2007-07-17 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - -- JULY 17, 2007 - - - 6:30 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 6 :30 p.m.
Place: c.4..,,,ry.,,,,q2u.n.94,1:_ctiwapp.e.FA,,,qpiRfp,pisei22.7,1 City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3-A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM (54956.95)
Claimant: Jerry Manis
Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
Beverly �hn��, i ayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JULY 17, 2007 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission 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 Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting held on July 3,
2007. (City Clerk)
4. AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5. ADJOURNMENT -- Community Improvement Commission
AGENDA
CITYOFALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk
and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium
and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY
JULY 17, 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
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS of THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the
23rd Annual Art and Wine Faire.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting and the Regular city Council Meeting held on July 3,
2007. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $79,955 to
Muller & Caulfield Architects for Architectural and
Engineering Services to evaluate alternatives and develop
costs for the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project.
(Planning and Building)
4 -D. Final Passage of ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute All Necessary Agreements and Documents for Termination
of the Ground Lease and Execution of a Master Lease that
Divides the Leasehold Estate that is the Subject of the Lease
into Three Separate Leasehold Estates to Ballena Isle Marina,
LP, a California Limited Partnership, of Real Property Held
Under Lease By and Between the City of Alameda and Ballena
Isle Marina, a Limited Partnership. [Requires four affirmative
votes] (Development Services)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Gregory L. Hamm as a Member
of the Public Utilities Board.
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) [Continued
from June 19, 2007]
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Authorizing
the Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management
Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills. (Public Works)
5 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)
to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of
Fire Extinguishing Systems. (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. Written communication from the League of California Cities
requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
2007 Annual Conference.
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
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: July 17, 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 $9,1 04,000 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
and are currently approximately 50 percent complete. 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 (Attachment 3). A summary of the status of each project is provided
below.
CIC
Agenda Item #2 -A
07-17-07
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Alameda Theater
July 17, 2007
Page 2 of 5
Current work on the Theater includes continuation of the alleyway improvements and
continued fire sprinkler installation, plaster repair, decorative painting, and marquee and
blade sign removal and repair. Overaa has also continued with electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical system installation. The CIC's architect has finalized the selection of paint
colors for the marquee canopy and blade sign (Attachment #4). The marquee canopy
will be black and silver to match the original color scheme. The blade sign will consist of
terracotta colored "Alameda" lettering outlined in black, overlaid with clear neon, and set
against a silver interior panel. Additionally, the forest green panel surrounding the silver
interior panel and terracotta lettering will match the green color of the Theater entrance,
and will be overlaid with red decorative neon. Recent photographs of the existing
conditions and restoration of the Theater can be found on the City's website at
www.ci.alameda.ca.us/theater/0704_rehab_photos.html.
Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $501,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 54 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).
Questions have been raised about the approach CIC staff and its design team took
during design development to enhance energy efficiency in the historic Alameda
Theater. The CIC's architect and its engineering team worked diligently to balance the
restoration of historic lighting with energy conservation. Original fixtures that were
designed for incandescent bulbs had to remain incandescent. In some cases, such as
the shadow box surrounds and the auditorium cove lighting, incandescent bulbs were
replaced with energy efficient 'click strip' lighting. The click -strip fixtures in the cove are
an incandescent source, but they use less energy than standard incandescent lights,
have a longer life, and are the only real option for the limited space in the cove. All new
fixtures have been made fluorescent for higher energy efficiency. Also, LED lights were
specified for the exit signs; these lights have a longer life and require minimal energy
resources. As alternative lighting technology evolves over time, the incandescent bulbs
in the Theater may be replaced with new, more energy efficient technologies. CIC staff
met with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) staff to discuss the design process
undertaken for the Theater and to review potential energy efficiency measures for the
Theater.
Parking Garage
Overaa poured the third floor deck and columns of the parking structure and is currently
working on forming and pouring the fourth and fifth decks and columns. The "deck
cycle" for all levels of the garage is likely to be complete by the end of the summer.
Allowance budgets for banners on the northern elevation of the garage and security
cameras were added as potential encumbrances to the contingency budget. Security
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
Page 3 of 5
cameras were not required for the garage during design development. CIC staff, in
conjunction with the Police Department, is now evaluating the need for cameras. It is
also possible that the cost of security cameras could be financed over the first several
years of operation. The various design, cost and financing options for security cameras
are currently being explored and will be finalized over the next several months.
The CIC's design architect, Komorous Towey Architects, designed three conceptual
decorative banner schemes for obscuring the sloping levels along the northern elevation
of the garage (Attachment #5). All of the banners include images of decorative historic
elements within the Alameda Theater or historic photos of the surrounding Alameda
community. The images presented in the attached schemes are samples of potential
concepts and could be mixed and matched, as well as updated once the decorative
painting in the Theater is complete. Staff requests feedback from the CIC regarding the
potential content of the banner images.
Preliminary cost estimates, including the cost of design, reproduction, and installation,
have been developed for each of the proposed schemes. Scheme 1 A includes three
banners that cover the three middle bays and top four levels of the garage ($22,000);
Scheme 1B portrays four banners covering the four most visible of the five bays of the
garage ($27,000); and lastly, Scheme 2 includes six smaller banners hung together on
the three middle bays over the top five levels of the garage ($25,000). An additional
scheme could be developed that includes eight smaller banners hung together on the
four most visible bays covering the top five levels, but would be more expensive, costing
approximately $35,000. As currently priced, the banners consist of a sturdy vinyl
material that would be warranted for a maximum of 3.5 years, but may last five years
with some color fading, due to its northern exposure. If the banners were reproduced
and installed again in five years, the cost is likely to be approximately $0,000, excluding
the cost of design and fabrication and installation of the metal framing. Staff
recommends moving forward with design and bidding for the banner project, but waiting
to commit funds to its implementation until garage construction is closer to completion
and the adequacy of contingency funds can be assessed.
Current and potential contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $313,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 75 percent of the CIC's
contingency budget, including the estimated cost of designing the banners on the
northern elevation and the security cameras. 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, is currently working on erecting concrete - masonry-unit interior and exterior
walls and the second floor of the cineplex structure.
Honorable Chair and Jul 17, 2007
July
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 5
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no proposed changes to the C1 C'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.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 - Consider building parking
g a p g
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide feedback regarding the banner design and images proposed for the northern
elevation of the parking garage.
Res
submitted,
eslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: orene E. Soto
er Business Development '
an.g Division
By: J
R
nif r Ott
e - Iopment Manager
DK/LAUDES /JO:ry
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
Page 5 of 5
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
4. Finalized Color Scheme for Historic Alameda Theater Marquee Canopy and
Blade Sign
5. Banner Schemes and Sample Concepts for Northern Elevation of the Parking
Garage
Monthly Progress Status Report
Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration
City of Alameda
July 17, 2007 C/C Meeting
BUDGET
CONTRACT
PAYMENTS
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
$8,800,000
$1,106,040
$9,906,040
CONTRACT STATUS
0)
z
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
Notice to Proceed:
$4,429,630
$873,235
$5,302,865
10- Nov -08
Contract Calendar Days:
410
Time Extensions:
Scheduled Completion:
15- Dec -07.
Time Used:
Time Remaining:
230
180
Percent Time Expended :
0
V
Base Bid Amount:
56%
$8,800,000
Amount Paid to Date:
Percent Cost Expended:
$5,302,865
60%
Executed /Pending Change Orders:
$600,646
Project Cost:
$9,400,646
Percent Contingency Expended:
MILESTONES
'Milestone
Notice to Proceed
Substantial Completion
Final Completion
PROJECT STATUS
Work Completed
This Period:
Work Projects
Next Period:
Status:
54%
Baseline
11/10/2006
11/10/2007
12/15/2007
Original Contract Amount
$8,800,000
Previous Changes $45,422
Executed Change Orders
Repair Sewer Break in Men's Room $5,249
Unforeseen Alleyway Improvements $49,804
Value - Engineering Enclosure $46,484
Electrical Room Widening $44,695
Natural Gas Line Stub Outs $16,440
Temporary Alleyway Trash Enclosure $1,139
Drainage and Service Point Revisions $33,813
Marquee /Blade Sign Housing Replacement $23,100
Subtotal Executed Changes $220,724
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Add! Paint and Plaster Work Allowance $100,000
Seismic Clarifications $75,000
Seismic Issues for Non - Structural Walls $47,000
Water Fountain $15,000
Acoustical Panel Removal $10,000
Marquee Pigeon Guano /Other Haz Mat Removal $11,000
Uncover and Protect Existing Gas Line $7,500
Demo Inside of Auditorium Chandelier $10,000
AP &T Changes $35,000
Replace T1 Fixtures $8,000
Plaster Wall Support $10,000
Remove Unforeseen Existing Equipment $6,000
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $334,500
Total Changes $600,646
Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,400,646
Remaining Contingency $505,394
PICTURES
Forecast
11/10/2006
11/10/2007
12/15/2007
• Continued with Alleyway Improvements
• Continued with Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Work
• Finalized Storefront Structural Work
• Continued with Decorative Painting and Plaster Repair
• Continued wtih Marquee /Blade Neon Repair
• Complete Fire Sprinkler Installation and Alleyway Work
• Commence Mechanical Equipment Installation
• Project is on Schedule
Approved
11/10/2006
Attachm
Agenda It
CIC
ent 1 to
em #2-A
07 -17 -07
Monthly Progress Status Report
Civic Center Parking Garage
City of Alameda
July 17, 2007 CIC Meeting
•
BUDGET
CONTRACT.. .
Construction $8,499,889
Contingency $415,000
Original Contract Amount $9,104,000
Value Engineering (Credit) ($604,111)
Revised Contract Amount $8,499,889
, Previous Changes $1,363
Executed Change Orders
Subtotal Executed Changes $117,410
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Blade Sign and Marquee Canopy $128,000
Security Cameras $62,000
Northern Elevation Banner Design Budget $5,000
Conduit for eLockers (Bike Lockers) $3,000
Potential Site Work Budget $17,000
Deletion of Handheld Device (Credit) ($21,000)
Total Contract Budget $8,914,889
PAYMENTS _ ..
Previously Paid $3,695,982
Payment this Period $527,791
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $194,000
Total Changes $312,773
Estimated Revised Contact Amount $8,812,662
Remaining Contingency $102,227
Total Payment To Date $4,223,773
CONTRACT STATUS :. a -
PICTURES
�:j]
_
a# ce -t a: Proceed:
1: Noy ,.
�l t
- ..
': f .- ... r
.. �
••n. ,
•
; 7
: .•+ f l'
.r. _ fir, 1 ,r '�taa. _ 1'
rFy • - `r ;.; 7 �r
= r �� r +l
. .....: "-4-:: .i �? _ # ! -
" • r..
- - ,, r rf0 : ,,r fr . R � :,ii••�!:: ` rF• •
_,. - .,,, s r.,
,r• •:7e {
;� � '
f� � f
, ,
ew:: _-:r "-' yEk,.•" .4''•i _ ''17r i+ •'u'.; :'i• �.r,- ::i.:]_
r'
r
ra l- r 4
�Co r
: .
- �• ,lti• . , .Ii!: a e s
~ -
:+:
~ - , ' t
,, y' C „S t _ ., :: r : .`..i lr•
.' r ..
`.'�rr:9•
� . z;,..,:,,,,i. . t:l��.� orpetiot
..r �.•-',:: J,. +r ,.. . t .s....s.s�•.•._ .. s ,.:
:.,._1 - vrD ..,
� - ' - 7^:r i
.�
7�rT. S 9 J.
_
., �,rye
3•
•:
-� • o
.i •`.- :�
l'•.t •�-
k-14,-; _} �' -�`'.r , � y= ^�:' >; �•v N ' :,:-.=-;!;-: ..._ .�':� r �1'�?Y'` Yi�r;�iti s'
?•i +':+ul 1 ',2- c.7 �^� - �','.+1�t1'',; r'�, i It }� . }e7'��e
iyry.,,�k?•`rr' _:�wcii:t: �s' c1�'- �Ii�'4r�rK�Str7liy.t �_,.�
�xi., ; ?;��x.�tifi }i SiS:i,�''- �•:.�. p.•�
-- ri'rri }•"'�*:- -iY,:� {-'512_
..
.rte.. i:_V- •`�ii!i!+'i, *FiY�l'7c- ....15�
, .a. Zi yf. " '1 • P.-- `i' ii t ., m': •pr -axr.. •-' ",`.`.', r iii.'.
'a'. 'r F. Y 1 '} r.�F'} �• � "1Y y
,,:,.3F� ' •G i _ r ";3 ;,,;i,? .x ::•,;, �e -� ! `4
^:f: °�`"±�it � 7iit: -v L; ..l i. -= � _: Js. :ti
:r = :: :- rnie3 ter,,ajnin -,
. _ ..':= �"d•�J •'4.1iw r•a�.�:�; it r5 "r•�!: Lr,... . !%��J -,r. +..+ : -1.:. .f., .n�.J•- c.- .- .J . ...... ..... _• �...
_. .�f ,1.+- �l •cF
- 4. --6
{: -' sr,,,,,,,,,,,y."--,-
cr:+:h•�t ���,y`
��_!_ .t r -" r f �
,'.7 �Y=: =� r•':.� «r
;'�. % 7 •� +. WR. ;.i �
- Z' .f•_t 'NV_ :i �r r' � {' ■-- �-.�} s %�y+. 3 : _•_ .rte i� �. L�
7 r '1� f" P!_:iPercent 7Time.;:x n
}� f:' rf ..S .. _ - �': r- i- :•..... -•- ... ... r -^.�.r
- •" rr � . .-. ... - z �� {d
f - : =� . -� , - ...f�` ='
kr
i-.S - -`-'i 5• ,�
.• •'•• -. .- ��', !.J. ��•. faJV�. .��-
i;
a
0
Base Bid Amount:
$9,104,000
Amount Paid to Date:
$4,223,773
Percent Cost Expended:
50%
Value-Engineering:
($604,111)
Previous/Pending Change Orders
$312,773
Project Cost:
$8,812,662
Percent Contingency Expended:
75 °Io
,
MILESTONES : ::..:.
Milestone
Baseline
Forecast
Approved
11/10/2006
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 -
.
PROJECT STATUS
Work Completed • Formed and Poured Third Floor Deck
This Period: • Formed and Poured Third Floor Columns
• Forming and Pouring Fourth Floor Deck and Columns
Work Projects
Next Period: • Form and Pour Fourth Floor Columns
• Form and Pour Fifth Floor Deck and Columns
Status: • Project is on Schedule
CIC
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #2 -A
07-17-07
c
0)
E
0
0.
a)
2% Complete)
0)
and (Completed)
Construct!
