del Monte Site
General Plan Designation:
Specified Mixed Use
Development Policies: The
intent of .the development
policies for the Del Monte site
is to facilitate adaptive reuse
and rehabilitation of the Del
Monte Warehouse, a building
of significant historical value that is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in
a manner that is compatible with the needs and interests of the adjacent residential and recreational
uses.
Any plan to redevelopment this site should be compatible with the following site- specific
development policies:
Site Development
D-M 1. Encourage the sensitive rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Del Monte Warehouse
Building consistent with Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
7
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provides guidelines to ensure that
rehabilitation fforts preserve the historic integrity of the building and /or site. Copies of the document
are available at the City of Alameda and through the State of California.
D -M 2. Consider a pedestrian access or "pass through" through the building to connect
Littlejohn Park to the public greenway adjacent to Alaska Basin in a manner consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
D--M 3.
Land Use Program
Adaptive reuse of the structure may include a range of uses including work /live, hotel,
commercial, retail, office and /or residential uses. A mix of compatible uses is
encouraged, but a single use is allowable if the single use is compatible with the historic
structure and the surrounding land uses. Allow a mix of retail, residential, and
commercial uses in the Del Monte Warehouse Building.
D -M 4. Encourage uses and design features at the Del Monte building that will encourage
g
pedestrian activity and visual interest.
D -M S.
D -M6.
Encourage community serving retail uses in the Del Monte Building but not including,
"big box" type retail commercial uses or drive- through commercial facilities, such as
fast food outlets.
On -Site Parking and Landscaping
The on -site parking plan should allow for a joint or shared parking program with the
future redevelopment within the area in an effort to consolidate parking, minimize the
amount of waterfront land dedicated to parking, and provide parking for visitors to the
public access areas.
D -M 7. Ensure that the parking plan does not create a real or perceived barrier limiting public
access to the water.
D-M 8. Consider a joint parking facility to serve both the Encinal Terminals and Del Monte
sites and that would also support public access to the waterfront and the Bay Trail.
Off -site Public Improvements and Infrastructure
D -M 9. Allow the extension of Clement Street from Sherman Street to Grand Street.
D -M 10. Allow for a future rail /alternative vehicle corridor from Sherman to Grand Street within
the Clement Avenue Right of Way.
D -M 11. Provide for a shoreline public promenade of an adequate width adjacent to the Alaska
Basin.
Draft Northern waterfront General Plan Amendment
8
D -M 12.
D -M 13.
The development should fund a fair share proportion of the costs of extending Clement
Street from Sherman to Grand to serve Del Monte and other projects in the Northern
Waterfront. (The fair share to consider dedication of land.)
The development should fund a fair share proportion of costs needed to upgrade storm
sewer and wastewater facilities to serve all future development within the Northern
Waterfront area.
Encinal Terminal Site
General Plan Designation: Specified Mixed Use
Site Specific Development Policies: The intent of the site specific
development policies for the Encinal Terminal Site is to facilitate
redevelopment of the site with new land uses that will take
advantage of the unique site configuration and waterfront
location, increase opportunities for public access and enjoyment
of the waterfront and eliminate the existing uses which contribute
a large volume of truck traffic an the vicinity. The Mixed Use
designation will allow for the development of a wide range of land
uses to capitalize on the site's unique location adjacent to the
Alaska Basin, Oakland /Alameda Estuary, Fortman Marina, and
Del Monte Warehouse site. Anticipated land uses in this district
include a range of housing types, including senior housing,
commercial, office, and public parks and open space. Public
waterfront access around the perimeter of the site is envisioned, as
well as a new marina on the Alaska Basin.
Pursuant to the areawide policies, any plan to redevelop this site should be consistent with the
following Site Specific Policies:
Site Development
E -T 1. Require that the master plan for the development of the Encinal Terminals site illustrate
how the various parcels can be developed as a unified development. The master plan
must address all phases of the development of the site.
E-T 2. Require that the master plan include adequate open space and a clear public access
around the perimeter of the site.
E -T 3. The Master Plan should consider relocating the tidelands trust lands to the perimeter of
the site to allow residential mixed -use development in the core of the site with publicly
accessible open space around the perimeter of the site.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
9
E -T 4. Cluster development to maximize open space and view corridors to the estuary.
E -T 5. Maintain building heights between 1 and 4 stories. Consider taller buildings if at least
30% of the Encinal Terminal site is maintained for publicly accessible open space
and /or on-site water features. The Encinal Terminal Site is defined as the entire land
mass of the peninsula north of Clements Street as shown in the figure below.
E -T6.
Given that Encinal Terminals is surrounded by water on
three sites, taller buildings should be located at the
southern end of the site.
E-T 7. If a parking structure is proposed, require ground floor
uses and /or a pedestrian friendly facade.
E -T S. If a parking structure is proposed, locate the structure to
serve public access to the waterfront and future
development at the Del Monte site.
Land Use Program
E -T 9. The Master Plan for the Encinal Terminal site shall replace the existing container
storage and cleaning operation with a mix of uses to create a lively waterfront
development. The plan should include at least the following four land uses: residential,
retail, commercial, and public open space.
E-T 10. Residential uses may include senior housing or assisted living facilities.
E -T 11. Commercial uses may include restaurants, marine related uses, office uses, and/or
additional berths in the Alaska Basin. Additional berths should not be allowed on the
northern edge of the site facing the Estuary and Coast Guard Island to preserve views
of the water and Oakland.
On -Site Parking and Landscaping
E -T 12. Require that the master plan include inviting, well - designed public entrances from
Clement Street. Primary vehicular access into the site should occur at a four-way
intersection at Clement /Entrance, if feasible.
E -T 13. Consider opportunities for a public human powered /non - motorized boat launch facility
at Alaska Basin.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
10
E -T 14. Require public art installations adjacent to the Alaska Basin shoreline consistent with
the Public Art Ordinance.
Public Improvements and Infrastructure
E -T 15. The Encinal Terminal development should fund a fair share of the costs of the Clement
Street extension from Sherman to Grand.
E -T 16.
The Encinal Terminal development should fund a fair share of the costs to upgrade
storm sewer and wastewater facilities necessary to serve all future development within
the Northern Waterfront area.
E-T 17. The site plan should allow for a shoreline public promenade around the P erimeter of
the site and adjacent to the Alaska Basin and Fortman Marinas.
Grand Marina Site
General Plan Designation: Specified Mixed Use
Site Specific Development Policies: The intent of the site
specific development policies is to facilitate redevelopment of
the site with a mix of new uses that are compatible with the
adjacent neighborhoods and adjacent Grand and Fortman
Marinas, and increase public access and .enjoyment of the
waterfront.
The Grand Marina site is currently comprised of a number of
parcels each under a different ownership, a variety of uses some
of which are not compatible with the long term vision for the
area and some of which should be preserved. To ensure that
the ultimate build out of the site is compatible with the area
wide goals, each development proposal should include a plan
for the entire site illustrating how the development may
proceed in a manner that is consistent with the area wide
policies while ensuring that later phases of the development are
not precluded or hindered.
G -M 1.
Site Development
Redevelopment of the Grand Marina area should continue the Alameda street grid from
the adjacent Marina Cove development to the Estuary and the extension of Clement
Street.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
11
G -M 2. Provide adequate public open space, view corridors, and a clear p ublic access to, and
along, the Oakland /Alameda Estuary.
G -M 3. Provide for a human powered /non - motorized boat launch facility at the Grand Street
terminus.
G -M 4.
G -M 5.
Where commercial buildings abut residential uses, building heights should be stepped
PP
down to reflect the height of nearby residential buildings. Facades near residential uses
should restrict views from within the structure into nearby yards and homes.
Land Use Program
Redevelopment of the Grand Marina Site should replace the existing animal shelter,
corporation yard, and industrial uses with a mix of new uses which may include
residential, senior housing /assisted living; marina related commercial, office, restaurants,
general commercial, retail and/or open space.
G -M 6. Redevelopment of the area should preserve and reuse the Alaska Packers buildin .
g
off Site Improvements
G -M 7. The Grand Marina development
should fund a fair share of the costs of
the Clement Street extension from
Sherman to Grand.
G -M S. The Grand Marina development
should fund a fair share of the costs to
upgrade storm sewer and wastewater
facilities necessary to serve all future
development within the Northern
Waterfront area.
G -M 9. Redevelopment of the Pennzoil site
should provide for the extension of Clement Street.
G -M 10.
Looking west along future extension of Clement
Street through the Pennzoil site.
Development of the City and Pennzoil sites should provide for the continuation of the
pedestrian greenway along Clement Street required as part of the Marina Cove
residential project.
10.14.b. Medium Density Residential Designated Sites
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
12
The General Plan's Medium Density Residential designation allows two - family or one-family units
with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per unit. Allowed densities range from 8.8 to 21.8
units per acre.
Mini Storage Site
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Site Specific Development Policies: This site is designated medium density residential to allow
residential development consistent with the character and density of the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Pursuant to the area wide policies, any plan to redevelop this site should be
consistent with the following site - specific policies.
P -S 1. Provide a pedestrian-friendly scale with building sizes consistent . with the adjacent
residential properties.
P -S 2. Access to this site shall be from Sherman Street.
Residential Infill Properties
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Site Specific Development Policies: These sites are
designated medium density residential to allow
residential infill development consistent with the
adjacent residential sites.
R -I 1. Rezone the residential properties adjacent to Clement and Grand Streets that are
currently zoned M-1 for residential development.
R -I 2. Require that new development be consistent with Citywide Design Guidelines.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
13
R -I 3. The scale of new construction should be harmonious with the character and density of
adjacent buildings.
R-I 4.
All exterior walls of a building shall be articulated with a consistent style and materials.
Architectural detailing shall not consist solely of color changes without changes in
material or planes.
Parrot Village and Park:
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Site Specific Development Policies:
This site is designated medium density
residential to allow residential
development consistent with the
character and density of the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. Pursuant to
the areawide policies, any plan to
redevelopment this site should
consistent with the following site -
specific policies:
P-V. 1. Maintain the current size and density of the existing Parrot Village development.
P -V 2. Maintain the Parrot Village Park and Community Garden.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
14
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
Amendments to Land Use Element
Proposed
By:
1
Add new MU 6 land use designation to Land Use Diagram to identify Northern Waterfront
area subject to Chapter 10 policies.
Staff
2
3
4
5
Section 2.2 of Land Use Element. Revise specified Mixed Use section to change the number
of Specified Mixed Use areas from "Eight" to "Nine" and add "MU -6: Northern Waterfront"
to list of Specified Mixed Use Districts.
Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -1 to include:
MU -6 Northern Waterfront: Residential, Office, and Commercial. 345 Housing Units, 50,000
Maritime Commercial, and 400,000 square feet of non - residential office and retail.
Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -3 "Summary of Assumed Development
Increment Table: Residential Properties 1990 -2010" to maintain consistency with Table 2 -1.
Section 2.3 of Land Use Element. Amend Table 2 -5 "Summary of Assumed Development
Increment Table" to maintain consistency with Table 2 -1.
Section 2.6 Specified Mixed Use Areas of the Land Use Element Add MU -6 description to
Land Use Element:
MU -6 Northern Waterfront, Grand Street to Sherman Street:
This area of the Northern Waterfront provides an opportunity to create a lively waterfront,
mixed -use district with residential, commercial, office, maritime, park, and open space uses
that reflect traditional Alameda neighborhoods and reconnect Alameda to its waterfront.
Private and public development proposals within the MU -6 Northern Waterfront area shall
be consistent with the objectives and policies for the area as described in Chapter 10
Northern Waterfront.
Delete descriptive paragraph re: Encinal Terminal Area on page 37.
2-000 to eliminate the Port Priority
01 & GPA 99 84
Amend Policy 2.8.d Continue working to eliminate residential - industrial conflicts —based
•
endure for 20 years. .
G: 1PLANNING \CCIREPORTS12007106- 19 -071NW GPA Attachment B.doc
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 3 to Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -5
06 -19 -07
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
Add new Residential Area Guiding policy: Encourage the inclusion of family child care
homes in residential areas and child care centers in major residential and commercial
developments with special . consideration to areas or developments convenient to transit,
community centers, and schools.
Add new Business Parks and Industrial Area Guiding Policy: Encourage major employers to
contribute towards child care facilities and/or programs to help attract and maintain a
productive work force.
Add new Land Use policy: Require that all new development pay appropriate development
impact fees.
Amend text page 10 as follows:
'� - . • - : = - - - - : : , Rfesidential densities are expressed in
housing units per net acre, exclusive of land used or to be used for public or private streets.
Where new streets will be needed, the land area to be occupied by streets is to be subtracted
before calculating density or ratio of floor area to site area. Easements for the purpose of
public access, such as utility lines, pedestrian paths, or alleys shall not be excluded from net
density. Densities within the ranges listed below are used to calculate probable housing unit
increases in Tables 2 -1, 2 -3 and 2 -6. Densities used to estimate future additions do not
establish entitlement to a specific number of housing units or amount of floor area.
Amendments to Transportation Element
SSHRB'
SSHRB
NWAC2
Staff
Facilitate use of Clement Street as a major East West corridor through the City and to
remove traffic volume from other east west streets such as Buena Vista and Lincoln by
prioritizing efforts to extend Clement from Sherman Street to Tilden Way.
Amend 4.6.b and move to transit section: 4.6.b. Support : • ' - . - : .. _ ' _ Staff'
Alameda Belt Lino transit opportunities by preserving the Alameda Belt Line right of way
for use by a future transit line, bicycle and pedestrian access.
Add new transit policy: Reduce dependence on the automobile by encouraging transit and NWAC
carpooling facilities and incentives, such as flexible work hours, whenever feasible.
Add new transit policy: Support the development of alternative transportation programs and NWAC
facilities.
Add new transit policy: Support the development of a coordinated, cooperative, flexible and NWAC
adaptable public transit system.
Add new pedestrian and bicycle policy: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by providing NWAC
adequately sized street trees, street furniture and bicycle racks adjacent to pedestrian and
bicycle rights of way.
Add new Transit Policy: Encourage transit providers to serve routes linking schools, child SSHRB
care programs and facilities, libraries, parks and recreational sites to facilitate access.
Amendments to Open Space and Conservation Element
18
Add new policy: Ensure that new development does not create unnecessary glare or lighting
impacts on adjacent land uses.
NWAC
19
Add new policy: Ensure that new development is designed to minimize shade impacts on
public open spaces and wherever possible also provide wind protection for these public
spaces.
NWAC
1 SSB= Social Service Human Relations Board
2 NWAC= Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee
G:I PLANNMNG \CCIREPGRTS12007106- 19 -071NW GPA Attachment B.doc
20
21
22
23
24
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
Add new policy: Encourage, and where appropriate require, energy efficient design and
"green building" techniques.
Add new policy: Outdoor lighting should be chosen to avoid glare and provide an attractive
night time environment with "fully shielded" fixtures to limit light rays emitted above the
horizontal plane.
Amend policy 5.1 as follows: Encourage the use of drought tolerant, "Bay Friendly"
landscaping, and discourage the use of. a11er causi.n Y trees and plants.
NWAC
Staff
Staff
Amendments to Chapter 6: Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and Cultural Facilities
Add new Guiding Policy: Parks and Recreation: Establish new funding sources to support
creation and maintenance of public parks and continue to require that new development
contribute to the creation of public open spaces.
Amendment to Shoreline Access and Development Section of Chapter 6
Add two new policies:
■ Create an attractive gateway feature where Grand Street meets the Oakland /Alameda
Estuary and at other gateways along the northern waterfront.
■ Provide generously sized continuous shoreline open space /pedestrian promenade
with a variety of shoreline experiences and opportunities for recreation activities,
such as walking, jogging, bicycling, rollerblading, fishing, and vista points along the
northern waterfront.
Add new policy: Public and private improvements adjacent to the Oakland/Alameda Estuary
shall:
• Establish physical and visual connections and a seamless integration between the
waterfront and adjacent neighborhoods.
■ Design public access areas to be visible from public streets, and ensure that
landscaping and tree plantings will not block views of the estuary or the public
access areas.
■ Provide opportunities to create public art and/or outdoor performance spaces adjacent
to the shoreline.
■ Where feasible and appropriate, include retail, restaurant, or other uses to activate the
waterfront.
• Provide physical connections or directional signage to shoreline public access areas
from local parks, bicycle routes, and public transportation systems; clearly delineate
public use areas with "Public Shore" signs, planting, and/or fences.
• Provide public access improvements such as parking, paved walkways, benches,
trash containers, landscaping, lighting restrooms, and drinking fountains.
■ Locate service areas away from the shoreline and screen them from public view.
■ Provide adequately sized community gathering • places, open spaces, and parks to
serve community needs.
• Cluster development to maximize open space and view corridors.
• Provide a pedestrian- friendly scale with building sizes consistent with adjacent and
historic land uses in the area.
• Exhibit attractive facades facing the Oakland/Alameda Estuary as well as from
inland areas.
EDC
EDC
G:I PLANNING \CCIREPORTS12O07106- 19 -O71NW GPA Attachment B.doc
24
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
Rename Element 6 as follows: "Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and
Cultural and Social Service Facilities Element."
25
26
27
28
29
Add Parks policy: Encourage the siting of child care facilities near or adjacent to existing
parks.
Add new Parks policy: Ensure that new development is designed to minimize shade impacts
on public open spaces and wherever possible also provide wind protection for these public
spaces.
SSHRB
SSHRB
NWAC
Add new Schools policy: Work with the Alameda Unified School District to coordinate
private development with Public School District facility capacity.
Add Schools policy: Encourage the siting of child care facilities in conjunction with schools.— SSHRB
Add New Section 6.5: Child Care
Recognizing the need for child care in the community, the City shall monitor child care
supply and demand and promote program quality and affordability in Alameda, facilitating
efforts to address shortfalls as necessary.
Add new Guiding Policies
6.5.a Integrate child care planning and transportation, housing and workplace planning.
6.5.b Support the use of vacant or underutilized public facilities, schools, churches, or other
space to accommodate child care.
6.5.c Introduce implementing policies to improve child care availability, affordability,
accessibility and program quality in all centers and family child care.
Add new Implementing Policies
6.5 . d Introduce incentives to strengthen the child care system, such as permit fast - tracking,
and /or facilitation of the entitlement process in exchange for child care capacity expansion.
6.5.e Evaluate and implement appropriate mechanisms to provide the needed resources to
meet child care needs. Evaluate amending the existing ordinances to include development
fees or creating other approaches to ensure that new development provides financial support
of facilities to accommodate its share of future child care needs
Under Policy 6.5e. add paragraph of explanatory text:
Major residential and non - residential development results in an increased need for child
care and shall require consideration of these effects through the project review process. This
project review process includes researching the existing child care system and support
services available to the City and its residents. The increased demands on the citywide child
care supply may be alleviated by providing on -site facilities or land to develop facilities,
funding to provide facilities and/or otherwise support the child care system, including but not
limited to provider training and compensation, or information and referral services; or other
measures to address supply, affordability or quality of child care.
6.5.f Provide support to strengthen the community's child care system, including but not
limited to:
- Assisting child care providers to access grants and other resources to improve the
affordability, availability, and quality of child care;
- Providing technical assistance and permit processing guidance on child care
facility development, and
- Facilitating coordination among service providers to provide a comprehensive
and resilient child care system.
NWAC
SSHRB
30
Add new policy to Health and Safety Element: Require appropriate remediation of hazardous
materials as a condition of development.
NWAC
G: IPLANNING ICCIREPORTS12007106- 19 -071NW GPA Attachment B.doc
Z
W
0
W
� o
n.
0 UJ 0
m i
L .2 .2 Q
� 11a v g
oC a'
- .o 73
. 0 2
m
ma m 0)i
CDUdCLU
6
e.
-J
n
x
General Plan Amendment Area
Del Monte and Grand Marina Project Sites
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 4 to Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -B
06-19-07
F
V
O{I]_
U
w U' {p
20g.
in I L
-13 . -
TA g
E :a -8
= a
0 0 a c- cL
4
ETA
s E ran
to E
a
E
m'wo�a.5
mMZomu3z
Z
W
W
J
a
2
General Plan Amendment Area
Del Monte and Grand Marina Project Sites
SOURCE: LSA
North Waterfront General Plan Amendggnf
June 19, 2007 City Council NIfifitinm
Juir I 3 P 12: 3t4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
I oppose the North Waterfront General Plan Amendment bec6{iid iFi;0$0FOUge of
work/live in the conversion of the Del Monte building.* I have not opposed this use in
the past and would not be opposing it now but for the lack of responsibility in the
implementation of the work/live ordinance at the Clamp /Swing building on Blanding.
The strategy used at the Clamp Swing building was to omit from the application for a
work/live use permit the theatre, a use which would generate up to 50, 000 customers a
year. ** After the Use Permit, UP04- 0019 ** *was obtained, then the high use theatre
project was introduced and improperly "grandfathered." The new use was improper in
that the requirement for protecting the neighborhood in AMC 30 -15 does not go away
just because the Use Permit is approved based on misleading or incomplete information.
On Blanding the uses permitted in an M -2 zone were honored, but the provisions of the
work/live ordinance were not. The work/live ordinance has restrictions on the impacts on
the surrounding neighborhoods. These restrictions apply to both the studios themselves
and the other uses in a work/live building.
The implementation of the work/live ordinance at 2515 Blanding illustrates that the
Alameda staff is unwilling or unable to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.
The impacts of such negligence will be multiplied by several orders of magnitude if the
Del Monte building is allowed to be converted to a work/live building.
The north side neighborhood near the area described in the NWGPA before the Council
would be destroyed if the same negligence is allowed in the Del Monte building. If the
forgiveness of all parking for a ten-year-old building is adopted for the Del Monte
Building , and the requirements of the Work/Live ordinance are ignored,
1.)Then -the ball field, the popular picnic area, and the recreation center at Littlejohn
Park might as well be shut down because the residents of Alameda will not be
able to get near them, and
2.)The residents of the north side neighborhood will be deprived of all of their
existing street parking. The streets will become dangerous because of all of the
cars searching for parking.
If the Blanding strategy is followed, the non - studio part of the proposed use for the Del
Monte building could be pictured as a low-impact use such as a library for seniors and
then converted to a Target once the Use Permit has been obtained. So I object to the
NWGPA and EIR until it is assured that the provisions of the Work/Live ordinance which
protect neighborhood near such projects will be enforced.
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
06 -19 -07
• Section (10.1 O (a) DM -3 of the NWGP ATTACHMENT A
** Minutes of the April 12 Planning Board Meeting. ATTACHMENT B
* * * Use Permit UPO4 --0019 ATTACHMENT C
* * ** Restrictions in a Work/Live Ordinance ATTACHMENT D
* * * * * Work Live Ordinance ATTACHMENT E
Barbara Kerr
06/10/2007
522 -0126
barbkerr @mindspring.com
ATTACHMENT A
�1C r
D -M 2. Consider a pedestrian `pass through" through the building to connect Littlejohn Park
to the public greenway adjacent to Alaska Basin.
D-M 3.
Land Use Program
Adaptive reuse of the structure may include a range of uses including work /live, hotel,
commercial, retail, office and /or residential uses. A mix of compatible uses is
encouraged, but a single use is allowable if the single use is compatible with the historic
structure ,and the surrounding land uses. Allow a mix of retail, residential, and
commercial uses in the Del Monte Warehouse Building.
D -M 4. Encourage uses and design features at the Del Monte building that will encourage
pedestrian activity and visual interest.
D-M 5. Adaptive reuse may not include a "big box" type retail commercial use, nor should it
include drive - trough commercial facilities, such as fast food outlets.
D -M 6.
on .Site Pawing and Landscaping
The on site parking plan should allow for a joint or shared parking program with the
future redevelopment of En .' n al Terminals in an effort to consolidate parking in the
area, minimize the amount of waterfront land dedicated to parking, and provide parkin
g
for visitors to the public access areas.
D -M 7. Ensure that the pricing plan does not create a real or perceived barrier limiting p ublic
access to the water.
D -M $. Landscaping should be designed to screen the cars from view from the P ublic access
areas and Alaska Basin and not compromise public safety.
D -M 9. Consider a joint parking facility to serve both the Encinal Tct ninnls and Del Monte
sites and that would also support public access to the waterfront and the Bay Trail.
Off-site Public Improvements and Infrastructure
D -1\/1 10. The site plan should allow the extension of Clement Street from Sherman Street to
Grand Street.
D -M H. The site plan should allow for a futurel /alternative vehicle corridor from Sherman to
Grand Street.
D-M 12. The site plan should allow for a shoreline public promenade of an adequate width
adjacent to the Alaska Basin.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
10
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
4/12/2004
8-B.
UP03 -0019 — 2515 Blanding Avenue — Cal Vita LLC (JA). The applicant requests a Use
Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven
work/live studios and two retail/commercial spaces with associated parking and landscaping.
The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. (Continued from the
meeting of March 22, 2004.)
President Piziali advised that Ms. Mariani left the meeting during the break.
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that three new letters had been received and
distributed to the Board members. She added that Mr. Murphy's letter and staffs response to that
letter were also distributed to the Board. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, inquired whether staff's response to his letter had been sent to
him.
Ms. Altschuler indicated that she did not know.
Mr. Murphy stated that he had never received a staff response. He inquired whether the project was
as described on the agenda, or in the staff report; he did not believe they were described in the same
way.
Ms. Altschuler advised that the project as described in the staff report was the current project.
Mr. Murphy noted that how the first live /work project is dealt with by the City would be critically
important. He expressed concern the reasoning exercised by Planning and legal staff, as well as the
Board, with respect to Measure A.
Ms. Janet Koike, applicant, 2237 Prince Street, complimented staff on the completeness and
accuracy of the staff report. She noted that she was an artist who was able to buy the subject
building. She described her history with respect to work/live space in Oakland, and noted that she
wished to contribute to the artist community with a professionally - developed work/live space. She
believed that this project would contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood.
Mr. Thomas Dolan, project architect, noted that the design more than complied with the ordinance,
and added that they have expended great effort to be within both the letter and the spirit of the
work/live ordinance. He appreciated that this would be the first project of its kind in Alameda. He
detailed his history in designing work/live spaces over the past 30 years, and had spoken and worked
all over North America, helping cities write code for work/live spaces. He applauded the City's rigid
definition of work/live space, and noted that they would not be lifestyle lofts. He noted that the work
Planning Board Meeting Page 15
April 12, 2004
component of the spaces would be predominant over the living component.
Mr. Michael Schiess, 1029 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this item, and believed that this was
an important step for Alameda to take. He noted that he was in full support of Measure A, and added
that this was not a new structure, but was rather an existing building that would be recycled. He did
not wish for this building to deteriorate.
Mr. Dave Olson, owner, Stone Boat Yard, 2577 Blanding, noted that his site was immediately
adjacent to the subject property, and added that he supported this project. He believed that this
project would enhance the neighborhood and the City as a whole.
Mr. Lee Smith, 391 Clifton Street, spoke in support of this item, and added that he was a potential
occupant of the building. He noted that he had lived in warehouse space in Oakland for 25 years, and
added that working artists contributed to the economy and tax base of Alameda.
Ms. Carolyn West, 456 Centre Court, spoke in favor of this item. She noted that she was an attorney
practicing in Oakland, and was a performing musician as well. She supported work/live space in
Alameda, and noted that it enhanced the quality of life in the community. She noted that turning an
empty building into a site for craftspeople energized the community. She believed the City needed to
do more to encourage work/live space in Alameda.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Cook noted that she fully supported this project.
Mr. Dolan advised that all of the conditions were acceptable to them.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was an intervening property
between this site and the Estuary. She added that because Stone Boatyard was a through property
between the street and the Estuary, that if the Bay Trail were to be placed anywhere, it would be on
the street.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook with respect to the possibility of reducing the six -foot fence
to a four -foot fence in order to increase visibility of the building, Mr. Dolan advised that he would
be open to working with staff to refine that issue. He noted that artists often created tangible items
of value, and that some security was necessary.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham whether this project came under the provisions of the
public art ordinance, Ms. Altschuler replied that it would depend on the amount of money spent for
improvements; $250,000 would qualify the project under the ordinance.
Ms. Cook supported saving the paintings on the side of the building.
Planning Board Meeting Page 16
April 12, 2004
Mr. Dolan advised that they planned to retain those paintings, and would waterproof them as well.
Mr. Cunningham advised that the canopies were projecting into the fire lane circulation, and
inquired whether they had consulted with the Fire Department.
Mr. Dolan advised that they would meet with the Fire Department and make any required revisions.
If any of the revisions impacted the appearance of the building, they would consult with staff. They
planned to use steel and glass for the canopies.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham with respect to shading for the parking stalls as
defined under the tree ordinance, Ms. Altschuler advised that with a new parking lot, one tree must
be provided for every four required parking spaces. Because this was an existing parking lot, it
would be grandfathered in, and would not need to have trees installed. She noted that the applicant
may install trees at their discretion.
Mr. Lynch would support a minimum of three trees with open space, and would leave staff to
develop the final details.