0
c.)
Secure and Close Financing (Complet
0
0 °C ( w
E z
0 aa
w CC CC
E Q
a C�
X
w
J
a
w CIC
z
E3 Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #2 -A
07 -17 -07
(E) NEON, TYP.
REPLAGE
MISSING AND /OR
DAMAGED WITH
NEW TO MATCH
(E) (ALLOW 50%) -
PROVIDE SHEET
METAL PANEL
NORTH SIDE
BLADE Si CAN
I41ERE OPEN TO
HEATHER
NOTE I 51-1EET METAL
i .REQUIRED.
NOTE 2 -
5 SHOWN FOR
ONLY. FIELD
4ENSIONS PRIOR
•ATION
:ED GE1L1NG
Whj'/-c
h ePr)
)JECTI NG MARQUEE
NEON BRAID Ill NEW TO
) AT AREAS OF NEW TRIM
TRIM TO MATCH (E),
\CADE
LINE OF
STOREFRON1
MARQUEE
SHEET METAL PANEL TO
IGINAL l HERE REMOVED
1INATFr)
LINE OF BUILDING
(E) NEON BRAID,
TYP. REPLACE
MISSING AND/OR
DAMAGED H I TH
NEW TO MATCH
(E) (ALLOW 50%)
PROVIDE NEON
TO MATCH (E) @
EACH LETTER,
BOTH 5IPE5 OF
SIGN
SST
1 of 2
ii1
SOUTH
EAST CIC
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #2 -A
07- 17 -07
=AMMON '11
• +rte
1. ' 117,1 1;7,C- ;!}` ; ^., Y'.l.y � �1f.,I- •. "i�.7�; Y:.= cr}�r• y+� {"..
.'-�,y �qi^^'#T.'- sra'f,�� ^r! �+!'; SL-~•' ;°��:v�,��_'a.`�': iIC,�4 3':.;;v + �p.? �",, .v.+- T��..u.�'A:*�'n",eL7!ti4 .��-:'k�.�.':
;:'
CIC
Attachment 5 to
Agenda Item #2 -A
07 -17 -07
:-..,::,::;i::.':.:--:-.:,.:.1;,'.1.:i.:',.?`;:•,..-.:':z•,..:•,:.:':;--..-;_',:i:::.,::::::::;:':k:::-'.;_,::.-,:?::',.:_,:...!.:.:112',.,'.f:.::-.:'‘.:,::i:-,?:;.L.'J:-',.,::::',!...-.1".g=a;:i:.E,-,;:iil'7;itc,='i.:::,,',-i''''A
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 3, 2007- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers 1 Board Members /
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson -- 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda
Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and SunCal Companies;
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(07- CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Alameda Theater Retail Spaces at 2315 and 2319 Central Avenue;
Negotiating parties: CIC and Restauranteur; Under negotiation:
Terms.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation -
(54 953.9; Name of Case: Mikiten v. City of Alameda, et al.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9); Name of Case: Collins (2) v. City of Alameda.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9); Name of Case: Collins (3) v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding the Alameda Naval
Air Station, the City negotiators briefed the Board and received
instructions; regarding the Alameda Theater Retail Spaces,
negotiators provided a briefing on retail space transactions to the
Commission and received direction; regarding Mikiten, Council
received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided directions;
regarding Collins 2, Council received a briefing and provided
direction to Legal Counsel to defend the case; regarding Collins 3,
Council received a briefing and provided direction to Legal Counsel
to defend the case.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Community Improvement Commission
July 3, 2007
1
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7 :42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Community Improvement Commission
July 3, 2007
2
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- --JULY 3, 2007- -7 :27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion with the following correction
to the minutes: Page 11: "Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Board
Members are required to make contributions over time."
Commissioner Gilmore noted the following correction to the minutes:
Page 15: "...the City needs to help the Museum with finding a site if
fund raising is not enough to cover a projected rent increase."
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
( *07_ ) Minutes of the Annual Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) meeting and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and CIC meeting held on June 19, 2007.
Approved.
( *O7- ) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association in
the amount of $108,020 and the West Alameda Business Association in
the amount of $98,200 for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 3, 2007- -6 :00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers 1 Board Members
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda
Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and SunCal Companies;
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(07- CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Alameda Theater Retail Spaces at 2315 and 2319 Central Avenue;
Negotiating parties: cIC and Restauranteur; Under negotiation:
Terms.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation -
(54953.9; Name of Case: Mikiten v. City of Alameda, et al.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9) ; Name of Case: Collins (2) v. City of Alameda.
(07- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54953.9) ; Name of Case: Collins (3) v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding the Alameda Naval
Air Station, the City negotiators briefed the Board and received
instructions; regarding the Alameda Theater Retail Spaces,
negotiators provided a briefing on retail space transactions to the
Commission and received direction; regarding Mikiten, Council
received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided directions;
regarding Collins 2, Council received a briefing and provided
direction to Legal Counsel to defend the case; regarding Collins 3,
Council received a briefing and provided direction to Legal Counsel
to defend the case.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Community Improvement Commission
July 3, 2007
1
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7 :42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Community Improvement Commission
July 3, 2007
2
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 3, 2007- -7 :30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:56
p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 07- ] was
continued to August 7 and that Resolutions Appointing various
Boards and Commissions [paragraph no. 07- ] would be addressed
first.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Resolution No. 14111, "Appointing Linda McHugh as a Member
of the Civil Service Board." Adopted;
(07- A) Resolution No. 14112, "Reappointing Steve R. Fort as a
member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
(07- B) Resolution No. 14113, "Reappointing Margaret Hakanson as
a member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
(07- C) Resolution No. 14114, "Reappointing Audrey Lord - Hausman
as a member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
(07- D) Resolution No. 14115, "Appointing Roberta Kreitz as a
member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
(07- E) Resolution No. 14116, "Appointing John Robinson as a
Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
(07- F) Resolution No. 14117, "Reappointing Jeannette L.
Copperwaite (Historic Experience Seat) as a Member of the Film
Commission." Adopted;
(07- G) Resolution No. 14118, "Reappointing David J. Duffin
(Film /Video Experience Seat) as a Member of the Film Commission."
Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
1
(07- H) Resolution No. 14119, "Reappointing Liam Gray
(Arts /Cultural Seat) as a member of the Film Commission." Adopted;
(07- I) Resolution No. 14120, "Reappointing Orin D. Green
(Film/Video Experience Seat) as a member of the Film Commission."
Adopted;
(07- J} Resolution No. 14121, "Appointing Ronald Kahn as a
Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board."
Adopted;
(07- K) Resolution No. 14122, "Reappointing Nancy Gormley (Senior
Tenant Seat) as a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted;
(07- L) Resolution No. 14123, "Appointing Mike Hartigan as a
Member of the Library Board." Adopted;
(07- M) Resolution No. 14124, "Reappointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
as a Member of the Planning Board." Adopted;
(07- N)
Member of
(07- 0)
Member
Resolution No. 14125, "Reappointing Gina Mariani as a
the Planning Board." Adopted;
Resolution No. 14126, "Reappointing Katina Huston as a
of the Public Art Commission." Adopted;
(07- P)
member of
(07 Q)
Member of
Resolution No. 14127, "Reappointing Cathy Nielsen as a
the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted; and
Resolution No. 14128, "Reappointing Henry Villareal as a
the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted.
Mayor Johnson thanked Board and Commission members for all of their
hard work.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The city Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Board and Commission members.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07- ) Presentation regarding the Facade Grant Program.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
2
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the budget for the Facade Grant
Program, to which the Development Services Director responded the
budget was $200,000 last year.
Mayor Johnson stated the Park Street and Webster Street
improvements have made a huge difference.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the budget for next year, to
which the Development Services Director responded $200,000.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she is impressed with the before and after
pictures; inquired what is the average cost for renovations.
The Business Development Manager responded costs vary; stated
grants are on two levels: one for tenants and one for owners; the
average grant is approximately $8,000.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he is impressed with the results;
the momentum needs to continue.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the awnings;
the awnings are becoming standardized.
The Development Services Director stated the Development
Coordinator takes a lot of care in developing color schemes and
design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Facade Grant Program funding
comes from the Redevelopment budget.
The Development Services Director responded currently the program
is funded by the Commercial Revitalization fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the available funding equals the
demand.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated priority would be given to move funds around if needed.
Kathy Moehing, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated she
is happy to have the opportunity to work with businesses to
beautify the downtown district.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR), thanked staff
for simplifying the grant process; stated responses are given
within two days of submitting an application.
(07- ) Report on the Film Commission's first year.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
3
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have a point of.
contact once filming starts.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the old ordinance had the Public Works Department as the
point of contact; now the point of contact is the Planning
Department; the Development Coordinator would report back on the
economic activity.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar
minus Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
[paragraph no. 07- 1, which was moved to August 7, 2007.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on June 19, 2007.
Approved with the following corrections to the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting: Page 11: "Vice Mayor Tam inquired
whether Board Members are required to make contributions over
time"; Page 15 "...the City needs to help the Museum with finding a
site if fund raising is not enough to cover a projected rent
increase."
( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,379,969.18.
( *07- ) Recommendation to approve a Lease Extension with E -Z-
Go /Textron Financial Corporation for 120 electric golf carts for
rental use at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to allocate $58,665 and award Contract in
the amount of $511,468, including contingencies, to William P.
Young Construction for Ballena Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project,
No. P.W. 05-00-09. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Ghilotti Brothers
for the Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements near
Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School) , No. P.W. 11-- 02 -15 .
Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
4
( *07- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Grand Street Sewer Pump Station,
No. P.W. 04- 07 -16. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to authorize installation of All -way Stop
Controls at the following intersections: Fountain Street at Van
Buren Street, and Fountain Street at Jackson Street. Accepted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14129, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Roof
Structure for Maintenance Service Center Transfer Pad and
Dumps tern , No. P.W. 0 4 - 0 7--14 and Authorizing the City Manager to
Enter into Such an Agreement." Adopted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14130, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Grant Contract Between the State of California
Department of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda for the
Purchase of Marine Patrol Equipment." Adopted.
(07- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Repealing Sections 5-30 (Filming Activities) in its
Entirety, and Replacing It with a Successor Section to Article II
(Permits) of Chapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the
Procedures, Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming
Activities within the City of Alameda. Continued to August 7, 2007.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14131,
"Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Light
District 84 -2, All Zones." Adopted; and
(07- A) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution
Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3. Not adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated Zones 2 and 3 are on Webster Street; inquired
whether another budget would be prepared if the fee increase is
adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the budget has been
prepared; stated the second resolution [for Zone 2 and 3] would
modify the first resolution to reflect the increase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
5
Mayor Johnson stated the issue is important to Webster Street.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution Approving
Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering
Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Light District 84-
2, All Zones.
Councilmember deHaan clarified that the motion was for the present
assessment.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- A) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution
Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2, Zones 2 and 3. Not adopted.
Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to consider
Adoption of Resolution Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming
Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of Assessments, Island
City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3
[paragraph no. 07- A] would be tabled to allow the ballots to be
tallied.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14132,
"Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District
01-01 (Marina Cove) ." Adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Public Hearing presenting the Master Fee Schedule for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
6
Fiscal Year 2007 -2008.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the golf fees are fine; there is an
outstanding issue pertaining to golf policies.
Councilmember deHaan stated periodically concerns are raised
regarding fees; inquired whether said concerns are tracked and
categorized; stated people had disputes with building fees; the
matter was put to rest because there was a misunderstanding.
The Finance Director responded records are kept within the
department that collects the fee; stated departments could be
surveyed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Finance Director was
aware of any concerns [regarding fees], to which the Finance
Director responded that she was not aware of any concerns in recent
times.
Councilmember Gilmore moved acceptance of the Master Fee Schedule.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated a 7.4% increase could be testy; he
hopes that a vigil will be maintained on the matter.
(07- ) Introduction of ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute All Necessary Agreements and Documents for Termination of
the Ground Lease and Execution of a Master Lease that Divides the
Leasehold Estate that is the Subject of the Lease into Three
Separate Leasehold Estates to Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a California
Limited Partnership, of Real Property Held Under Lease By and
Between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, a Limited
Partnership.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the rent escalation is phenomenal; inquired
whether the estimate is conservative and one that the City could
expect.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
7
The Development Services Director responded that Keyser Marsen
Associates, Inc. (KMA) is very conservative in the estimates;
stated the estimates are attainable.
Bob Wetmore, KMA, stated the gross revenue is what drives the
projections; the number of slips would be reduced from 500 to 370
but would not change the rates; the City would get a percentage of
the gross.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether revenues could be used for property
improvements to meet the rent expectations.
The Development Services Director responded that she does not
expect that any of the revenues would go back to the private
development of the site; stated revenues would be used to expand
access to Tidelands areas; other properties could be bought or
improvements could be made to other Tidelands properties for public
benefit around the waterfront.
Mayor Johnson stated that the revenue could be used to improve the
Bay Trail.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the revenue could be
available for economic development and maritime job generation.
The Assistant City Manager responded revenues could be used for any
Tideland use, including ship building, navigation, fishing, and
other commercial activity.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether revenues could be used for
bulkhead improvements, to which the Assistant City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the property would look like at
the end of the lease.
The Development Services Director responded the lease has
safeguards requiring regular maintenance; the lease has a provision
requiring that there must be a cure to any obsolescence ten years
prior to the end of the lease; inquired whether an account is
required to be set aside.
Mr. Wetmore responded in the negative; stated the lease hold would
have an engineering evaluation at mid - lease; the City would chose
the engineer and do an inspection; the lessee is required to cure
any physical obsolescence to ensure that the slips are what they
should be for the remainder of the lease.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
8
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the slips life expectancy, to
which Mr. Wetmore responded over forty years.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether improvements would go through the
design review process.
The Development Services Director responded the lessee would be
required to go through the City's permitting process.
Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Bill Smith, Alameda, stated that he has been interested in the
property for the last few years.
Mayor Johnson stated that possible development was considered for
the remaining parcel; the remaining parcel is not part of the
lease; the City is not aware of any development of the parcel at
this point.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07- A) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution
Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84 -2, Zones 2 and 3. Not adopted.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the ballots have been tabulated;
Zones 2 and 3 failed; a vote is not needed for the resolution.
Mayor Johnson inquired currently how much WABA pays.
The Public Works Coordinator responded approximately $35,000 per
year; stated one district pays approximately $18,000, the other
pays approximately $16,000; stated there was a majority protest
of the votes returned.
Mayor Johnson inquired when was the last time the amount was
raised, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded 1992.