Ms. Altschuler advised that staff wished to ensure that there was sufficient parking for both of the
uses. The interior spaces generally functioned for the tenants, rather than customers or students. Staff
suggested a plan to maximize the parking, from which the Board could reduce it.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Dolan advised that there would be some sort of
controlled access to the parking, such as a keycard. He noted that there was generally one car per
unit, but that couples will often have one car where they would have had two in a different living
situation. He noted that the car count in true work/live spaces were often quite low because of the
zero - commute nature of the use.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms..Koike replied that originally, she intended for all
the units to be for sale as soon as the project was developed. Because of insurance restrictions, she
later decided to rent them for ten years, and that they could be sold after that.
A discussion of the commercial uses of live /work spaces ensued.
Mr. Dolan advised that they would like to be relieved of the need to place the three parking spaces
beyond the required spaces inside of the building. They would like to be able to provide street trees
and vines on a fence or trellis.
President Piziali did not believe that was what the Board had in mind, and would not want to reduce
the parking spaces inside the building.
Ms. Altschuler advised that when the parking spaces were removed, more parking would be
required.
Planning Board Meeting Page 17
April 12, 2004
MIS Cunningham/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -25 to
approve a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building into seven
workllive studios .and two retail /commercial spaces with associated parking and landscaping. The
following condition would be added: The parking requirement would be limited to 13 spaces. the
additional three spaces currently provided external to the building would be removed, and
landscaping would be added with the intent of providing a minimum of three trees along Blanding
Avenue.
AYES — 5 (Bard, Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN —
9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10. BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Bard).
Vice President Bard was not in attendance to present this report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding the Downtown Vision Taskforce (Board Member
Cunningham).
Board member Cunningham advised that a meeting was held the previous Monday, and the
requirements of their top ten items were reviewed. They identified a list of seven or eight issues, and
several were combined into a single issue. They decided to involve a consultant to develop a plan.
He noted that there was considerable discussion about the use of the alleys, providing some
guidelines or framework for the location of community art as a portal to enter the community. He
noted that parking in the downtown area was discussed, and they believed that those concerns could
be addressed if a plan existed. They tabled the idea of bringing the beat policeman back to Park
Street, which was an instrumental part of maintaining the quality of life in the area. He noted that a
public forum would be held on April 15, 2004, where the Downtown Vision ,Taskforce and the
Housing Forum recommendations would be considered.
c. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Board Member
Cook).
Board member Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (President Piziali).
President Piziali advised that he received a letter from the general manager of the golf course, stating
Planning Board Meeting Page 18
April 12, 2004
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION
APPROVING USE PERMIT UPO4-0019
Wherein the Use Permit was approved without complying with the
provisions of the Work/Live Ordinance.
The work/Live Ordinance, ATTACHMENT E, has the pertinent
provisions italicized.
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. PB -04 -25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA GRANTING
USE PERMIT UP04 -0019, FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING TO WORK/LIVE STUDIOS AT 2515 BLANDING AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on 12 November 2003 by Janet Koike for Cal Vita
LLC, requesting, approval of a Use Permit to convert a 15,940 square foot industrial building into
seven workllive studios with associated parking and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete for processing on 4 December 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is in the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 — In -fill
Development Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on 12 April 2004 to consider this application,
and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings regarding the Use Permit
application request:
1. The location of the proposed is compatible with other land uses in the general
neighborhood area.
This finding can be made. This project is surrounded by a variety of retail and industrial uses. Thus,
the work/live studios used by artists and craftspersons would be compatible with the existing uses,
which include a boat yard, electrical contractor and sail maker use.
2. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities.
This finding can be made. The proposed use is in a fully serviced building. An AC Transit sto p is
one block east of the site.
3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made
contingent, will not adversely affect of the property in the vicinity.
1
This finding can be made. Any noise or vibration associated with this use would not adversely affect
property in the vicinity since the general neighborhood is commercial and industrial in nature
including a boat yard and a number of contracting and vehicle repair facilities.
4. The proposed use relates favorable to the General Plan.
This finding can be made. Work/live studios are specifically mentioned as a use in the northern
waterfront area in the General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings specific to Work/Live
Studios:
1. The proposed or existing use of each work/live studio is a bona fide commercial or
industrial activity consistent with Section 30- 15.5(d);
This finding can be made. Any uses proposed will need to secure a Work/live Permit as well as a
business license. Thus, the Staff will be able to review all uses to ensure that this condition is met.
2. The establishment of work/live studios will not under the circumstances conflict with
nor inhibit industrial or commercial uses in the area where the project is proposed;
This finding can be made. The area proposed for this work/live studio project is an eclectic
commercial/industrial area, which includes: a boat yard, small shopping in center, video store, sail
� ,
maker, and automobile repair facility. The work/live use will not affect these uses or any future
y
permitted uses in the area.
3. Any building containing work/live studios and each work/live studio within the
building has been designed to ensure that they will function predominantly as work
spaces with incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability
requirements in compliance with applicable regulations;
This finding can be made. Only small areas of each studio will be designed for "live" space: separate
p p
sleeting and sanitary facilities and kitchen areas integrated into the "work" areas which are similar to
food preparation areas in modern offices or other commercial uses. There are no walls separating the
p g
work areas from each other within each studio and six of the studios have roll up doors leading to
p g
workspaces to accommodate large equipment or materials.
4. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of the building will be compatible
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for
commercial or industrial uses. If there is adjacent residentially zoned land, then the
proposed changes to the building shall make the commercial or industrial building
being converted more compatible with the adjacent residential area.
This finding can be made. Exterior modification proposed for this conversion are minimal and take
their design from the existing industrial design of the building: metal roll up doors; industrial sash
2
windows to match the existing and marquees which are typical of the 1930's industrial architecture
of the building. The building will continue to essentially appear as it looks today.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves
Use Permit UP04 -0019, to permit the conversion of an industrial building to workllive studios
subject to the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PLAN: The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the
plans, titled "Blanding Avenue Work/Live ", revised through 5 April 2004, prepared by
Thomas Dolan Architecture, marked Exhibit "A ", on file in the office of the City of Alameda
Planning Department, except as modified by the conditions in this Resolution.
2. VESTING: The Use Permit shall expire on 12 April 2005, unless the conversion of the
building has commenced under valid permit.
3. DESIGN REVIEW: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, minor design review for
the proposed exterior modifications shall be completed.
4. BUILDING AND FIRE CODE: The conversion shall be subject to all applicable building
and fire codes.
5. LIMITATION ON MODIFICATION: Areas within a work/live studio that are designated as
living space shall be an integral part of the work/live studio and not separated from the work
space, except that mezzanines and lofts may be used as living space subject to compliance
with other provisions of this Article. Examples of ways to integrate the work space and living
space in compliance with this section include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Doors or solid walls between the work space and areas used for living space do not
extend all the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities and rooms used primarily for
sleeping,
(b) There is a single entrance to the work/live studio,
(c) There are no walls separating the food preparation area from the work space,
(d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms designated for sleeping are enclosed and all other
portions of the living area are not separated from the workspace.
6. PERMITTED WORK ACTIVITY. The work activity in a building where workllive units are
allowed shall be any use permitted by right or use permit in the zoning district, except that, in
order to protect the health and safety of persons who reside in a work/live studio or in a
building which contains one (1) or more work/live studios, no work activity shall be
permitted nor shall any work/live studio be established on any site that contains those uses
which the Planning Director when considering a workllive permit or the Planning Board
when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of
employees or the nature of the operation, have the potential to create significant impacts by
reason of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration or other
impacts, or would be hazardous by way of materials, process, product or wastes including,
g
but not limited to: auto service /repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car washes, service stations,
3
bars /lounges /night clubs, adult businesses, marine engine repair /refueling facilities, animal
kennels /grooming/pet shops, liquor stores, veterinary offices/hospitals, funeral
parlors /mortuaries, outdoor storage as a primary use, crematories /columbaria, dismantling
facilities /scrap yards, public utility structures and facilities, tire sales /service, truck
stops /repair.
7. ADDITIONS TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. No modifications shall be made to the exterior
of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a
substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross
floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior
walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to
work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work /live structures shall comply with the
purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in
subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original
building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area
for purposes of this section.
8. WORK/LIVE PERMIT REQUIRED. Each tenant or owner of an individual work/live studio
must obtain a work /live permit prior to occupancy. Such permit shall be issued by the
Planning Director based on a determination that the proposed occupancy is consistent with
the approved use permit and all applicable requirements of this section. Application for a
work/live permit shall be made to the Planning Department in writing on a form approved by
the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the City Council.
9. NO SEPARATE SALE OR RENTAL OF PORTIONS OF UNIT. No portion of a work/live
studio shall be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not
living in the premises or as a residential space for a person or persons not working in the
same studio.
10. BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED. At least one (1) occupant of each work/live studio shall
maintain a current City of Alameda business license for a business located in that studio.
11. MIXED OCCUPANCIES. If a building contains mixed occupancies of work/live studios and
other nonresidential uses, occupancies other than work/live shall meet all applicable
requirements for those uses, and proper occupancy separations shall be provided between the
work/live studios and other occupancies, as determined by the Building Official. •
12. NOTICE TO OCCUPANTS REQUIRED. The owner or developer of any building
y g
containing work/live studios shall provide written notice to all work/live occupants and users
p
that the surrounding area may be subject to levels of noise, dust, fumes, or other effects
associated with commercial and industrial uses at higher levels than would be expected in
residential areas. State and Federal health regulations notwithstanding, noise and other
standards shall be those applicable to commercial or industrial properties in the district where
the project is located. For purposes of noise control, work/live studios shall be classified as
commercial property under Table II in Section 4 -10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
4
13. CHANGE OF USE FROM WORK/LIVE STUDIO. No work/live studio shall be changed to
exclusively residential use in any building where residential use is not permitted, where two
(2) or more residential units already exist, or where the conversion would produce more than
two (2) attached dwellings. The conversion of an existing work/live studio to exclusively
nonresidential use is permitted when the conversion meets all other applicable zonin g and
building code requirements for the proposed use. Such a change shall be subject to all
applicable requirements for the district where the proposed dwelling unit is located.
14. INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USE. No work/live studio shall be changed to increase the
floor area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Planning Director. In
no case shall the floor area devoted to residential use be increased to more than four hundred
(400) square feet or thirty (30 %) percent of the gross floor area of the unit whichever is more.
15. ADDITIONS TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. No modifications shall be made to the exterior
of a building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a
substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross
floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior
walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion to
work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of work /live structures shall comply with the
purposes set out in subsections 30- 15.1(g) and (h) and with the required finding set out in
subsection 30- 15.6(d). New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original
building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor area
for purposes of this section.
16. DEED RESTRICTION REQUIRED. The owner of each work/live studio or each building
containing work/live rental studios shall record a notice on the property specifying the
limitations of use and operation included in the use permit.
17. ON- PREMISES SALES. On- premises sales of goods are limited to those produced within the
work/live studio. Retail sales of goods produced within the work/live studio shall be
incidental to the primary work use in any building used exclusively for work/live occupancy.
These provisions shall permit participation in occasional open studio programs and alle
g rY
shows.
18. NON RESIDENT EMPLOYEES. Up to two (2) persons who do not reside in the work/live
studio may work in the studio unless such employment is expressly prohibited or limited by
the use permit because of potential detrimental effects on persons living or workin g in the
building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in the vicinity of the
subject property. The employment of three (3) or more persons who do not reside in the
work/live studio may be permitted subject to a use permit based on additional findings that
such employment will not adversely affect traffic and parking conditions in the area where
the work/live studio is located. The employment of any persons who do not reside in the
work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable Building Code requirements.
5
19. CLIENT AND CUSTOMER VISITS. Client and customer visits to work/live studios are
permitted subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the use permit in order to ensure
compatibility with adjacent commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially zoned
areas.
20. SITE PLAN REVISIONS: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the site plan shall be
revised to remove up to three unenclosed parking spaces and show the installation of a
minimum of three parking lot trees to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
21. HOLD HARMLESS: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b }, the City
of Alameda requires as a condition of this Use Permit approval that the applicant, or its
successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City
concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for
in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the
applicant /project sponsor of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant/project sponsor of any
claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant /project sponsor shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City.
22. REVOCATION: This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or
Planning Board, should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is
being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or
maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
23. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS: The applicant shall acknowledge in writin g all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with
full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in
order for this Use Permit to be exercised.
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 or decision on any appeal by completing and
p g
submitting an appeal form and paying the required fee.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2004 by the Planning Board of the City
of Alameda by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, McNamara, Piziali
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (2) Bard, Mariani
ATTEST:
Gregory Fuz, Secretary
City Planning Board
Acknowledgment of Conditions:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -25 for, the Planning Board's
approval of Use Permit, UPO3 -00 l 9, approved on April 12, 2004, and in accordance with Conditions
herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to comply with the Conditions of Approval of said
Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -25 and the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda
Municipal Code (zoning Ordinance).
Executed at: By:
City Applicant
On:
Date Title
APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
7
G:1P LANN INGIPBIRES412004125 I 5 b landing2.doc
8
ATTACHMENT D
Provisions of the Work/Live Ordinance
PARKING
A modification of parking was made at Clamp Swing without regard to the
section below. Obviously, 50,000 cars per year will adversely affect the
customer base of nearby businesses. Such a waiver would destroy the park
and housing uses next to the Del Monte building.
Section 30 -15.4 (d) 2 "That a waiver or modification of parking requirements
will not, under the circumstances of the particular project, either conflict with
nor adversely affect commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially-
zoned uses in the area where the project is proposed."
USE RESTRICTIONS
Section 15.5 (d) does restrict the uses in a work/live building which would
adversely affect "the area in which the work/live studio is located."
BAD PRECEDENTS
The Clamp Swing building has been open for paid admission activities even
though no building permits have been finaled.
The elevator is not yet operational so there is no handicapped access to the
existing commercial activity.
What are we residents on the north side to expect from the Del Monte
building?
ATTACHMENT E
WORK/LIVE ORDINANCE
30 -15 WORK/LIVE STUDIOS.
30 -1.5.1 Purpose.
The intent of this section is to set forth regulations and standards for establishing and
operating work/live studios as a primary commercial/industrial use, in which the proprietor
would be allowed to reside as a secondary land use activity. The purposes of these
provisions for work/live studios are:
a. To provide for and make feasible the reuse of existing commercial or industrial
buildings and related sites in the Northern Waterfront and other specified commercial,
manufacturing, and industrial zoning districts as proposed in the Alameda General Plan;
b. To provide cost - efficient alternative work space that will provide an incentive for
entrepreneurs, business owners, artists, artisans, and other individuals to continue to work
in Alameda and contribute to the City's economy;
c. To reduce traffic and associated adverse impacts on air quality, energy resources, and
the quality of life in the City by reducing the number and length of work - related trips by
employed Alameda residents;
d. To promote the preservation and reuse of commercial or industrial buildings that
contribute to the historic character of the community in a manner that is consistent with
other community goals and policies;
e. To allow activities that are compatible with and will not compromise or interfere with
existing and potential industrial or commercial uses in the districts where such workllive
studios are established;
f. To ensure that work/live studios will function predominantly as work spaces with
incidental residential accommodations that meet basic habitability requirements in
compliance with applicable regulations. No portion of any work/live studio shall be
considered a "dwelling" as that term is defined in Sections 30-2 and 30 -51.1;
g. To ensure that the exterior design of structures converted to work/live use reflects the
predominant industrial or commercial character of such buildings and will be compatible
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses;
h. To ensure that, where there is adjacent residentially zoned land, changes to the exterior
of structures converted to work/live are designed to make the commercial or industrial
building being converted more compatible with the adjacent residential area. (Ord. No.
2784 NS. § 6)
30 -15.2 Applicability.
Work/live studios are only allowed in existing buildings that have been converted subject
to the approval of a use permit in the C -M (Commercial- Manufacturing), M -1
(Intermediate Industrial [Manufacturing]), and M -2 (General Industrial [Manufacturing])
Zoning Districts within the area bounded as follows: On the west: Sherman Street as
projected northerly to the Estuary; on the north: the Estuary; on the east: Tilden Way; on
the south: Buena Vista Avenue. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. § 6)
30 -15.3 Definitions.
The following definitions shall be applicable in this Article:
a. Living space shall mean that portion of a work/live studio that is used for residential
purposes including, but not limited to, a sleeping area, a food preparation area with
reasonable work space, and a full bathroom including bathing and sanitary facilities which
satisfy the provisions of applicable codes.
b. Work, live studio shall mean a commercial or industrial unit with incidental residential
accommodations occupying one (1) or more rooms or floors in a building primarily
designed and used for industrial or commercial occupancy and providing:
1. Adequate working space reserved for commercial or industrial use and regularly used
for such purpose by one (1) or more persons residing in the studio;'
2. Living space as defined in subsection 30- 15.3(a) and in accordance with the provisions
of this section.
c. Adjacent shall mean that properties share a common property boundary or are directly
across a street right -of -way. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. § 6)
30 -15.4 Development Standards.
a. Minimum Floor Area. Each work/live studio shall include at least one thousand (1,000)
square feet of gross floor area.
b. Permitted Floor Area. Not more than thirty (30 %) percent or four hundred (400)
square feet, whichever is greater, of the work/live studio shall be reserved for living space
as defined in Section 30 -15.3. The rest of the gross floor area of each work/live studio
shall be reserved and regularly used for working space.
c. Separation Required. Each work/live studio shall be separated from other work /live
studios or other uses in the building. Access to each work/live studio shall be provided
from common access areas, common halls or corridors, or directly from the exterior of the
building.
d. Parking. Each work/live studio shall have at least one and one -half (1 1/2) parking
space for up to one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area plus one -half (1/2)
additional space for every additional five hundred (500) square feet of floor area above the
first one thousand (1,000) square feet subject to compliance with all other applicable
requirements. The provided parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 30 -7.
This parking requirement may be waived or modified if the following findings can be made
in addition to any other findings required by the ordinance codified in this Section 30 -15:
1. That the proposed parking will be adequate to meet the demand created by the project
given the character of the proposed uses; and
Z. That a waiver or modification of parking requirements will not, under the
circumstances of the particular project, either conflict with nor adversely affect
commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially -zoned uses in the area where
the project is proposed
e. There shall not be less than two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot area for each
work/live studio. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. § 6)
30 -15.5 Additional Requirements.
a. Use Permit Required Each building that contains workllive studios shall be subject to a
use permit, which shall include conditions of approval as required to assure adequate'
standards of health, safety, and welfare and consistency with the purposes for work/live
studios set forth in this Chapter. Each work/live studio shall be subject to all conditions of
approval for the building in which it exists unless the use permit states otherwise.
b. Work. Live Permit Required. Each tenant or owner of an individual work/live studio
must obtain a work/live permit prior to occupancy. Such permit shall be issued by the
Planning Director based on a determination that the proposed occupancy is consistent with
the approved use permit and all applicable requirements of this section. Application for a
work/live permit shall be made to the Planning Department in writing on a form approved
by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the City
Council.
c. Design of Work/Live Studios. Subject to all applicable building and fire code
requirements:
1. Work/live studios shall be designed to accommodate commercial or industrial uses as
evidenced by the provision of ventilation, interior storage, flooring, and other physical
improvements of the type commonly found in exclusively commercial or industrial
facilities used for the same work activity; and
2. Areas within a work/live studio that are designated as living space shall be an integral
part of the work/live studio and not separated from the work space, except that
mezzanines and lofts may be used as living space subject to compliance with other
provisions of this Article. Examples of ways to integrate the work space and living space
in compliance with this section include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Doors or solid walls between the work space and areas used for living space do not
extend all the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities and rooms used primarily for
sleeping,
(b) There is a single entrance to the work/live studio,
(c) There are no walls separating the food preparation area from the work space,
(d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms designated for sleeping are enclosed and all other
portions of the living area are not separated from the work space.
d. Permitted Work Activity. The work activity in a building where work/live units are
allowed shall be any use permitted by right or use permit in the zoning district, except
p
that, in order to protect the health and safety of persons who reside in a work/live studio
or in a building which contains one (1) or more work/live studios, no work activity shall
be permitted nor shall any work/live studio be established on any site that contains those
uses which the Planning Director when considering a work/live permit or the Planning
Board when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of
employees or the nature o f the operation, have the potential to create significant
impacts by reason of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic,
vibration or other impacts, or would be hazardous by way of materials, process, product
or wastes including, but not limited to: auto service /repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car
washes, service stations, bars /lounges /night clubs, adult businesses, marine engine
repair /refueling facilities, animal kennels /grooming/pet shops, liquor stores, veterinary
offices/hospitals, funeral parlors /mortuaries, outdoor storage as a primary use,
crematories/columbaria, dismantling facilities /scrap yards, public utility structures and
facilities, tire sales /service, truck stops /repair.
Uses allowed under the foregoing paragraph that may, depending on how they are
operated, also have the potential to generate impacts or would constitute a change in
occupancy under the building code shall not be approved unless the Planning Director
finds that as proposed to be conducted, or as modified by conditions of use permit, they
would not conflict with or adversely affect existing work uses in the building and in the
area where the work/live studio is locateat No use shall be approved where, given the
design or proposed design of the work/live studio, there would be the potential for
adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the eo le residing in the studio. An
p p g
example of a potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from uses
which generate airborne particulates in a studio with an unenclosed kitchen.
Retail activities must be accessory and subordinate to any permitted commercial or
industrial work activity in buildings used exclusively for work/live studios.
e. No Separate Sale or Rental of Portions of Unit. No portion of a work/live studio may
be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living in the
. p g
premises or as a residential space for a person or persons not working in the same studio.
f. Business License Required At least one (1) occupant of each work/live studio shall
maintain a current City of Alameda business license for a business located in that studio.
g. Mixed Occupancies. If a building contains mixed occupancies of work/live studios and
other nonresidential uses, occupancies other than workllive shall meet all applicable
requirements for those uses, and proper occupancy separations shall be p rovided between
the work/live studios and other occupancies, as determined by the Building Official.
h. Notice to Occupants Required The owner or developer of any building containing
workllive studios shall provide written notice to all workllive occupants and users that the
surrounding area may be subject to levels of noise, dust, fumes, or other effects associated
with commercial and industrial uses at higher levels than would be expected in residential
areas. State and Federal health regulations notwithstanding, noise and other standards
shall be those applicable to commercial or industrial properties in the district where the
project is located. For purposes of noise control, work/live studios shall be classified as
commercial property under Table II in Section 4-10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
i. Change of Use From Work/Live Studio. No work/live studio shall be changed to
exclusively residential use in any building where residential use is not permitted, where
two (2) or more residential units already exist, or where the conversion would produce
more than two (2) attached dwellings. The conversion of an existing workllive studio to
exclusively nonresidential use is permitted when the conversion meets all other applicable
zoning and building code requirements for the proposed use. Such a change shall be
subject to all applicable requirements for the district where the proposed dwelling unit is
located.
j. Increase in Residential Use. No workllive studio shall be changed to increase the floor
area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Planning Director. In
no case shall the floor area devoted to residential use be increased to more than four
hundred (400) square feet or thirty (30 %) percent of the gross floor area of the unit
whichever is more.
k. Additions to Building Envelope. No modifications shall be made to the exterior of a
building proposed for or in current use as a work/live occupancy that would result in a
substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing gross
floor area of more than ten (10 %) percent in any five (5) year period outside the exterior
walls or the outer surface of the roof of the building as it existed at the time of conversion
to work/live studios. All changes to the exterior of workllive structures shall comply with
the purposes set out in subsections 30-15.1g. and h. and with the required finding set out
in subsection 30- 15.6d. New floors or mezzanines that are established within the original
building envelope shall be permitted and shall be considered as part of the existing floor
area for purposes of this section.
If there is adjacent residentially zoned land, then the expansion of the building envelope
shall be the minimum necessary to comply with health and life safety requirements and
minimum habitability requirements.
1. Deed Restriction Required. The owner of each work/live studio or each building
containing work/live rental studios shall record a notice on the property specifying the
limitations of use and operation included in the use permit.
m. On premises Sales. On- premises sales of goods is limited to those produced within the
work/live studio. Retail sales of goods produced within the workllive studio shall be
incidental to the primary work use in any building used exclusively for work/live
occupancy. These provisions shall permit participation in occasional open studio programs
and gallery shows.
n. Nonresident Employees. Up to two (2) persons who do not reside in the work/live
studio may work in the studio unless such employment is expressly prohibited or limited
by the use permit because of potential detrimental effects on persons living or working in
the building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in the vicinity
of the subject property. The employment of three (3) or more persons who do not reside
in the work/live studio may be permitted subject to a use permit based on additional
findings that such employment will not adversely affect traffic and parking conditions in
the area where the work/live studio is located. The employment of any persons who do
not reside in the work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable Building Code
requirements.
0. Client and Customer Visits. Client and customer visits to work/live studios are
permitted subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the use permit in order to
ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial or industrial uses or adjacent residentially -
zoned areas.
p. Landscaping. Where a building to be converted to work/live use is adjacent to
residentially- zoned land, screening landscaping shall be p rovided and maintained as a
buffer between the work/live building and adjacent residentially -zoned land where feasible
in light of building setbacks, existing and required parking and whether there is land
available along the property boundary.
q. Hazardous/ Toxic Materials. A Phase I Environmental Assessment for a site proposed
for work/live occupancy, including but not limited to an expanded site investigation to
determine whether lead based paint and asbestos hazards exist, is required to be submitted
as part of the application for a use permit. The purpose of this requirement is to assess
whether there are any hazardous or toxic materials on the site that could pose a health
risk. Where the Phase I shows that there are potential health risks, a Phase 2
Environmental Assessment shall be prepared and submitted to determine if remediation
may be required. (Ord. No. 27841 N. S. § 6)
30 -15.6 Findings Required.
In addition to any other findings required by Section 30 -21.3, the approval of any use
permit required under this Chapter shall require a finding that the proposed use is
consistent with the purposes for work/live studios set forth in Section 30 -15.1 with
respect to the circumstances and conditions of the subject property. The following
additional findings must also be made:
a. The proposed or existing use of each work/live studio is a bona fide commercial or
industrial activity consistent with Section 30- 15.5d.;
b. The establishment of work/Jive studios will not under the circumstances conflict
with nor inhibit industrial or commercial uses in the area where the project is
proposed;
c. Any building containing work/live studios and each work/live studio within the building
has been designed to ensure that they will function predominantly as work spaces with
incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability requirements in
compliance with applicable regulations;
d. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of the building will be compatible
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for
commercial or industrial uses. If there is adjacent residentially -zoned land, then the
proposed changes to the building shall make the commercial or industrial building being
converted more compatible with the adjacent residential area. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. § 6)
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
NORTHERN WATERFRONT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2002102118)
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2003, the City of Alameda issued a Notice
of Preparation notifying the public and relevant public agencies that the City of
Alameda would be preparing a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2007, the City of Alameda circulated for
public review a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed Northern Waterfront General
Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 60 -day public review
period ending on March 30, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments
on the Draft EIR on February 27, 2007 and March 26, 2007; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant
environmental issues raised by commentors during the public review period and
published as the EIR Response to Comments Addendum (February 2007); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and EIR Response
to Comments Addendum, was made available to the public for review on
February 12, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final EIR
on February 26, 2007 and March 26, 2007, examined pertinent maps and
documents, considered the testimony and written comments received; and
adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The Final EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed
and considered by the City Council,
2. The Final E1R reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City of Alameda, and
3. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local
guidelines.
Resolutions #5 -B
06 -19 -07
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 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
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING
ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT
AND CHILD CARE POLICY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2002102118)
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda recommended that the City Council certify that the Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Northern Waterfront and Child
Care Policies } was completed in
General Plan Amendment (the "Project") p
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and state
and local guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regarding environmental
impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is part of an application that includes a General Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the General
Plan Amendment, the City Council certified the FEIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for
the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (Attachment A), the
Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment B), the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT GENERAL RAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Northern Waterfront General Plan amendment and Citywide Childcare policies amend the
General Plan to: 1) designate approximately 110 acres of northern waterfront industrially
designated properties to a specified mixed -use designation. 2 ) adopt a set of guiding policies to
guide future development within the Northern Waterfront Specified Mixed Use Area, a, and 3 �
adopt certain policies that would apply citywide that resulted from the Northern
Waterfront
Advisory Committee or the Social Services Human Relations Board. The Northern Waterfront
project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista Avenue on the
south, and Grand Street on the east, and the Oakland/Alameda Estuary on the north. The e area is
within several zoning districts; including R -2 (Two Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden
Residential District), R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development
elopment
District), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial), M -2 (General
M -
C
Industrial), (Conimercial-Manufactwing )
District), and M -1 -PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned . Development District).
)
I. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR" ) consists of the
Draft EIR ( "DEIR "), Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document.