Mayor Johnson stated the streetscaping requires more maintenance;
property owners have benefited from the streetscaping; hopefully,
the property owners will recognize the need to contribute.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether another plan is in place
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
9
to protect the City's investment; stated he wants to make sure that
there is not a gap that would cause the streetscape to deteriorate
and lose value.
The Assistant City Attorney stated thirty -six ballots were mailed
to each zone; eleven ballots were returned from Zone 2; fifteen
ballots were returned from Zone 3.
Mayor Johnson stated the vote is weighted; she is disappointed that
Webster Street property owners were not willing to increase
contributions after millions of dollars were spent from public
investment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when another vote could be taken.
The Assistant City Attorney responded she would need to look into
the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff needs a fall back position to
ensure that all assets are covered.
Mayor Johnson stated that the public investment needs to be
protected; the business district needs to support the necessary
maintenance.
The City Clerk read the results of returns.
Mayor Johnson inquired which parts of Webster Street are covered
by Zones 2 and 3.
The Public Works Coordinator responded Zone 2 covers the area from
Central Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue; Zone 3 covers the area down
to Atlantic Avenue.
Mayor Johnson stated the property owners voted against the
increase, not the business owners.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07- ) Donald McCauley, Teamsters Local 70, stated that he
wanted to make the Council aware of the wrong doings of Waste
Management; the Union bargained in good faith to try and resolve
Contract disputes; employees were told to leave the premises at
1:30 p.m. yesterday and a lock -out occurred at 4:30 p.m.; rates
have increased; requested Council support.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Alameda's trash and recycling is
handled through Alameda County Industries (ACI); the School
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
10
District has Waste Management; school is out of session except for
a couple of campuses.
The City Manager stated two summer school programs are in session;
Waste Management is the hauler for the School District; the City
has a different hauler.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's green waste goes to the Waste
Management facility; he would like to understand the situation
[lock out] better.
Mayor Johnson stated ACI does the recycling for Alameda; garbage
goes to the transfer station.
Mr. McCauley stated the Davis Street facility is a transfer
station; the recycling area is going to be shut down.
Mayor Johnson stated that Waste Management has its own recycling
and sorting facility at the transfer station; ACI has its own in a
different city; Council will receive a report on the matter.
(07- ) Shannon O' Reef f e, Teamsters Local 70, provided a brief
background on the Waste Management dispute; requested Council
support to get families back to work.
(07- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed recycling.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Discussion regarding a resolution calling upon steps to
withdraw our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and members of the
California National Guard troops from Iraq. [660-50]
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council passed a resolution
four years ago encouraging a multi- national diplomatic approach;
now the nation is in the middle of a civil, religious war; the cost
directly affects Alameda; he suggested National Guard withdrawals
as a safety measure for California a year ago; the matter is a City
issue because the City is paying the bills; the City is deprived of
things because money is going out the other end and is not worth
the benefit; he would like Council to discuss the issue.
Proponents (In favor of resolution): Ashley Jones, Alameda; Herb
Behrstock, United Nations Association, East Bay; Mi'Chelle
Fredrick, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of resolution) : Eddie M. Abbey, District
10, Department of California, the American Legion; Richard W.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
11
Rutter, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates people coming
out to speak; he is disappointed that more people did not come to
the meeting; thanked Mr. Abbey for standing up for his service to
the country; read the second "WHEREAS" of the draft resolution;
stated said language is the same support shown in 2003; calling
someone who disputes the war a traitor is contrary to the
Constitution; the draft resolution is purposely written to address
that the matter is a City issue and what the costs are; read the
rest of the draft resolution; stated Alameda is directly impacted;
initially, the Base transfer was a no-cost transfer; now the City
is paying $108 million for unclean land that the City gave to the
Department of Defense in a clean state; subsidies have been taken
away from the School District; housing budgets have been cut year
after year; the draft resolution would make it known that Alameda
is being affected and wants a change; the draft resolution is an
appropriate measure to discuss at the City level.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of Councilmember
Matarrese's efforts to discuss the matter at a following Council
meeting; she recognizes that significant sacrifices have been made
by the military in order to preserve people's rights to speak;
communication between local, regional, State or federal governments
is appropriate; recent communications have taken place with the
Governor to make sure that the Governor recognizes that public
transit dollars should not be cut; the federal budget deficit has
taken a toll on health care; Medicare reimbursements have
diminished significantly; the City has discussed building an
appropriate facility to serve veterans at Alameda Point; she would
like to have the draft resolution recognize impacts on Alameda's
health care needs.
Mayor Johnson stated that now is the appropriate time to give
Alameda residents an opportunity to discuss the matter; she has no
objection to discussing the matter at a Council meeting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has an on-going concern with
the war; Congress changed in November; a referendum could be coming
to California residents in April; SB 924 calls for an advisory
vote; all avenues need to be discussed; four years is a long period
of time; he does not want to send the wrong signal to the men and
women serving the country; treatment was less than satisfactory for
Vietnam War veterans; further discussion should go forward, but
other avenues should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson suggested adding language to the resolution regarding
providing support services to veterans and supporting higher
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
12
service levels for injured troops.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she has received a number of
emails and phone calls on the matter; residents are pro and con on
the issue; a consensus does not exist; she feels that the matter is
worth discussing; she is reluctant to tell any segment of the
population that issues cannot be discussed; discussion does not
diminish the support of the troops; the country has a long history
of having grass roots activism when governments are not heading in
the right direction; she is disappointed that more people did not
attend the meeting tonight; she hopes that more residents attend
the future discussion to voice opinions on the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated the no -cost conveyance was lost through
the City's own actions but does not mean that the $108 million
requested by the Navy was not driven because of lack of funding.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he disagrees with Councilmember
deHaan; the $108 million demanded by the Department of Defense is
directly correlated to money not being available for clean up; the
whole clean up issue has been driven by a lack of money that was
dedicated to clean up; Councilmembers were elected to look out for
the City's interests and to lead; sometimes it is necessary to yell
to lead.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a vote on the matter is needed, to
which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated there is consensus to bring the matter to a
future Council agenda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the draft resolution would include
reference to the healthcare needs for Alamedans and veterans and
the support services necessary for active and injured veterans
coming home from the war.
Mayor Johnson suggested adding language to provide an adequate
level of funding for homeland security; stated funding shortfalls
have left many areas of homeland securities still untouched; the
City is in the process of creating an interoperable radio system.
Councilmember Matarraese stated the cost of that [ interoperable
ratio system] is pennies compared to the war.
Councilmember deHaan stated other activities need to be flushed out
and should be part of the report that comes back.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the draft resolution references the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
13
California National Guard; she does not know what type of situation
would cause Alameda to need the National Guard; recent newspaper
articles have mentioned how various National Guard units are
missing necessary equipment; requested information on cases where
Alameda would use the National Guard and whether equipment was
available to do the work.
Mr. Abbey stated presently there are four divisions of equipment;
armored equipment would be left in Iraq because of bacterial
growth.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the amount and type of equipment left
here is unknown.
Mr. Abbey identified said equipment.
Councilmember Gilmore requested Mr. Abbey to provide staff with
contact information.
Mayor Johnson stated there is not a clear understanding of the
National Guard and how deployment works; the Governor of Maine
stated she is concerned because State law stipulates that National
Guard troops cannot be deployed for a certain amount of time after
being deployed out of the United States.
Mr. Abbey stated federal troops were brought in during the 1906
earthquake because the States of Nevada, Oregon, Washington and
Idaho could not send National Guard troops to assist in other
states unless federalized.
The City Manager stated staff would work with Mr. Abbey as well as
National Guard representatives.
Mr. Abbey stated the State Offices of Emergency Management Services
would be happy to help.
Councilmember deHaan requested a status on SB 924; stated said bill
would be an advisory question; all California citizens would be
requested to vote on the matter.
(07- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Gregory Hamm for appointment to the Public
Utilities Board.
(07- ) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Mayor's
Conference last week; the Energy Committee has become very popular;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
14
Los Angles is doing many innovative things.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarresse stated the Council had a joint
meeting with the Transportation Commission a few months ago; the
congestion disappears on the Bay Farm Island Bridge when school
lets out; requested that a plan be discussed for reducing student
commute traffic at the next Council/School District meeting;
Lincoln Middle School and Amelia Earhart Elementary School cause
congestion in the area; Washington School causes congestion at Stn
Street and Santa Clara Avenue; requested that the matter be
addressed prior to the next school year.
(07- ) Mayor Johnson suggested stated Mount Trashmore be used to
grow trees for the City tree inventory.
The City Manager stated there is a time limit that needs to be met.
(.07- ) Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has an ordinance
requiring that paint be contained when buildings are sand blasted
or water blasted; stated there are some clean water run off laws;
suggested something more direct to require prevent contamination.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated Coast Guard Estuary Park is
under the Coast Guard's jurisdiction; the Park was remediated and
is dormant; suggested reviewing ways to use the Park.
The City Manager stated she would look into the matter; the Coast
Guard gave the City permission to use the area for soccer before;
now there is a process to get permission from the Navy.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Landing design
was brought to the Planning Board; the notification was not done in
the best interest; the report stated people were notified within
300 feet of the area; the project should be notified properly;
notification was not adequate.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was referring
to notice for an up coming meeting.
Councilmember deHaan responded the meeting already took place.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was requesting
staff to confirm that proper noticing was done.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated the
public should be notified in a good, earnest manner for large
projects.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
15
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board discussed
notification issues when a project affects the City at large; there
are different noticing rules; requested that the matter be
reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the noticing requirements were expanded;
requested that staff confirm that the noticing requirements were
followed.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated there have been concerns with
minimum wage and health benefits offered by retail companies that
come into Alameda; the matter needs to be reviewed.
ADJOURNMENT - City Council
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007
16
July 12, 2007
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
160901 - 161184
EFT 374
EFT 375
Void Checks:
160568
160362
160561
160648
160469
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 07/17107
Amount
$885,535.72
$557.70
$75,408.59
($350.00)
($12.85)
($584.16)
($60.00)
($3,846.00)
$956,649.00
BILLS #4 -B
7/17/2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 17, 2007
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $79,955 to Muller & Caulfield
Architects for Architectural and Engineering Services to Evaluate
Alternatives and Develop Costs for the Carnegie Restoration and
Preservation Project
BACKGROUND
The Carnegie Building remains vacant and has been closed to the public for nearly ten
years. The City Council mitigated the process of returning the Carnegie to use as a
public building for all Alamedans to visit and enjoy when, on January 2, 2007, $90,000
was appropriated and staff was authorized to solicit proposals for architectural and
engineering services to evaluate alternatives and develop costs for the restoration and
preservation of the Carnegie Building.
DISCUSSION
On April 30, 2007, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Carnegie
Restoration and Preservation Project, and 23 consultants attended the mandatory pre -
proposal meeting at the Carnegie Building. Seven consulting firms submitted proposals
by the May 29, 2007, deadline:
• Architectural Resources Group
• Tom Eliot Fisch
• Shah Kawasaki Architects
• Muller & Caulfield Architects
• Page & Turnbull, Inc.
• Carey & Co. Inc.
• Komorous -Towey Architects
Following an initial review of the proposals, four firms were selected to take part in an
oral panel interview: Architectural Resources Group, Muller & Caulfield Architects,
Komorous -Towey Architects, and Carey and Co. Inc. The review panel included
Christopher Buckley, President of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, local
architect Dick Rutter, Planning & Building Director, and representatives from the Public
Works Department and the Building Division.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -C
07- 17 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Based upon evaluation of the consultants' past experience on similar projects,
qualifications of the consultant team, strength of the consultants' experience in public
outreach, and the interview results, the panel found Muller & Caulfield Architects have
the qualifications and experience most suited for the Carnegie Restoration and
Preservation Project.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
On January 2, 2007, the City Council appropriated $90,000 towards this feasibility
study.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Evaluation of alternatives and costs for the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation
Project is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Future
action to approve construction activities will be subject to a CEQA determination at that
time.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $79,955 to Muller & Caulfield Architects for
architectural and engineering services to evaluate alternatives and develop costs for the
Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project.
Respectfully submitted,
4,1
Cathy /oodbury
Planning and Building Director
By: Greg
Building Official
GM:eg
Attachment:
Consultant Agreement with Muller & Caulfield Architects
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 17th day of July, 2007, by and between CITY
OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and Muller &
Caulfield Architects, a California Corporation whose address is 339 15th St. Oakland, CA
94612 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the
laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the
special services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification
and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and
conditions described herein.
D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for
Architectural Services upon the terms and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 17th day of July, 2007, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December, 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement
in the amount set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be
taken from the General fund.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #4 -C
07-17-07
Payment will be made by the City in the following manner: On the first day of each
month, Consultant shall submit a written estimate of the total amount of work done the
previous month. Payment shall be made for 90% of the value of the work. The City shall
retain 10% of the value of the work as partial security for the completion of the work by
Consultant. Retained amounts shall be paid to Consultant within 30 days of acceptance by
the City of the project. Payment shall not be construed as acceptance of defective work. No
interest will be paid to Consultant on retained funds.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of
this Agreement.
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with
the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that
all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed
by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this
Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of
conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited
by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status
or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the
benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment
insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to
Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal
taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an
employer- employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items,
if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
7) IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and
employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant
to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall
indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or
expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant.
8) NON- DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed
toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee
or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a
material breach of this Agreement.
9) HOLD HARMLESS:
Indemnification:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and
all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), to the extent caused by Consultant's negligent act or
omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or
performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege
negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement
against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of
Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from
Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liability:
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees
(as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy
will provide such defense costs.
10) INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective
dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B,
c, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also
contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered
by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the
insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of
Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall
maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate
coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is
acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California.
Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance
certificates.
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000
each occurrence
$1,000,000
05/10/03
CONSULTANT
aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the
amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required
minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following
minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the
professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of
at least $1,000,000.
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she
has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant
shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on
behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to
either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any
right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by
virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's
name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the
costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from
the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers
shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any
professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional
insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled
under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named
herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of
any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional
insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by
the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine
adequate coverage for Consultant.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
1 1) CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the
services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of
interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make
certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6,
Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations.
12) PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any
interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written
consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any
assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of
such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by
Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or
other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment
shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and
outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint
venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or
syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be
construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of
the voting power of the corporation.
13) SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and
subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the
performance of this Agreement.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be
required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to
carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the
insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder
shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement.
14) PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a
City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services
hereunder.
15) REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report ", reproduced, prepared or caused to be
prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the
exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to
Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or
required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are
reserved to City.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others;
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or
(4) Other City projects as appropriate.
C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish
reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on
recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one
original, which shall be single sided.
E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or
organization by Consultant without prior approval by City.
16) RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance
of services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to
permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily
accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the
representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to
examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow
inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement.
Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other
documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of
final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns
raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental
examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal
financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant
shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental
examination or audit.
17) NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be
given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on
the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be
addressed to City at:
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Greg McFann
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Muller & Caulfield Architects
339 15th St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Rosemary Muller
18) TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the
time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the
performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) ten
(10) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the
nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the
Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof.
City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein.
Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of
compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date
of termination.
19) COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by City.
20) CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of
California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of
another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid
laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement
(or the successors of those authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the
County of Alameda, State of California.
21) ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed
any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the
services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured
from City to do otherwise.
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
22) WAIVER:
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein
shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term,
covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
22. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and
agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied
covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement
will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant.
23) INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be
deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each
were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or
is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on
application by either party.
24) CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the
Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF ALAMEDA
� �A Municipal Corporation
MU�aIFkU �1 , :c
[Name of Consultant]
By g:storno,47 Mu I lee-
Title &t'dt.1
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
Mtibz•-\
By
Title
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
Title
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By
Title
ATTEST: [If Mayor Signs]
City Clerk
06/10/03
CONSULTANT
Proposal date
Revision date
Project Name
Muller & Caulfield job #
Client Representative
Client
Client Address
Project Address
5/29/07
5/29/07
Carnegie Restoration and Preservation
ACLR -01
Greg McFann
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave
Alameda, CA, 94501
2264 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Exhibit A
Muller&
aulfield
ARCHITECTS
Construction Budget $4,000,000 To be determined
Description of construction scope
Restoration, preservation, and adaptive reuse of historic Carnegie Building.
General description of Muller & Caulfield scope. See Proposed Tasks and Hours for detailed
description of scope.
Phase!: Define building systems for successful preservation and adaptive re -use
of Carnegie Building. Define and analyze the potential of the building to house
various uses. Compare options for re -use. Develop costs and evaluate
alternatives. Get public input, approvals from City Council and decision to
move ahead.
Design will include the following phases:
Included Programming or Conceptual Design
NC Schematic Design
NIC Design Development
NIC Construction Documents
NIC Bid Phase Services
NIC Construction Phase services and close -out
The following disciplinesand consultant services are included in the architect's scope.
Architecture Muller & Caulfield Architects Not included:
mech/ plumbing Salas O'Brien Engineers landscape
• electrical Salas O'Brien Engineers civil
cost Don Todd Associates structural
Preservation Alan Dreyfuss, AIA Title 24
This proposal is in conjunction with the RFP for architectural services from the City of Alameda
dated April 30, 2007.
Fee is a fixed fee of $79,955 for the scope as defined in the Muller & Caulfield scope of services.
Additional services will be based on hourly rates as included on the following pages.
SD34
SD35
SD30
SD31
SD32 •
SD33
PROPOSED TASKS AND HOURS
Carnegie Restoration and Preservation
FEE DETAIL
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANTS
Scope of work (fixed fee)
v
a
u
a
0) W
a
o nu
aE
' 0
0�j =
V E
o }
1 c
c
C 1
•- c Q
o .0 E v o ARCH
v i2 z Total fee
rate $/hr $ 140 $ 120 $ 80 $ 65 hrs TOTAL
� c
w
Ea
o
u
Preservation
TOTALS
ry.
Phase I Concept Design
SD1 Kickoff meeting + site orientation visit.
SD2
SD3
SD4
SD5
SD6
SD7
SD8 Accessibility: model, study alternative
locations
Verify physical conditions,
Define elements restored or replaced,
Define HVAC alternatives.
Upgrades to building envelope:
Define appropriate interior lighting
Fire sprinkler system for the building,
hrs hrs hrs hrs FEE
2
4
2
10
3
SD9
SD10
$0
$1,140
$880
$280
$560
$280
$1,040
$420
$150
hrs fee
30
46
Get historic photos of building interior.
Interior restoration and interior finishes
SD 1 1 Code compliance: exiting, life safety,
etc.
SD12
8
12
4
10
$4,640
$670
$1,200
$1,160
$1,480
SD13
Workshop: bldg condition+ approaches
SD14
Revise designs of building systems
Consultant total
12
18
$1,140
$1,800
$150
$150
$450
$150
Existing permit center program req'ts
SD 16 Conceptual plan of one -stop center:
SD17 Define workstations or "cubicles"
SD15
SD 18 Assess uses of the historic stacks.
4
46
6
10
2
12
SD20 Revise plans and 3D visual materials
SD21 City Hall Concept space plan
SD23
SD24
SD25
SD26
SD27
SD28
SD29
60
16
Define two additional alternative uses
2
28
12
14
Consultant total
$880
$4,640
$1,040
$280
$1,140
$6,000
$1,760
$280
$2,960
$1,140
$1,360
Prepare slide show presentation
$2,560
$0
$150
$150
$150
$450
$0
$0
$0
$150
$450
$0
16
Public workshops (two meetings).
Estimate construction costs
Workshop: review costs + alternatives.
8
10
12
Historical Advisory Board presentatio
Final draft of narrative report.
Planning Board + City Council
consultant total
Incorporate revisions (during next
phase)
Project management & process
coordination
Reimbursables
6
2
30 60
10
$1,640
$1,120
$1,040
$1,140
$540
$280
$6,150
$1,400
$0
1
$150
$750
$0
$450
',150
$2,590
20
$2,800
$500
$200
TOTAL SD FEE
MULLER & CAULFIELD ARCHITECTS
235
212
68
$54,780
$9,005
$7,800
$79,955
7.7 .. _ _ ....:' _: 77777, - 'r - -' r- ..-- T,,� -�.� -- r. -^ , - ,.- --",-77 7":"^", - r • , - .- • � � -ten-, . .T-n *r r, m-r •
Page 1
$8,370 I
Don Todd Associates, Inc. CE PROPOSAL NO.: 2007 -014
Fee Proposals - Cost Estimating
PROJECT: THE CARNEGIE RESTORATION and
PRESERVATION PROJECT
City of Alameda, CA
Scope: Restoration /Historical
Type of Estimate: Conceptual
Project Size: N/A
Budget: N/A
REF: DTA PRELIMINARY PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLE
TASK 1
Notes
1.0
•
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
Prepare a conceptual cost estimate for The Carnegie Restoration & Preservation Project
in the City of Alameda, CA.
The scope includes the estimated costs for various proposed concepts that
will involve both for the restoration & improvements to allow reuse.
The estimate shall be based on the conceptual set of plans and specifications provided
by the Architect - Muller & Caulfield Architects.
Description, Estimating
Site Visit
Civil /Structural
Architectural/Historical
Mechanical /Plumbing
Electrical/Tech
Meeting, Discussions & Revisions
Reimbursables : (photocopy/ delivery)
Hours
4
6
34
8
8
4
Ave. Rates
$130.00
$130.00
$130.00
$130.00
$130.00
$130.00
LS
Total
$520.00
$780.00
$4,420.00
$1,040.00
$1,040.00
$520.00
$50.00
TOTAL TASK 1 64
The estimated staff -hours and fees are based on requested tasks shown above.
If the number of tasks indicated above changes, the total fee will change accordingly.
The estimate to be based on the drawings and specfications received from the Engineer
Rates include overhead and profit and are good through until the completion of this task.
2.0 Exclusions: Value engineering workshop, construction management, change order estimating,
hazardous material removal, inspection services, constructability review, scheduling and
DD & CD Phase Cost Estimating.
3.0 The cost estimates to be submitted within 10 working days from the date DTA receives the
notice to proceed and complete set of documents.
Submitted to:
Rosemary Muller
Principal /Project Manager
Muller & Caulfield Architects
339 15th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Ph. No.: (510) 832 -8560
Fax no. : (510) 836-0942
E -mail: rmuller @mullercaulfield.com
Prepared by
Emil Vinuya, PE
Asst. Vice President
Don Todd Associates, Inc.
1000 Broadway, Suite 610
Oakland, CA 94607
Ph. No.: (510)251- 1007.x 104
Fax no. : (510)251 -1 008
E -mail: evinuya@dta.com
24- May -07
2007 - 014 Alameda Carnegie Library
5/24/2007 DON TODD ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 1 of 1
Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc.
Request for Proposal
The Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project
Task 1: Investigation and Documentation $3,655
• Kick Off Meeting and Site Orientation Visit.
• Review all existing documents, reports, surveys and construction drawings.
• Field verification of existing conditions and building systems.
• Prepare written description of building condition analysis including review of previous
seismic retrofit, electrical, fire and life safety, hazardous materials, building fabric and
components. Identify deficiencies and code issues.
• Perform Code Analysis. Identify all Regulatory Agencies and their requirements.
• Submit Preliminary Existing Conditions Report, Review Comments of Reports, Identified
Constraints and Code Deficiency. Submit Written Responses to all comments received.
• Ongoing Project Management. Coordination efforts, ATE Team meetings 1 conference calls.
Assume 2 hrs per week.
Task 2: Programming and Design $2,560
• Support architect in providing MEP configuration for three Conceptual Designs.
• Finalize and Submit Draft Programming and 3 Conceptual Design Approaches.
• City review and comment. Muller & Caulfield and City Meeting to review Draft. A/E Team
to incorporate comments into Draft.
• Further develop conceptual design reuse alternatives based on preliminary program and
meetings with City and Community.
• Submit 3 Conceptual Designs and Project Scope for City Review and Cost Estimator.
• Respond to City/Public comments
• Ongoing Project Management. Coordination efforts, A/E Team meetings 1 conference calls.
Assume 2 hrs per week.
Task 3: Coordination and Cost Estimate $960
• Review each others scope of work for coordination impacts.
• A/E Team to incorporate City comments into documents prior to completion of cost
estimates. Notify Cost Estimator of scope changes
f Ongoing Project Management. Coordination efforts, AJE Team meetings 1 conference calls.
Assume 2 hrs per week.
Task 4: Phase I Conceptual Design $1,630
. Determine architectural and engineering fees to execute entire project from design through
construction.
• Submit Final Phase I Conceptual Design Document.
Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc.
Ongoing Project Management. Coordination efforts, A/E Team meetings 1 conference calls.
Assume 2 hrs per week.
Subtotal Labor $8,805
Reimbursables $200
$9,005
Exclusions:
1. Historic lighting selection shall be by architect.
2. Photovoltaic system excluded but can be reviewed for 8 hours @ $120/hr.
3. Telecom - Voice, Data, and CATV excluded but can be reviewed for 12 hours a@ $160 /hr.
4. City, Board and Public meetings are excluded.
S'I'ANI)ARI) I-•IOL!RI,Y liAt i:;S
Muller & Caulfield Architects
Standard Hourly Rates
Effective January 1, 2007
$160.00
silo to $150.00
-:yr _ :• �;. 4', L,' r1•. ,[titi..Ll- {•C•1.3j:.C�4.�Si4�l'. .:e1,1j1i":.,,YSL• :O,S�''_'..,il�ri•' :,,:- .�.� :�:�;r:;:
tiL'. .:L:!.._ Ar. ?4,1Y _ -•.+. +L� a �_ :. !•.!•s: .. :i.t � •:�v':i -� .. - -.: ... - 5 -,
: %: -i�,:ti: �'tiJ::;ti :a:�i - {'v �i •-_ •:: +:�a7' ?.. i� . �'':1ti L -a7^ •'F'•; ]'':;� �.� �•- =�.
_ p �' }:tiiE' 3�: �i}�, ' _ Dui ::sis •�vti ti,' {.J,n:i: 5.5X�.�-�56 L:5. - .r•:�5� %.-�: ^��� ���, y'.
$100 to $120.00
$95 to $110.00
$85 to $100.00
$75 to $90.00
$65 to $80.00
10 Intern I
$55 to $70.00
Hourly rates for specific individuals are computed at a multiple
of 3.1 times their direct salary rate.
Standard multiplier for costs incurred in the interests of the
project is 1.15. Typical costs in this category are reproduction of
documents, fees of regulatory agencies, services of consultants,
travel and telephone outside of the bay area, etc.
For services with a clearly defined scope if work, we will be
happy to prepare quotations for fixed fee amounts.
The above standard rates are based on current hourly rates,
and are subject to revision without notice.
M U L L E R & C A U L F I E L D ARCHITECTS • W W W. M U L L E R C A U L F I E L D. C o M
DON TODD ASSOCIATES, INC.
COST ESTIMATING SERVICES
Hourly Fee Schedule, January 2007— December 2007
Classification Hourly Rates
Principal In- Charge $175.00
Project Manager /Sr. Cost Estimators $120 - $150.00
Scheduler $125 - $145.00
Staff Cost Estimators $90 - $110.00
Clericals $45 - $50.00
* ** The above hourly rates are standard and include overhead and profit.
Proprietary Data: Not to be distributed or reproduced without permission from DTA.
Other direct expenses attributable to the performance of the work, such as special
equipment rental, travel outside the Bay Area, photocopies, messenger services, etc.,
shall be invoiced at cost.
Invoice will be submitted every first week of the month based on the actual hours used by
individual estimator within the approved budget for every phase.
The above rates are valid until December 31, 2007. Recommend 4% escalation beyond
December 2007.
Submitted to:
Rosemary Muller
Muller & Caulfield Architects
Oakland, CA
Project:
Carnegie Restoration & Preservation Project
City of Alameda, CA
Date:
May 24, 2007
s ALAS O'BRIEN ENGINEERS, INC.
305 5. 11 th STREET SAN JOSE CA 95112 -2218. (408) 282 -1500 • FAX: (408) 297 -2995
498 FOAM STREET MONTEREY CA 93940 -1410 • (831) 657 -0251. FAX: (831) 657 -0291
43614th STREET OAKLAND CA 94612 -2725 • (510) 272 -9958 • FAX: (510) 272 -9962
www.salasobrien.com
CHARGE RATES AS OF 1 -1 -2007
Principal $175 per hour
Director (VP) $ 160 per hour
Architect/Professional Engineer $ 140 per hour
Designer/Project Engineer $120 per hour
Construction Project Manager $120 per hour
Sr. Designer/Drafter (ACAD) $110 per hour
Resource Specialist/Drafter $100 per hour
Administrative Support $75 per hour
Court Testimony /Deposition $320 per hour
Senior Consultant $225 per hour
Energy Consultant $165 per hour
Instruction/Seminar /Training $185 per hour
All rates are based on office to project site with a minimum of four
hours for any engagement, unless otherwise arranged. Payment
terms are net 30 days.
Reimbursable Expenses
Blueprints, reproductions, travel related expenses (airfare,
lodging, meals, etc.) and subconsultants are billed at cost
plus 10 %.
Mileage expensed current IRS Standard Mileage Rate
Visit our website at www.salasobrien.com
I JALAN R. DREYFUSS
• ARCHITECT A I A
1735 SIXTH AVENUE
OAKLAND, CA94606
TEL 510 835 5334
FAX 510 835 5335
Standard Billing Rates
5/20/04
Hourly Personnel Expense
Principal / Consulting 150.00
Project Architect 120.00
Research Associate 120.00
Technical 1 Drafting 85.00
Consultants
Consultant's services are to be billed at a rate of direct cost plus 10 %.
Reimbursables
Reimbursable expenses are to be billed at direct cost plus 10%. Reimbursables to
include: Costs of printing, duplication, photographs, shipping, long distance
telephone calls; Costs of special materials, renderings, models and reports; Costs
of travel, lodging and living expenses for authorized out of town travel.
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL
NECESSARY AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS FOR
TERMINATION OF THE GROUND LEASE AND EXECUTION OF
A MASTER LEASE THAT DIVIDES THE LEASEHOLD ESTATE
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE LEASE INTO THREE
SEPARATE LEASEHOLD ESTATES TO BALLENA ISLE MARINA,
LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OF REAL
PROPERTY HELD UNDER LEASE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ALAMEDA AND BALLENA ISLE MARINA, A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of January, 1979, a lease, entitled "Ballena Ba y
Lease f, of certain City- owned property was entered into by and between the City
of Alameda as Lessor and Marina Operators Incorporated as Lessee; and
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of October, 1982, pursuant to Ordinance No.
2105, N.S., the City consented to assignment of said Ballena Bay Lease to
Almar, Ltd. And Ballena Isle Marina; and
WHEREAS, on the 6th day of May, 1998, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2759,
N.S., the City consented to the assignment from Ballena Isle Marina, a California
Limited Partnership, to Ballena Isle Marina, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and
WHEREAS, Ballena Isle Marina has proposed to subdivide their existing
leasehold estate into three leasehold parcels ( "Waterside Parcel ", "Commercial
Parcel ", and "Remainder Parcel ") and to assign its interest in the proposed
Commercial Parcel to a new lessee ( "certain conditions precedent ") as conditions
precedent to execution of a new master lease; and
WHEREAS, Ballena Isle Marina is requesting the City to approve, upon
the occurrence of certain conditions precedent, the termination of the ground
lease and execution of a master lease that divides the leasehold estate that is
the subject of the lease into three separate leasehold estates to Ballena Isle
Marina, LP, a California Limited Partnership, of real property held under lease b
City by
and between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, a Limited Partnership;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda consents to, upon the occurrence of
certain conditions precedent, the termination of the ground lease and execution
of a master lease that divides the leasehold estate that is the subject of the lease
into three separate leasehold estates to Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a California
Limited Partnership, of real property held under lease by and between the Citv of
Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -D CC
07-17-07
Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, a Limited Partnership in the form held on file in
the City Clerk's office.
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 340, no real property of the
City shall be leased for a period in excess of one year or sold, except upon the
affirmative vote of four members of the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Alameda, by four affirmative votes that:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves and
authorizes, upon the occurrence of certain conditions precedent, the termination
of the ground lease and execution of a master lease that divides the leasehold
estate that is the subject of the lease into three separate leasehold estates to
Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a California Limited Partnership, of real property held
under lease by and between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, a
Limited Partnership.
Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Alameda be, and is hereby
authorized to execute, for an on behalf of the City of Alameda, all necessary
agreements and documents for the form of Master Lease of Real Property held
under lease by and between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, L.P.,
substantially containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the
Master Lease of Real Property to Ballena Isle Marina, A California Limited
Partnership, of real property held under Lease by and between the City of
Alameda and Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a California Limited Partnership.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the day of , 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
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING GREGORY L. HAMM AS A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon
nomination of the Mayor, GREGORY L. HAMM is hereby appointed to the office of
member of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Alameda for the term
commencing July 17, 2007, and expiring on June 30, 2011, and to serve until his
•
successor is appointed and is qualified.
1, the undersigned hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in
regular meeting assembled on the 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
07 -17 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July, 17, 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 (Attachment 1) 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
(EIR) 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 El R and approve the proposed General Plan Amendments. The
attached Planning Board staff report (Attachment 2) includes a detailed description of
the proposed amendments and the few remaining issues that were resolved at the final
Planning Board hearings.
DISCUSSION
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5 -B
07-17-07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 17, 2007
2 of 4
The recommended amendments to the General Plan include the Northern Waterfront
amendments prepared by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee in 2003 and the
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 document (Attachment 3)
includes text for a new chapter of 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 (Attachment 4) includes a table
of revisions to existing text, diagrams and policies in 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.
The recommended childcare policies establish a policy foundation for future City actions
and programs to address and/or require that future private developments acknowledge
childcare needs within the community. Staff merged the childcare policies with the
Northern Waterfront policies to expedite the public review and environmental review of
the two proposed General Plan amendments and reduce environmental review costs for
the childcare policy initiative.
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
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 17, 2007
3 of 4
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.
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 /..dbury
Planning and Building Director
1
By: Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
1
AT:at
Attachments:
1. Existing and Proposed Northern Waterfront Land Use Designations
2. March 26, 2007 Planning Board Staff report
3. Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
4. Citywide General Plan Amendments
5. Letter From Barbara Kerr With Attachments A through E
6. Letter From Christopher Buckley
July 17, 2007
4 of 4
1
3
g
P.
0
0
Al
E
c P
DE S
Ifew
mii
a Z O m co'
§::H
D
General Plan Amendment Area
Del Monte and Grand Marine Project Sites
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #5 -B
07 -17 -07
8
t2 E
df
a (4
t. uQcv
ir2P2
-a' pE
VE2z4
(fW O O 1
Generaf Plan Amendment Area
El :E 1
0
0
1
[.
g
13 to
ft n
rii
:`m o : S
2'S c f, g :
o r .' °-
t o 02 ° g.
m ' a .7
c ZoaQci z
W "
CD I 1 :IR
ITEM NO:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
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 E1R 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 2 to
Agenda Item #5 -B
07-17-07
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 develo 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 ID 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
8. 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
9 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 processin g 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 2006, 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 or
tY
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
g
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 Family Residential
to ensure that reuse of this site would be limited to residential development at a density
tY
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 SS H RB'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 roviders
� '
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
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 p arents in the
household work outside the home.
■ Nearly all households, regardless of their income level, find childcare very expensive.
p
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
Al p
ameda. Every five additional licensed childcare slots would represent approximately
$30,000 in increased annual spending. Improving the childcare system's capacity p tY could
improve mprove employees peace of mind and productivity, reduce ee
absenteeism, employee
p Y
enteeism, and allow parents of young children to work. Childcare system
investments have been shown to increase labor force participation, particularly among
Y 9
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
p
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 $1 spent 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 SSHRB'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
ty
Act. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, an EIR was prepared because the proposal
entails p p
a is an amendment the existing General Plan. On January 31, 2006, the City of
. ty
Alameda circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluatin g 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 DE1R 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 DE1R and FEIR were provided to the Planning oard at
g
the February 12, 2006 Planning Board meeting.
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.
PUBLIC NOTICATION AND COMMENTS
As described above, the proposed GPA is the result of an extensive public planning Council-appointed g
process that began in 2000 with the Council -- appointed Northern Waterfront Advisory
ry
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 individually with Ms. Barbara . arbara Kerr, Ms.
Jean Sweeny, Ms. Debra Arbuckle, and Mr. Stuart Rickard to further clari fy and improve
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 n- on the following
issues:
General Plan Diagram: Attachments C and D show the existing General Plan designations
and � g
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 current)
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
0
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
g
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 00 Company is aware ofithe 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 WM
(.) tiewrafs
°meal PIWI NMILT +11141i Ana
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
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 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
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 0
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
0
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: IPLANNlNG1PB \Reports12007103- 26 -071NW GPA Staff Report.doo
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of March 26, 2007
10
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
June 19, 2007
10.0 Northern 'Waterfront
101 Challenges and Issues
This element addresses the redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront plannin g area.
Redevelopment of this area presents the City with unique and challenging opportunities. Successful
redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront will include:
• +• Fostering a vibrant new mired-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
• ♦t 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 aita to
reconnect the comaunity 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 W7aterfrontArea. 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 3 to
Agenda Item #5 -B
07-17-07
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 amon g 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 (the world's largest
sal non- 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 coratnercial 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, cornnnercial
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 101 shows the Northern Waterfront planning area.
' IC ..2 /el \t\ k:if, I-
�... S1
..i.., Cf. I i,4-1 I r-kx-::
_,,, .1....„: ...• _
\\..._......---, i!! 111_,. ,--1,
,, f‘i. .
ii,ii Hr,
��� (� ,;K � .ALS41ii S[LfLW Y ----- _.__- ... r r i
' \ NV,--.:-,--1 .
— I 1 L'i i 'rr - --� '��..��..�r.:, rte. 1�.., i 1 1
Lam...:..... �.... _: : i 1 ! r • • ii -1 i_ a. j ± l
ill ILI 1 :i .e1 i�S~ _..7 i.....�.�� �__ —•t{ j
iti it! ill 1-- ? , _� . i 1 r WAREHOUSE
1 f ' — ` + � _..._ �... .+ $!;pA:Vji� Aye' `��`���r`
t" ry _ —..,1 _. ��.,i �i........�...� 1.�.... r .• �l••'f {y7 : - _ /"I� I r �� .
--• / 4
i i i f' 1 1
1! 11 L■ 111.'- �tii' =&,,;e7
`•� Lam.` ■'i�
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 1 5- 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 Watetfront.Genetal 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
�' 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 B eltline 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 -sate" 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 cornrnunity in the Northern Waterfront area.
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
3
10.5 Commercial
Guiding Policies: Commercial
10.5.x. 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 foams 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 Beldine property.
10.6.h. Implement traffic calming 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.
1 0.6.k. Ensure that the public access path along the waterfront includes a separated path for
bicyclists or is wide enough to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
10.6.1. 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 Beltine property from
Shertnan 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
1 0.6.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.
10.6.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.
10.6.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.
1O.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.x. Improve the visibility and public access to the Northern w aterfront Plan area and
Oakland/Alaineda Estuary.
10.8.b. Require that buildings at waterfront locations be designed with attractive and varied
architecture style that respects Alameda'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 deigned and new streets shall be engineered to minimise noire 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 Amend rent
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 ofAlameda and through the State of California.
D-M 2. Consider a pedestrian access or "pass through" through the buildin g 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
pedestrian activity and visual interest.
D -M 5.
D -M C.
Encourage community serving retail uses in the Del Monte Building but not including,
g
"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.
gp
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 in 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 -T 6. 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 8. 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 niay 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 fait 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. Where commercial buildings abut residential uses, buildin g 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.
G -M 5.
Land Use Program
Redevelopment of the Grand Marina Site should replace the existin g 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 avid /or open space.
G -M 6. Redevelopment of the area should preserve and reuse the Alaska Packers building.
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 8. 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.
1O.1O.b. Medium Density Residential Designated Sites
Draft Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
12
The General Plan's Mediutn Density Residential designation allows two-family or one-family units
. � Y
with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per unit. Allowed densities range from S.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 Infll Properties
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Site Specific Development Policies: These sites are
designated medium density residential to allow
residential irifill 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
developnicnt 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
Add new MU 6 land use designation to Land Use Diagram to identify Northern Waterfront
area subject to Chapter 10 policies.
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 l990 -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.
Proposed
By:
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.
Staff
Staff
Staff
Delete descriptive paragraph re: Encinal Terminal Area on page 37.
411-&-G146.-99-04)
Staff
Amend Policy 2.8:d Continue working to eliminate residential - industrial conflicts
GA PLANNIN 'G \CCIREPGR1S\20O7106- 19 -071NW GPA Attachment B.doc
1 -
Staff
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #5 -B
07-17-07
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 SSRRB'
homes in residential areas and child care centers in major residential and commercial
developments with special . consideration to areas or developments convenient to transit,
communit centers, and schools.
Add new Business Parks and Industrial Area Guiding Policy: Encourage major employers to SSHRB
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.
NWAC2
Amend text page 10 as follows: Staff
, 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
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 '
Alameda Bolt 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
carpooling facilities and incentives, such as flexible work hours, whenever feasible.
Add new transit policy: Support the development of alternative transportation programs and
facilities.
Add new transit policy: Support the development of a coordinated, cooperative, flexible and
adaptable public transit system.
Staff
NWAC
NWAC
NWAC
Add new pedestrian and bicycle policy: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by providing
adequately sized street trees, street furniture and bicycle racks adjacent to pedestrian and
bic cle ri :hts of way.
NWAC
Add new Transit Policy: Encourage transit providers to serve routes linking schools, child SSI-IRB
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 NWAC
•
impacts on adjacent land uses.
NWAC
19
19
Add new policy: Ensure that new development is designed to minimize shade impacts on
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.
' . SSB= Social Service Human Relations Board
2 NWAC= Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee
G:I PLA. NNINGICCIREPORTS120071O6- I9 -071NW GPA Attachment B.doc
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
20
21
22
Add new policy: Encourage, and where appropriate require, energy efficient design and ' NWAC
"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 Tight 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. allerg�r causing trees and plants.
Staff
Staff
23
24
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
fir :1PLANNINGICCIREPORTS12O07106 - 4 9 -071NW GPA Attachment B . doc
Additional Citywide General Plan Amendments
24
25
26
Rename Element 6 as follows: "Parks and Recreation, Shoreline Access, Schools and
Cultural and Social Service Facilities Element."
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 spades and wherever possible also provide wind protection for these public
spaces.
27
28
29
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.
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 maybe 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.
30
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.
Add new policy to Health and Safety Element: Require appropriate remediation of hazardous
materials as a condition of development.
SSHRB
SSHRB
NWAC
NWAC
SSHRB
SSHRB
NWAC
G.I PLANNING \CCIREPORTS120071O6- J9 -071NW GPA Attachment S.doc
North Waterfront General Plan Amend/WS
June 19, 2007 City Council Mj3 P 1Z. 34
CITY OF ALAMEDA
I oppose the North Waterfront General Plan Amendment beceilid diEtititiWRICiffe 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 stasis 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 aten -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 1 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.