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference
� y and made
part of the record (`Record ") supporting these findings:
a. The Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended General Plan
Amendment.
b. Additional General Plan Amendments recommended b y the Social Service
Human Relations Board and the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee.
c. The 2006 Draft EIR.
d. The 2007 FEIR including the 2006 DEIR, Responses to Comments Addendum
and Text Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated b
p � by
reference.
e. The 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
f. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to
p or
delivered to the City of Alameda ( "City ") in connection with the Plannin g Board
public hearing of February 27, 2006 on the DEIR.
50120168263v4
g
All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted t
. p to or
delivered to the City in connection with the Planning Board and City Council
� y ouncil
meetings associated with the certification of the FEIR.
h. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public
. p meetings and
other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating to
the Project.
i. These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in
connection with the Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The FEIR for the Project, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental nmental
Act, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which
could result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ul ati
ons ("CEQA
Guidelines") Section 15091, the City is required to make certain findings wit h
respect to these
impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. cement. These
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures g es list all
identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as mitigation
p � well as
measures for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), as inco orate ' . incorporated as a condition of
approval. With regard to impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
City gn level, the
City nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits '
of the Project (listed
in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh gh the risks of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the Project.
A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CE QA Guidelines
nes
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations shave been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FEIR.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of roce '
p edings before the City
as stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant gnificant level is
discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted implementation
p ed for implementation
by approval of these Findings of Fact.
2
1. UTILITIES
1.1 Sewer System Impacts (UTIL -1)
1.1.1 Significant y sewer on-site
Use of existing substandard storm sewer or sanitary o -
s ite
transport facilities could contribute to peak wastewater or storm water flows that could
exceed capacity of the existing sewage transport facilities.
g required This impact will be mitigated with the followin re uired miti ation measure
sure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTIL -1: Project sponsors shall remove or reconstruct all existin g sewer and storm drain
laterals that serve the site of the proposed development project to comply with City,
Y Y,
EBMUD, and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. This measure would
reduce the level of impact to less than significant.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Findin g Changes or 1: Chan g
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Reuse of existing on-site laterals and other components of the antiquated system that
q Y
serve sites proposed for development under the Northern Waterfront GPA would
exacerbate existing conditions. Construction of a new laterals system to replace the
existing storm drain and sewer systems would avoid significant impacts associated with
the deteriorated condition of the existing laterals. This measure will be enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See a Y also
DEIR, IV.D -9).
2. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2.1 Construction Related Traffic Impacts (TRN-l)
2.1.1 Significant Effect. During construction, lane closures within the Northern Waterfront
GPA area may result in rerouting of autos, buses, bicycle andlor emergency vehicles.
g Y
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
g e
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN -1: Proponents for each project in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall re are
p p a
Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles on regional
and local roadways and restrict truck traffic to designated truck routes within the City.
Y
The TCP should address construction truck routes and access, as well as needed local
lane closures. Where bus routes or emergency routes are affected, appropriate si a
sign age to
indicate detour routes should be provided. Bus stops that must be temporarily relocated
p Y
3
should also be identified and presented in the TCP. The TCP may recommend installation
Y on
of directional signs for trucks and designate time periods when construction truck traffic
would be allowed. The TCP must be reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works
Department prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
During construction, trucks might utilize Atlantic Avenue, Clement, the Webster and
Posey Tubes, Park Street Bridge, and the Fruitvale Bridge. Some temporary lane closures
on Atlantic p �
tlantic Avenue and other local streets could be required during construction. Lane
closures could require rerouting of autos, buses, bicycles, and/or emergency vehicles.
Some g Y
e equipment and/or materials may not be transportable through the tubes. These
special occurrences may require use of other bridge crossings or delivery by ferry. The b Y
TCP required by Mitigation Measure TRN- 1 would address potential traffic issues caused
by construction related activities to a less than significant level. This measure will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's
pp y
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -22).
2.2 Clement Street Intersection Impacts (TRN -2)
2.2.1 Significant Effect. Full buildout and extension of Clement Street through the Northern
Waterfront GPA area would result in a significant increase in traffic volumes on Clement
Street through Alameda.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
q g
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN -2: To ensure effective and safe traffic flow through the area on the e Clement Street
extension, provide for the following or equivalent traffic improvements:
To ensure effective and safe traffic flow through the area on the new Clement Street
extension, the Clement extension should be signalized as follows:
o Install a traffic signal at the new intersection of Atlantic /Sherman/Clement and a new
signal at the intersection of Buena Vista and Entrance when Clement Avenue is
extended from Sherman to Entrance Drive.
o Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Grand and Clement when Clement Street
is extended through the Pennzoil site.
o Install a traffic signal at the intersections of Entrance and Clement when the Encinal
Terminal Site is redeveloped.
4
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As presented in Table IV.E -5 of the DEIR, several Clement Street intersections would be
operating at unacceptable levels of service at buildout in 2025. Mitigation Measure
TRN -2 is designed to ensure that the necessary signalization is p hased in with the
completion of the roadway p improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service and
reduce the impact to less than significant. This measure will be enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.E -25 to 27).
2.3 2010 LOS at Park and Clement Street Intersection (TRN-3a)
2.3.1 Significant Effect. Full implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA and extension
of Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in a
significant impact to the level of service at the intersection of Park and Clement in 2010.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
q g sure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN 3a: Modify the signal timing at Park and Clement to provide full actuation and
enhance signal phase sequence to allow for the Clement Avenue East -West split phase.
p •
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). : es or
1 Changes
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Providing the Clement Extension will cause an increase in traffic volumes on Clement
Avenue, as a result of cross town traffic shifting from Buena Vista and Lincoln to
Clement. In the future years, the intersection of Park and Clement will operate p at an
unacceptable LOS F, because the current intersection configuration does not p rovide a
left turn pocket on Clement in the eastbound direction. Implementation of Mitigation
p g
Measure TRN -3a would improve the LOS at the intersection of Park and Clement to an
acceptable level by modifying the signal timing and phasing. This measure will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's
pp y s
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -27 and 28).
5
3. ' BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Loss of Bat Roost Sites (BIO..1)
3.1.1 Significant Effect. Renovation and demolition of buildings within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area may result in the loss of bat roost sites on the J ro•ect site.
P
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BIO -1: Proponents of each project in the Northern waterfront GPA area shall P p re are a
preconstruction survey of all buildings scheduled for demolition or renovation shall be
conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of demolition or renovation
activities. Special attention shall be given to buildings where pallid bats were observed
during the earlier survey or where measures to discourage roostin g were implemented. If
p
no bats or signs of an active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a bat
roost site is found, then measures shall be implemented to •discoura e roosting at the site.
If a maternity colony of bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed
until the young have dispersed, as determined by a qualified biologist.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Bats potentially roost in vacant buildings such as the warehouses found within the
Northern Waterfront GPA area. Implementation Mitigation Measure BID - I would reduce
potential impacts to the bats identified in Table IV.F- I of the DEIR to a less-than-
significant level. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F-13).
3.2 Dredging Impacts (BID -2)
3.2.1 Significant Effect. Sediment dredging and in -water construction activities in Alaska
Basin could impact fish, aquatic bird species, and other aquatic organisms.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BIO -2: All dredging activities shall be consistent with the standards and rocedures set
forth in Long-Term p
n the Long Term Management Strategy, a program developed b
Y the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality .
Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency g Y and other
agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmental)
Y
sound manner.
6
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (Finding 1: Chan es r
. g g o
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Increased turbidity from dredging and in -water construction activities would be localized
and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would depend in part on the
number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and measures
implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2 would
Quid
limit impacts of dredging and in -water construction activities by requiring that all
. .. Y q g such
activities be consistent with the standards of the Long -Term Management Strategy
gY
developed by the BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts su pp ort the City's findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.F -13 and 14).
4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.1 Archaeological Resources (CULT-I)
4.1.1 Significant Effect. Excavation activities associated with implementation of the he Northern
Waterfront GPA could adversely impact unidentified archaeological resources.
g required This impact will be mitigated with the followin re uired miti ation measure
asure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CULT -1: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered
during site preparation or construction, work shall cease in the immediate area until such
time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the
significatice of the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the time of
find:
p the
o Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended
and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the
find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their
context.
If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource
consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and
developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid
damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a q ualifed cultural resource
consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the impact on the
qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in
7
accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Due to the location of the Northern Waterfront GPA area adjacent to the Oakland Estuary
and in the vicinity of historical springs, the Northern Waterfront GPA area has a
moderate potential of containing unidentified cultural resources. Impacts to such
p
resources could be considered significant under CEQA. Implementation of mitigation
Measure CULT -1 would reduce the Northern Waterfront GPA's potential impact to
unidentified cultural resources to a less- than - significant level in the event that reviousl
p Y
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction
activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G -11 and 12).
4.2 Human Remains (CULT -2)
4.2.1 Significant Effect. Ground- disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Northern Waterfront GPA could unearth human remains interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
q g
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CULT -2: If human remains are encountered, work shall halt within 50 feet of the find
and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeologist shall
also be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American
origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours of this identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code,
the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely
Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of
. p .p
the remains and associated grave goods. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in
Y
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has
determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority.
Y
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
8
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations throughout the Bay Area.
g y
Prehistoric resources are more likely to occur in areas near bodies of water, such as the
Northern Waterfront GPA area, where there were high levels of Native American
activity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -2 would reduce this p otential
impact to a less- than - significant level in the event that human remains are discovered
during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See a1 Y g also
DEIR, IV.G.10 and 11).
4.3 Paleontological Resources (CULT -3)
4.3.1 Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could adversely
impact unidentified paleontological resources.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
g e
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CULT -3: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or
construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately
suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall
not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context.
a If paleontological resources are discovered and the is City and the paleontological
p g
resource consultant found that the resource s significant based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project
p J
developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to
p
avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
o If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified aleontolo ical
p g
resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the
Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The J ro • ect developer, in
P p ,
consultation with a qualified g i paleontological
shall complete a aleontolo ical
resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Chan Changes or
g
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
9
The potential to uncover paleontological resources exists at locations throughout the Bay
Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -3 would reduce this potential impact
. p p
to a less- than - significant level in the event that paleontological resources are discovered
during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced through
g
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.G.11 and 12.)
5. NOISE
5.1 Impacts During Demolition, Construction, and Remodeling (N-OISE-1)
5.1.1 Significant Effect. Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA could result in demolition,
construction, and remodeling activities which could generate excessive noise or
groundborne vibrations at neighboring land uses.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
NOISE -la: Developers and/or contractors shall create and implement development-
specific noise reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Each
developer and/or contractor shall be contractually required to demonstrate knowledge of
the Alameda Noise Ordinance. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-
polluting methods to maintain or reduce noise to thresholds levels or lower, as lon g as
those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a
substantial public nuisance. The plan for attenuating construction- related noises shall be
implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a p lan.
NOISE -lb: To reduce pile driving noise, "vibratory" pile driving should be used
wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite its name, does not
generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique. It does,
however, generate lower, less - intrusive noise levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced p
ed to a less than significant level.
Construction activities associated with buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA would
involve building demolition, building construction, and utility and roadway
reconstruction, which would create noise and vibration. Noise from construction
activities would be intermittent during construction and would gradually occur over an
extended period of time, driven by market conditions.
Groundborne vibration from construction within the Northern Waterfront GPA area could
result from truck traffic to and from the site, but would primarily result from ile driving
g
10
where needed. The location of the potential pile driving would probably be sufficiently
distant from nearby receptors that any perceived groundborne vibration would not
constitute a significant impact. Vibration due to pile driving would also be constrained to
established time -of -day limits. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that demolition
construction and remodeling activities do not create excessive noise or vibrations,
implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-la and 1 b, enforced through the MMRP
g
as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.8 to 10).
}
5.2 Stationary Source Impacts to New and Existing Residences (NOISE-2)
5.2.1 Significant Effect. New development associated with implementation of the Northern
Waterfront GPA could expose existing and/or new residences to noise from stationary
sources that exceed levels deemed acceptable for residential and commercial uses.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated by the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project.
NOISE-2a: Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards
will be met, should be required for all new residential or noise-sensitive developments
exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 60 dBA, or one-family dwellings not
... ., y g
constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map exposed to environmental 'noise
greater than CNEL 65 dBA. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in
Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for
multiple-family attached, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24.
NOISE -2b: All new projects shall show that they comply with maximum noise levels
outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance and the average sound level goals outlined in the
. g
City s General Plan
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: es or
alterations Changes
erations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
New projects developed under the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the
City's Noise Ordinance and the policies included in the General Plan. The City's i ty 's Noise
Ordinance outlines maximum noise levels allowed for stationary noise sources. Policy
8.7.e of the City's General Plan requires acoustical analysis for new or replacement
p
dwellings, hotels, and schools within the projected CNEL 60 dBA contour, or one-family
dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map within the
projected CNEL 65 dBA contour. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE -2a
and 2b, enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, will avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for stationary noise sources to impact new and existing
g
residences. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.11 and 12).
}
11
5.3 Noise Levels on Clement Avenue and Grand Street (NOISE-3)
5.3.1 Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would significantly
increase noise levels along Clement Avenue and Grand Street.
g required This impact will be mitigated with the followin re uired miti ation measure
e
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
NOISE -3: New projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA should require acoustical
studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise level standards will be met for the
Project as well as any impacts on adjacent projects. Studies shall also satisfy the
acoustical requirements of Title 24, of the Uniform Building Code.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Chan es or
•Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
New commercial, office, or other non - residential development could -
roduce stationary-
source y
source noise that could affect existing residences or noise - sensitive land uses. In addition,
new office and residential uses may establish themselves in areas where the ro osed
p P
land use designation would prohibit new industrial uses, but will allow existin d g industrial
uses to remain until the use terminates or the site is redeveloped.
New projects developed under the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the
City's Noise Ordinance and the policies included in the General Plan. The City's Noise
tY
Ordinance outlines maximum noise levels allowed for stationary noise sources. Policy
8.7.e of the City's General Plan requires acoustical analysis for new or replacement
dwellings, hotels, and schools within the projected CNEL 60 dBA contour, or one-family
dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map within the
projected CNEL 65 dBA contour. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE -3
enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, would ensure the appropriate
ro riate
noise mitigation measures are incorporated into each individual development. These
facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H -10 and 11).
6. GEOLOGY, SOILS & SEISMICITY
6.1 Seismic Induced Ground Shaking (GEO-l)
6.1.1 Significant Effect. Occupants of future development within the Northern Waterfront
p
GPA area would be subject to seismic - induced ground shaking.
g
g required This impact will be mitigated with the followin re uired miti ation measure
re
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
12
GEO-1: While the potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking cannot be
eliminated in the Northern Waterfront GPA area, the following steps shall be
implemented to reduce the impacts related to expected strong ground shaking:
g
o Grading, foundation, and structural design should be based on the anticipated
strong seismic shaking associated with a future major earthquake on the Hayward
fault. The Hayward fault is considered to be a Type A seismic source (with active
slip and capable of a magnitude 7M or greater earthquake) under the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC) near - source factors. All structures shall be
designed in accordance with the most recent edition of the UBC and California
Building Code for soft soil in Seismic Zone 4.
o The applicant shall prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency response
plan for all public use facilities. The plan should be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning and Building and/or Public Works Department, prior to
occupancy of the structures.
o Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall
prepare an earthquake hazards information document. This document should be
made available to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing
units or commercial spaces. The document should describe the potential for strong
ground shaking at the site, potential effects of such shaking, and earthquake
preparedness procedures.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires that all structures be constructed in accordance with
the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code for soft soil in Seismic
Zone 4. The applicant shall also prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency
response plan for all public use facilities. Prior to marketing residential or commercial
units for sale, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information document to
disclose the potential for seismic events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1,
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential exposure of site occupants to hazards associated with
seismic induced ground shaking. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.I -9 and 10.)
6.2 Seismic Induced Ground Failure (GEO-2)
6.2.1 Significant Effect. Seismic- induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Lurch -
Cracking and Lateral Spreading may occur in the Northern Waterfront GPA.
13
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
GEO -2: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential
impact of seismic - induced ground failure.
0 Earthworks and foundation design shall be conducted in accordance with all
recommendations contained in the Weyerhaeuser /Chipman Parcels geotechnical
report by Lowney Associates (December 1998) for that parcel. Additional
liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a liquefaction mitigation
program developed for each development within the Northern Waterfront GPA
area. All structures proposed for the project area shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the City of
Alameda Building Code, and the seismic design considerations of the Uniform
Building Code ( 1997) and the most recent California Building Code (currently
2001) as published by the ICBG.
o Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, geotechnical
investigations shall be conducted for the Del Monte Warehouse (URS
Corporation report, 2002), Encinal Terminal, or Fortmann Marina sub -areas of the
Northern Waterfront GPA area. Reports for these studies shall evaluate the
liquefaction potential for each site in accordance with the Standard of Practice for
Geotechnical Engineering and shall provide recommendations for stabilization or
resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. The
potential for lurch cracking and lateral spreading shall also be evaluated. Stability
of the bulkhead for projects adjacent to bulkheads shall also be evaluated. Reports
p
shall be submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review
and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO -1 requires that all earthwork and foundations be conducted in
accordance with all recommendations contained in the Weyerhaeuser /Chipman Parcels
geotechnical report by Lowney Associates (December 1998) for the parcel to be
developed. Additional liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a
liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area. It also requires that all structures be constructed in accordance with
the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code.
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, geotechnical investigations shall
be conducted for the Del Monte Warehouse (URS Corporation report, 2002 ) , Encinal
Terminal, or Fortmann Marina sub -areas of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These
14
geotechnical investigations would produce site specific recommendations for stabilization
or resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -2, enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for
damage to Project improvements as a result of liquefaction. These facts support the
City's findings. (See also DEIR,
6.3 Consolidation and Land Subsidence (GEO -3)
6.2.1
Significant Effect. Expected continuing consolidation and land subsidence in the
Northern Waterfront GPA area could result in damage to structures, utilities and
pavements.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
GEO -3: Proponents for all projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be
required to prepare a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City of Alameda
that specifies all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of
structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to
reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of
artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated
settlement in areas underlain by thick younger Bay Mud. Increased area settlement could
have implications for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning
(compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The
report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs, which minimize
the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider
differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Northern
Waterfront GPA area.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed,
site- specific geotechnical report analyzing consolidation potential is prepared and
submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report will specify
all measures necessary to limit consolidation and will present recommendations for
specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to
settlement. The measures specified and the recommendations presented will adhere to
the standards identified in Mitigation Measures GEO -2 and GEO -3. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will
therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements
15
as a result of continuing consolidation and land surface subsidence at the Project site.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -11.)
6.4 Shrink Swell Impacts (GEO -4)
6.2.1 Significant Effect. Damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of
Northern Waterfront GPA area soils could occur.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
GEO -4: The required geotechnical report shall require that subgrade soils for
pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime- treated, or non - expansive soil, and
that surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from
foundation elements and into storm drains to minimize variations in soil moisture.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As discussed in the 2006 DEIR, portions of the project site contain Bay mud deposits
with moderate to high shrink/swell potential. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, no
grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site-specific geotechnical report for each
phase of the Project is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works
for approval. That report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO -4, shall require that
foundations and improvements are designed to reduce impacts from expansive soils, and
that variation in soil moisture under and around building foundation elements are
minimized by incorporating foundation designs and standards identified in Mitigation
Measure GEO -3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -4, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
potential for damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of Project
soils. These facts support. the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I- l 1.)
7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7.1 Degradation of Water Quality (HYD- 1)
7.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities and post - construction site uses could result in
degradation of water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the San Francisco Bay by
reducing the quality of storm water runoff.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
16
HYD-1: All specific development projects approved pursuant to the Northern Waterfront
GPA, that involve site clearing, grading or excavation as part of the proposed
construction activity and that result in soil disturbances of 1 or more acres, (and for
projects of less than 1 acre if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of
development), shall be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, the SWPPP prepared for the first
site or development project within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may be used as the
basis for a SWPPP required for subsequent projects, provided that each version of the
SWPPP is modified as necessary to maintain compliance with the qualitative standards
set forth in this EIR and with applicable regulations and standards of the RWQCB.
Each SWPPP shall be designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality
through the construction and life of the Project for which it is prepared. The SWPPP shall
conform to the requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program which set new
standards effective February 2003, and to the standards set forth herein. The SWPPP
would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate
potential water quality impacts associated with implementation of the ' ro osed Project.
P p �
Preparers of the SWPPP should review the Conditions of Approval (including General
Conditions for Construction, Residential Development /Construction Conditions, and
Commercial /Industrial Conditions) established by the City.
The SWPPP shall include the following three elements to address construction, post -
construction and pest management issues:
o specific and Detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) Designed to Mitigate
Construction - related Pollutants. These controls shall include practices to
minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance
supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The
SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these
materials out of the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design and
procedures for compliance with storage area requirements. An important
component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge on the part of
on -site construction and maintenance supervisors and workers. To educate on -site
personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water ualit
�. y
protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular meetings to discuss pollution
prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings and require all
personnel to attend. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be
implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and
wet weather inspections. City of Alameda personnel shall conduct regular
inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP. BMPs designed to reduce
erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization
controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales
and sediment basins. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the
primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control (i.e., keeping sediment on
the site). End of pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be
used only as secondary measures. If hydroseeding is selected as the primary soil
stabilization method, these areas shall be seeded by September 1 and irrigated to
17
ensure that adequate root development has occurred prior to October 1. Entry and
egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize off -site
tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash -down facilities shall be
designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions.
o Measures Designed to Mitigate Post - construction - Related Pollutants. The
SWPPP shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality
� y
degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. It is
important that post construction storm water quality controls are required in the
initial design phase of redevelopment projects and not simply added after the site
layout and building footprints have been established. The specific BMPs that
would be required of a project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for
Storm Water Programs. In addition, the design team should include design
principles contained in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association's manual, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for
Stormwater Quality Protection. The selection of BMPs required for a specific
project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. The
Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In general, passive, low
maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred. If the
SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimentation basins, fossil
filters), then funding for long term maintenance needs must be specified in the
SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excavation, or building permits,
as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these
features).
o Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
shall be prepared and implemented by the p Project for all common landscaped
areas. Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall
address and recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management
that use pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and
pesticide application shall be specified. Special attention in the IPMs shall be
directed toward avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages
or leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in
response to a persistent pest problem. Preventative chemical use shall not be
employed. Cultural and biological approaches to pest control shall be fully
integrated into the IPMs, with an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve the SWPPP
prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project phase to ensure that the
selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and the RWQCB are
empowered to levy considerable fines for non - compliance - with the SWPPP. Compliance
with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
18
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, a SWPPP will be prepared for each type or
category of development within the Project area. The SWPPPs will include measures and
practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm water quality during construction,
and substantially limit the degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed
development. Compliance with the SWPPP will be ensured through regular inspections
conducted by City of Alameda personnel, and through review and approval of the
SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project construction
phase. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD - I , enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for
degradation of water quality resulting from construction activities and post - construction
site uses. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N -10 and I 1).
7.2 Dredging Impacts (HYD -2)
7.2.1
Significant Effect. Dredging that may be undertaken to develop a marina in Alaska Basin
or be associated with maintenance of existing marinas, or reconstruction of bulkheads
and infrastructure in the Northern Waterfront GPA area may cause impacts to water
quality at the dredging and disposal sites.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HYD -2: All dredging and in -water construction activities shall be consistent with the
standards and procedures set forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program
developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge
materials in an environmentally sound manner.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant leVel.
Increased turbidity from dredging and in -water construction activities would be localized
and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would depend in part on the
number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and measures
implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2 would
limit impacts of dredging and in -water construction activities by requiring that all such
19
activities be consistent with the standards of the Long -Term Management Strategy
developed by the BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced throw h
.. g
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's (See findin g s. also
DEIR, IV.J -11 and 12).
8. AIR QUALITY
8.1 Construction Related Impacts (AIR -1)
8.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction period activities such as demolition, excavation and
grading operations, use of diesel powered equipment, construction vehicle traffic, utility
extensions and improvements, and roadway reconstruction would generate diesel and
gasoline exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect
local air quality.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
AIR -la: Implementation of Dust Abatement Programs. Proponents of development
p
projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to
issuance of building or grading permits, including standard dust control measures. The
effective implementation of dust abatement programs, incorporating all of the following
dust control measures, would reduce the temporary air quality impact associated with
construction dust.
o All active construction areas shall be watered using equipment and staff p rovided
by the project applicant or prime contractor, as needed, to avoid visible dust
plumes. Appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water
before application, may be used.
o All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
O All unpaved access roads, parking areas and construction staging areas shall be
either paved, watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes, or subject to the
application of (non- toxic) soil stabilizers.
O All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site
shall be swept daily with water sweepers.
o If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, these streets shall be
swept daily with water sweepers.
o All stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the
wind shall either be covered or watered as necessary to avoid visible dust p lumes.
20
• An off - pavement speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles
shall be incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime
contractor.
o All inactive portions of the project site (those areas which have been previously
graded, but inactive for a period of ten days or more) shall be watered with an
appropriate dust suppressant, covered or seeded.
o All earth - moving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended when the
above dust control measures prove ineffective in avoiding visible dust plumes
during periods of high winds. The wind speed at which this suspension of activity
will be required may vary, depending on the moisture conditions at the project
site, but suspension of such activities shall be required in any case when the wind
speed exceeds 25 miles per hour.
AIR lb: Implementation of Diesel Reduction Programs. Proponents of development
projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to
issuance of building or grading permits, including standard diesel reduction efforts,
including the following:
o Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with
manufacturer - recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment.
o Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten
minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
o Use alternative fueled construction equipment.
o Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of
equipment in use.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and comprehensive control measures for
fine particulate matter and asbestos that might be generated from construction activity.
Adherence to these measures, as adopted by the BAAQMD, constitute mitigation of
construction- related air quality particulate matter and asbestos impacts to a less than
significant level. Measures also exist that will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental impacts from construction - related exhaust emissions. These
measures, as specifically identified in Mitigation Measures AQ-la and 1 b will be
imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures AQ-la and l b will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
21
impact of Project construction - period activities on local air quality. These facts support
pnort
the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L-14 to 16).
9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
9.1 Contaminated Soils and Groundwater (HAZ -1)
9.1.1 Significant Effect. Contaminated soils and groundwater have the potential to exist on
many parcels located within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These materials could
present a health risk to construction workers and/or future workers and residents of the
Northern Waterfront GPA area. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ -1: Prior to the approval of any site specific development J ro'ects within the
P
Northern Waterfront GPA area, documentation from a qualified professional shall be
provided to the City of Alameda stating that adequate soils and ground water
investigations and, where warranted, remediation, have been conducted to ensure that
there will be no significant hazard related risks to future site users.
If the soil and groundwater investigations indicate that hazardous materials are present
risk p
and pose a risk to construction workers and future site users, the following additional
mitigation measures shall be implemented and the City of Alameda will refer the site to
the appropriate State and County agencies (such as Alameda County Environmental
Health, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board) for oversight of the project.
HAZ-la: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation
Measure HAZ - l GPA, the City shall condition the subject Project to record a restrictive
covenant prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater
at the Project site prior to transfer of the property.
HAZ -lb: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation Measure
HAZ - l , the City shall condition the subject Project to require preparation by a qualified
. q
registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the subject Project site as a
condition of its approval as a specific development project. The SMP would provide site
. P
specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would
improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics
g p
covered by the SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
0 Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and
spillage, for specific areas within the Project site.
The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at
the Project site.
22
• The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of
unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of
marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as
fill at the Project site.
• A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation
ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply
to development of the Project site.
o Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by
all contractors at the Project site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users
adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring,
and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to
reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the
possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect
workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal
protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH
regulations.
o A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during
Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to
reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the Project site.
a Requirements for site specific construction techniques at the site, based on
proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated
materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving
techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where
practical.
The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the Project site; implementation of
the SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits
at the Project site. The contractors will be required to hold a daily safety meeting with
all construction workers and subcontractors on lands identified with H azardous
Material risks.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires site specific investigations to determine if hazardous
conditions exist in the groundwater or soils on any project site to be developed. If
hazardous conditions do exist, Mitigation Measure HAZ- I a allows the City to condition
the subject project to record a restrictive covenant prohibiting installation of drinking
23
water well at the subject site prior to any transfer of property. This measure would
protect future occupants from hazards associated with contaminated groundwater at the
Project site. If the hazardous conditions outlined under Mitigation Measure HAZ- l exist,
an SMP shall be required. The SMP, prepared by a qualified registered professional
would provide site specific information for contractors (and others) developing the
Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety
contingencies. The SMP will be implemented through the MMRP as a condition of
approval for excavation, grading and building permits and would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR,
IV.M -5-6).
B. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT
BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that
would avoid the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or other
considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval
of the Project despite these significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before
the City.
1,1 2025 LOS at Park and Clement Street Intersection (TRN -3b)
1.1.1 Significant Effect. Full implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA and extension
of Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in a
significant impact to the level of service at the intersection of Park and Clement in 2025.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN 3b: Restripe the Park Street and Clement Avenue Intersection to provide a left turn
pocket on eastbound Clement Avenue. Restrict truck - turning movements at this
intersection.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will be lessened trough the implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRN -3b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable. This
measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
24
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN -3b would require subsequent discretionary
actions, property acquisition, and financial commitments by the City. It is not possible at
this time to determine whether this improvement is financially feasible and will be
implemented. Therefore, the impact of the Clement Street extension on the intersection of
Park and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable. (See also DEIR,
IV.E -28).
1.2 LOS at the intersections of Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street TRN -4
i )
1.2.1 Significant Effect. New project related traffic would contribute to unacceptable Levels of
Service at the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street and the intersection of Jackson and
6th Street.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN 4a: All new projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall pay a fair share
contribution to improvements at Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street
intersections through payment of the City's Citywide Development Impact Fee.
TRN 4b: All new projects in the Northern Waterfront area that generate traffic
equivalent to 1% of the annually estimated reserve capacity shall include Transportation
Demand Management measures designed to reduce automobile trips in the Tubes and in
Oakland.
All projects in the Northern Waterfront Area shall be subject to the City's existing
Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP). The TCMP requires any development
p
west of Grand Street (all projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area) that is
projected.to generate peak hour trips through the Tubes in excess of 1% of the current
estimated reserve capacity to determine the number of project generated peak hour trips
projected to pass through the tubes in each direction during the AM and PM peak hours
and identify how the project will reduce the number of peak hour trips generated by at
least 10% for residential development and 30% for non - residential development. The
City has also developed a Transportation Systems Management/Tra.nsportation Demand
Management (TSM/TDM) plan for the entire west end of the City. The TSM/TDM plan
includes a menu of primary and supporting strategies to be utilized in order to reduce the
number of peak hour trips through the Tubes.
All new projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall pay a fair share contribution
to improvements at Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street intersections
through payment of the City's Citywide Development Impact Fee.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and
25
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted b
� by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or
other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened
trough the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRN -4a and 4b, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, because any
Y
improvements to the intersections in Oakland or the access to I -880 could not be
approved without the approval of the City of Oakland and in some cases Caltrans as lead
agency. The City of Alameda has worked closely with Oakland and Caltrans through the
Broadway Jackson Improvement Study to identify feasible improvements, but no specific
improvements have been approved by the City of Oakland or Caltrans at this time. The
City of Alameda will continue to work with the other agencies to identify otentiall
p Y
feasible improvements, but because these improvements are outside the control of the
City of Alameda, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (See also DEIR
IV.E -29 and 30).
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the
implementation of mitigation measures.
1. LAND USE
1.1 Compatible Land Uses with the Established Communities.
1.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The land uses proposed under the General Plan
Amendment would be compatible with established communities.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility of proposed land
uses with established communities is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not disrupt or divide the physical
. pY
arrangement of the established community. The Northern Waterfront GPA would change
g
26
the land use designation of several properties and would facilitate redevelopment of
existing developed sites. The proposed changes would support the transition of the area
from industrial to a mix of commercial, marine, residential and open space and recreation
uses. The redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in the
development of uses that are more compatible with the adjacent residential and
commercial and recreational uses that exist in the vicinity of the area. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -11 and 12).
1.2 Compatibility with the Alameda General Plan.
1.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be
compatible with the existing General Plan.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the Alameda
General Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Although the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA is a general plan amendment, the
proposed amendment would be consistent with the General Plan's policies for Waterfront
Sites, for Mixed Use Housing Development, policies for Shoreline Access, 'and policies
regarding Reducing Through Traffic in Residential Areas. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -12 to 14).
1.3 Compatibility with the BCDC Plan.
1.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be
compatible with the existing BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The .environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the BCDC San
Francisco Bay Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would have no adverse impacts on the shoreline
vis -a -vis the policies of BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan. Implementation of the
Northern Waterfront GPA would actually allow better and easier public access to the
shoreline, through the transformation of current industrial land uses that limit recreational
uses along the shore, to land uses that would facilitate and encourage public access to the
shoreline. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would be
27
consistent with the BCDC Plan and policies and would generate beneficial land use
impacts. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A-14).
1.4 Compatibility with State Lands.
1.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be
compatible with the State owned lands.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the State lands
is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA would have no adverse impacts on Tidelands Trust lands.
The Northern Waterfront GPA it does not necessitate relocation of any existing Tidelands
Y g
Trust lands, nor does t propose any specific uses on Tidelands Trust encumbered
properties that are not in compliance with Tidelands restrictions. The Northern
Waterfront GPA does not propose any specific uses on specific properties that are
encumbered by the Trust that would be inconsistent with the Tidelands Trust limitations.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -14).
2. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
2.1 Induce Substantial or Unanticipated Population or Housin g Growth.
2.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not induce
substantial or unanticipated population or housing growth.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the induced substantial or
unanticipated population or housing growth is less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
p
than significant.
Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA over its planning horizon would result
in the addition of approximately 389 households, including 60 work/live studios. Based
on an average projected household size in 2025 of 2.40 persons per single - family
household, the additional households would increase the City's population b
p by
approximately 933 persons. In addition, the Northern Waterfront GPA would result in
employment related population growth. The potential office and commercial
28
development that could be approved under the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would
increase the City's population by approximately 320 persons based upon the assumption
that 20% of the employees will live in Alameda. This population growth is well within
the growth rate established by ABAG for the City over the next 20 years. Therefore, the
Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in substantial direct population or housing
growth. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.B -5).
2.2 Displace Population or Housing.,
2.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not
displace persons or displace or destroy existing housing.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to displaced population or housing is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not displace persons or
displace or destroy housing located within the Northern Waterfront GPA area.
Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would result in the construction of
approximately 389 residential units (not including the proposed 60 work/live units), of
which 25 percent would be priced at affordable levels. These facts support the City's
findings.
2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance.
2.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not
contribute to a future jobs/housing imbalance.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the jobs/housing balance is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The jobs/housing balance in the City is trending towards a ratio that is weighted towards
jobs. By 2015, ABAG projects that there will be more jobs than housing in Alameda.
Because the General Plan would result in greater housing- related population growth than
job- related population growth, the General Plan would not contribute to the future
projected jobs/housing imbalance. The General Plan would result in the construction of
housing in a region that continues to experience a substantial housing shortage, and
29
would not adversely impact the future projected jobs/housing imbalance. These facts
support the City's findings.
2.4 Potential Effect on the Affordability of Housing.
2.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
less than significant effect on the affordability of housing.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to affordable housing is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The number and type of housing units proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA
is well within ABAG's 1999 to 2006 RHND for the City, which calls for the construction
of 843 residential units priced at "above moderate" levels (this would include market -rate
housing), and 511 residential units priced at "moderate" affordability levels. In a tight
local housing market, the General Plan would provide needed residential development in
p
an infill setting. Approximately 25 percent of proposed residential units would be
affordable, resulting in a substantial increase in the City's total affordable housing stock.
g
These facts support the City's findings.
3. MUNICIPAL SERVICES
3.1 Police Services.
3.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result
in an increased demand for police services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to police services is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
It is not anticipated that residential growth or commercial and office activity would result
in an increase in calls to such an extent that new police facilities or alterations to existing
facilities would be needed. This increase in demand could be covered by a slight increase
in the size of the existing police force. As a result, there would be no significant impacts
related to police services from the Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the
pp
City s findings. (See also DEIR, IV.0 -3).
30
3.2 Fire and Emergency Services.
3.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result
in an increased demand for fire and emergency services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to fire and emergency services is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Anticipated response times to the Northern Waterfront GPA area would be in
conformance with response times to the rest of the City. Although the Fire Department
has adequate equipment to provide emergency response to the area, much of the fleet is
aging and in need of replacement. Development of the Northern Waterfront GPA would
increase the volume of emergency calls for first-in response apparatus. This could result
in a need for additional equipment and traffic light control devices. The acquisition of
new fire fighting equipment and the installation of traffic light control devices would not
result in environmental impacts, and are themselves not considered to be significant
environmental impacts. No mitigation would be required. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.0 -4 and 5).
3.3 Schools.
3.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result
in an increased demand for school services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to school services is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA would generate new students for the schools serving the
Northern Facilities g
rthern Waterfront GPA area. Payment of the School Facilities Mitigation Fee has been
deemed by the State legislature to be full and complete mitigation for the impacts of a
p
development project on the provision of adequate school facilities. The assessment of the
adopted School Facilities Mitigation Fee ensures that the project would not result in a
significant impact under CEQA, in accordance with Senate Bill 50, which became
effective in 1998. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.C-5).
31
4. UTILITIES
4.1 Water Supply.
4,1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in an
increased demand for potable water. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve
the area.
p Y
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water supply is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Buildout of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA area would lead to an increased
demand for potable water in the area, due to the intensification of land uses in the area.
However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the area in normal rainfall years,
especially since the area is not a new user of EBMUD water service. Should a drought
occur, the area would experience the same deficiencies as other existin g and new
EBMUD customers. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR IV.D -7 ).
4.2 Sanitary Sewer Subbasin Capacity.
4.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in an
increased sanitary sewer flow. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the
area.
p tY
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to sanitary sewer subbasin capacity is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
p
.
The additional sanitary sewage flows from Northern Waterfront GPA area development
will not exceed the EBMUD peak design treatment allotments. The EBMUD sanitary
sewer flow allotments for sub - basins in Alameda were presented in a letter dated
February 5, 2004. The estimated peak design flows, including those from the Northern
Waterfront GPA area development and all flows upstream from manhole FM -6 is less
than the cumulative EBMUD treatment allotments. These facts support the City's
p� Y
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -7 and 8).
32
4.3 Storm Drainage.
4.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan ,Amendment would result in a
reduction of stormwater flow rather than an increase in runoff.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to storm drainage capacity is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Redevelopment of the existing industrial or warehouse sites within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area will generally result in a reduction of storm run -off rather than an
increase in runoff. Existing NPDES permit requirements will ensure that the water
quality impacts of the reduced runoff will be minimized to a less then significant impact.
Finally, if the capacity of the Arbor Street pump station needs to be increased, this work
would be subject to existing rules and permit requirements, which prevent environmental
impacts. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -8).
4.4 Solid Waste.
4.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Solid waste generated by the buildout of the Northern
Waterfront GPA area (from building demolition and generation of associated debris)
could jeopardize Alameda's solid waste diversion goals. However, all existing
regulations would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to solid waste generation is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Solid waste generated by the buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area (from
building demolition and generation of associated debris) could jeopardize Alameda's
solid waste diversion goals. Section 21 of the City of Alameda Municipal Code requires
the project proponents to submit plans for managing construction debris from specific
projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area to promote 'separation of waste types and
recycling, and to provide for reuse of materials on -site for reconstructing infrastructure.
These plans must be prepared in coordination with City staff, the specific Projects'
sponsor(s), and demolition subcontractors, and shall be approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a demolition permit. This existing regulation reduces this impact to a level of
less than significant. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -8 and
9).
33
4.5 Electricity.
4.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
demand for electricity. However, this demand would not require development of new
sources of energy or construction of new electrical generation or transmission facilities,
the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to electricity service is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
AP &T does not anticipate any problems accommodating projected increases in electricity
demand. Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require development
of new sources of energy or construction of new electrical generation or transmission
facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. The
proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in significant impacts related to
electrical service. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -9).
4.6 Natural Gas.
4.6.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
demand for natural gas services. However, buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA
area would not require development of new sources of energy or construction of new
natural gas transmission facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to natural gas service is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
PG&E does not anticipate any problems accommodating projected increases in demand
for natural gas. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -9).
34
4.7 Telecommunications.
4.7.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
demand for telecommunication services. However, buildout of the Northern
s Waterfront
GPA area would not require development of new sources of telecommunications
facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to telecommunication services is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require the development of new
major telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing facilities to serve the new
development, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in significant impacts related to
. p
telecommunications services. These facts support the City's findings.
5. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
5.1 Consistency with Existing or Planned Transit Services and Facilities.
5.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront
GPA would not be expected to result in a significant impact on existing or p lanned transit
services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with existing or planned
transit services and facilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The transit and transportation policies in the Northern Waterfront GPA serve to mitigate
the potential significant impacts of the land use and development policies within the
Northern Waterfront GPA. Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Northern
Waterfront GPA in combination with the City's existing TCMP and TDM requirements
would not be expected to result in a in a significant impact on existing or p lanned transit
services. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E-18).
35
5.2 Emergency Access.
5.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA provides for an orderly
pattern of development and improvements to a number of existing, substandard roads and
sites with limited access. Therefore, impacts to emergency access would be less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to emergency access is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA will increase and improve emergency
g Y
access in the area. Extension. of Clement Street, improvement of Entrance Road,
extension of Pam, extension of Hibbard, and provision of public access into and around
the Encinal Terminal site will all improve emergency access in and through the area.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -l9).
5.3 On-Site Circulation and Access.
5.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA is not
expected to result in any significant on -site circulation or access impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to on-site circulation and access is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
As with emergency access, on -site circulation and access would be expanded and
improved with adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA. Extension
of Clement Avenue, improvement of Entrance Road, extension of Paru, extension of
Hibbard, and provision of public access into and around the Encinal Terminal site will all
improve circulation and access in and through the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These
facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -19).
5.4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation.
5.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront
GPA will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety in the planning area and
result in less than significant impacts.
36
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to pedestrian/bicycle circulation is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
p
than significant.
Public improvements proposed by the Northern Waterfront GPA will add bicycle and
pedestrian paths along the entire waterfront and along Clement Avenue. All intersections
will be designed to meet current pedestrian and bicycle safety standards. Currently
commuters who access Atlantic via Entrance Road and the Wind River parking lot use
portions of the Clement Right of Way as an informal bypass. Construction of Clement
Avenue with bicycle lanes and sidewalks will dramatically increase pedestrian and
bicycle safety in the area. Removal of the Truck Route from Buena Vista will improve
. p
bicycle and pedestrian safety on Buena Vista. These facts support the City's findings.
s.
Y g
(See also DEIR, IV.E -19 to 21).
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6.1 Special Status Species.
6.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No special- status plant species are expected to occur
p
within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, due to disturbed site conditions and lack of
suitable habitat. Therefore, no special status species would be impacted.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Out of the 27 special- status animal species listed by the CNDDB as potentially occurring
within or in the vicinity of the Northern Waterfront GPA area, 19 species are considered
unlikely to occur or nest within the Northern Waterfront. GPA area due to extensive site
disturbance and the lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these
species would be adversely affected by implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA.
An additional seven special- status species (double- crested cormorant, Caspian tern,
merlin, peregrine falcon, and loggerhead shrike, California least tern, California brown
pelican) may occur within the Northern Waterfront GPA area or the vicinity. Although
tY g
these species may forage within or adjacent to the Northern Waterfront GPA area, they
would be expected to avoid developed sites and would not be adversely affected by the
redevelopment of existing developed sites in the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These
facts support the City's findings.
37
6.2 Riparian Habitat.
6.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect., No riparian habitat exists within the Northern Waterfront
GPA area. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not
adversely impact protected riparian habitat.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
No riparian habitat exists within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support
the City's findings.
6.3 Habitat Conservation Plan.
6.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Biological resources within the Northern Waterfront GPA area are not regulated by a
local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the
Northern Waterfront GPA would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation
plan or the San Francisco Bay Plan. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.F -12).
7. CULTURAL REOSURCES
7.1 Historic Integrity of a Historic District.
7.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would
not result in the loss of the historical integrity of these buildings to such an extent that
they would no longer be eligible for National or State Register listing as well as local
recognition. Therefore, a less than significant impact to the integrity of the historic
district would result from the project.
38
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to historic integrity of a historic district
is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The City of Alameda previously identified the Encinal Terminals site as a National
Register eligible Historic District. However, due to widespread demolition of historic
buildings within the site, Encinal Terminals no longer appears eligible for listin g in the
National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, implementation of the Northern
Waterfront GPA would not adversely affect the historic integrity of an historic district. In
addition, 15 of the buildings identified in the Report are not eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or
official local listings, due to architectural modifications, or lack of State --wide or national
historical significance. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G-
1 o and 11).
8. NOISE
8.1 Long Term Aircraft Noise Impacts.
8.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Standard design characteristics for commercial /office
buildings would reduce the aircraft noise to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to long term aircraft noise impacts is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA area experiences aircraft overflights from the nearby
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (MOIA) and San Francisco .International
Airport (SF0). Although distinguishable, aircraft overflights generate lower noise levels
than other major sources discussed above. Standard design characteristics for
commercial/office buildings would reduce the aircraft noise to a less-than-significant
level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H -8).
39
9. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
9.1 Surface Fault Rupture.
9.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very
p
low, because no active faults are known to be located in the Northern Waterfront GPA
area. Therefore, impacts resulting from surface fault rupture would be less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant.
The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very low, because no active faults are
known to be located in the Northern Waterfront GPA area. The closest active fault, the
Hayward fault, is located approximately 4 miles to the northeast. This fact supports the
pp
City s findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9).
9.2 Slope Instability.
9.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due
to the absence of steep, high slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel
bulkheads. Therefore, impacts resulting from slope instability would be less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
.
than significant.
The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due to the absence of steep, high
slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel bulkheads. This fact supports the
City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9).
9.3 Erosion.
9.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to
the relatively flat terrain. Therefore, soil erosion impacts would be less than significant.
s�gnrf cant.
Mitigation. None Required.
40
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to soil erosion is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant.
The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to the relatively flat terrain. This
fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9).
9.4 Expansive Soils.
9.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is
limited because the near - surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have
a low potential for shrink- swell. Therefore, impacts resulting from expansive soils would
be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact resulting from expansive soils is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant.
The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is limited because the near-
surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have a low potential for
shrink - swell. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9).
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
10.1 Water Quality and Discharge Standards.
10.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The uses proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA
would not result in any industrial -type discharges that would lead to the imposition of
specific waste discharge requirements (which, when required, are set by the RWQCB),
and, therefore, would not be expected to exceed waste discharge standards for point
sources.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water quality and discharge standards
is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
41
The uses proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any
industrial -type discharges that would lead to the imposition of specific waste discharge
g
requirements (which, when required, are set by the RWQCB), and, therefore, would not
be expected to exceed waste discharge p standards for point sources. Development under
the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the RWQCB requirements of non -
point- source regulations. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR IV.J-
7).
10.2 Groundwater.
10.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any
significant adverse effects related to the groundwater supply.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to groundwater is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Construction of specific types of buildings or utilities may require excavation below the
groundwater level, which may require pumping of groundwater to dewater excavations.
Groundwater within the Northern Waterfront GPA area is generally uite shallow,
ranging in depth from approximately 2 to 6 feet below the surface. Existing groundwater
quality data indicate that the shallow groundwater in some areas contains contaminants,
which if improperly handled and discharged, could result in significant impacts to the
health and safety of the public or site workers that may come into contact with
dewatering effluent.
Depending on the level of contamination (if any), the dewatering effluent may be
Y
acceptable for discharge to the storm drainage system or the municipal sanitary sewer
system. Either discharge would require proper permitting from the regulating agencies;
g
the RWQCB for discharges to the storm drain system or surface waters and/or EBMUD
for discharges to the sanitary sewer. These permitting programs are existing programs
g
that would be expected to adequately mitigate potential impacts to water quality to a less-
than-significant q Y
than - significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR IV.J -7
and 8).
10.3 Water Movements and Flood Waters.
10.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No significant changes to the currents or course of water
movements, or alteration of course or flow of floodwaters, would occur. Therefore,
impacts to water movements and flood waters would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
42
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to xxx is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA area is relatively flat and, although the drainage patterns
may be altered by the installation of storm drainage infrastructure, no significant changes
to the currents or course of water movements, or alteration of course or flow of
floodwaters, would occur. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR IV.J-
8).
10.4 Water - Related Hazards.
10.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Impacts resulting form water - related hazards would be less
than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water - related hazards is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA area does not include any areas subject to regional flood
hazards, according to FEMA. The area is relatively flat and would not be expected to be
affected by mudflows or other types of landslides. A damaging seiche or tsunami in the
Bay is a low probability event even for unprotected sites on the Bay. The Northern
Waterfront GPA area is partially protected from seiches by the constriction at the mouth
of the Oakland Estuary, and, therefore, inundation from seiches would represent a less -
than- significant impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J-8).
11. AIR QUALITY
11.1 Odor and Air Taxies.
11.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area could
produce short -term objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants. However, these
impacts would be subject to BAAQMD regulations and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to odors and toxic air contaminants is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
43
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA would not permit the development of any long term uses
that would generate objectionable odors, or toxic air contaminants. While the Northern
Waterfront GPA would permit the establishment of research and develo ment p (R&D),
marine- related uses and restaurants that may generate some odors, any such uses
proposed in the future would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
on odors and toxic air contaminants as described in Section IV.L, Hazardous Materials,
and in so doing, would not result in any significant impacts. Each business or tenant
using materials known to generate odors or toxic air contaminants would be required to
obtain the appropriate operation permits from the BAAQMD. Therefore, no odor or air
toxics impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA. These
facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12 ).
11.2 Accidental Release /Acutely Hazardous Air Emissions.
11.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Any use proposed in the future that would have the
potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD
Rules and Regulations, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to accidental release of acutely
hazardous air emmissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
There is no information available at this time on any potential hazardous air emissions
related to the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA. Any use
proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions
would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Any accidental release
y
of acutely hazardous air emission would be reported to and handled by the Alameda
i Y
County Health Department staff n charge of such issues. Therefore, no significant cant irn act
g impact to accidental release and acutely hazardous air emissions would be expected to occur
as a result of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the City's
findings.
11.3 Total Emissions.
11.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would be considered
consistent with the growth projections of the current (2000) Clean Air Plan and a ' adopting
the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any significant changes in the total
emission assumptions already incorporated within the Clean Air Plan.
Mitigation. None Required.
44
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to an increase in total emissions is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Long -term air quality impacts from the three primary criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx
and PM 10) are those that would result from the changes in permitted land uses within the
Northern Waterfront GPA area. Mobile source emissions are those that result from
vehicle trips; stationary source emissions are those that would result from energy
consumption and the use of wood stove /fireplace and consumer products. As individual
development projects are proposed within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, analysis of
the long -term air quality impacts associated with the operation of each of these projects
will be required during the environmental review process. These facts support the City's
PP Y
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12).
11.4 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.
11.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Co emissions levels would be less than significant at the
northern waterfront GPA area.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to local carbon monoxide
concentrations is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
Several of the intersections analyzed in the Alameda Point GPA EIR are in close
proximity to the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, the results of the CALINE4
analysis for the Alameda Point GPA EIR are applicable in terms of what Co emissions
levels would be at the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Co emissions levels would also be
less than significant at the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support the City's
pp tY
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K- 12 and 13).
11.5 Regional Emissions
11.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. As indicated above, the evaluation of environmental
impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront
GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. Therefore, all future J ro'ects within
P impact
Northern Waterfront GPA are will be subject to project -level review. This im act
would p
o d be considered less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to regional emissions is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
45
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA is being done at a "program" level of
analysis. While it is likely that some individual projects that may ultimately be proposed
within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may exceed the significance criteria for
regional emissions, each individual project proposed within the Northern Waterfront
GPA area will be subject to a project -level review for air quality impacts, as required b
p q by
CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These facts support the City's findings.
(See also DEIR, IV.K -13).
12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
12.1 Airport - Related Safety Hazards.
12.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not create any
airport related safety hazards for people residing or working in the area. This impact is
less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to airport- related safety hazards is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant.
No airports are located within two miles of the area. This fact supports the City's
findings. (See also DEIR, IV. L -14).
12.2 Wildiand Fire Hazards.
12.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not create any
wildland fire hazards for people residing or working in the area. This impact is less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to wildland fire hazards is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
No wildlands are present at, or adjacent to, the Northern Waterfront GPA area, and no
new wildlands are to be created as part of implementation of the Northern Waterfront
46
GPA. Therefore; no people or structures would be subjected to wildland fire hazards as a
result of its implementation. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR,
IV.L -14).
12.3 Use, Storage, Transportation, or Generation of Hazardous Materials.
12.3.1 Less Than Si nif cant Effect. Due to existing rules, regulations, and permit requirements,
the future use, storage, transportation, or generation of hazardous materials in the
Northern Waterfront GPA area represents a less- than - significant impact.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the use, storage, transportation, or
generation of hazardous materials is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA land use designations would permit R &D and Marine
uses, which could include facilities that may use significant quantities of hazardous
materials. However, any future land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area that
involve the use, storage, transport, treatment, or generation of hazardous materials shall
be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous
materials. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14 to 16).
12.4 Lead Based Paint.
12.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area and by the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of lead
hazards and institution of standard worker health and safety procedures during demolition
and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less than - significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of lead based paint in
buildings to be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
Loose and peeling lead -based paints would require removal prior to
renovation/demolition activities. Paints that are adhering to their surfaces do not require
abatement and can be disposed of as regular construction debris regardless of their lead
content. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during and following
renovation or demolition activities at sites containing lead-based paint (Title 8, California
Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1). These facts support the City's (See . findin g s also
DEIR, IV.L- l 4 to 16).
47
12.5 Asbestos.
12.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area and by the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of
asbestos hazards and institution of standard worker health and safety procedures during
demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less than-significant
level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of asbestos in buildings to
be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
State and federal regulations require the abatement of all asbestos - containing materials
prior to demolition or renovation activities that would disturb them. State regulations
(Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1529) protect construction worker
safety where asbestos - containing materials are present. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -16 and 17).
13. VISUAL RESOURCES
13.1 Policy Consistency.
13.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would
improve the visual quality of the Northern Waterfront GPA area, and there would be no
impacts as a result of conflicts with existing policies related to visual resources.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with policies related to
visual resource is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA includes policies that would protect important viewsheds
and architectural landmarks, and that enhance physical and visual access to the Bay
shoreline. The Northern Waterfront GPA policies would be consistent with the visual
resources policies in the City's General Plan which seek to preserve and enhance views
of the waterfront. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14 and
15).
48
13.2 Scenic Vistas and Visual Character.
13.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would cluster development,
where possible, to preserve and expand existing view corridors within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to scenic vistas and visual character is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
. p
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA would cluster development, where possible, to preserve
and expand existing view corridors within the Northern Waterfront GPA area.
Implementing Policy 10.8.c of the Northern Waterfront GPA would require that all
waterfront development maintain view corridors from inland neighborhoods to the
waterfront. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would generally have a
beneficial effect on scenic vistas and visual quality by preserving view corridors,
renovating important architectural landmarks, creating continuity between surrounding
neighborhoods and the waterfront, and eliminating underutilized or deteriorating
structures. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14).
13.3 Light and Glare.
13.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could
result in an intensification of light and glare within the Northern Waterfront GPA area
associated with the potential use of reflective building materials, street light fixtures,
nighttime lighting of commercial identification signs and logos, and increased vehicle
and transit use. However, this impact would be less than significant due to standard
design review procedures and design related policies of the Northern Waterfront GPA.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to light and glare is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
It is likely that street lighting would be enhanced along all collector and local streets, and
installed along all pedestrian and bike through - ways. However, the consistent use of a
standard design review process for all proposed developments within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area, and the enforcement of Implementing Policy 10.8.f , Urban Design
g
and Aesthetics, of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA, would ensure that new
development does not create unnecessary glare or lighting impacts on adjacent land uses
through design standards such as downcasting lighting, limited night lighting, and the
49
imposition of limits on the use of reflective building materials. These facts support the
City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14).
14. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
14.1 Bay Trail Improvements.
14.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would
increase opportunities to improve portions of the Bay Trail within the Northern
Waterfront GPA area and would provide additional shoreline access and park areas.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to Bay Trail improvements is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA proposes to extend Clement Avenue from Grand Street to
Sherman Street and Atlantic Avenue. The right -of --way for this extension will include
adequate area to connect the Bay Trail from Grand Street to Atlantic Avenue, which
would be closer to the shoreline of the Estuary than an alignment that has been shown
along Buena Vista Avenue. The Northern Waterfront GPA also proposes public open
space along the western, northern, and eastern edges of the Encinal Terminal site adjacent
to Alaska Basin in front of the Del Monte building and connecting to the Wind River and
Marina Cove Shoreline parks. Completion of the Del Monte and Encinal Shoreline access
will represent completion of a continuous shoreline plan from Marina Village to Grand
Street, a distance of about one mile. This would allow a trail along the entire shoreline
edge rather than just the eastern side as indicated in the Bay Trail Plan. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N --5 and 6).