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 5 to
Agenda item #5 -B
07 -17 -07
• Section (10.10 (a) DM -3 of the NWGP ATTACHMENT A
** Minutes of the April 12 Planning Board Meeting. ATTACHMENT B
* * * Use Permit UP04 --0019 ATTACHMENT C
* * * * Restrictions in a Work/UN,'
ork/LiNe Ordinance ATTACHMENT D
* * * * * Work Live Ordinance ATTACHMENT E
Barbara Kerr
06/10/2007
522 -0126
barbkerr@mindspring.com
ATTACHMENT A
,4 t i A c E ry 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 -bi 3.
D-M 4.
Land Use Program
Adaptive reuse of the structure may include a range of uses including work /live, hotel,
coitnmercial,, 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.
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-through commercial facilities, such as fast food outlets.
D--M6.
On-Site Packing and Landscaping
The on -site parking plan should allow for a joint or slued parking program. with the
future redevelopment of Encinal Terminals in an effort to consolidate parking in the
area, minimize the amount of waterftoat land dedicated to parking, and provide p arkin g
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.
gP
D -lit 8. Landscaping should be designed to screen the cars from view Etom 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 Terminals and Del Monte
sites and that would also support public access to the waterfront and the Ba y Trail.
Off -site Public Improvements and Infrastructure
D -M 10. The site plan should allow the extension of Clement Street from Sherman Street to
Grand Street.
D-M 11. The site plan should allow for a future mil/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 (ETA). 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 staffs 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 workllive 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 workllive spaces over the past 30 years, and had spoken and worked
all over North America, helping cities write code for workllive 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, 1 029 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 workllive 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 workllive 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 workilive 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
work/live 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 w g
work/live 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 g eneral
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 g us es,
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 stop is
ps
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
ern
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 Workllive 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 ro'ect is an eclectic
� tac
commerciallindustrial area, which includes: a boat yard, small shopping center, video store, sail
maker, and automobile repair facility. The work/live use will not affect these uses or any future
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
t
i
requirements in compliance with applicable regulations;
This finding can be made. Only small areas of each studio will be designed for "live" space: gn p separate
sleeting and sanitary facilities and kitchen areas integrated into the "work" areas which are similar
food preparation areas in modern offices or other commercial uses. There are no walls separating ep ating the
work areas from each other within each studio and six of the studios have roll up doors leading x ng to
workspaces to accommodate large equipment or materials.
4. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of the building will be
g compatible
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for
commercial adjacent
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 a1 and take
their design from the existing industrial design of the building: metal roll up doors; industrial al 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 UPO4 -0019, to permit the conversion of an industrial building to work/live 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 �� �� Y
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 ofways to integrate the work space and living
g
i
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 ceiling, g p
d 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,
p
(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 work/live units are
allowed shall be any use permitted by right or use permit in the zoning district, except that, in
� p
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 Plannin g 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, roduct 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 ofthe 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 b
pp 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 p orti on of a work/live
studio shall be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a p
or erson persons not
p
living in the premises or as a residential space for a person or ersons not working in the
same studio.
P g
10. BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED. At least one (1) occupant of each work/live studio
p shall
maintain a current City of Alameda business license for a business located in that studio.
11. MIXED OCCUPANCIES. If a building contains mixed occu ancies.of work/live studios os and
other nonresidential uses, occupancies other than work/live shall meet all applicable
requirements for those uses, and proper occupancy separations shall be rovided between the
e
work/live studios and other occupancies, as determined by the Buildin g Official. '
12. NOTICE TO OCCUPANTS REQUIRED. The owner or developer of any building
y buy /ding
containing work/live studios shall provide written notice to all work/live occupants and users
sers
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 p ed in
residential areas. State and Federal health regulations notwithstanding, notwithstandin 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 11 in Section 4 -10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
4
13. CHANGE OF USE FROM WORIILIVE STUDIO. No workllive 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.
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 g � •
a of more than ten 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 existin g 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 p roduced 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.
p Y
These provisions shall permit participation in occasional open studio ams ro and gallery
P � S 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 rohibited or limited b
p by
the use permit because of potential detrimental effects on persons livin g or working in the
g
building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in the vicinity of the
subject tY
sect 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 p lan 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 Plannin g Building and Buildin Director.
21. HOLD HARMLSS: 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 p Y 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
Y
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 th City Council or
y
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 operated erated or
maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
23. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS: The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
g g
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
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
Y g e 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.
g
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 2004 by the Plannin Board of the City
. g Y
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, UP03 -00 19, 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:1 PLANNING IPBIRES41200412515blanding2.doc
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.
3045.1 Purpose.
The intent of this section is to set forth regulations and standards for establishin g and
operating work/live studios as a primary commerciallindustrial use, in which the p
ro rietor
p
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 b y
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 work/live
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
g
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 N.S. § 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
y
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 P rovisions
of this section.
c. Adjacent shall mean that properties share a common property boundary or are directly
y
across a street right -of -way. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. § 6)
3045.4 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 livin g space
ace
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 P rovided
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
( 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
P pp e
requirements. The provided parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 30 -7.
This parking requirement may . be waived or modified if the followin g findings s 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 b y the th project
P J
given the character of the proposed uses; and
2. That a waiver or modification of parking requirements will not, under the
circumstances o, f 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 work/live 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 workllive
studios set forth in this Chapter. Each workllive 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 writin g on a form approved
PP
by the Department and shall be accompanied by a fee as set by resolution of the City Council.
c. Design of World /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, other physical
. g�. P Y
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 g
P o 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 g space
space and livin s
P
in compliance with this section include, but are not limited to, the following:
g
(a) Doors or solid walls between the work space and areas used for livin g space ace do not
extend all the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities and rooms used rimaril for
sleeping,
P Y
(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,
P s
(d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms designated for sleeping are enclosed and all other
. P g
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 zonin g district, except
t 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 workllive studios, no work actin shall
be permitted �
p matted nor shall any workllive studio be established on any site that contains those
uses which the Planning Director when considering a work/live permit or the Planning
g
Board when considering a use permit, finds would, by virtue o size, intensity, number o
.� ty, of
employees or the nature 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, rodu
including, Y Y ,p p product
or wastes including, but not limited to: auto service /repair, vehicle sales or leasin g, car
washes, service stations, bars /lounges /night clubs, adult businesses, marine engine
repair/refueling facilities, animal kennels /grooming/pet shops, liquor stores, veterinary q � rY
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 char g a 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 ermit they
� Y
would not conflict with or adversely affect existing work uses in the buildin g and in the
area where the work/live studio is located No use shall be approved where, 'ven the
design proposed �
gn or p oposed design of the work/live studio, there would be the potential for
adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the studio. An
example g
• p e 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 person or persons not living in the
P P g t e
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 work/live pp 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.
Y g
h. Notice to Occupants Required The owner or developer of any building containing
n g
work/live studios shall provide written notice to all work/live 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
P a
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 p
g f Work/Live Studio. No work/live studio shall be changed to
exclusively-residential use in any building where residential use is not P ermitted where
two (2) or more residential units already exist, or where the conversion would roduce
more than two (2) p
attach ed dwellings. The conversion of an existing work/[ive studio to
exclusively nonresidential use is permitted when the conversion meets all other applicable
zoning and building code re qu i rements for the proposed use. Such a change shall
be .
subject to all applicable requirements for the district where the ro osed dwelling unit i
R P g is
located.
j. Increase in Residential. Use. No work/live studio shall be changed to increase the floor
g o
area devoted to residential use without review and approval of the Plannin g 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 gr oss 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
R Y
substantial increase in the building envelope resulting in an increase in the existing g ross
Moor 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 30-15.1g. and h. and with the required findin g 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 existin g floor
area for purposes of this section.
If there is adjacent residentially zoned land, then the expansion of the building envelope e
shall be P
t the minimum necessary to comply omli
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
.
(imitations 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 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 ro rams
and gallery shows.
P g
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 livin g or working in
g
the building or on commercial or industrial uses or residentially-zoned areas in the vicinity
Y
of the subject property. The employment of three (3) or more P ersons 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 ark.in conditions in
P g
the area where the workflive studio is located. The employment of any p ersons who do
not reside in the work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable Buildin g 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
... P
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 provided 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 ro o sed
p P
for work/live occupancy, including but not limited to an expanded site investigation to
determine g
rm�ne 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 P
e hase 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. 2784 N.S. § 6)
30-15.6 Findings Required.
In addition to any other findings required by Section 30 -21.3 the approval pp oval of any use
permit required under this Chapter shall require a finding that the proposed e P oposed use is
consistent with the purposes for work/live studios set forth in Section 30 --15.
respect to the circumstances 1 with
P cumstances and conditions of the subject property. The following findings must also be made: g
a. The proposed or existing use of each work/live studio is a bona fide commercial commercial or
industrial activity consistent with Section 30-15.5d.;
b. The establishment of work/live studios will not under the circumstances conflict
with nor inhibit industrial or commercial uses in the area where t
proposed;
the protect is
c. Any building containing work/live studios and each work/live
studi owithintheburlding
has been designed to ensure that they will function redominantl
• .p .. predominantly as work spaces with
incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability
with g b ty requirements in •
compliance with applicable regulations;
d. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of building •
with PP bu Iding will be compatible
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land d 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 being
building being
converted more compatible with the adjacent residential area. No.
(Ord. 2784 N.S. § 6)
CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY
1017 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Mayor and C oun ci l members
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA. 94501
June 18, 2007
Subject: Comments on Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment to be
considered at the City Council's June 19, 2007 meeting
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
The draft General Plan amendment is generally very good, but still needs to address the
following issues:
1. Do not allow future residential development in close proximity to Clement
Avenue, since Clement Avenue will be a truck route. Properties along Clement
Avenue would be more appropriate for commercial, industrial and other
nonresidential uses. (Note: Work -Live is considered a nonresidential use under City
development rules.)
Unfortunately, residential development was allowed along Clement Avenue as part
of the Marina Cove Phase 1 project. This was a mistake that should not be
compounded. Although a notice was to be recorded on the Clement Avenue lots
within Marina Cove informing-praperty purchasers that Clement Avenue was to be
a truck route, I suspect that the residents of these houses will experience an
unpleasant surprise when the truck route becomes operational.
The amount of separation of residential uses from Clement Avenue will vary
depending on the ability of intervening buildings to shelter residences from noise
and exhaust along Clement. However, a distance of about 100' is probably a good
starting point.
Prohibiting or limiting residential uses along Clement should be reflected in
Guiding and Implementing Policy Group 103, Policy 10.4.c, the General Plan Land
Use Diagram and possibly other plan provisions.
2. Address height limits in the General Plan Amendment. The plan amendment
area is now zoned M -2 and R-4-PD. The M -2 Zone has a 100' height limit and the
R -4 Zone's 35' height limit is waived under the PD overlay. The maximum
building height within the plan amendment area should probably be somewhere
1
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 6 to
Agenda Item #5 -B
07-17-07
between 35' and 60' depending on subarea and use. 60' should probably be the
maximum height limit Citywide. 100' is too tall for new development anywhere in
Alameda.
The Plan Amendment should be revised to include height limits. A separate study
should be conducted on height limits Citywide with a view toward reduced height
limits in the M -1, M -2, C-M and other zones that now permit 100' or greater height
limits. The current exemption of height limits for development in the M -X Zone
and PD overlay should be deleted.
I had submitted similar comments to the Planning Board at its February 26 and March. 26,
• 2007 meetings, but the Board did not give any direction to amend the Plan to address
these comments.
At the February 26 meeting, one Boardmember said that including height limit changes in
a General Plan document is inappropriate and that such changes should instead be
addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. This comment does not acknowledge one of the
purposes of General Plans to set forth a list of implementing action steps (such as
zoning amendments) to implement Plan goals and policies (such as ensuring new
buildings maintain an appropriate scale with the rest of the community ).The existing
General Plan actually has a provision similar to the one 1 am now proposing, i.e.
"Implementing Policy" (or action step) 2.5.i to reduce the then - existing 100' height limits
within the Park Street and Webster Street Business Districts. This policy was
implemented through zoning changes several years after the Plan's 1991 adoption.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 523 --0411 if you would like
to discuss these comments.
cc: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director
Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager
2
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 EIR 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.
Resolution #5 -B (1)
07-17-07
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.
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.
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 certif y that the Final
Environmental Impact Report ('FEIR") for the Northern Waterfront and Child
Care Policies General Plan Amendment (the "Project") was completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and state
and Local guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regardin g environmental
impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt
p
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 FE1R.
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 0) and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Resolution #5 -B (2)
07 -17 -07
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT ONT GENERAL, PLAN
AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Northern Waterfront General Plan amendment and Citywide Childcare policies es amend the
General Plan to: 1) designate approximately 110 acres of northern industrially
rndustr�ally
designated properties to a specified mixed -use designation. 2) adopt •
g } p a set of guiding policies to
guide future development within the Northern Waterfront Specified Mixed axed Use Area, 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 Vista Avenue on the
south, and Grand Street on the east, and the Oakland/Alameda Estuary on •
y the north. The area is
within several zoning districts; including R -2 (Two Famil Resident . . Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden
Residential Di
District), R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development
elopment
District), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial ), M -2 (General Industrial), (Cominercial-Manufacturjng },
District), and M -1 -PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned Development District).
ct ).
I. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") p p consists of the
Draft EIR ( "DEIR " ), Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document.
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated rp ed by reference 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 by the Social Service
y ocxal Service
Human Relations Board and the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee.
�ttee.
c. The 2006 Draft EIR.
d. The 2007 FEIR.. including the 2006 DEIR, Responses to Comments mrnents Addendum
and Text Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated rporated by
reference.
e. The 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reportin g Program.
Pro g
f. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence p submitted to or
delivered to the City of Alameda ( "City ") in connection with the Planning Board
public hearing of February 27, 2006 on the DEIR.
50 I 20168263v4
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 ections 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 '
. 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 Effect. Use of existing substandard storm sewer or sanitary on-site
sewer on site
transport facilities could contribute to peak wastewater or storm water flows that could
exceed capacity of the existing sewage transport facilities.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation
idea ' g q measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTIL -1: Project sponsors shall remove or reconstruct all existing sewer an d storm drain
laterals that serve the site of the proposed develo ment roJ ect to comply with th City,
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). (Finding 1: Chan e . Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project avoid which
J o�d 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 ystem that
serve sites proposed for development under the Northern Waterfront GPA would
exacerbate existing conditions. Construction of a new laterals system to replace Y p e the
existing storm drain and sewer systems would avoid significant impacts associated with .. g p oc�ated with
the deteriorated condition of the existing laterals. This measure will be enforced through
the as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. y ndings. (See also
DEIR, IV.D -9).
2. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2.1 Construction Related Traffic Impacts (TRN-1)
2.1.1 Significant Effect. During construction, lane closures within the Northern Waterfront
GPA area may result in rerouting of autos, buses, bicycle and/or emergency y ve hicles.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation d g q gate on measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN -1: Proponents for each project in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall prepare a
Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles
on regional
and local roadways and restrict truck traffic to within designated truck routes wit '
g n the City.
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
indicate Y pproprrate signage to
indicate detour routes should be provided. Bus stops that must be temporarily p p arily relocated
3
should also be identified and presented in the TCP. The TCP may recommend installation
y nd xnstallat�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 Y y c works
Department prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.
gP
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding I : Chan es . g 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
wlll 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 ora lane ry ne closures
on Atlantic Avenue and other local streets could be required during construction.
closures could require rerouting of autos, buses, bicycles, and/or emergency Y g y v ehicles.
Some equipment and/or materials may not be transportable through the tubes. p g .These
special occurrences may require use of other bridge crossings or delivery by ferry.
. .. g Y Y y The
TCP required by Mitigation Measure TRN -1 would address potential traffic issues activities p es 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
he City s
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
identified g q g on measure
tified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN -2: To ensure effective and safe traffic flow through the area on the
g 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). 1: Changes or (Finding 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 p ll be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As presented in Table IV.E -6 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 improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service and
nd
impact the mpact to less than significant. This measure will be enforced through the
e
MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's (See 's f ndin g s. a lso
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
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
required This impact will be mitigated with the re uired miti ation
g measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TRN 3a: Modify the signal timing at Park and Clement to p rovide full actuation and
enhance signal phase sequence to allow for the Clement Avenue East-West split phase.
p ase.
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 p ll 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 at operate Park and Clement will o p 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
Measure TRN -3a would improve the LOS at the intersection of Park and Clement
acceptable level by modifying the signal timing and phasing. This measure will be
enforced through they MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's
he C rty 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
n
Waterfront GPA area may result in the loss of bat roost sites on the J ro' ect site.
P
required This impact will be mitigated with the re uired miti ation
g measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BI0-1: Proponents of each project in the Northern waterfront GPA area shall re
p pare 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 allid bats were observed
served
during the earlier survey or where measures to discourage roosting were implemented. ented. rf
no bats or signs of an active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a
q bat
roost site is found, then measures shall be implemented to discourage roosting at the site. g g '
maternity colony of bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed
until the young have dispersed, as determined by qualified biologist.
y a q g st.
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 II 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 BIO- -1 would reduce
potential impacts to the bats identified in Table IV.F -1 of the DEIR to a less-than-
significant level. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition on of
approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F -13 .
}
3.2 Dredging Impacts (BIO-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.
required impact will be mitigated with the re uired miti ation
g measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BIO -2: All dredging activities shall be consistent with the standards and rocedu
p res set
forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program develo ed by the Bay
p y y
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 environmen tally
sound manner.
6
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (Finding 1: Cha . g Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid oid 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 p 111 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
s
implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B -
g IO 2 would
limit impacts of dredging and in -water construction activities by requiring that .. Y q g at all 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 support the City's findings. s Y gs. (See also
DEIR, IV.F -13 and 14).
4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.1 Archaeological Resources (CULT -1)
4.1.1 Significant Effect. Excavation activities associated with implementation p on of the Northern
Waterfront GPA could adversely impact unidentified archaeological resources.
required This impact will be mitigated with the re uired miti atio
g n measure
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
p he
significance of the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the time p e of the
0 Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediate) y suspended and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist ist shall evaluate
g the
find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their
context.
o If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource
consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria
a
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and
developer, in consultation with a cultural resource exert shall seek to avoid
� ord
damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
o If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource
consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the th impact on the
p
qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in
7
accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the Cit y 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
resources could be considered significant under CEQA. Implementation of mitigation
Measure CULT -1 would reduce the Northern Waterfront CPA's act to otential impact p
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 .$ignificant 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
g sure
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 5097.95 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 ro er 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
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 p ct will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations throughout the Bay ay Area.
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
scan
activity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -2 would reduce this potential
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. pp y dings. (See also
DEIR, IV. G.1 o 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 g q gation measure
identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CULT -3: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation
g or
construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
o Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately
suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified aleontolo ical
p g
resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project p ersonnel shall
not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context.
0 If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological
an e p oglcal
resource consultant found that the resource is significant based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project
an p ro � ct
developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource exert shall seek � eek to
avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
o If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigatin g the effect of the
Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The ro'ect developer, � per, in
consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall a complete paleontological
p p g al
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 (Finding g 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid oid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact pact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
9
The potential to uncover paleontological resources exists at Locations throughout the Bay
ay
Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -3 would reduce this potential impact
p pact
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
the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's (See 's findin g s. a lso DEIR, IV.G.11 and 12.)
5. NOISE
5.1 Impacts During Demolition, Construction, and Remodeling g
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 p
noise reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Each
developer and/or contractor shall be contractually required to demonstrate knowledge o
g 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
p
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: 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.
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 raduall occur over an
g Y
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 pile driving
10
where needed. The location of the potential pile driving would probably be sufficiently
y
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 -1 a and lb, enforced through the MMRP
g
as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant icant 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
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
City's General Plan
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.
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 ma p 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 rthern waterfront GPA would significantly
increase noise levels along Clement Avenue and Grand Street.
required This impact will be mitigated with the re uired miti ation measure
easure
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
. p be
reduced to a less than significant level.
New commercial, office, or other non - residential development could roduce stationary-
source nary -
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 existing industrial
ustrial
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
ise
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
amity
dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring final map within the
g a P
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 -1)
6.1.1 Significant Effect. Occupants of future development within the Northern Waterfront
aterfront
GPA area would be subject to seismic- induced ground shaking.
g
required Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the ired miti ation measure
g ensure
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
a 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 7.0 or greater earthquake) under the 1 997
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
p �p
occupancy of the structures.
a 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.
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 ICBO.
a 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
shall p
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
p
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 (LTRS 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, IV.I -10.)
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 -11.)
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 p lan 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 PPP 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 J proposed Project.
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, p ost-
construction and pest management issues:
a 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 kee p 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
q 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 d ry 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
p g
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
ry
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
rY
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
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 uali
� tY
Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for
Storm Water n
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
p
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,
gp
as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these
features).
a Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
shall be prepared and implemented by the 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 es
or leaching drainages
eaching 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
into nto 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 -1, 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 11).
}
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 ram ro
p g
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
p
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 requirin g that all such
19
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
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
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 provided
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.
• 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.
• 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
O 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 P rime
contractor.
• 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.
• All earth- moving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended when the
above dust control measures prove ineffective in avoiding visible dust p lumes
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.
• Use alternative fueled construction equipment.
• 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.
Y
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- l a and lb, will be
imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures AO-la and lb will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
21
impact of Project construction - period activities on local air quality. These facts support
pp
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 p otential 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 projects within the
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 resent
and p
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 -1 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 -1, the City shall condition the subject Project to require preparation by a q ualified
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 p rovide site
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:
a Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and
spillage, for specific areas within the Project site.
o The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at
the Project site.
22
a 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.
o 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.
a 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.
0 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 Hazardous
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 -1 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 -1 exist,
an SMP shall be required. The SMP, prepared by a qualified registered p rofessional
would provide site specific information for contractors (and others) developing the
p g
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
p
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
pp pp
of the Project despite these significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before
. p g
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
P
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)
1.2.1 Significant Effect. New project related traffic would contribute to unacceptable Levels of
intersection p
Service at the ntersection 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
Y
least 10% for residential development and 30% for non-residential development. The
City has also developed a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation 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 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
. p
signif cant and unavoidable.
This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, because any
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 potentially
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
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).
12 Compatibility with the Alameda General Plan.
1.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be
compatible with the existin g 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 p olicies
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.
g q
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 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/housin g imbalance.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the jobsfhousing 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
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
. y �
local housing market, the General Plan would provide needed residential development in
an infill setting. Approximately 25 percent of proposed residential units would be
affordable, resulting in a substantial increase in the City's total affordable housin g stock.
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 tY
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
g
related to police services from the Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the
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
. g enc Y
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 Not-them 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
pp Y
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
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA would generate new students for the schools servin g the
Northern 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
development p
evelopment proj ect 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 '
ult xn an
increased demand for potable water. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve
y erne
the area.
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
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 ears
Y '
especially since y e 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).
42 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
p Y
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 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
g g 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
pp 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
p ty
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
significant.
than p
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.
g p
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
p
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
p q
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
. typ
recycling, and to provide for reuse of materials on -site for reconstructing infrastructure.
These plans must be J h City prepared in coordination with 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 i act to a level of
p
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.
41.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
demand for telecommunication services. However, buildout of the Northern 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 planned 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
. p
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 in City's existing TCMP and TDM requirements
q
would not be expected to result n 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
than significant.
Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA will increase and improve emergency
access in the area. Extension of Clement Street, 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 emergency access in and through the area.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E --19).
5.3 On-Site Circulation and Access.
53.1 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
y p nd
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.
findin s.
(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
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 REO S URGES
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
p
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 listing in the
pp g g
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 0 and 1 1).
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
. p
than significant.
The Northern Waterfront GPA area experiences aircraft overflights from the nearby Y
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (INDIA} and San Francisco International
Airport (SFO). 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
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
p g
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.
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 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
p
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 quite 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
p
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
acceptable for discharge to the storm drainage system or the municipal sanitary sewer
system. Either discharge would require proper permitting from the regulating agencies;
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-
. 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 q
in 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.
p
.
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
County Health Department staff in charge of such issues. Therefore, no significant impact
due 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
. p J
will be required during the environmental review process. These facts support the City's
�� y
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12).
11.4 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.
11.4. I 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
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 Y
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
aterfront
GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. Therefore, all future J ro' ects within
P
the Northern Waterfront GPA are will be subject to project -level review. This impact
p
would 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 Wildland 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 Significant 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 findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.L -14 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
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.
13.11 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
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 project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project,
. J p J ,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
. P J
the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
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 J
alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
. . . p p p ,J
the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
p
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative
infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). The findings with. res ect 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 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 p o p ulation
housing, or jobs which would occur under existing land use policies.
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 creating a
greater continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding areas,
providing public amenities and improving the appearance of the project site
with P J
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 goals and objectives of
the local plans applicable to the proposed Project area, includin g the th City's
y
General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, increased housing supply, improved
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 Eliminatton 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
on
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 1 Existing Conditions
Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared P J p p d 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
y
facilities, or any of the transportation facilities provided by the proposed ect. J
ro'
P
2
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.
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 proposed
. 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.
is not feasible.
d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative
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 EIR.
• 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
responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARCH 2007
NORTHERN WATERFR(
MITIGATION
.0 0
rj
P4
en
v
w
Q
•; ,L
C
o � rl
H
0 )
q
Q
O 4_+ �a3 ra
" 4
u
d a
as C)
.0 y ci
cu
ki
; o v
(/)
u"
p4 U u
p v 'd • bA
-- g utu d . 0 V • N " ' U °' o
6, .a 4. V) H 03 b
5 w „sti
O o
0 .1 go ,g 8
"d 2 U o „p v• . cd u
Q i -,, 1-/) ..g 6-4 --d .0 v.4
. - 0 t -c-j: B 0 0. by 0 b 0 u .0 g i-Fus
Z g 0 .v go - 4a. fi 2
r5VI aZ .r U] iv-1 0
.,.. 1:1 g • 0 0 6 q 2, -0 . O a d U 7; c: "O a' D '
FT C.: ).) U 32 r 4 g4 ) fc24 _ ,C : L 1 p :9 3 , .2, ,..,i g vd o ct ,E
"51 '441 1 n "u ty V 0 ta c,, 4, u
vH G Ecrg 0 u70 d c) ,,,c'-.1-. Q
6
0 m 0 7, 1-°J 2 :IL' ' 0 0 i,,'? .
a7 �, '� u u u
A 14 +r V 'd tic
flL 4_,=a 0 ,x ..0 u0 Q 4 a H rd ct
'd'
v o its 11 v
ro P4 "8
v
g U u
4, qua
go A) w
o .§c6 b G (I) 0
a W 5 u a o v
0 0 N b
�(/) N
, tfl "Ci E ..g wq
4-4Cd Ut) . Vid "2 1
,,, rg N g.0,1,
g ccl . vi , 0 . ,,,,, ,
0 1-1-'0 (1) LI4 4' P. t.z=1 - ,,zi
r) 6 . . . 4:
. co 0 bo u
rz 2 4) o c6 rciS til 71 43
- .5Uw4
0 0
ph)
0
•
rd
a
O g
oo
of
v
U 6
a, o 0
U ....�
u)
v
as '
� v
N
' ' 1 6 )
G
v -y
v
-U O
4
v v
,„ 0
fa
trii
V +4
v, a
DCL, lq
„,
.s .5 "4
0
B
git
�
0 4' 0 •
u U
v
g U
•w
o5ba
o�.�
v4 4
N �
u v
b.0 U
0
c�
v
H
10.0
-r4 g 4/4)
H N H
v v
G v
0.] Q 1
t U
a ,moo
0
v o
o
'5 o g v
H
' a ,.,d
w�,(-)
v 5 )
Ei
tz, LH
-d Q)
o 10 Q.) .;": it 0 15 §
gg 4). rti
a. 0 cu 'V
'. v p v, a' ow
rs 2 el) en cu d g 4-4 44
H a p q,y•V G „ 0
w ,b
r‘.4 71_,_ • t
u p 0 0
84 p
aaid .27 t .KR.z3pg
0_, ct, „,
t 0 „ 4,4 (4)
z
n� p� � v� o v a� 102 3 d • 4 . v a
'N
•
o ,.o v .9i o
b.)°u 4:b wGH
,, ___ _ ,,,, ,.., 2 g ,2 2 .:.,-,) rh,
8• i:r 'v 1'w S
4g' bs° u ..8 5 o' ,..9 St. 8 t .1.,
. a 0 'b 4) a
0 a CU • • p u u .4 -2,
44 CU 4 _ ,, la ) 7. ,p , .ic:1° 8 L. .ci, 4-:.1 H
4.) o H w c4
Pn p 0 D o . 44 E
' •0 v, b av a a m ri apa0orrii-i. co cu
. ,�.b.° 0. •
rd
v 0 •T0 0 v .v
N '- , g X b.0 4 b3 bu° r„ U `
cti ta, 61 cu CI 0.
°.