50
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
ATTACHMENT B
I. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guideline
Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the ro'ect
p � , or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
p j valuate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
. ry b e
alternative to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project
p p p p J ect
alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental project,
of a proposed r
p p of ect
the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
p xfic
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative
. P J
infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to
the three project alternatives identified in the EIR are described in this section.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project alternative assumes that the Northern Waterfront GPA is not adopted and d that
existing land uses remain the same. Development in the Northern Waterfront GPA area would
occur as allowed by the existing General Plan, and land use designations would not change from
those that exist today. Development of this alternative would result in increases in
population,
housing, or jobs which would occur under existing land use p olicies.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially �
significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The proposed Project's beneficial impact of creatin g a
greater continuity of land use within the project site and surroundin g areas,
providing public amenities and improving the appearance of the J ro'ect site
P
would not occur with the No Project Alternative.
b. Public Policy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this
alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the oals and objectives of
g J
the local plans applicable to the proposed Project area, including the City's
� e y
General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, increased housing supply, improved im roved
circulation, improved bicycle facilities; and the San Francisco Bay Plan objectives
for increased public access to the waterfront.
c. Population and Housing. The No Project Alternative would not
develop any of the new housing proposed by the Project. Existing employment in
the project area would continue and would be substantially less than would result
with the proposed project.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. The No Project Alternative would
not include the proposed project provisions for infrastructure
improvements /replacement, site improvements (pervious surfaces), and
implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations.
Thus, flooding, storm drainage, and water quality problems would continue and
be worse under this Alternative than with the proposed project. Construction -
related water quality impacts may be reduced compared to the proposed project,
but both the proposed project would be subject to current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for preparing and
implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Occupants of existing buildings would
be subject to seismic hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell
potential of soils to a greater degree than would occupants in new buildings
constructed under the proposed Project.
f. Hazards. The No Project Alternative would result in similar hazards -
related impacts as identified for the proposed Project. While this alternative
would not involve the construction of new buildings, rehabilitation of existing
buildings could include demolition and subsurface activities that could result in
hazards from lead -based paint, asbestos - containing materials, and existing
subsurface contaminants.
g. Biology. The No Project 1 Existing Conditions Alternative would
avoid the proposed project's biological resources impacts related to construction
of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the shoreline.
However, the less- than - significant impacts associated with effects on bats, and
non-listed special- status nesting raptors and other nesting birds would occur as
existing buildings are reoccupied, reused, and/or rehabilitated.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project l Existing Conditions
Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the
proposed project, this alternative would create less demand for alternative
transportation service and bicycle parking, but would not provide a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, the Bay Trail, the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, or any of the transportation facilities provided by the proposed project.
i, Air Quality. This alternative would not result in the construction- or
operation- period impacts to air quality the proposed Project would generate.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today with traffic from
the existing uses in the area, and therefore traffic- related air quality emissions
within the proposed project site would not change from existing conditions.
j. Noise. Under this alternative, no construction or demolition would
occur, and no additional vehicular traffic would be introduced in the vicinity.
. y
Accordingly, the related noise impacts would also not be generated.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today from existing
uses in the area, and therefore traffic - generated noise within the proposed project
site would not change from existing conditions.
k. Public Services. The No Project Alternative would result in the same
or less severe impacts on public services. This alternative would result in the same
or less severe impacts on fire protection and emergency services, emergency
response, and police services. This alternative would avoid impacts on schools
and recreation. The impacts associated with the generation of solid waste during
operations would remain the same. Construction- related solid waste, including
solid waste that may be toxic or otherwise non - recyclable, would be reduced
because existing buildings would not be demolished.
1. Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project
Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public utilities, except for
those related to exceedance of wastewater flow allocations. Improvements
proposed by the proposed project to upgrade the wastewater system and re- direct
wastewater flows to avoid exceeding existing sub -basin allocations in the project
area would not occur under this alternative. Additionally, the proposed project
proposes to replace existing water distribution facilities and install new
underground electrical and gas systems, and these improvements would not occur
under this alternative.
m. Cultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would not require
extensive demolition or construction. However, utility repairs and rehabilitation
of existing buildings could involve demolition and subsurface activities that,
while minimal, could affect cultural resources. Impacts on cultural and
paleontological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project, but
reduced given the limited construction work anticipated
n. Aesthetics. The No Project 1 Existing Conditions Alternative would
not result in the beneficial aesthetics impact that would occur with the ro osed
p p
project. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not improve the
continuity between on -site land uses and adjacent new residential and commercial
use. Light and glare would still occur and be visible to existing and adjacent
residential uses.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy
the following objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description:
Adopt General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policy, standards and requirements to
guide future development consistent with the community's vision as articulated by the
Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended objectives, policies and land
use concepts.
Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing
neighborhoods and the historic character of the area.
Promote redevelopment that includes a mix of uses.
Manage the redevelopment of private sites so as to create an active and publicly
accessible waterfront environment.
Create safe circulation and transportation systems that support and balance the
needs of transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, commercial traffic, and Alameda
residents and businesses.
Encourage uses that will expand the amount, availability and quality of open
space and public recreational facilities while protecting sensitive natural resources.
Implement the Clement Avenue extension to facilitate traffic circulation.
b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
c. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not
be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative
is not feasible.
B. REDUCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
4
Partial buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area under the Reduced Development Intensity
alternative would result in buildout equivalent to GPA buildout for the Grand Marina area and
the Del Monte sites. Current uses on all other sites in the Northern Waterfront GPA area would
remain. Under this alternative, the Clement Street extension would not be completed as proposed
under the Northern Waterfront GPA. For the purposes of this alternative, buildout of the Grand
Marina area would involve replacing the City's Animal Shelter or Corporation Yard, existing
boat storage and maintenance yard and the Pennzoil facility with up to 180 residential units (25
percent would qualify as affordable housing units). The marina and the Alaska Packers Building
would remain, but the parking for these uses would be reconfigured. Public access to the
waterfront would be improved. In addition, the 265,000 square foot Del Monte building would
be reoccupied with office and retail uses. The Encinal Terminal site, the storage site and all other
small sites within the Plan area would remain in their current trucking and warehouse uses.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would
produce the same land use changes as described for the proposed project, but with
a reduced amount of development.
b. Public Policy. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, like
the proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing
plans and policies.
c. Population and Housing. This alternative would provide fewer
housing units, affordable units, and commercial uses than the proposed project.
As a result, the number of housing units, residents, and employees and the amount
of job-related housing demand would be reduced.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project, the
Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would implement infrastructure
improvements and replacement, site improvements (impervious surfaces), and
mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations. As with the
proposed project, impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction period
and operations), and water quality would be less than significant with
implementation of identified mitigation measures.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Potential impacts due to seismic
hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils
would be the same as the proposed Project.
f. Hazards. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would
result in similar hazards - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project.
g. Biology. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would have
the same biological resources impacts as the proposed project, including those
5
associated with the construction of new storm drainage outfalls and construction
activities along the shoreline, effects bats, and effects on non - listed aquatic bird
species.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The Reduced Development Intensity
Alternative, would result in less traffic than the proposed project in the PM p eak
hour and the weekend peak hour.
i. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the
Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be similar to that of the
proposed Project and would have the same less- than - significant air quality
impact. With less PM and weekend peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed
under this alternative, less traffic-related air quality emissions would result
compared to the proposed Project.
j . Noise. Construction activity under the Reduced Development
Intensity Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would
have the same less-than-significant noise impact. With less PM and weekend
peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed under this alternative, less traffic -
related noise would also result compared to the proposed Project.
k. Public Services. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative
generally would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency
services, emergency response, solid waste, and police services.
1. Utilities. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would
result in similar utility impacts to the proposed project, although its reduced
population would decrease the demand for electricity, natural gas, and
phone /cable service. The alternative would also produce less water and
wastewater demand, compared to the proposed Project.
m. Cultural Resources. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative
impact on cultural resources would be the same as that identified for the proposed
Project.
n. Aesthetics. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would
result in the same beneficial aesthetics impacts that would occur with the
proposed Project as well as the same light and glare impacts.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would satisfy some of
the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the
proposed Project:
6
Adopt General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policy, standards and requirements to
guide future development consistent with the community's vision as articulated by the
Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended objectives, policies and land
use concepts.
Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing
neighborhoods and the historic character of the area.
Promote redevelopment that includes a mix of uses.
Manage the redevelopment of private sites so as to create an active and publicly
accessible waterfront environment.
Create safe circulation and transportation systems that support and balance the
needs of transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, commercial traffic, and Alameda
residents and businesses.
Encourage uses that will expand the amount, availability and quality of open
space and public recreational facilities while protecting sensitive natural resources.
Implement the Clement Avenue extension to facilitate traffic circulation.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas
of land use, hydrology and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous
materials, population and housing, biology, public services, utilities, and cultural resources.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project 1 Approved
Master Plan Alternative is not feasible.
7
Attachment C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Northern Waterfront and Child Care General Plan Amendment
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act, in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, requires a
public agency to adopt a monitoring or reporting program when it approves or carries out a project for
which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant
effects on the environment. The purpose of a mitigation monitoring program is to ensure that measures
adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts are implemented. This Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to comply with the requirements of
Section 21081.6, and describes the mitigation monitoring and reporting process for the Northern
Waterfront and Child Care Policies General Plan Amendments.
Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the revised project. Mitigation measures are
numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which the mitigation measures pertain, a
hyphen, and the impact number. For example, NOI -1 is the first mitigation measure identified in the
noise analysis.
AES =
AQ =
BIO =
CUL =
GEO =
HAZ =
Materials
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Hazards and Hazardous
HYD =
NOI =
PUB =
T/C =
UTL =
Hydrology and Storm Drainage
Noise
Public Services
Traffic, Circulation and Parking
Utilities and Service Systems
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are
described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR, in the same order
that they appear in the Draft FIR.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.
* Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department within the City, project applicant, or
consultant responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification Responsibility: Identifies the department of the City or other agency
g y
responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARCH 2007
NORTHERN WATERER!
MITIGATION
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
cd r rd , b, cn rd �-. v N
-4 I r,,,, 0 E) t.f, 2 (o) p-, „A c3 .1
oup-ScE,i(4)E(-2.-6p,e47
4•0 ... 11 1 8 41) g Li`l) rt—ID
{.., ,,
Lit', lc '-' 'Y - t v 8 ,,,24 g .-Ei
1 '13 ° �u o 2 H N a
°.b g � ; . CU
v ,g aU
t(..) -ig 11:4) I) 1.14' . 1. ..6:9 1 1
CU ii ci tj
0 t, rg 8 g cd 0 ,-,
Zi 0 0 '4:1 g o
.g P-1 g.), r, B cfi - ro 0 ;., 0 . ,..,
.5 71) 0 go c 'd 7:14 t:1-. i-i CLI
u o v U 0-+ 0 .9° ,„'
. 0 .,-0 v 4 �, +�
CU a)
4 U o v a p4 '� o 1 g '-g 5
v H -n p b b y aV
`-r-, v •/:1 �d o v 4 v �d ,�•.
G v v- d p v
N c G, U ° cl 'd bi
p G-r, 0 u H u, 0 �d b v V
�� v� 3 C
v� 0 0
pA 1 0; R 4 P i ; rd
v G a 'T1 b v N
'S ,41) gam.,.,
ca I- U 0 V 1g
o °k' W '
v t4-. • G .� p '
v
U V o 1 N ovW 5 o��
'V R •-g 4-4c Pa
.gib•
v ai G N 'd a) r-11 v
v �"' _+�
' .Ex • 0 t 4-/ G 0 CU V
V0 u
V n v v b q Q cl v
u u t ,r-4
.0 co v a = (-) y) C.-.) fl.,),
5
co G 'd
- .igCw3 b IA g i
0 0
U
0'�
U
.
o
a
v
5
v G
U �
d can
i v
a
CLI
� a
t.A• n y
a}
o u +;
W
g°
v
v
,
t4' . a)
a
-p E1
U
1.48 4)
o
v
71-.4) (17-1
cl
a
u
v � a
2
U
0
V
C)
Intersection
a3
0
v
cu v
V G
V o
gN
U 13
cis
v
o
V V 4J
U
C14
a
Lt
v •
v
au
a U
f
c,i
0
cfi
y„)
po
Cd .15
tn 0
ab
CCI a
Cd
o /3.0
loq
6
o
N4) U u tn
o.g
a to
a
o "0 a)
r-s ' g
`,3
v 0 U
o uU
cl)U
a3
Cqi
p •• 0
� g
tn
2 E 70 a
o
.11
p'-+ a) 44 44 cid
v
Z.0
tv' �
0
v a.5
ct v
a"0 agog
g 10)
v
a3
i6)'n
0 0
z 2
� a
� v a
Q a2
.5 Q g v
U 0� Fri
v 5V
V)
wo Ord vrd
b 4-4
tu 0 .1)4 cn g
a - 0
0 .i3O- • 0o oM °Qb .'�
LT: c) gl,h)
.W , v �d °. (73 (4-, u
�-+ y p rn Q+ H
7:1 •5 't7 4 v cg
4) co 4.3 g .
� 4j) O rd �
' v c� "El O V q (0 O
1iI.H
w
• °[�d a OanIs
1 u o o�� 2 O
t0 T, v a,
0 r4 Vid v)
o
ay a a) to O 4.) c hi)
4-, +a _6, 4-, 0 a, d)
�v8� al a.,
3 eau w ti.0 HV
2.1 v a ( V 0 v. 0
▪ 0 ,0 .1:, "4 'b) . d ,
A .-0 . U ca ,0 ] , „, ( c v cX) • O
p:),
ij , 'r°0 ii ig or a (9_,t-e,
.0 0
hO v ttl O 'd
qs u H P O u .t-..2 g '-
i-4 0 0 4 . g 0 c,
z0 - .° l'-' V a y ,.p U d p G [) d
v N J
'V G O 5
i • .5 ° (6 14-' 0 tl i4:1'' 0 ..14, .4.
.,.., Ti g ° ;11 g -1 0 - tu ..
t.) B • .0 0 10 ,,, . 0 . ro ,-8
,,0„,.0, ,5
.0 . 1> ' V ,.”' t-, ' ,.,..r i-t:1 mr.1)
0-, 0 :-0 0 g ci cti ,.....,
,,
u.i...,.fl.. hop 0 whoa,
, u u
,,, ia.,, w ti, -0 b.Q.E L21 LH
. .
,.,
c. ,, 0 • d
° ; w ' .g. 0 ° o H • 0 ,
:0o v .d , A au 6 4) 4..) 1,,, • 4� O O b �0 p in D m
Si' a,) y °•t , ° S
w Pt°*v ca2•w° °.
0
LP?
QV
o v
a
• pr, o w
6) 8
✓ v 6
.�'.�
t)
iflJ
o
o 8.0U
u o p., a G g b a
.o
v P� § -�
o
�'5„ II
• t
at 6 • 0 v
.r/] ,giorn
Prj
0
''d cn
w o •�
¢,,o
ro N
0 .1-.4 c.
a u
a) ^C, cU V 0..) CI 4' .. co cu . .7„, 4.s. ,,
2 tzl -ci . v '5 -S -- g z.1
• = v] � N 'd H �
CU 4 nuv
”d 0 v, i). v ,0 v
0 .� N0 bUv zi • p. 0 g„ 1:Ufl
b v v a
74 .� `� U „) o u v v; a$ o G PO ct 1HI
d v 8 rd 8v
u o o N�B�'
u n u u ag g
�' 0
Flwi 1
4 1 1' ' p a o UiI 0
•4 v '5 V g' • �-' o bA
c� *d .� @ to ,� • v g
v ..� H v v' ▪ v �.� v G u .0 ..?-„ ci.,...„;_,
0 ;.., 0 ,-ci t,-. t% rcs 4-' -2 a) 9) .0 g
`1,-c8 1,4 zi 1
. V R 4) 0 -8 u v i ' v
p t4 v ' V
. U ' a.) o v vv a ' `o
v u i o
u 0 n cli .... ctI rx(L) g 0
"5 '0 • g .... o
✓ • ' '
• CI w o o � � o Va
v ,b Ill
,b v a v w v a , . ,-4
' o G vv!#au u H - vLo m� v , vim v
u v �U V b '� 4� H Tt v o v Cd to • cr (3. '5 I-I
� 4 8 . .g • • •
I SLIT tt aai
lc:14 ,L4 • f)4'
aI.•a v
0 .1-2,
N Q.,
0
cis v
Tus
o pq
g
y c.
5 c4
`c; h)
o
0 V •u U
Y3 al B
o
w UU t.4
!rte o
.- ' V o ; � gi � v VI i v
Go,o V w ct)
F-, 45's II'
d Q v o
b, 0 • g q
V
'iw.0 x - l o
G &' c .. v u +�
.. ci 0 '
o .0 v v o ' 5 „d o �'v 4 I
� � V c o � � ��} � ° • �" °.v � o .�- N t �m cu a) v (A g , E 1 4
u
o. ...0 "C ct "dtH v'n 0• "'
t, "I L 2 .5b °Evw5'
o x v Z'o G v v g u 5 0 H ;o v
N
6 E v.0 0.,... 0.5 pri .g w o
ifi v z o o x o u d §,g a u 4
h ° A .4 4,
g 6 ,� u •& v H d a . 0
Q t, e 0 ? v,.° 0 ci.g ro G
o g r v . , . � G .V ` } , � w , r ti u v o 0 V g "8 dx 0
v o n
izi Lo.)) .=1,3:.) i • .,..-zi I P. rl 4 8 c''', r:`1 T .5 .0 15 ;-'86 ,h) . 0 4) . 5 u . 0
P, g ,,_,P5 g _,;-= 0 .,,' c; 2 c,-„ cn t; 1
rd , G N N P
2 d A-, N a a� ,35 Q
g v'° v u o o a 0 v ia
h G o• .
'4 Or -A Lc3 . t 6 6) 1 351 . i‘ El t 4) r3i
• . • .�.. ,.d G C 'rte,
6.4 2 p! t•-• -
1 .g .,
„) ,, ,..o ,,..
8 — •.... c,,
0 ,._
v
^d bA u 2 �03 . "d a G b S
v -P
v v Q LS "5
,o 4.r a q p� • 0 +-1 ro v v u
v V'Q o uP
v ° '� '� u
v v
v . .d
ct, . a} (; 2 U
=� 5
cl
0 g I -ti u o
v -,td.o v ; o
'48 id 1 Ili 1-9' C1 o v
B4), .. g 2. 0 -
.�5aoao`"
'- g A a' g 1-) v vp
Q
2 o }' "ii .2 'd ° G 0 ,-
G o cn .5 ')
,u
v 0 41 v
Ai � '� . v'' Q c'� ~ 'S
V v
L4 �5 • •
encountered
resources
. t.,,2, g i 1 1 2 r°
bU vi� 0 �,� •5
al :a zi • 5.0 R
a v bud •� 0 Q 0 `"
tti 1 [t M 5 +a
- • .
CI I-1-1 4-1 p U 0 CI •
+al . v
V v
cn o .0 .5
C. u o 4 v y 'v u ,-o . ii)
V) • ,-, #-. ''1 4 b) 'fl 4
C � � � cn � 0 emu-+ 0 ,� �CC CO
u C n w v '7 ; c� 'b . i-, cn u Li,
v V V 0 1) .`0.0 6 g
4.f o a u p 0 .2
;-d v �v v, o a�
U rd v 1 v o `4)
L+ 4 -+ cv3 U '� ' V.0 ' v� i ti "d
n
a � ' ) "� O bud v rd �► �]
� W ° � � � � u v o
1 U v° Li 2
w v N
Li, v '- W
•
v
0
0
g
'� ■ ca fi) b id v gy m ∎ a •
w,.FA 0 0 0 gi •
.fi tii 0 t; 2 ho T. t' 1 ,_._,_
u0 , .d o ,� o T.' 0 0
g .- . - u pg cl a o 0 v
ti •� q b1 u o , v v
n ifd:i:
4 .O v; ai ct, 91 U s)
ih2 o , 0 'p '0 El o ' �,o o FA -0 'c u v~ 0 .4 H V nzi 4-4 o � � °' `d � � b a o cu
4L m Q il ° ccn ''
v v u v b ci 0 0
CU e , ,-90 u -
..3 � .L -
+� v q ..''
v •
n
uA+,o'o°:g
NOISE -la
0
z
Cr1
0
rd }'
bA 43
LIB
riZi
• 5 .� •0 [I)
C.)
o.5
o 0 0
•� ci `) U'
nlo,�
cid
U) 0 u' 0 Cl) 0 o 4 ,5 ,- •o 0 a "11
tai • b N
11 '� a' A tz.r ~r� ›
+1
w v
til
.b G I r) a W
° . g r.›.' A Fl . Bcd Ii
0 ,4 w ba • G N
.2 2 2 4] ' 1-1 H V •
4] 'Cs 0 Z 4-r . ,
cn� 2 V • Z u vr
v 840 g g cu o
ij �, MI . 5 c. ; 0 o ,-
felu
& cl Q, ; "Cr
..d v d W o . 5 ,.�
0 Cd
4) 0.) iii ff
.-A
g r. ri cl cl) c`g . g •
.1 11 rri pi
• .. , .., a o
' v icl cg Pli O) y 'd ii
8 0 0 0 +••o 4} a
' � t G tq V +� , . 0
0
0
0
a4
a
• tv
rci
r• #
o pt
V
0
r5 o
0 5 ph)
b��V
O u,
o V 0
0„0ov
O '(
v 4) ” �
rtj
o H
u 4_,
ono
'
0) y 5 4}
Co •C.
Le: 11'
z cal o
NOISE -2a
NOISE -2b
M
U)
H
0
z
V to
15°4
.6 5 o
C/D ad 1:1 4 vi
UjL2
a)
04
0 G 0
b.c, 4,
,( 4.1 ti4
cd
g P14�
off'
.t v
cn
o
0 0 g
airt g
.g 5 o cr
.g "F. 81 g :2, C.Y4 ca4,*
t '6: g d;4— 8
CIS
,g "CI bra u
rd
CU
4) 45 •NaLl o
V w •
r-�
0
o U
a
ct
p u
o
•
bA
i A g ,
. .s 0 g 5 re, ..0 ',3
ii)
• W u� v , r q)..0d p �
CI W p O v ,� 1‘ p
., 7 • u ,� � ;g
cut ; 44 ,0 °' a.r (1) 0 4) . 0 4 g 1.9 h) cl g'4
11:1 rd v 0 5 `g . a) k
v o u . r u 47 4 3 1 0 Cr' 'Li ct .. 4 v v 0 o b
,a g O v ,F ci
° fl ct . 0 v a' 0 o to
0. g . v v
C4 .° N
I:U .g ;11 .5 u a) b.0 'ti a•' t j rn
. a. ° °� ,� o
� � � H bAw � � � w
.0,..., � o w �� v
w vi o a, a �� o .
"
° "` SL' " 'Ti V u 'd a h ~d u
U o u v o ou ° 0 v o
-+'d v a
s
• •
-.d d V o d U 0 U 0 • 8 U
. 5 1 V o i-j , A a A �' a•-, `° 0 - b.0 ;-,
0 -0 0 „�,, - .z,71 t 4
o
i g v t 1 8 750 \--, I) b) (..) , cc)
'..- .-C) 8"..-.,..v,
O +.+
Od „ v ^v,�+-� pd!O r I ..g d 0 j
..C? � � bA '� t p C4,.,c,,:1,1,_,
” .0.
•-�iu, u -d v u 1 /')-1 b. • V -1-' 0
co •
v Id 0 e c 0 v N-, 4 A ; V "
. O P-r • o v ,, ov u v
Od D
r v
i
;: ) ' Hu1 o ' o "cs o
u
.vb.° tim 1 --c-4 2 g-, ,Ys .8' . PO 5, o
fl r.- u . a9 ,-- er rd . v, 0 ,,,u g ,,
..-A ..., ›-, 0 0-.
= V, ;.8 u cd:fiu g' 1
° rd
U•
L° wu i� 4'�
v
w
� E � u o o o V
,
.4M' a u 0 "r
o ,l al a y • d
0. 4 tva w � � � g � � � 8 ,h)
4 ti o o v u G w m o u b
ca 0 4-,
o,
6AV � v,. 1w,� p
. yV .o
ca 4 •� Q 1. ,� t j 4-I '�s VI o X 4
° D mw v c- 8Td , t'°
m „, u ,s4,,,,4 6, I-3 0 ,T, .
0
,,.., 4.) C3 0 .0 1. CL) ,V "1:1
a° c-.)
..8 „ . p) -8 v 2
0 v. v g t..,, 4'2 8 .. 0-, r° "c'
cl Q • 0 n v.
.w
v -G��` off' o 8 0° ro
'. cu Pe, °t o auiw y a a
to G . . to
;� d • u a 0 .V-4. LI 0 0.)
•i,-, 0 cu
•
P. a °' ° o. b ba too 0 0 o u 4 G w w -d •
fc� oi,.n u ° o: 0 0 qm 4 0 - -;•� ..ii •0 o u
P4 �
ti IDI �CC w u LI G� � G
� o v' i� Qa sn Q
E 7,4' 'FL; io i-, 9,1 4 .29 r°
. u EL, b.o..- 4 c, °, z‘i . g (i3 tt, 1 -' "13
cu
t ig — ;‘§ t ,-. 4 114 go " '''' L2
Q uo � u 1a FiH p} o v G c b r, o o
6.4 li, 2 A-' E u 1, c G c1 P•, ai , G
•t N c4 .19 G r. '
ca ccl u • � .- rd 74 7 � °
a0 d v u 0 ' n 'd '" 0 c' }r ' d b.0 v .F V u p u 0._ .
rn
�•g�• -ti's u� � � �, � Q O �z
o-' ., +3 c� v •�
'4' M PE -PI
4 o �" rd �� v rd �d au
�, '.w v ' w
4 4 M i,
o
rg a. t , r ft' 2 t 'FL i .- u g — .
,.. x , g •._. ,..„ , , . ..,,, Vd r, U 9.)... V.)
fl `� "d v u � `,' ;•' u � � d u t � � rd B P. G 0) u . rn 4 a4....,,,--..., °-'
cn rd ^d
M
0
a�go
(1) H
. 4 0
a3 bo
a �
a
b.0
. 0 1 ,
cci
'd 4' 0 0
6 i
'5 'd 5
U
,.ti
• 0 9 0
F.. 0 -
;•8
U U
O • —
v O E v
,Ti W •
u 0
igt.'"cH-gu
u a)
o ,� -
O U 0 u,
6.0 •g
1, ,
p.,
✓ o g a
v w cC 'd as _ &) v ^d
u
o. a � N��
ta,o i 0� w C„ . 0 0 11 . 5.-- qt V, 0 t'-' 2 R ,, 0 a, . 0 -0 a. 0.4 . 5
#d 1.° K. t 4:L1 H lii ; . ...g 04 v.0 g .--, 0 41)
F) ,fe,:g 81 t 2 ,,,,,Cli g II" A ..h) 1 i-a .1]..; . 0 I. .-0 g u p., v › .as -i .-
= ;4 r" ' 0 • p 0 o
.0 u p '^ . p_, 0 g ' p n m a as P iv
V, a} PA ;7_, c,I] • 7 o.� • V p.., . .0 c" ,.,o ' - o
' +� Ram'+
� u
o u .ri a v c� a u a
o 0 0 0 u• .v u O V a
'd 5 o v cYs 8' o u au ., ,.d v cl p v "ci r5
•a C o 0 .v to, u a3 v o o v o
., 4.4 L,-, 0 V) 49 t .,14--S ro . ,4 "si (-) 4 7:1,.., . $4.(
0 p a 0 o N o 5 q W a) 0 b v P. p. 0 0 2 °'
sU"5 u a} 0 1, a2 2 :.E P.5 r ri 1 V., 0 . a} u.,� ▪ o w v
'1) 0 .0 5 0 5 a
▪ , . ..- „,
`8 A 1• , ro ... ciu, cciii t
R� "d Ui
v 'd
a O� r, F Q
O 6• ) v., 0 r., v., -0
0 0 cv .' ,, F lf,-, 4 .-
8 ° o
iIC7 g 1-9
isa
U
• 0 D �
C
7,$)
cn �' V ''d • 9 U
:4 0 •� • aJ
• U
vv as o� U)
• • T
W vy ▪ 0 c d
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARCH 2007
G v •V ii a G fl .}' go H
a • d (i u ,gyp v p ,-,
0 .0 t' b V '' o
•
..o 0 cl) 2, N 0", 4 .i=i g. r,„ P. .. r, i
0
;au ,5 .0 . a„ - i. ,...
u4z v
~d
v 0 v
; A
0_t 1l
t. a .r,
Uo
g o
a
° a
u
>. I-- .8 -8 .g
CL, "d
. _ •g
w , „ a
0 o o
0 L4
VV)
0 � u Cf
(.56 g 8 •
�
•
G
y
G v v r=
"d
a o • v ., o a r
crl o o � Ti t
c 0 u U°
v � vo O () o v a
u
IN
v O IN
ct
0 ° "8 1
Q
ORii1I
� i
.� rr
� v v
q ry �
V+a �
Q a v 4
1.1 .(? tup
d
1 v .4 cd a
u � ° Lt$0401?,4N.g°121w-SE
V) 0 PA
w
q ao o q ' o a a t
5
U v
0
,,74 0 8 ?4
b
5 �s t• v o a w
v � a
p
cu
'
� o v q
v 5 v v
O4 al 0 0
4 o •U � o
v v o v G
o �
H
V v
p v o +, w •
v
b
q
, o v d
o tag o
. E v
V o ccLA
:r o p. •
11.) ;..r en
4-,100•73v.—
clA
A VA 841 5 p•.-,ai.fj 0 u '
v v
� v
v N
C
ev ' o 1 Az
!'4 R, N 5 t 5 a o a,N
•
0
a)
v
W
ce
z
W
2
• � LI-1'4-4 it-, "d cn v C � �m �' to tu � • '`d� ��' rr
4 v ,bo o 1 I � 4� p LI
p � 4 5 � o,`� 'bd N a^ ° '; � 1 -d a v p � b '8 v u a o u - o 75 . • -0 ' a r„ j � 1 'rni g 0 0
•g
i»oo
a o a
� ❑
:) a^ o ig a; N n G o
2 z' "cJ rtj &I 2 •t., H `'' Cs a'0. k 'd �
° 6 i:Q).Sd v v g •u v a
c
U - ,d
v a °"
�roy -0 v � q �-,. 4 W H v rn ao a . -I . C , o N a 1g
G , "d u 'fi - v r, b wp. G+ 8 il 0 '2 ,_, 0 c.,, 1...1 1 p 8 0- . , , , ,, , 1 . ve -, 0, 43 va v b v ' 0 v V rn • IIiI
c. u' m v v , B � o v a 0 , . . )
0 .,-,
• u a v 'V b p,pO o rig r : v o b o v d v v,ti v , ,5 n o C
0 0 cdu) E 4,._8 v . 0 u v cn o �•. tti, ,,, u . - . _ 5 ›, ,0 g iz,.1 p ii, . (6, ro , Z3 o-i-il .c) -0 '''
o r v p cu o
E d cl
o �n rS rd o to o v b G D
v. - & ,"A -d Ti p, v u5 0 'ti d m � vv v
v -
g ,f.,, . Ti, . - g . r 8 v '' o rd rd 4) u 7,
..
'b tb' d v ij Cr'
U 4.), a.) 0 V Q U *tlIFJ`iacr.z3wo--,-.T›,- c)“olti'-'2- r 0 , c , 1 . ) , gn 1 0 8-4.74 ,,, 1)., g:c.i.-4 t 0 u . ,, 4.) m 1" ..),.izi 4.) Ls. ¢ 0 v +A v Av v
7.,—
v v
W ,� c ,[ V 'd W O g fiv
.fl Ln .0 1 "V A-r v N o
• v
.0
O g
c1
• a
CU
1 3 -
„,
v
L
I) v
0
o a
t1r 0 4a
a v,
w ,
O CI
' 4=1 • cn o
;11 • w
0
u v
▪ d)
61) qu
P-1 rj
v
(/) o 5
t; il `-`fi` 40 8 pis 2 p, t ,2), 75 1 v 4.) 4.) 0 ..= 1
"b cl
p. ti P-, • N "CI . 8 • cn • c 18 g .t i �-F-1 4, t r ii
v
-.-ium --tiaiwotSv w W �, o o o �, o 2 v '- q,�
c• .v•°av • a �0 °�°w;
.
:-,..4' ra .0 v ° 4) v an 0 • o _ U
a ET 2 V v u 4 0 .� v b
,� . w w a� 0 v' d a 4, o R{ O N �'
k rd O° �d u' • o v c� o v A, bA
'y v a, +I u 0 '� �'� v', C��^�,� v;� g p., m o v.6 L- 0 drei o o 04 cl �� - s,v
41 P v v`.-,�c ,A
ci 1 O
Nsi
u v 0
v �4 N ica 4 '- 'Cl Ti �
0 •o 0 v to 'f, v w ,.p.,
^;
� n -p v v p, v
-q a v u . u� d v v o v)
4.,
`b t • "d • a •OU4) o v o u • r, ,r . P. ,.., . cn 4J v 0 -d rd +.., ii, ro 4v v ,��rd,�� A.,4�. -G} 0'ti 0 0.
4 xv�' v N E ti :v ai o V a u " �,T
b• 0 v'' :hi v 0 v t 8, v v CAS
ti �-� cn ca 4 u ran rvn v can a E Q vvi U Ln '- .
° vi
•
° 'v
u
Pit
o 0)
� n
A
O pq
CJ
ria
0 oiQi
v� U
b �
5 o
. ▪ 2 cu 'd
u
• � � o
u b0 0
0 0 00
.5 ^d
rd V] v
bu4
cn co • .0
'5 0 0)
IA XI Q) (4 V) g (73 -11 .-0
o as o
Vi u c U .-i r p v; a. d rs � +.r v
rn
a.)
4-, 4-r i.3, EL4 ...X ,,i
+� c4 d
4 d 0� '� 0 .ct a-e . � v, �' oh4 �.,�
CI
10 1-I
o *g w ' Cl., a � cri • 0 u Q, V L4-4 , VS V .
Ce 1.4
CO 0 = .-, .21 t (1.) 4-I 4:.
t-4 cl
a
P. a)
Hr N a, rd as v o ., t 0 3 cu
"oot)ziu-SE a' c't m o A -
.›.
�I N [l ›+ .7-4 ,)
A v '11 rg
Pj j '1) .4p,.'42. r5 Its , .8- ' .-ci 4 or, 0 —
,„1 . cc, •...„, gu t. a., ,..., 464
o ;-+ di v o d u 0 + i•+ N N
�• .,a•� ,4U•.8 °'d U• 0 o• rrs� t7.r:a h, 0 Ti 0 a rd 0• v o U 2 ,� ,.o 2 . S R a.° 5 u '-' LI
. Pc' , ;. -.-. 0 75 tu0 ti-V-4 El t1-.) g .5
4) ' '. g
.8
p rd u e-'Td ° d a ct 0 U
vs
a ,�` 0 ;o u o v v rd v G ;-
•gy • a ° ° v- w 40• o ,v�
" o
• ,1• 7:1 '4=1
ay p
cd G C
712 h&F 0 /- R U +n td u ` a o
.,0
ca • • • • •
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARCH 2007
r
cn
u d „c a 0 0 °� c`ny
m •5 a, '0 &) V v e c U CU X
0 ,� ro u c� p .4:1 cn by b M 2
N O4p 0 0rd•`i' bqa .g
v a �,w too c. o ;-§
4) > .g t/
. +1 „„ ''d U p., . p., (1)
I!Ld 1 s , ,
14 0
cn a; ni "bCC �.E.4 C U . 'Tom' }, c.�
” re? rn t 0 ''d +
1 i (9,--7.,
., Mt
I-1 1 1.01.'24 g
0
a.� ~d 0 bu4 G ' o a.i a cr .
.. coo °..,5v0 • ,h) 13 .
y o o v Qo 4. 0 F4. ,„. . y '
4w,� v N b '� • 0 u v
0 2 v ' al
0 u, '.0 u G 0 rj aj
CU 0
• • •
0
w ccj 0 w
o H� 0 o 6.0 CU
`� a �,•U oa u
0 .� G 'd °' rd a,
o0 co . 4; w g as
a vii '
,...., -s 4 44
i_. . ,., 1 ci, .4 i-',
cl�••�� uab E�
cta a 0 0 a) La
U cd
hs y 0 -, b
ua
f: E U 4) 0
o i 75 14 . '5 e 0 i.§ . E cLiv 4 a
. 4), o aa 0 . V 0 Q Zi b `
co o v .a
+, g ,0 H oo t
v Q b a
0 04 . g g E4.04 0
. E T, 9
0 43 0 u' a a o oI
0 P cn w '9 1
0-1 tU ° • Q E Q ,° as
w
,--+ "d
IIr
V 4 au • •
to
tvo
"Cl 0
c1
v
Ei.
0 C)
U) 0
U C3
o CL,
o
vy
0
• •
}, cab `i y �'u' ,
a, Ei c rs i+ o g A U
aG-.- o y
fi 0
'G 014 v d II , a, C.
a
r, .5 'VT 48 g 1 ; 5 .° .
0 g 0 .2 i.V .ii), .13 g jEj Ho ..
4 0 ,-, -ci c„ ..-b' g go i-, ,,, 0 ,_0
,, „I o.„ U o ca 0 v� G • ci a,
a, �' u ' � - u m . u
.2 174 11 -0 g Ti g -ti v �--' • ad 2 G a] o
a, o
ICJo�.b 4) ,/�,, °'Q.�ry
�'Pib'4 a `� o' uw
," o
u3 144 01 0 - 0 ,44
o V o,8 g � a,U
B �' o ao o g
cL, Q)"
L) 0
o °' ,
to x ¢
a G � a.,
��� � 0w �=
_dt) Z 2 „n a., g Lu p +0, , ,,, 0, w 4 cl Q., 8 F.,i) ,.,0) 0
8g• �5GG
_.-4 d I) ,9-ip9 id Lc3
"5 "d
a0
R ti)
rh.)
wo�
0
o o 'o
5
to
.� S
0 -0 Fo 0
f -it-'
42, t,
o
a3 cu o
u
o ,h1
0
a, o 6.0 461
. U .�
CU Ct 4-1
U
L °
O u t�
•c '0 0 c�
bp
G
0 0 t ,�
in o 0
0
0 .
0 o,
irj
fi 91
0
0
1 aQ)is) N _ .
CU CI
u3
v b . t' o 1
i.fl tr ' Ci a) '- 41 c" 4.-' Ai 1 '� �, , , A 0) bA � 'd 4
cn b' ,. i..+ . w 4, tn sn u u 4J 14 q�
V.1 4t CL4
C:1. 0 § cl .r°) cd 0 . 5 u '5) 5 w" e (t, „D• m p-, .,,, 2 c.,..4 g ▪ 8 8 (9 to up ‘.4.,$.,
CI
w ' rd u • w �••! o � 0 o
-cd --: ��,
t-' ° `+' u ' � d � V u p.4 o 4..) ,S sn 47
0 • P 4,'u: 0 '"' 0 0 10 8 cil B B 1
0.4p., , cl U 0 at 0
H • 4-1 0 0 .2) 2i, _b .-D 0 0 • V 0 8 rizs
u E v P
Fft
o i.4-2 �
' as qj a u ' u5 .- ,., ,-$ A ct o '5 u T m v3 i•+ 0 u 'd b
G pa u i., 6.0 • +, q 0 a.) •
ri. •-g % it) '.0 4.) 'MS • u 0 U -1..,
-5. g Ei 0 0 - . - - o � � d c a *b +, (T4 A , bA L' r a o u ..d y
,- . . 0 . ,,
a ' T `� u G Q., o a d o v u m .4':1 0 t
- ' 50 (ISA ,1 N j 0.9 c't . 5 ' 5 t EL9 .ip u9-1 • a)
0 CL, 0 ' v 5 "'i ''' 4) ' 0 0 4 +j.,") 0j 2 4-ia -0 api 2,
. 0 ,,, . 0 ci, 4., 0 0..) 0 at ;4 -.-
.g 0 . ..,,
0 . cid .0 g 6.0 , to x ..zi . ,......„ ..., .. 1,0 „, -4-, U 4...,1
'd 4+ p7 o" d v v
V V V) io a b g i � n ro s . 8 a v
O R uc• i o E u.,o • • • • • 0 ,u
ro 11 ,^ cu w u 0 b.0 0 0.3 4-, t+-.+ u 7, "'d
0r a 0 rcs °
„ a w ri-0 o c�
R —,..)cu 0 'd :2
•-izi cs.) -6 4-' 14 tu . cu u 45.0 c.) ;.8 .-id 7.2,J ri
O u 0 E 4 0 0 ...„, cn
0,
5
0 Cr V a) • u, . 0 b.0 ti N
b
. o .$2.., 2 4-mx,190 2 co . cl) ,
. ° °t 15. ' m aaa,`C$ u n.,
. V t i 1?) u :ou ,
• o w to 'd as t o as a lj 1=1 ,.5q V +1 c -, g 4 (6 ucno Q-94043-1(43 ,_, . = 4._, , ..ci .:--4 r., o
, t ..,, . .4 2, .s P a .-d
v] o o D 4 Tow " ct -
Q 0 0 to o 5 ;6 G i o' N
V pIt w u o� o °� �, o
V V; i 0 ,.
, cn v ,..2, 1.,) ad u
,.,) 0 4) 1_, u 0 ,_ 0-I ,..- ' TA g
;.., u . - - 3 • I a B u •1 &) • a U a
cid il ,1>s"' 73 p.4 '5‘ Fi iii g `) tg ,c,i . iir ar-F,42, AI ..9,
. - 0.? G . v 4 p cn V �i., cLI P.
• • •
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ATTACHIVIENT D
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091
et seq., the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the following statement of
overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project and the
anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are
included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report ( "FEIR ") prepared for the Project. These impacts cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by
changes in or alternatives to the Project.
II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining
unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant
unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the
overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for
finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental
impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are
supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents referenced
below.
III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has considered the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written
materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related
to the Project, and does determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in
the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits by:
Y
1. Ensuring the productive use of underdeveloped area and fostering orderly growth
and quality development in the City.
2. Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan,
thereby implementing the City's stated General Plan policies.
3. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City.
4. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City.
5. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the
Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land
uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, and inadequate or deteriorated
public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
6. Replanning and redesigning underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to
achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in
City.
7. Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction housing, consistent
with the existing density and single - family residential character of City and with
existing City policies and standards, including Measure A.
8. Increasing the City's supply of land available for residential development and
increasing the supply of affordable housing in City.
9. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with Community
Improvement Commission inclusionary housing policy (i. e. , providing on -site
moderate income housing, and a 25 percent inclusionary requirement).
10. Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding commercial uses that will provide new amenities for City
residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
11. Achieving job creation and economic development.
12. Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at
Webster Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within City, in
accordance with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
13. Facilitating the emergence of commercial sectors through improvement of
transportation access to commercial areas, improvement of safety within the
Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new
commercial expansion, employment, and economic growth.
14. Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and other funding mechanisms in order
to pay for the public investment in infrastructure required for economic
development in the Project area.
15. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of Cit y and
promoting a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable.
2
16. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into City by: emphasizing Mixed Use
development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project
site; minimizing through - traffic on minor residential streets.
17. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: facilitating
public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible;
providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to
parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of Alameda.
18. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage
of the waterfront, by providing open space and other amenities.
19. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project area without
impeding access to existing areas of City.
20. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the Project site and
surrounding neighborhoods.
21. Promoting energy efficiency in facility development, utilizing recycled materials
to . the extent feasible, and applying low water demand techniques in all new
development, including all landscape development.
22. Ensuring that each portion of the Project area, as developed, is suitable for the
intended use and consistent with protection of human health and the environment
prior to occupancy.
23. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to
ensure that the basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically
integrated throughout the development.
The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and
hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and,
therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable.
3
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
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, GPA07 -0002: GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO: (A) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 110 ACRES WITHIN
THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT TO SPECIFIED MIXED USE AND MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND (B) AMEND SECTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
TABLES OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment is the
result of a community planning process initiated by the City of Alameda City
Council in 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed Northern Waterfront Advisory
Committee held numerous public workshops and many public meetings to
discuss appropriate land use policies for the planning area between 2000 and
2003; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended
General Plan Amendment was circulated for public review beginning in 2004 and
reviewed by the City of Alameda Transportation Commission, Recreation and
Parks Commission, Economic Development Commission in 2005 and 2006; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
includes policies to guide the future redevelopment of the planning area in
manner consistent with the public welfare and the community's vision for the
formerly industrial area; and
WHEREAS, the an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
circulated for public review to identify and disclose the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the planning area is presently designated General Industry on
the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the proposal for a General Plan Amendment is necessary to
allow a mix of uses and improved waterfront access in the planning area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application
on February 26, 2007 and March 26, 2007, and examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents in connection with the application; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2007, the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda recommended that the City Council adopt an Environmental Impact
Report ( "EIR "), regarding the environmental impacts related to this project; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following finding:
1. The City Council has been advised that subject to meeting City
standards and requirements, the proposed General Plan
Amendment would substantially conform to the adopted Community
Improvement' Plan (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project (BWIP), including the Mixed Use land use
designation of the site and the General Plan policies incorporated
by reference within the CIP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to
the General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are
consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The
City's General Plan policies focus on five broad themes that
strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small town
feeling, respect for history, de- emphasis of the automobile, and
retention of multi -use development on the Northern Waterfront. The
project, as proposed, is consistent with these themes. The
proposed General Plan amendments are internally consistent with
the themes and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments will
have acceptable effects on the general welfare of the community
because they will facilitate redevelopment of former industrial and
manufacturing sites with a mixed use development that includes
residential, commercial and/or maritime commercial uses and
support and facilitate the development and operation of child care
facilities.
3. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are
necessary to enable the appropriate development and maintenance
of property in the City because they will facilitate development of a
currently underutilized sites and support child care operations and
facilities.
4. The proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments are in
the public interest as they would allow redevelopment of the sites
within the area with an appropriate mix of uses consistent with
community priorities, adjacent land uses and neighborhoods, and in
a manner that will provide substantial public amenities, including
affordable housing and public waterfront open space and support
childcare facilities citywide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda approves General Plan Amendment, GPAO7 -0002 which includes:
Attachments A, B and C to the June 19, 2007 Staff Report.
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 19, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
to Allow the City of Alameda to Participate as a Member of the East Bay
Regional Communications System Joint Powers Authority and Also Submit
a Good Faith Payment Not to Exceed $54,100 to Support the Formation of
the East Bay Regional Communications System
BACKGROUND
A coordinated public safety communications system is one of the key factors in the
successful response to a natural or manmade disaster. In both Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, communications systems have developed over time and utilize different
spectrum and proprietary technologies, making coordination among the various public
safety agencies difficult in an emergency. Additionally, many of the communications
systems in use today are old and need replacing. For those reasons, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties have been working together for the past several years to
develop a shared two- county regional communications system and governance model.
DISCUSSION
The City of Alameda uses an 800 MHz trunked system owned by Alameda County and
used by Alameda County and the cities of San Leandro, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and
Union City. The existing radio systems used by other jurisdictions throughout Alameda
County are fragmented. While some agencies utilize the 800 MHz system, others use
VHF /UHF systems and Low Band systems. Replacing these autonomous systems with
similar systems when they reach the end of their useful lives is not cost effective and
does not provide interoperability among jurisdictions and responding agencies.
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have been working together over the last three
years as part of the federally sponsored Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) to
establish priorities for homeland security funding. Through the assistance of the UASI,
a group of technical advisors from the Interoperable Communications Technical
Assistance Program worked to evaluate the status of the local communications systems
and develop different alternatives to achieve the goal of interoperability for the two
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -C
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 4
counties. The group determined that the most cost effective and technically superior
solution for both counties, and the public safety agencies within those counties, is to
construct a shared two- county regional communications system. Interoperability and
funding the build -out of a two- county communications system has become the highest
priority for the UASI. Committees with representatives from both counties have been
working to develop the technical parameters for the system, establish a governance
model, and obtain support from the jurisdictions within the two counties.
A system design, which covers both counties from 31 sites strategically located
throughout the region, has been completed. The system will be a Project 25- compliant
system providing interoperable communications among all the agencies that subscribe
to the system. Project 25 is a suite of standards for digital radio communications for use
by federal, state, and local public safety agencies to enable them to communicate with
other agencies. Federal homeland security funding has been allocated over the past
three years to begin to build out the system. Significant progress has been made
towards completing a digital microwave system linking sites in both counties, purchase
of the master site controller that will operate the system, and the purchase of equipment
to build out ten of the proposed sites. Efforts are underway to secure additional federal
grants to support the build -out of the remainder of this infrastructure, and the prospect
of receiving this funding is promising. Both Senators Feinstein and Boxer have
indicated that a comprehensive, coordinated communications system is essential to the
receipt of federal funds.
The build -out of the infrastructure is expected to cost approximately $00 million. Grants
are paying for elements of the build -out, but such funds are not expected to cover the
entire cost. While final financial figures have not been developed, it may be necessary
to finance this project by issuing Tong -term debt in the amount of $45 to $50 million.
The members of the committee working to establish the system have agreed that the
fairest way to allocate costs to each jurisdiction is based on a proportional share of the
radios that each jurisdiction uses on the system. For the City of Alameda, the costs are
estimated to be between $2'15,000 and $285,000 per year, depending on the total
amount and term of the bond issued. Prior Council approval and appropriation would
be necessary before committing the City to this obligation.
In addition to helping to finance the build -out of the system, each participating
jurisdiction would pay an ongoing subscriber fee for each radio used on the system.
Subscriber pricing will be determined by the governing body and adjusted as necessary
as new users come on to the system.
There is also a cost associated with purchasing new radios to use on the new system.
Each jurisdiction will be responsible for the radios it plans to use on the system. The
City has an inventory of 541 mobile and portable radios on the present system. Every
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 4
effort will be made to use the purchasing power of the new regional communications
system to obtain the lowest possible price for the radios. As an initial investment, and to
demonstrate that agencies are committed to moving forward with establishing a regional
communications systems, each agency is being asked to contribute $100 per radio to
this effort. Those funds will be held in an escrow account and used for start -up costs.
For the City of Alameda, the initial contribution is $54,100. Lastly, there will be some
cost associated with the maintenance, technological upgrades, and system reserve for
the replacement of the system.
In order to manage the system, a task force of elected officials, city managers, and
public safety representatives from both counties developed a governance model, the
East Bay Regional Communications System Joint Powers Authority ( EBRCS JPA). The
EBRCS JPA consists of a board of directors of 23 members, including one police chief
and one fire chief from each county, one special district representative, the county
administrators and sheriffs from each county, three city managers from each county,
three elected officials from each county, and one supervisor from each county. The
board will oversee the financial, technical, and operations aspects of the two - county
communications system and appoint technical and operational committees as
necessary to work out system implementation issues. In order to join the EBRCS JPA,
a jurisdiction must pass a resolution authorizing participation. The proposed Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement for the East Bay Regional Communications System
Authority is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The initial cost to participate in the EBRPC JPA and begin funding of the EBRPC is
$54,100. The General Fund will pay $41,800 of this cost for the Police and Fire radios,
and 22 Public Works radios, and non - General Fund sources will pay $12,300 for the
remaining Public Works radios as well as those used by the Housing Authority and
Alameda Power & Telecom.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed resolution does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement
to allow the City of Alameda to participate as a member of the East Bay Regional
Communications System Joint Powers Authority and also submit a good faith payment
not to exceed $54,100 to support the formation of the East Bay Regional
Communications System.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
James Reed
Fire Chief
By: Michael Fisher
Division Chief /Fire Marshal
MF /mf
Concur:
Girish Balachandran
General .ger, Alameda Power & Telecom
Ma ew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
cY:A6qf
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director, Housing Authority
Walt Tibbet
Police Chief
June 19, 2007
Page 4of4
Approved as tc, Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT TO
ALLOW THE CITY OF ALAMEDA TO PARTICIPATE AS A MEMBER OF THE
EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY AND ALSO SUBMIT A GOOD FAITH PAYMENT NOT TO
EXCEED $54,100 TO SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF THE EAST BAY
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Alameda City Council has reviewed the proposed joint powers
c3 agreement among the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, various cities within
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including the City of Alameda forming the East
Bay Regional Communications System Authority (the "Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County and Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors /Alameda City Council concurs in the recitals of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County and Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors /Alameda City Council desires to approve the Agreement forming the East
Bay Regional Communications System Authority (the "Authority "); and
WHEREAS, the approval of the Agreement has been reviewed in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been
found to be categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 relating
to changes in the organization of local agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
Alameda County and Contra Costa and the City Council of the City of Alameda as
follows:
1. The Agreement forming the Authority, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby
approved and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute it on behalf of the City
of Alameda.
2. The Notice of Exemption pursuant to the CEQA relating to the approval of the
Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby approved. The City Manager is
hereby authorized to execute the Notice of Exemption on behalf of the /City of Alameda,
and is directed to file it in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.
Resolution #5 -C
06 -19 -07
EXHIBIT A
JOINT UERCisE OF powers AGREEMENT FOR THE
EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
THIS JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM AUTHORITY (the "Agreement"} is entered info as of the. 19 , daYof Jung _, J.2007, by and
among the
11 - 11 N
.4 :
- + # 1 .
• 11 11 1 i 41
"II 11111
fro.. �. .. _ .. .. ..
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Members" and individualI Y as "Member" . �
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of B vision 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code authorizes
into an�es the
Members to enter into an agreement for the joint exercise of an power common to them; and
any ,
B. WHEREAS, the Members have the common powers, under their res pec tive sovereign and
police powers, to acquire real, personal and intangible property and to plan, design, finance, construct
■ r"r€y � � g
operate, and maintafn public safety radio communication systems, facilities and related structures, and
. appurtenances and incidental improvements thereto; and
C. WHEREAS, the Members have determined that the publicinterest will be served by the
joint exercise of these common powers through this Agreement and the creation of a joint owers
authort to � � powers acquire, plan, design, finance, construct, operate and maintain a P25 compliant or
p
equivalent (as defined herein) communications system serving Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
and individual political jurisdictions therein; and
O. WHEREAS, the Member have further determined that such an East Bay Regional
Communications Y �
r u ications System Project (the "EBRCS Project), to which Members and. non - members may (the 'Subscribers") .. Y
cabers') subject to the provisions set forth herein, should be undertaken in order to
meet public safety communication needs of the Members, and that the EBRCS '
, CS Pra�ect will have regional
consequences beyond the Members' geographical jurisdictions, thus encouraging � p arttei ation by
other . g ove
governmental agencies including
but not limited to the State and Federal government
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Members agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Authority and Purpose. This Agreement is made under the authority ty of and pursuant to the
Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government m nt code
(commencing with Section 6500 et seq.) (the "Act"), relative to the joint exercise of
] � powers common to
the Members and as otherwise granted by the Act. The purpose of this Agreement provide p rp . g nt �s to provide for the
acquisition of real, personal and intangible property; and the planning, design, financing, regulation,
.. .� g g f g� eg , ,
permuting, environmental evaluation, public outreach, construction, operation, and maintenance o f
the
E$FiCS .Project, or any identiffable portion of the EBRCS Project. Notwithstanding this
g ar�y#h�ng in this
Agreement to the contrary, each Member also reserves all of its powers rights and
g p rs to proceed
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority.
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Pagel of 11
separately within its jurisdictional boundaries on any compatible public safety communications projects
anticipated to become part of the EBRCS Project; provided, however, that the planning, design, and
construction of such projects should be consistent with the Functional Specifications for the EBRCS
Project dated May 12, 2006 (the "Functional Specifications ") or as subsequently
amended by the Authority's Board of Directors and incorporated herein by this reference.
The general specifications and performance standards for the EBRCS Project are as follows;
The EBRCS Project is designed as a P25 digital trunking system operating in the BOOMhz(700Mhz
frequency spectrum. The system solution, is a wide area, two county, 1P-based architecture
communications system that is compliant with the ANSI/EIATTIA -102 suite of standards. The EBRCS
Project will utilize sites strategically located throughout, but not limited to, Member jurisdictions. The
EBRCS Project is also expected to meet typical public safety requirements of a Grade of Service of two
percent busies during the busy hour with an estimated 90 percent of busy calls queued within 2.5
seconds.
For purposes of this Agreement, P25 compliant or equivalent means a common set of standards for
first - responders that allows the highest level of interopetable communications in a digital mode.
2. Creation of Authority and Jurisdiction. Pursuant to the Act, the Members hereby create the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (the Authoty"), a public entity separate and
distinct from each of the Members. The jurisdiction of the Authority shall be all territory within the
geographic boundaries of the Members, however the Authority may undertake any action outside such
geographic boundaries as is necessary and incidental to the accomplishment of its purpose and the
EBRCS Project.
3. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first above written. It
shall remain in effect until the purpose stated in Section 1 of this Agreement is fully accomplished, or
until terminated by the vote of a majority of the governing bodies of the Members; provided, however,
that this Agreement may not be terminated, and no Member may withdraw its membership, until (a ) all
bonds or other instruments of indebtedness issued by the Authority and the interest thereon, if any, have
been paid in full or provision has been made for payment in full and (b) all outstanding obligations and
liabilities of the Authority have been paid in full or provision has been made for payment in full, except
as set forth in Section 13.
4. Powers of the Authority.
a. Powers. The Authority shall have all powers necessary or reasonably convenient to
carry out the purposes stated in Section 1 of this Agreement, including, but not limited
to, the following:
(1) To secure administrative office space and furnishings;
(2) To make and enter into contracts including other joint powers agreements and
Subscriber agreements;
(3) To contract for, or employ, administrative, technical, legal and support staff, and
consultants and contractors of any kind;
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 2 of 11
(4) To acquire and maintain insurance of all types;
(5) To lease or sublease real, personal and intangible property;
(6) To acquire, hold, or dispose of real, personal or intangible property by negotiation,
dedication or eminent domain provided, however, that the power of eminent
domain shall be used to acquire real, personal or intangible property of a Member
only with the consent of the governing body of such Member;
(7) To own, lease, sublease, acquire, operate, maintain and dispose of materials,
supplies, and equipment of all types including, but not limited to intangible property
such as radio frequencies;
(8) To plan, and to conduct environmental evaluation and other analyses in
connection therewith, and design buildings, facilities or communications
improvements of any kind;
(9) To construct, operate, and maintain buildings, facilities or communications
improvements of any kind, provided that (1) for new buildings, facilities or
communications improvements located on property owned by a public entity, the
Authority shall provide appropriate public notice of proposed action, but shall be
exempt from all local land use and zoning regulations; and (ii) for new buildings,
facilities or communications improvements located on private property, the
Authority shall apply for and receive appropriate approvals under the applicable
PR pp
local land use and zoning regulations;
(10) To accept, hold, invest (pursuant to the Act, including, without limitation, Section
6509.5 thereof), manage, and expend monies;
(11) To obtain and secure funding from any and all available public and private sources
including local, state, and federal government, including but not limited to, bond
issuances, lease purchase agreements, public grants, public and private contributions,
public and private loans, and other funds;
(12) To incur debts, liabilities or obligations, subject to the provisions of this Agreement,
provided that no debt, liability, or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or
obligation of the Members, either jointly or severally.
(13) Subject to applicable legal authority, to impose, levy, collect, or cause to be
collected, or to receive and use, public safety communication impact or development
fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development;
(14) Subject to applicable legal authority, to form one or more special assessment
districts under any legal authority that exists now or in the future, including, without
limitation, the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code Section 5000 et
seq.), the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets & Highways Code Section
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 3 of 1 1
10000 et seq.), the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets & Highways Code
Section 8500 et seq.), and the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985
(Government Code Section 6584 et seq.);
(15) Subject to applicable legal authority, to form one or more special tax districts
under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (Government Code
Section 53311 et seq.) or any other authority that may exist now or in the future;
(16) To negotiate and enter into reimbursement agreements when monies to construct
project improvements are advanced;
(17) Subject to applicable legal authority, to cause taxes, assessments, fees or
charges to be levied in accordance with applicable State and Federal law, and in a
manner to accomplish the purposes of the Authority;
(18)To issue bonds and sell or lease any facilities for purposes of debt financing;
(19) To carry on technical and other investigations of all kinds necessary to further the
purposes of the Authority;
(20)To sue and be sued;
(21)To amend the Functional Specifications; and
(22)To exercise all powers incidental to the foregoing including, but not limited to,
contracting for services from Members, reimbursing Directors for expenses
incurred as permitted by law and adopting personnel rules and regulations.
b. Limitation of Imposition of Powers. The provisions of subsection a. notwithstanding,
the Board of Directors shall have no power to impose taxes, assessments, fees or
charges within any Member's jurisdiction unless the Member's governing body adopts
a resolution approving the tax, assessment, fee or charge.
c. Additional Powers to be Exercised. In addition to those powers common to each of the
members, the Authority shall have those powers that may be conferred upon it b
p by
subsequently enacted legislation.
d. Restriction on Exercise of Powers. Pursuant to Section 6509 of the Act, the County of
Alameda is designated as the Member for determination of the restrictions upon the
Members in exercising the powers set forth in this Agreement.
e. Debts Liabilities and Cbll ations. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Authority shall
not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of the Members, either jointly or severally.
5. Duffs, The Authority shall have the duty to do the following within the times specified or, if
no time is specified, within a reasonable time:
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 4 of 11
a. To retain legal counsel for all Authority business, including litigation;
b. To evaluate the need for, and acquire and maintain if necessary, liability, errors and
omissions, or other insurance;
c. To conduct an annual audit as required by the provisions of Subsection 6.d(3); and
d. To use its best efforts to develop and adopt within six (6) months of execution of this
Agreement: (i) a Capital Plan specifying a means or formula for determining the timing
and sequencing of construction of the EBRCS Project consistent with the Functional
Specifications referenced in Section 1 of this Agreement and (ii) a funding plan
specifying a means or formula for funding the Authority's operations and any EBRCS
Project phases that are the responsibility of the Authority (the "Funding Plan "), which
Funding Plan will include an allocation of costs among the Members, Subscribers to
the EBRCS Project and other funding sources.
e. To administer the EBRCS Project in accordance with the purposes set forth in Section
f. To establish within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement ad hoc
operational and technical committees as necessary to consider and recommend to the
Board of Directors system implementation issues.
g.
To encourage other governmental and quasi - governmental agencies including but not
limited to the State and Federal government, and special districts to participate as
Subscribers in the EBRCS Project.
h. To establish system participation pricing including start-up costs, and ongoing
Subscriber /Member unit pricing to cover system operations, technical upgrades, and
system replacement reserves.
i. To establish policies and procedures for the voluntary transfer and/or lease of assets
from Member jurisdictions including but not limited to frequencies, transmitter sites and
associated equipment.
To enter into agreements with Members, or, in the event that a particular skill or
service is unavailable from Members, with outside vendors to perform maintenance of
the system.
k. To provide yearly performance review of the EBRCS Project and to report thereon as
directed by the Board of Directors.
B. Administration.
a. Governing Board - Membership. The Authority shall be administered by a Board of
Directors (the "Board ") consisting of twenty -three (23) Directors and their respective
alternates. Directors and alternates shall be appointed as follows and, at the time of such
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 5 of 11
appointment and for the duration of such service, shall be employees or officers of Member
agencies:
(1) Alameda County Board of Supervisors
(7) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
(1) Alameda County Police Chiefs Association (to be selected by the Association)
(1) Contra Costa County Police Chiefs Association (to be selected by the Association)
(1) Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association (to be selected by the Association)
(1) Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs Association (to be selected by the Association)
(1) Special District (to be selected by the Association)
(1) Alameda County, County Administrator
(1) Contra Costa County, County Administrator
(1) Alameda County Sheriff
(1) Contra Costa County Sheriff
(3) Contra Costa County City Managers (to be selected by the Association)
(3) Alameda County City Managers (to be selected by the Association)
{3} Contra Costa County Elected Officials (to be selected by the Mayors Conference)
(3) Alameda County Elected Officials (to be selected by the Mayor's Conference)
Alternates shall serve as Directors in the absence of their respective Directors and shall
exercise all rights and privileges thereof, Each Director and each alternate for such
Director shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing entity and may be removed at any
time without notice.
b. Meetings.
(1) Regular Meetings. The Board shall by resolution establish the number of regular
meetings to be held each year and the date, hour and location at which such regular
meetings shall be held; provided, that the Board shall meet at least once every year.
(2) Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the
provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.).
(3) Conduct of Meetings. All meetings of the Board shall be held in accordance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.).
(4) Minutes. The Secretary of the Authority shall cause minutes of all meetings of the
Board to be kept and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of
the minutes to be forwarded to each Director, the Members, and other parties upon
request.
(5) Quorum. Twelve (12) Directors of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business. Except as provided in Section 7 below, actions of the Board
shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Board (i.e., twelve (12)
affirmative votes).
c. Procedures.
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 6 of 11
(1) The Board shall elect annually a Chair from among its membership to preside at
meetings and shall select a Secretary who may, but need not, be a Director. The ,
Board may, from time to time, elect such other officers as the Board shall deem
necessary or convenient to conduct the affairs of the Authority.
(2) The Board may adopt by resolution rules of procedure, not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement, to govern the conduct of its meetings. Such rules of
procedure shall be in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code
Section 54950 et seq.).
(3) Directors of the Board and designated officials and employees, if any, shall comply
with the Political Reform Act of 1974, Title 9 of the California Government Code
(commencing with Section 81000 et seq).
d. Fiscal Matters.
(1) Treasurer and Auditor,
(A) Except as provided in Subsection (C), below, the treasurer and auditor of
Alameda, County, respectively, are designated the Treasurer and Auditor of the
Authority with the powers, duties, and responsibilities specified in the Act, including,
without limitation, Sections 6505 and 0505.5 thereof.
(B) The Board shall designate a certified public accountant as the independent
auditor of the Authority with the powers, duties, and responsibilities specified in the
Act, including, without limitation, Sections 6505 and 6505.5.
(C) Notwithstanding Subsection (A) above, the Board may at any time appoint
one or more of the Authority's officers or employees to either or both of the positions of
Treasurer or Auditor as provided in the Act,
(2) Custodian of Property. The Treasurer and Auditor of the Authority shall be the public
officers who have charge of, handle, and have access to, the Authority's property and shall
file with the Authority an official bond in the amount set by the Board.
(3) Accounts and Rem The Board shall establish and maintain such funds and
accounts as may be required by generally accepted public accounting ractice. The books
and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times to the
Members and their respective representatives. The accounts shall be prepared and
maintained by the Treasurer and Auditor of the Authority, The Authority shall, within one
hundred twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year, cause an independent audit
of all financial activities for such fiscal year to be prepared by the independent certified
public accountant employed by the Authority in accordance with Government Code
Section 6505. The Authority shall promptly deliver copies of the audit report to each
member of the Board and the Members.
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 7 of 11
(4) Budget. The Board shall adopt a budget no later than one hundred twenty (129 ) days
Y
after the first meeting of the Board and no later than June 30th of each. year thereafter.
(5) Cpntributions■ Within 90 days of execution of this Agreement, the Board will establish
by two- thirds (213) vote of the Board the amount of start -up funds to be contributed to the
Authority by each Member. Additional contributions shall be specified in the Funding Plan
to be adopted by two - thirds (2/3) vote of the Board, in accordance with Section 5.d. and
Section 7,a.
(6) Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Authority shall be the period from July 1st of each
year to and including the following June 34th.
7. Y9Q Each member of the Board shall have one vote. The Board may take action by the
affirmative vote of the majority of the entire Board. However, the following actions may only be taken with
. Y
the affirmative vote of at least sixteen (16) Directors.
a. Establish start-up contributions from Members, as referenced in Section 6.d.(5) of this
Agreement and adopt a Funding Plan, as referenced in Sections 5.d.(5 ) and 5,d.;
b. Levy and collect, or cause to be collected, communication impact fees on new residential,
commercial, and industrial development, as authorized by local, state, and federal law;
c. Form a special assessment district under any legal authority that exists now or in the
future, including, without limitation, the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code
Section 5000 et seq.), the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets & Highways Code
Section 10000 et seq,), and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets & Highways Code
Section 8500 et seq.), as authorized by local, state, and federal law;
d. Form a special tax district under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1 982
(Government Code Section 53311 et seq.) or any other authority that may exist now or in
the future;
e, Cause taxes, assessments, fees or charges to be levied as authorized by local, state, and
federal law, and in a manner to accomplish the purposes of the Authority;
f. Issue bonds or other forms of debt; and
g.
Exercise the power of eminent domain.
8. Reserved.
9. indemnification. The Authority shall acquire such insurance protection as is necessary to
protect the interest of the Authority and its Members. The Authority shall assume the defense of and
indemnify and save harmless the Members and their governing bodies, officers, agents, and
employees from all claims, losses, damages, costs, injury, and liability of every kind, nature, and
description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of any of the activities of the Authority ty or
ti
the activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement; May 22, 2007
Page 8 of 11
10. Lbjitv of Board Off cers and Employees.
a. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and
reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers, and in the performance of their
duties pursuant to this Agreement. They shall not be liable to the Members for any
mistake of judgment or other action made, taken, or omitted by them in good faith, nor for
any action made, taken, or omitted by any agent, employee, or independent contractor
selected with reasonable care, nor for loss incurred through the investment of the
Authority's funds, or failure to invest the same.
b. To the extent authorized by California law, no Director, officer, or employee of the Authors
. Y Authority
shall be responsible for any action made, taken, or omitted, by any other member of the
Board, officer, or employee. No member of the Board, officer, or employee of the Authority
tY
shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of
his or her duties pursuant to this Agreement, except as provided in Subsection 6.d (2).
c, The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
Authority and Director, officer, or employee of the Authority for actions taken in good faith
and within the scope of his or her authority. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the
Authority to purchase insurance to provide coverage for the foregoing indemnity.
11. Rules. The Board may adopt, from time to time, such policies, procedures, bylaws, rules and
regulations for the conduct of the Authority's affairs as the Board deems necessary and appropriate.
12. Disposition of Property upon Termination. In the event of termination of the Authority pursuant
• tY l�
to Section 3 herein and where there will be a successor public entity which will carry on the functions of
the Authority and assume its assets and liabilities, the assets of the Authority shall be transferred to the
successor public entity. If upon termination pursuant to Section 3, there is no successor public entity
which will carry on the functions of the Authority and assume its assets, the assets shall be returned to
the Members as follows: (a) all real property and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed to the
Y
Member which owned the property prior to the formation of the Authority, and (b) all other assets shall
be divided among the Members in proportion to their respective contributions during the term of this
Agreement. If upon termination pursuant to Section 3, there is a successor public entity which will cam,
on some of the functions of the Authority and assume some of the assets, the Authority's Board shall
allocate the assets between the successor public entity and the Members.
13. New Parties and Termination and Withdrawal of Bxistin• Parties. The Board shall have
plenary authority to establish rules, standards and charges for the admission of new parties to this
Agreement and for the termination and withdrawal of existing parties to this Agreernent, subject to the
provisions set forth in this Agreement Admission of a new member shall not require amendment to this
Agreement. New parties may become members on any conditions prescribed by the Board including
Y 9
payment of special fees and charges. The Board shall further have plenary authority to establish
conditions for non - member Subscribers to the EBRCS Project whether such non- member Subscribers
are or are not public entities. In the event that a Member seeks to withdraw from the from the Authority
prior to issuance of bonds or other instruments of indebtedness, the withdrawing Member shall be
charged an amount which shall represent a fair and equitable pro rata share of the costs, expenses nses and
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 9 of 11
obligations incurred by the Authority at that time, as determined by the Board.
14. Successors; Assignment. This Agreement shall be bindin g upon and shall inure to the benefit
l�
of the successors of the Members. No Member may assign any rights or obligations hereunder without
the unanimous consent of the governing bodies of the other Members; provided, further, that no such
assignment may be made if it would materially and adversely affect (a) the rating of bonds issued by the
' r
Authority, or (b) bondholders holding such bonds.
15. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by agreement the mutual reement of all the
governing bodies of the Members. So tong as any bonds of the Authority are outstanding and unpaid,
9 P
or funds are not otherwise set aside for the payment or redemption thereof in accordance with the terms
of the bonds and the documentation relating thereto, this Agreement shall not be amended, modified or
otherwise revised, changed or rescinded, if such action would (a) materially and adversely affect (1) the
. Y
rating of bonds issued by the Authority, or (2) bondholders holding such bonds, or (b) limit or reduce the
obligations of the Members to make, in the aggregate, the payments under the Funding Plan which are
for the benefit of the owners of the bonds.
16. Notices. Any notices to Members required by this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed, U.S.
first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows
City Manager
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
Notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given and received at the earlier of actual receipt, or the
second business day following deposit in the United States mail, as required above. Any Member
Y may
amend its address for notice by notifying the other Members pursuant to this Section.
17. Severability. Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided by the courts to
in g Y
be illegal or n conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable
or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected thereby.
Y
18. Liberal Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed as
necessary or reasonably convenient to achieve the purposes of the Authority.
19, Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and have no effect
interpretation the content, construction, or nterpretation of the Agreement.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and � d by
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 10 of 11
different parties in separate counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed
to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and the same
instrument.
21. Agreement Complete., The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the
parties. There are no oral understandings or agreements not set forth in writing above. Any such
agreements merge into this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have entered into this Agreement effective on the date first
above written.
[signature pages to follow]
942861_5; 1191.002
Debra Kurita
City Manager - City of Alameda
Date:
Bv:
Approved as to Form
CI ATTORNEY
Assistant City Attorney
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
Final Agreement: May 22, 2007
Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT B
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Alameda
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Office of the City Manager
Sacramento, CA 95814 2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Room 320
Alameda, CA 94501 -4477
or County Clerk
County of Alameda
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Project Title: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement to Allow
the City of Alameda to Participate as a Member of the East Bay Regional Communications System
Joint Powers Authority and Also Submit a Good Faith Payment Not to Exceed $54,100 to Support
the Formation of the East Bay Regional Communications System.
Project Location - City: Alameda Project Location - County: Alameda
Description of Project : The agreement and "good faith" payment is to construct a shared two -
county regional communications system that is Project 25- compliant system. Project 25 is a suite of
standards for digital radio communications for use by federal, state, and local public safety agencies
to enable them to efficiently communicate and coordinate with other agencies. In order to manage
the system, a task force of elected officials, city managers, and public safety representatives from
both counties developed a governance model, the East Bay Regional Communications System Joint
Powers Authority.
Name of Public Agencies Approving Project: City of Alameda.
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:
City of Alameda
Office of the City Manager
Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 15268)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a))
_Emerge
ncy Project (Sec. 15269(b)(c))
x Categorical Exemption in the following category:
CEQA Guideline Section 15320: Class 20 consists of changes in the organization or
reorganization of local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical
area in which previously existing powers are exercised.
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Other basis:
Reasons why project is exempt: In this case, the City is electing to join and help fund the East Bay
Regional Communications System Joint Powers Authority (EBRCS JPA) to more ably seek and
manage grant funding and coordinate the current operations of the communications system in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Based on this evidence, the project is determined to be exempt
from the requirements of CEQA.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Debra Kurita
Area Code /Telephone: 51 0- 747 -4700
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project:
x Yes No
Signature:
Date Received for Filing:
Date Posted:
Date Removed:
Name /Title: Debra Kurita
City Manager,
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the duly foregoing Resolution was duI 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
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CIVIL SERVICES BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
(ONE FULL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011;
ONE PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2010;)
Dr. Jerome Healy
Linda McHugh
Ronald Silva
Council Communication #7 -A
06 -19 -07
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
FIVE VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Anna Dugan
Steve R. Fort, Incumbent
Margaret Hakanson, Incumbent
Roberta Kreitz
Audrey Lord - Hausman, Incumbent
John Robinson
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
FILM COMMISSION
FOUR VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Isadora Alman
Jeannette L. Copperwaite, Incumbent
David Duffin, Incumbent
Liam B. Gray, Incumbent
Orin D. Green, Incumbent
Mel Waldorf
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009)
Ronald Kahn
David A. Solis
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
TWO VACANCIES
(SENIOR TENNANT SEAT — FULL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009;
MEMBER -AT -LARGE SEAT -- PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009)
Anthony Forrette
Nancy Gormley, Senior Tenant Seat, Incumbent
Michael Meyer
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
LIBRARY BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(FULL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Mike Hartigan
Jessica Lindsey
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Jeff Cambra
Cecilia Campbell -Notar
Greg deHaan
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Incumbent
Gina Mariani, Incumbent
Normajean Washington Palmer
James Price
Ronald Silva
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
THREE VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Katina Huston, Incumbent
Dian McPherson
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THREE VACANCIES
(TWO FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011;
ONE PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2008)
Justin Harrison
Dr. Jerome Healy
Reginald James
Richard Lagesse
Anthony Lewis
Linda Marcella
Cathy Nielsen, Incumbent
Jim Price
Carole Souza
Henry Villareal, Incumbent
Michael Williams
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager /Executive Director
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Approve the Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Annual Operating and Capital
Budget for the Bayport Project
BACKGROUND
The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the Bayport Residential Project
("Project") defines certain budget procedures and reporting requirements for the
Community Improvement Commission Project Budget, including the annual review of
the project budget by the Community Improvement Commission (CIC). In conformance
with Section 6.2.3.1 of the DDA, the Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 CIC Project Budget has
been prepared, in consultation with the Master Developer, and is being presented for
review and approval at a joint meeting of the City Council and CIC on June 19, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Section 6.2.3.2 of the DDA, the CIC Project Budget sets forth, on a
reasonably itemized basis, the projected "Project Revenues" and the projected "Project -
Related Expenses" to be incurred for the Project (including provisions for reasonable
contingencies for Project- Related Expenses), for each fiscal year. Updates and
reconciliations to the Project Budget have occurred on an ongoing basis and have been
reviewed by staff and the Master Developer as a pre - condition to each of the three
Residential Parcel Conveyances. A total of 450 lots had been conveyed as of May 31,
y
2007. The remaining 35 lots are scheduled to be conveyed by Fall 2007.
Anticipated Project Revenues and Project - Related Expenses as defined in Section 6.2
of the DDA include the following general categories:
• Project Revenues: 1) Land Sales Proceeds, 2) Reimbursements, 3) Residential
Profit Participation, and 4) Tax Increment/Bonds.
Special Joint CC /ARRAICIC
Agenda Item #2 -A
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 4
• Project Expenses: 1) Predevelopment; 2) Hard and soft costs including: a)
demolition, b) backbone infrastructure costs, c) debt service, d) administrative and
legal costs, and e) project management costs; 3) School District Payments; 4)
Assistance for Park; and 5) Shortfall Loan Interest.
A summary of the Project Budgets for FYO4 /05 - FYO7 /08, in the format previously
presented to the City Council and CIC, is shown in the following Tables:
TABLE A
Project Revenue Sources (in $M)
1 ARRA
2 BWIP Bonds
3 BWIP Affordable Housing Bonds
4 Land Sales Proceeds
5 Other & AIG Haz -Mat Insurance Reimbursements
6 CIC Residential Profit Participation
7 Maximum Estimated Tax Allocation Bonding Capacity (TAB)
8 Total Project Revenue Projections
Budget Summary
F Y FY FY FY
04/05 05/06 06/07 07108
$0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6
$7.3 $7.3 $7.3 $7.3
$0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8
$28.5 $28.5 $28.5 $28.5
$3.8 $4.8 $5.0 $5.1
$19.8 $28.2 $34.6 $23.6
$13.0 $14.1 $14.1 $12.0
$73.8 $84.3 $90.9 $77.9
The primary change in the FYO7-08 budget from previous years is the decrease in
projected CIC profit participation (Table A, line 6) and estimated bonding capacity
(Table A, line 7). The FYO7-08 projected profit participation of $23.6 million is a
reduction of $11 million from the FY06 -07 projection. The FYO7-08 projected bonding
capacity is a reduction of $2 million. (Actual project participation received as of April 30,
2007, is $15.3 million). Profit participation is based on actual builder costs and home
sales and can fluctuate depending on the current market. The reduced projection is
based on slowing market conditions, reduced sales prices, and slower sales, and
assumes that those trends will continue. If the market improves over the next twelve
months, projected profit participation revenues will improve. Under the terms of the
DDA, all CIC land sales and profit participation are pledged to repay the developer
advance of funds utilized to finance the backbone infrastructure improvements.
TABLE B
Project Obligations / Expenses (in $M)
1 Predevelopment (includes interest)
2 Total Estimated Soft & Hard Costs
3 Shortfall Loan Interest
4 Assistance for New K -8 School
5 Assistance for New Public Park & Community Building
6 Total Project Obligations /Expense Projections
Budget Summary
FY FY FY
04/05 05/06 06/07
$12.0 $12.0 $12.1
$49.7 $49.5 $50.2
$4.6 $3.1 $3.8
$3.2 $3.2 $3.2
$1.3 $1.6 $t6
$70.8 $69.4 $70.9
FY
07108
$12.1
$50.3
$3.8
$3.2
$2.0
$71.4
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
TABLE C
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 4
Total Net Revenue Proforma Summary (in $M)
1 Total Revenues (as shown above)
2 Less Total Obligations (as shown above)
3 Estimated Net Project Revenue including TAB
4 Less Estimated TAB Capacity
5 Estimated Net Project Revenue w/o TAB
04/05
$73.8
($70.8)
$3.0
($13.0)
($10.0)
Budget Summary
FY FY
05/06 06/07
$84.3 $90.9
($69.4) ($70.9)
$14.9 $20.0
($14.1) ($14.1)
$0.8 $5.9
FY
07/08
$77.9
($71.4)
$6.5
($12.0)
($5.5)
If the decreased projected profit participation continues, the CIC will be required to issue
Tax Allocation Bonds ( TAB's), secured by tax increment generated by the Bayport
Project, to meet its financial obligations under the DDA to repay the developer loan.
FYO7 -08 bonding capacity is estimated to be $12 million. Based on current trends and
related projections, approximately $5.5 million in TAB's, in combination with land sale
proceeds, profit participation, and other project revenues, will be required to retire all
Bayport obligations (Table C, line 5). The balance of $6.5 million from that bond is
pledged to the Alameda Landing project.
The CIC's obligation under the DDA to complete demolition and to provide backbone
infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Bayport Project is scheduled to be
complete by the end of 2007. The adjoining 62 -unit affordable housing development
was completed in Spring 2006. The new seven -acre school and four -acre community
park opened in September 2006. Build -out of the entire residential development is
scheduled for completion in FY 08 -09.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FYO7 -08 Project Budget summarized in the above tables shows that CIC land sales
proceeds, residential profit participation revenues, and TAB's supported by the project
are necessary to fund the Bayport Project obligations. The $6.5 million in projected net
revenue to the CIC assumes issuance of a $12 million tax allocation bond, full
repayment of the predevelopment and shortfall loan, interest, and principal. Any net
revenues received by the CIC at the conclusion of the Bayport Project are pledged to
the Alameda Landing project pursuant to the DDA approved in December 2006.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
June 19, 2007
Page 4 of 4
Approve the FYO7 -08 Bayport Project Annual Operating and Capital Budget as
presented.
Res' ►ec Ily submitted,
esiie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Community Development Director
LL/D P /DC:dc
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager /Executive Director
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Hold a Joint Public Hearing to Review and Approve Development of
Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an Eligible Use of the
District Housing Fund
BACKGROUND
In 1991, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and the Alameda Unified
School District (AUSD) entered into an agreement (the "Agreement ") whereby the CIC
annually sets aside 8% of the total tax increment from the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project (BWIP), specifically 40% of the Housing Low and Moderate -
Income Housing Fund, into a special fund called the District Housing Fund. The
agreement requires the AUSD to use the money from the District Housing Fund to
increase and improve the supply of low or moderate - income housing. The agreement
also requires that prior to March 1st of each year, the AUSD present the CIC with a
prioritized List of housing programs and projects for use of these funds.
Under the terms of the Agreement, prior to July 1st of each year, the CIC and City
Council are to hold a joint public hearing to review the proposed housing projects or
programs. The purpose of the joint public hearing is to determine whether the proposed
housing projects meet the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and the
terms and conditions of the Agreement as to the District Housing Fund, the Guyton
Settlement Agreement, which requires that BWIP housing funds assist very Iow and
Iow- income households, and the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. The
Agreement states that the CI C shall approve those projects which meet the applicable
requirements.
DISCUSSION
As required by the original Agreement, AUSD submitted a letter dated March 1, 2007,
which states, "AUSD intends to utilize all of the funds in the District Housing Fund,
including deposits for fiscal year 2007 -08, for an affordable housing development on the
Island High School site" (Attachment 1). The use of the District Housing Fund for
Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #3 -A
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 3
development of affordable rental housing at Island High was previously reviewed and
approved by the City Council and CIC during a joint public hearing held June 21, 2005.
At the time, the AUSD had conceptually described a project at island High, but did not
have a specific development plan.
On October 5, 2005, the CIC approved a Predevelopment Agreement with the AUSD to
provide the disbursement of a maximum of $145,000 from the District Housing Fund in
order to facilitate AUSD's planning and design of the proposed project at Island High.
The original one -year term of the Predevelopment Agreement was extended for a
second year on November 1, 2006. To date, predevelopment work completed has
included Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental reviews, a site unit yield analysis, and
some financial analysis. During the course of this work, AUSD has come to the
conclusion that it does not have the time or resources for the development and
management of affordable housing, which is a departure from its core mission.
Recently, AUSD staff asked City staff to explore the alternative of a City entity, such as
the Housing Authority or the CIC, leasing the Island High site from AUSD and
developing the affordable rental project on behalf of the school district. City staff
reviewed this suggestion and concluded that the CIC could develop the site on behalf of
the school district using the money from the District Housing Fund. In order to fund
project construction, the CIC could bond the tax increment deposits to the District
Housing Fund in conjunction with the CIC bond issuance anticipated as part of the
Alameda Landing financing plans.
Project completion could be expected as early as 2011. If approved by the CIC, staff
would negotiate a long -term lease with AUSD for Island High and negotiate an
amendment to the original CIC /AUSD Agreement to transfer control of the District
Housing Fund to the CIC for use in development of the Island High project.
The proposed development concept conforms to the City's Housing Element, which
identifies the District Housing Fund as a funding source to develop new units on a site
to be determined. The Island High site is ideally situated for the development of new
housing because it is Tess than a block from Park Street public transportation, shops,
and businesses, and within half a mile of Bridgeside Shopping Center, Edison School,
and McKinley Park.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The District Housing Fund currently contains $2,013,825 and is expected to receive
another $369,506 in tax increment at the end of this fiscal year. Total project costs
cannot be determined until a project has been identified, but based on the housing
funds cash flow, a project can be financed usin g housing housin resources available for
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007
Page 3 of 3
affordable housing projects, including bonding future deposits to the District Housing
Fund. There is no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review would be required and conducted at the point where a complete
project description exists, as part of project approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the development of affordable rental housing at Island High as an
eligible use of the District Housing Fund and direct staff to work with AUSD to negotiate
a lease agreement and an amendment to the original Agreement.
Res
submitted,
Leslie A. Little
velopment Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
--„-e..2..‘,.-
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
LALIDES /RS:ry
Attachment:
1. Letter from Alameda Unified School District dated March 1, 2007
Alameda Unified School District
We Serve Children
March 1, 2007
Community Improvement Commission
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear CIC Members:
Business Services
2200 Central Avenue, Room 105 -E
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 337 -7066 Fax (510) 521 -0529
This letter is intended to meet the requirements of Section 6a of the
Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission of the City
of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) dated
November 12, 1991. In 2005, the district identified the Island High School
site as a priority project. AUSD intends to utilize all of the funds in the
District Housing Fund, including deposits for fiscal year 2007 -08, for an
affordable housing development on the Island High School site.
To date, the AUSD has completed both the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Environmental Site Assessments for Island High School. An architect has
completed a preliminary site yield analysis. We continue to work with the
Alameda Development Corporation to bring this project to fruition.
Sincerely,
coc,
Luz T. Cazares
Chief Financial Officer
Special Joint CCIARRAICIC
Public Hearing
Attachment to
Agenda Item #3 -A
06 -19 -07
"Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future." J. F Kennedy
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement
Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: June 19, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving and Adopting the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008,
and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said
Fiscal Year;
Adopt a Resolution Approving and Adopting the Community Improvement
Commission Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and
Appropriating Certain Moneysforthe Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal
Year; and,
Adopt a Resolution Approving and Adopting the City of Alameda Operating
and Capital Improvements Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and
Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal
Year
Adopt a Resolution Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per
Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2006, the City Council, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA), and the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved the Budget and
Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008. The action taken in 2006
adopted the budget and appropriated moneys for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 and set forth a
plan for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. The proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Budget
for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 reflects the second -year plan of this two -year budget. It also
includes recommended enhancements to the appropriations as needed to meet contractual
agreements and improved service levels.
Special Joint CC/ARRA/CIC
Report Re:
Agenda Item #3 -B
06 -19 -07
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 19, 2007
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Page 2 of 6
Redeve lopme ntAutho rity
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
The budget document includes appropriations for the General Fund and other funds as
well as for the ARRA and the CIC. By law, the CIC is required to review and approve the
redevelopment plan, approve its funding, and stipulate certain administrative expenses as
necessary. Further, each regulatory body must act to adopt operating budgets and capital
improvement budgets for their respective funds. In addition to adopting the budget
resolutions for the ARRA, the CIC, and the General Fund, the City Council must adopt a
resolution setting the per diem rate for business travel reimbursement based on the
Internal Revenue Service rates as published each January.
DISCUSSION
The total City of Alameda budget is $287,231,394 for all funds. The Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
budget continues the City's emphasis on maintaining the highest quality of public safety
and general services, addressing new or enhanced service areas, improving the City's
infrastructure, adjusting the reserves, and augmenting customer service by defining and
implementing improvements to the City's internal operations and systems. The proposed
changes to the second year plan of the two -year budget include: salary increases for
bargaining groups with Council- approved contracts; funding for three new positions, two of
which are related to Planning and Building activities and one which is a Parks Maintenance
position funded through the Bayport Municipal Service District; the reduction of ten
positions at Alameda Power & Telecom; and augmenting the staffing of the new Main
Library.
In addition, the budget includes a change in funding for cultural arts programs. Under this
new program, $50,000 will be set aside for cultural arts programs, including the subsidy for
the Alameda Museum. Any funds remaining after the subsidy is paid will be made
available to other cultural arts groups on a competitive basis. Should Council approve this
change, staff will work with the Public Arts Commission to develop a process for distributing
these competitive grant funds.
One of the City's strategic objectives is to annually appropriate funds toward the Pavement
Management Program with the goal of bringing the City's total infrastructure asset to a
"good" condition and to maintain it at that level. In Fiscal Year 2006 -2007, this was
accomplished through a combination of resources that included Proposition 42 funds and
the allocation of General Fund Reserves during the mid -year review. The Pavement
Management Program for this fiscal year has a target appropriation of $2.2 million but falls
short by $470,000. Consistent with the approach to the Fiscal. Year 2006-2007 budget,
staff will present recommendations during the mid -year review for fully funding the
Pavement Management Program at its target level.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 19, 2007
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Page 3 of 6
Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
General Fund Revenues, Expenditures, and Reserves
The General Fund operating budget of $80.8 million constitutes 28% of the total City
y
i
budget and is 3% greater than the Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 amended budget of $77.2
g
million. General Fund revenues are projected to grow by 4 percent over 2006 -2007 fiscal
year revenues. The major revenue items show the following projected growth:
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Property Transfer Tax
Utility Users Taxes
Motor Vehicle In -Lieu
7.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
5.3%
All of these sources, with the exception of property and motor vehicle in -lieu taxes, are
affected by local economic conditions and may fluctuate with moderate economic changes.
On the expenditure side, the budget includes costs associated with the enhanced service
levels in several departments, including the Alameda Free Library.
With this budget, reserves will represent ap - roximately 22 percent of total operating
p g
expenditures, which is within the City Counci dopted 20 to 25 percent target range for
reserves. Rebuilding the reserve to the 25 percent level is one of the City's strategic
planning objectives; however, the application of any excess resources toward the reserve
redirects revenues that may otherwise be appropriated to address competing priorities,
such as deferred maintenance of infrastructure projects. A systematic analysis of the
status of the reserves will be reported quarterly for Council review.
Other Major Funds
Economic Development, Community Development, and Housing, which are all under the
aegis of Development Services, total $38.1 million. The majority of this revenue comes
from lease revenues, tax increment revenues, draw downs from previously sold bonds,
federal grants and loans, and other state or county grants.
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority budget may need to be revisited as
conditions and events warrant during the fiscal year. The following is a summary:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 19, 2007
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Page 4 of 6
Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Estimated
Revenues Appropriations
Lease
Revenues $1 1,195,902 $9,490,249
Debt
Service - $2,71 0,335
TOTAL $11,1 95,902 $12,200,585
Community Improvement Commission
State law requires the Community Improvement Commission's review and approval of
Economic Development/Redevelopment and Housing funds. State law also requires that
the Commission annually approve the agency's determination that its lannin and
p g
administrative expenses are necessary for the production, improvement, or preservation of
low- and moderate - income housing. This budget is a minimalist budget with only a small
g Y
amount allocated for unanticipated projects. Several major goals are included:
➢ Shinsei Gardens — the design, financing, and construction of 39 affordable
housing units;
➢ Catellus Phase 11 (Alameda Landing) — environmental, financial, and
infrastructure work, including Stargell Avenue Extension;
➢ Alameda Point -- in cooperation with ARRA, secure conveyance and begin the
g
entitlement process and California Environmental Quality Act activities;
➢ Civic Center Parking Garage, Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Cinema
Multiplex — finalize construction and operations planning;
➢ Other public /private projects — Grand Marina housing project, parking study, and
Park Street Streetscape Phase 11; and
➢ Business retention — relationships with employers and commercial brokers.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
June 19, 2007
Page5of6
The following chart summarizes the Revenues and Expenditures for the Community
Improvement Commission:
Other Funds
Econ . Dev. /Redev
BWIP
WECIP
APIP
FISC
Housing
Estimated
Revenues
$ 7,601,654
$ 4,587,927
$ 431,648
$ 2,605,086
$ 15,226,315
Appropriations
$ 6,507,554
$ 4,950,665
$ 335,165
$ 809,777
$ 12,603,161
BW 1 P $ 1,277,777
WECIP $ 967,240
APIP $ 136,225
$ 2,381,242
$ 438,268
$ 943,438
$ 60, 540
$ 1,442,246
GRAND TOTAL $ 17,607, 557 $ 14,045,407
Measure B (ACTIA) provides approximately $2.4 million in revenues to be used for
designated purposes. The majority of these funds are used for Capital Improvement
Projects. Enterprise Funds (Golf, Sewer Service, and Ferry Services) have significant
revenues that are generated from rates set by the Council to meet operating and capital
costs.
Other Funds Appropriations
The Capital Projects Funds total $6.98 million in Fiscal Year 2007 -2008.
Recommendations for additional appropriations to the Resurfacing project will be brought
g
to the City Council after the audit of Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 is completed.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed General Fund operating budget, which is balanced, totals $80.8 million and
constitutes 28% of the total City budget. This budget is 3% greater than the Fiscal Year
2006 -2007 amended budget of $77.2 million.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 19, 2007
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Page 6 of 6
Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution to approve and adopt the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
p
Authority Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and appropriate certain moneys for
the expenditure provided in said fiscal year.
Adopt the resolution to approve the Community Improvement Commission Operating
p g
Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and appropriate certain moneys for the expenditure
provided in said fiscal year.
Adopt the resolution to approve the City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and appropriate certain moneys for the
y
expenditures provided in said fiscal year.
Adopt the resolution establishing guidelines for reimbursement of per diem allowance for
City of Alameda business travel.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Boy = r
Financial Officer
Prepared by
Ann tte Brisco
Financial Analyst
JB /dI
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR THE
EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Council at this
meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the
City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 and ending June 30,
2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to waive the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payable by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this spending plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ALAMEDA that said budget as submitted to this Council at this meeting, and
each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby approved and adopted as
the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Budget for the City of Alameda for
the Fiscal Year 2007 -2008, and that the expenditure of the various sums of money
therein provided to be spent for salaries and wages, maintenance and operation,
capital outlay and capital improvements by each department therein listed in detail
are hereby approved and authorized in total as the appropriations for the Fiscal
Year ending June 30, 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA that the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payable by the Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda is hereby waived and not payable.
Special Joint CCIARRAICIC
Resolutions #3 -B
06 -19 -07
Budget Profile - Al! Funds
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
General Fund $ 80,802,262 42.0%
Special Revenue Fund Group:
Police /Fire Const. Impact 82,000
Const Improvement Fund 1,399,000
CIC -WECIP 4,950,665
2003 CIC Tax Allo 2003A1
2003 CIC Tax Alto 2003A2
2003 CIC Tax AIIo 2003B
FISC /Catellus Land Sale -
CIC -WECIP Housing 943,438
CIC -BWIP 6,507,554
CIC-BWIP Housing 438,268
CIC -BW I P Hsg 2002 Bond Proceeds
CIC- Housing In -Lieu Fee
AUSD Housing Fund -
CIC -APIP 335,165
CIC -APIP Housing 60,540
Alameda City Library Fund 3,557,648
Gas Tax Fund 1,325,500
XIXB Trans Improvement Fund -
Traffic Safety Fund 150,000
County Measure B Fund
Measure B - Local St & Rd 1,477,894
Measure B - Bicycle Ped Imp 180,606
Measure B - Transbay Ferry 952,930
Measure B - Para Transit 157,288
Measure B - Capital Projects
Measure B - Transp Sr & Disab -
Tidelands Fund 413,095
Narcotics Asset Seizure 2,000
Dwelling Unit Fund 465,000
Parking In -Lieu Fund -
Parking Meter Fund 508,532
TSM/TDM Fund
Commercial Revitalization 409,500
Theatre Project/Parking Garage 9,212,691
Home Fund 304,626
CDBG 1,782,189
Home Repymt Fund
Rehab Repayment Fund 185,000
FISC Lease Revenue Fund 658,916
FISC - Catellus 150,861
FISC - Catellus Ph II
FISC - Catel /ProLogis Ala Landing
Vehicle Registr. AB434
Housg Developmt -HA Reimb
HA Section 8 Projects
Affordable Housing 56,040
Human Services 65,951
CHRPO /LEAD -
$ 53,430,891 27.8%
Budget Profile - All Funds
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
Garbage Subcharge Fund 125,000
Curbside Recycling
Waste Reduction Surcharge 911,829
City Waste Management Program 33,600
Island City Maint 84 -2
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z1 4,500
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z2 17,500
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z3 15,500
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z4 57,000
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z5 670,000
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z6 305,000
Island City Maint 84 -2 Z7 16,000
Marina Cove Maint Dist 01 -1 116,000
Reserve Marina Cove 01 -01 -
Bayport AD 03 -1 322,000
Athletic Fund 1,746, 193
Public Art Fund
Historical Advisory Board
Equip. Acquisition Fund -
Sr Citizen Transportation 157,288
Alameda Reuse & Redevelop 12,200,585
Dike Maintenance Fund
Capital Project Fund Group: $ 11,032,699 5.7%
Waste Water Capital Reserve -
Capital Improvement Proj. 6,982,000
FISC Catellus Traffic Fee -
Marina Village A.D. 89 -1 -
H.B.I. 92 -1 Assessmt Dist -
Library Construction Fund -
Open Space Improvement Fund
2003 AP Rev Bond Project Fund -
CDF -W E Traffic Safety -
C D F -W E Parks & Rec -
CDF-WE Public Facilities -
CDF -WE Public Safety -
CDF -NW Traffic Safety -
CDF -NW Park & Recreation -
CDF -NW Public Safety -
CDF -NW Public Safety -
CDF -CEE Traffic Safety -
CDF -CEE Parks & Recreation -
CDF -CEE Public Facilities -
CDF -CEE Public Safety
CDF -BF Traffic Safety
CDF -BF Parks & Recreation -
CDF -BF Public Facilities
CDF- BFPublic Safety -
Transportation Impmt. Fund 1,478,585
Urban Runoff 2,572,114
CFD #1 Harbor Bay
CFD #2 Paragon Gateway -
Budget Profile - All Funds
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
Debt Service Fund Group: $ 7,633,259 4.O%
Debt Svc -1990 Police Bldg 237,615
Debt Svc - Library /Golf Proj 394,156
Debt Svc - Library Bond 2003 666,450
Debt Svc -HUD 108 Ln- Parking /Theatre 216,517
Debt Svc -Debt Sery CIC Tx All Bd
Debt Svc -CIC Sub Bond 783,626
Debt Svc -Refin CityHall 2002 830,488
Debt Svc 2003 Tax AIIo Refd BW 1P 1,262,569
Debt Svc 2003 C1C Tax Alloc Bd 2,740,239
Debt Svc 2003 AP Rev Bond 501,640
Enterprise Fund Group:
Golf Course Fund 5,208,486
Sewer Service Fund 5,338,601
Ferry Service Fund -
East End Ferry 1,$79,203
West End Ferry 3,888,174
$ 16,314,464 8.5%
Internal Service Fund Group: $ 8,864,531 4.6%
Central Stores Fund 47,000
Central Garage Fund -
Techology Sery Fund 981,969
Worker's Comp Self lnsur 3,533,571
Risk Management Fund 2,342,822
Unemployment insurance 31,169
Post Employment Fund 1,928,000
Trust & Agency Fund Group: $ 14,21 0,003 7.4%
Debt Svc for 508 84 -3A -
Debt Svc for 510 84 -3B -
Police/Fire Pension 1079 2,915,400
Police /Fire Pension 1 082 40,000
Debt Svc for 512 89 -1 3,491,228
Debt Svc for 513 92 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt Fd 2,771,193
1999 Revenue Bond Debt Fd 3,235,130
2002 Revenue Bond
Assessment District CFD #1 1,577,103
Assessment District CFD #2 180,350
Total All Funds $ 192,288,109 100.0%
Memo only:
Housing Authority
Alameda Power & Telecom (pre - final)
$ 28,192,408
66, 750, 877
All Inclusive Total $ 287,231,394
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
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR
THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Authority at this
meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the Fiscal Year beginning July
Gs
c�
1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
0 ti
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered this spending plan.
0
0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY that said budget as submitted to this Authority at
this meeting, and each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby
approved and adopted as the Operating Budget for the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for the Fiscal Year 2007-2008, and that the expenditure
of the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for salaries and wages,
maintenance and operation, and capital outlay listed in detail are hereby approved
and authorized in total as the appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending June 30,
2008.
Budget Profile
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment $ 12,200,585
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Governing Board of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in 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
official seal of the said Authority this day of , 2007.
Irma Glidden, Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Approved as to Form
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR
THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Commission at
this meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of
the Community Improvement Commission for the City of Alameda for the Fiscal
Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit
A; and
WHEREAS, the budget as presented includes several major goals as
follows:
➢ Shinsei Gardens — the design, financing, and construction of thirty -
nine affordable housing units;
➢ Catellus Phase!! (Alameda Landing) -- environmental, financial, and
infrastructure work, including Stargell Avenue extension;
➢ Alameda Point in cooperation with ARRA, secure conveyance and
begin the entitlement process and California Environmental Quality
Act activities;
➢ Civic Center Parking Garage, Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and
Cinema Multiplex — finalize construction and operations planning;
➢ Other public /private projects — Grand Marina housing project ,
parking study, and Park Street Streetscape Phase 11;
➢ Business retention — relationships with employers and commercial
brokers; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered this spending plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION that said budget as submitted to this Commission
at this meeting, and each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby
approved and adopted as the Operating Budget for the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 2007- 2008, and that the
expenditure of the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for salaries
and wages, maintenance and operation, and capital outlay listed in detail are
hereby approved and authorized in total as the appropriations for the Fiscal Year
ending June 30, 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, the Commission hereby determines that
pursuant to California Health & Safety Code 33334.3 (Low and moderate income
housing fund) the planning and administrative expenses incurred are necessary
for the production, improvement or preservation of low-- and - moderate income
housing.
Budget Profile
Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
CIC -BWIP 6,507,554 46.3%
CIC -WECIP 4,950,665 35.2%
CIC -WECIP Housing 943,438 6.7%
FISC Lease Revenue Fund 658,916 4.7%
CIC -BW IP Housing 438,268 3.1%
CIC -APIP 335,165 2.4%
FISC - Catellus 150,861 1.1%
CIC -APIP Housing 60,540 0.4%
FISC - Cafellus Ph II - 0.0%
FISC - Catel /ProLogis Ala Landing - 0.0%
$ 14,045,407 1 00.0%
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement
Commission 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 official
seal of said Commission this day of , 2007.
Lara We is ig a r, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE
OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, State law requires that the City of Alameda adopt an annual
budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the City of
Alameda for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008;
d and
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the City Council at the meeting of
July 3, 2007, the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year
2007 -2008; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of the
City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby approves interim expenditures of the City of Alameda prior to
the approval of the City of Alameda Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 at the levels set by the City Operating and Capital
Improvement Budget for 2006-2007 to allow payment of routine expenses
including payroll and vendor expenses at prior year's level.
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
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE
OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority adopt an annual budget representing a financial plan
( for conducting the affairs of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
as 76 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending g June 30, 2008; and
o
0
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority at a future meeting the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority hereby approves interim expenditures of the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority prior to the approval of the Operating
Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 at the levels set by
the City Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for 2006-2007 to allow
payment of routine expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior
year's level.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority 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 Authority this day of , 2007.
Irma Glidden, Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING INTERIM EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE
OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Community Improvement
E w Commission of the City of Alameda adopt an annual budget representing a
8. financial plan for conducting the affairs of the Community Improvement
O Commission for the fiscal year beginning Jul 1, 2007, and ending June 30
;S\ � � y g 30,
0 2008; and
co
> c WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the Community Improvement
2 0 (1) Commission at a future meeting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
g p p
sz for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 includes several expenditures prior to the adoption of the
Community Improvement Commission Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda hereby approves interim
expenditures of the Community improvement Commission prior to the approval
of the Community Improvement Commission Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 at the levels set by the City Operating
and Capital Improvement Budget for 2006 -2007 to allow payment of routine
expenses including payroll and vendor expenses at prior year's level.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement
Commission 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
official seal of said Commission this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
PER DIEM ALLOWANCE
FOR CITY OF ALAMEDA BUSINESS TRAVEL
WHEREAS, Section 22-7 of the Charter of the City of Alameda requires
that the Council annually fix the per diem allowance for traveling expenses of
officers and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service publishes its recommended
Per Diem rates for travel within the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the Per Diem allowance for all officers and employees of the City
of Alameda while attending to official duties, both within and outside the City
limits of the City of Alameda, shall not exceed the amount of the actual expense
incurred Per Diem by such officer or employee, in addition to the costs of
transportation actually incurred.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Per Diem allowance for meals will
be $64 per day (tax and tip included). When Per Diem is claimed and some
meals are included in the registration, a deduction should be made as follows:
$13.00 Breakfast
$19.00 Lunch
$32.00 Dinner
$64.00
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such expenditures shall be repaid to
such officer or employee by the City of Alameda upon submission of a
statement of such expense in from satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer of
the City of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such allowance herein fixed shall be
effective until superceded by any change in Federal per diem requirements or
specific City Council resolution.
Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC
Resolutions #3 -B 1
06 -19 -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, 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 19, 2007
Re: Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate a Grant Agreement Between the
City of Alameda and the Alameda Historical Museum
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Historical Museum first requested an annual rent subsidy in February 1999.
The Council authorized funding Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 rent in the amount of $38,400,
noting that approximately one -third of the collection consisted of City artifacts. During the
ensuing years, rent subsidies have been included in the City's adopted budget. For Fiscal
Year 2006-2007, the Museum's annual rent subsidy allocation was $40,100.
DISCUSSION
Each relationship between the City and a grantee organization should have an agreement
that outlines the responsibilities of each party. However, there is no existing written
agreement between the City and the Alameda Historical Museum (Museum). In its
negotiations with the Museum, City staff has offered to provide the Museum $3,462 per
month, or $41,844 for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. This constitutes a reduction of 1 O% of the
$46,160 rent subsidy for Fiscal Year 2006 -2007. In exchange for the funds, the City has
proposed that the Museum develop and implement an annual work plan that contains its
goals and strategies for self- sufficiency as well as a funding and technical assistance plan
to implement the Museum's business plan. This subsidy is subject to Council approval
through the adoption of the budget. The Museum recently sent a letter to the Mayor and
City Council, which is attached, asking that the rent subsidy not be reduced.
Staff also proposes including a provision requiring that an informal performance report be
submitted by May 30, 2008. The report should include a narrative of program operations, a
report of business plan milestones completed, a report of contributions, donations, and
bequests, and a summation of volunteers engaged in educational endeavors for the
Museum. Any agreement should also stipulate the types and amounts of insurance
coverage the Museum is required to carry and name the City as an additional insured.
Special Joint CC /ARRA/CIC
Report Re:
Agenda Item #3 -B II.
06-19-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 19, 2007
Page 2 of 2
The Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Budget as presented for adoption includes sufficient funds in
the Non- Departmental Cultural Arts line item to fund a grant agreement in the amount of
$41, 844.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to negotiate the grant agreement between the City of Alameda
and the Alameda Historical Museum for an amount not to exceed $41,544.
Attachment
FOUNDED 1918
May 29, 2007
Ms. Beverly Johnson, Mayor
City Council Members,
Alameda City Hall
2200 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Alameda Museum Rent Subsidy
Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members,
..a
4,/E
MAY 3 2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CITY MANAGER'S OFF!
In the June City Budget (7 -1 -07 to 6- 30 -08) the Alameda Museum rent subsidy, currently $3,846mo. /$46,152yr.,
includes a 10% reduction from previous years funding. We respectfully request that this 10% funding cut NOT be
implemented for the following reasons.
• When Bill Norton was Acting City Manager, every department faced reductions of 10% and the Museum
acquiesced to this cut, unaware that two years later, the Masons would increase our rent by $1257 a month to
$5103. The funding cut of 10% was never put in place.
• The Museum met with the City Manager 11/20/06 to discuss the Carnegie Library Building. It was during this
meeting that the Museum was told the Carnegie would become the One Stop Permit Center for the City and
that the City Manager intended to implement the 10% cut proposed two years ago. A follow -up letter 11 -28-
06 from the City Manager, cc'd to City Council, said that there would be a recommendation to reduce the
Museum subsidy 10% in the next budget cycle, then 10% each subsequent year. I informed the City
Manager that annual 10% reductions meant the Museum would cease to exist.
• City Council has been provided with itenlized expenses showing that we have annually raised approximately
$3000 mo. to run the Museum and the Meyers House & Garden Museum. The Museum, since 1948, has
been subsidized by the City with either a rent free building or rent assistance, as is every Historic Museum.
When the Museum was forced to vacate the Oak Street location in 1991/2, the City assured us that the rent
would be paid. In 1996, the City approved the Masons' next rent increase (current City cost). We are NOT
asking the City to fund our new rent increase (a 33% increase), only to NOT implement the 10% cut.
• Due to the unfortunate Flood at the Masonic Hall February 2nd, the Museum was closed for repairs. We
reopened May 16th. The City did not pay our rent for two months, a COST SAVINGS of $7692, or 16.7 %. We
still had fixed expenses but NO revenue for 3 1,4 months and then incurred extra expenses to put the Museum
back into operation. The City has effectively gotten the 10% cut for this year and most of the next. We
should not incur further cuts to our subsidy if you have already saved these funds. Our new rent rate is
$5,103. The City Manager proposes our subsidy become $3461. The difference, $1642 is an onerous
burden. Would you volunteer to be a working board member who must raise $4642 every month for providing
a free -to- the - public community asset?
• We are NOT requesting additional funds, only maintaining past funding to continue our service to the City.
We are the only entity preserving and providing access to Alameda History for a cost to the City of
approximately 62 cents per citizen (population 75,000). We provide a venue for the arts, validating current
City support of the arts. We cannot be compared to or evaluated with local art groups as our "raison d'etre" is
entirely unique. We respectfully hope you consider our request.
Sincerely,
cvnt} XOCU-1
Diane Coler -Dark, President, Alameda Museum
Cc: Debra Kurita, City Manager
Special Joint CC /ARRAICIC
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #3-B II.
06-19-07
2321 ALAMEDA AVENUE • ALAMEDA, CA 91501 • 510.521.1233 • alamedamuseum.org
I would like this letter I wrote to the Alameda Newspapers included in g(F.SfiPIR
Council meeting packet.
Dennis Evanosky
Editor:
1001 JUN 11 P 3: I b
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CITY CLER5 OFFICE
This is a call to help preserve Alameda's collective memory. I am an author, a local
historian and part of the Alameda Museum community as a member, researcher and
speaker. I am deeply concerned about City Manger Debra Kurita's plans to reduce the
City's museum subsidy by 10 percent and then continue to reduce this subsidy until the
museum ceases to exist.
I invite Ms. Kurita to look around her and experience the importance of Alameda's past
before she does this. She should notice that the past permeates the City of Alameda. Even
a casual observer will notice the Victorian -era homes that shape the city and make it
unique.
People who want to know more about Alameda's history have two choices. They can
read about it at the library or they can experience it first-hand at the Alameda Museum;
both options are equally important. Alameda is doubly blessed with both a library and a
local museum.
Over the years the folks at the Alameda Museum have provided the City with a valuable
service preserving, interpreting and displaying evidence of Alameda's past. A dedicated
group of volunteers continues this tradition an accomplishment that certainly deserves
the City's acknowledgment and continuing financial support.
The City of Alameda cannot afford to lose its museum anymore than it could afford to
lose its library. The museum is, in fact, a visual, tangible facility that complements both
the City and its library. Indeed both library and City staff should tell researchers that a
visit to the museum is an integral part of investigating Alameda.
The museum is important not just to researchers, however. Alamedans interested in
informally learning about their own history can visit the museum at no cost. There they
can learn the history of their homes and stories about their family's past. While there
they can visit exhibits like a facsimile of the barber shop where the City's beloved three -
term Mayor Chuck Corica plied his trade and his grassroots politics.
Museum volunteers will also invite visitors to take in the museum's unique "annex" on
Alameda Avenue, the Colonial Revival Myers House. There, for a small admission fee,
they can immerse themselves in Alameda over one hundred years ago.
Special Joint CCIARRAICIC
Re: Agenda Item #3 -B 11
06 -19 -07
Visitors might be pleased to learn that the museum has always worked with the City's
children. As just one example, for the past ten years the museum has hosted "Kids &
Queen Victoria," an art show with work from fourteen elementary school classes.
And there's more.
The museum encourages local artists to display their work on its gallery walls, hosts a
lecture series that focuses on Alameda's history, preserves hundreds and hundreds of
documents and vintage photos, keeps an incredible tangible array of Alameda's past and
hosts special exhibits lovingly put together by volunteers.
Is all this worth preserving? Are the Alameda Museum and the Meyers House important
threads in the City's fabric? Ms. Kurita doesn't seem to think so. It's time to let her know
otherwise because without the City's continuing financial support Alameda may soon
lose very precious asset access to its collective memory.
Dennis Evanosky
3475 B 39th Avenue
Oakland, CA 94619
510- 772 -5209