0 Q, p p. V • o +; o `� 44 rn
#°-' alp p a
Ct' �a a
� c v rd R
, /AO • p u qq a �, a, v c • -1-., 0
a u,wrdcn a �$1L P.,
0
i
c, b w v
woI' `o v
•.� u
z G buo
N 8
a •5 v
p.
0
0 o w Z
d
(L) �d
o „ v
(I) • (3
• v-.1).° ;19
• 0 a o v
�
• d
43 G ] v'' 'd
• El 0
• b•O 0 4-, g) 0
u d g,0 0
4) ,3
v 7, 0
• 7:o
(-)w �a
w �U
u rru A' n
V
3 " .2
fc2 L.) cb`,14
t-Lci g a
u ..v a) L.)
0 0 0V,0 c
illo o g
a) -d v v v c� u +-4 v v v -d n 4,1 cd +- v 0
o.) cn 1 'EU i 111 4.4 t' u sin ' n c
jifl vs cn fl .1 • Vs 0„ 'R 1 u g v)
a O �d v V �` g. g
o v a � v 0 G u
roi , u) ' cti
Iu
c fl rd 6 u ih:h u o b.,d o o
-
• 4 u u.
✓ u
: iLI ii 0 - ° • j'ft v cri + • • o • o
rd d v .d v. -. v �..� w • u
g.g cl.)L7q -S 0 4-4 4-. g " (..,, b., .• ...,
c, to
. ,,,, — ,.., 7:1 .-F, g „, ....., -, ..) . ..-s ,.,8 .19 cig
iki, 7,1 . ce4 -,' .h.) 0 g ;..4 cu '' a) ..S 0 0 go • V
�o o • u; q 0
fl
Na , G 0 u, •
n ct v v o,vb
u Li .� U v• w°
v z 4 TA'g.A u rd O
+, v
. 0 . g ,8 rE
cd • ›, M . ri '50 9, -.8 .4 , )1 c, r . , si 94 ▪ , . 6 ):: , 08 7da . ) i t 9 : 10 8 , 6 . - . . , ri .8 6
v
v ., o cd cu •.o 1 i_, z Q Ii 1:::::511>m
u
'71 u cN us • • •
,) rd
g .4N Pg
1114 t
• ca cY' .N
• c� a to
• 0 U�'
0 .4,2, a,
0
i V V 0 CCO q) o .5 0 Qv.) G``') cad
d ,, cn 1.---- ... . v, 0 ''S rl , g .-0 r=
, ,
(4,3 0
oN
• u o 2 in cis
ai
7 f-+
> 0 o o "d `}l a' u 0 u 61
• as t v 'V �' � o � ' `v 0
'La -0 lo g -x'
..o o • 0 .0 °• v o ai
u- 0.) , u w
:g ,L) •fal ti g 4j tg ' CI g CU 11.A.g v,
C6 X 0 . li g 6, .., .- '.-8 cl 11:J
8 4 V u 2 . 5 -0 0 0 y 4-I a. ii
a3 � � cu Z• o g° u a V S
W 0 5 0 ._, .0 ci, ,..,,,, ,- .4:J, .-ci 0 ,Y4 g t-'
cu 0
v o '� 4.) u u x o u u c g 7, . ...,..., .., ..gm t.,(6) ;.8,1, peg ;..v,v fu t
° 0 Z .9 F»s
u ,g w° 0 c °
`4 a ° 0 ° °jai 4.)
:4)
. u a, c0 w g a▪ ' -0
vim -d ,J~ 0.0 Fii bo V,,.° V,ki3Ojai
gig . a tA- Nb co--- v4 u �w
g a� .8 ai o u o a3 G ▪ 0 0
o' u Q-'• o
o-�•V 3 oUQva. 5 g N • o"d u
.- •p ,,ap
a3 ,1 c,. - , ri F N V � -,-,,, g a3
„,,J i,., ri-:-, 2 .,.. 73 b ..6 rizi
u w g fl .-t S
..,,, 1
. . v
..., , . -.Jo g ,42.
;.., 0 .-5 . t.)
" 0 g is
p,,, . b {.,
u Q 0, '"
O a) 0) 'p o j u
ai en 0
✓ o g "5
u
O ' 4 cn .' ° 4.)
03 a m
tqj U
' • b `'-' g,- .-tj u o
00 'd•�q bi.) 0
•
• rIo
G u ' 0 .- .'t,),
,- o • fi 03 0 V V 0u • a �
° 'd ° G
o 0 . ,--,
Iia cN F --. . D`' 1c rw-r -+ '+5
ai
ru
/-I 04 0 ■ •
resources
00
.5 t , ,2, g ;g i ,-() 1 2 7°
'� (} of
o
v .5
u a v
��' v v W a m u', U u �"'r
o- �°' ate' a✓ ab 0
ra ct
``) ;v-+.- ua 0 cd • '
c�
u - 0 ,..d 0 � • v
i•'•
arz
tsa v �i td
PS ;o o o • 2 ra a v as
uh1
o
.o
d 41
.5 cL!) '5 ,
v v c" a au
n ° v
a
v o o u p 0
.� • �d v p v
cO v v o
u 4-, U U ' 5o vi. -0 5
'� U t' o al..
U
-4, cu . u v o v W o a ° U 04 6,,' c„4
; �a .-.5 "C.1 ,9'
s1
t4.4 to
0
u
16 6
o
.0 b
"V ai
a
0
PA. 0
4' . i-i 1..), 1 c , 9 i - .. cciA r, h i . 0 i
,� c� q 4 ' '5 I(g o 0 ,,f4 .
.fl a v o 6.0 2 ,o g
Q-r
cd to 0 0 ° w v .�
`n .0 v 8 • G v 3..r •
,.� u GX3 v v v w
u 1 . ° a✓ I-11,, 0.) 4 0� � 0 .
�
0 4. = 0
V
N 'I q �., o a ` i u v v
ou a is . q , P.0 g -0 ,-s
Fiju o 0- 0 xa
'4 u .0 b .5 , U V]
C:i Q sue., o 'ti a{ .si 0 rn 0 ' ti,
„ u cua v � ,� v o _ t o v
°
0, o'5 0 0 0 v.) v, a
N H v u ro 0 .p 0
g4 4, 7, t) ",l't :S) '
._ .2i u , _ ,..,=, - c , :I , 0 o
a ' u 'v .”- N q -P
Qb V °A o E "a °u.
.0 g
V] to
a
pq
06,
rd.cr'�
a u .5 v
41 4)
40 to .4 8
rd
0 0 0
0
5�°d
tu
4) v 6
�4) c
-5' bp 'a
b.° e.)
rEj. c,`,;3 cu
41 "Ij ctn)
ai 4-4 ti 'p
r4 cu 5
v v u, a+ cn
�•�.
,. .
H ro pLui
c.)
O
z
NOISE -lb
0
b,(} 4] g
cu
„0 0:
° 0
• 0 a) o
P. a o
cu
o E
cLiu
=W`
W
L
•0
a
a
V) 0..7 0 v v o 0
o o ° o''8- -N
w� ' 4.4 G X
0 o . ,.d A v v -d F.
v c ,t, o n
.g 5 5
(-4 c/3 rd
ii g '-- .- ri-) s it,)
C yo Can• "E a
..,, c.,,,,, ...., L .1 .-1 t '--.9 c;''
v a3 "d o '� w .. v
cu
ff ^o ifl 5
, v
N 0 V
1 'd 4 *6 V. 0 v o +8
vQ v araa-
�., 0 a w 0 4) . Tv
rd v 0 , • U
cs ,9 S6•a ,0 . t ... cu v: cn b ,,
g ca v .� .
:v. Q . v
w
._,C) 43 0 ti (694..)
4.., i-i cn ;.,, B . ,:, "
`' rd L 413 G U
a 0 p as o v '5
'o E
PV
ou
.a' v
o
o Q
o U
z
0 V
v
o
0
v7
U
v o
•r.
n
a O4
G v
t
.5 g re,
cr Cal .7
V
0. o
.ti
0
�' ca v )
' �` o
0o"'�
cl) 0 ; u ° p:)
' v �� i
H v Ca
bAw
(P)
•31 8
] v �O [
¢ a)
off-'
g •,L,1
o 1
zcYs o�
CI]
0
NOISE -2b
0
z
z
V buQ
T •
• 5 o
•a�°
•
rgo '"; v
rata
0 o
VI
pi
N '
.A -5 2 ,ii A. If „g g
13 ...,.
.... ,, „, a, 4.. u
et ,.2 ro z "s t ',-,i,
rd 0 v v
00• o o v0
v a 4-' pq
o V ° ro
0 w V
Q b L
�
N 3b ca 0 0 i
..� c
cn . i:,
9 o� 1zv � v v
:nI
. U GH 4
n o o a cal .
1:14 d v) 0 0 ,....., •o
v u ft
...., it, g . .4,' 0 0 .-' -
r"4 "ij, 10,0 0 LI V a Ga v �
G1 •� �. d s -� n 0i
,S ,•r, IIo u
4 pv p — i-I
ca
v
v 0 a 0 01- w Pi) 0
id �
U
•
g
0
va
u) o U
▪ V w
t a
„
. V V
v ����0
5 0
V° 0 19
P u `4g
60
0
,5 azo ci o 6.o a v G ›., b.o as
1 A 1 'g .5 0 ° .-c) .z:i - 0
1.) 2 v g .8 r. 8 — 0 ,ii
�.,
,.� ,,s " � aJ � O W � • a} .� ” a •
CI • 1 (1) 1. 4 ,g y 0 »0
al g .-- , fl a) 2 - .V .-N
..d .d ° a� ,� H of
✓ 0 8 Q i a) ;-r bA
0 p• c) 'C o Cr b vs X
,4] 0 (L) p.r ct N V rn ,.d
V C-
• � c u 0 0 0 CI
u o x o i 4
a•�
cn
0
n d a)
0 w b.°
— ..0 c,r) CL, Ca4 n'i :d 0
U 0.) -R n' `-) ni 0 6.0 tay'd — .
G i . �. � a ° f
in rn u V It
U o '.0 w
vi 0 L64 .U, ,,,-) a 1:3 8. ' .0 o t . A
q o d -5 0 a, v a� a d v p , „ u
u au ° H CU cn o P.° ° u w a
,V '5 U M rdrd
a O.
•
rd 'd w u a3 m o 0
2 �n-r +� 0 L4 g c� cd 410 „ . ..,,, ,..... ,.4 cn . ,..6., ri
1.1 cn 1 0 o
u -(,,..- t g 1 : i g .,,,
N o t o , 40 4
a) 0 .� U
§ 4,4
X) ,. bA t�CC Q4 c 4) V 1 H
'43 0 Fi 0,v.o1a54ow urt
' •.° 0 ' puj o c�a a a3 8 •1 ° i� a1
g O ° n �
• " 0 G VEw n b 3 ° 4 M �,o
0 4
'4=1 • o `�w ' U o
,� V • '� N u P-,�w ',73 I=1
,ii Fla 0 0 8. B 0 u 0 u, u .a 4 R
Hu
L u a 'b rd aa W ' u a w U ° v
a�
as hi •
0
^ a p cn n 121 . O
`81
a4., .0„, A t.c) 1 I ,,z`6 i g ,..t4 "cicd 2-i,„4--)
pg1 b
� . 0 ro r,3 0
1 N v b 1-3 o O . .bb 'd ,t
„ o o v, 8 u G 04
0 O �-i' aj .4 W � u
� u A c, 1 aj '_u4 C6
o Cn
a u� . t) O •1-.4 U
C,1 . cn i.r cn w cd /] Cil w O
tO 1 . .,, u p c3 U v i_, .. ii,
o w cu
G ' v V
c� C u' o G u
coU , O 9"U � �
u go d 0 td
v t it) O
c, cn 4j g cd O .� aGj O "�
a3 cn
PL) a j �n
. ° 44 P--1 '-' g i'-' = •fl • 8
i..,��+
.� ' � o u w Ow u
J L2 aj u �, .V .T, 0
2 A O rd • 4• q b.° cd
v
+ u v • ''•' v-1 cd '•d V tii) '.o
O '' ° ; •5 u ' 'a,' e
P-+ tiA v3 a., cn cn v, 6L, v,
•
a� ° h°,2
-ti a° o o o s
.5
0P-i 1 a 4 -ti -,„ - b
v a b -5 u 0 4 0 0 i- 0 u o oo ° o t o o o c , x n ct a "5 44 •°
'LS
• at v g :..r a� aj
> p� k K: b.° buu4,, p4 ..a , 04-5 u u (1) Si . S .8 -0 g ro :4=1 z), ,4
a� u !IC w , u o aj u N .12
+u-' u aj ) :g V '"d can • O p
v 0j •5 C o v u V u v a C7 _ „ ...)
to ,� as w
w�, : a '' a, � 1 tog
o ox-d '.+ v u 0.n o 0- G� g "2
, 0_, . 5 4 (3 u a j o o aj co 6p aj aj rj aj . S
‘:1-1 4) rjj.' '' 4) CI it) . p t E 0
• b 0 48 H V s O Z
O v
p4
1 V) g �€ O izi d '0 V v `
. ,,,, m ?..), _
3 d K• ;.r w a „
ii .y' o U 'd u 0 +-
' ' ( , _ 8, 0 , bA O . „ v ) 0 ..] 2,0)11j(0).5.(tg f)otor...1,
M
0
cn 44 •d •-d
0
b 114
Cci • cd v
tO ' 6
? 'd v
0 o
v
• 9 •°
44 U
• ?) g
a) -
rn g w c�
0.4 0
v v
H 0.) •
co
• v r
0
U flcd
Wcan
6
O .5to
• .d
u
cn H 6
41 o g
•o co
o
o
u
v
'44 +13
V
cn
C14 cl I'd CL a) R-I. LA al 0 :-.-ir., a)
-d :[...))u 4 • "� h Rnr- ° 0 Q j • r. Fri Z L,) -3 v, ../
P. ..� u N B O •� .� v . v c�
it &) G m U r° v, O a ca
U p O MI iL
w .
V 0
v i a� 4) o I �b • W . l, 0
v C" ; U v 0
O v -id o o
,.. g .0
of., .1-1 0 0 ..C) L„ ,,, . .,-. CI ▪ , .
▪ ,..., 0= 0,0 u „,• tc,4
tzi
a� r 8 tt Pu . . , :1 i' 43
4.) S 2 0 - e, v D u 'v O" U 44 44
" � y ! MtPL-14 "CI 'ti
O cn LI Q O g c�
o p go v • aw ''g
al a d o c4 g
-•5 a N v v
v
, ,.. po u (1,., ..a ....d ..s
. - o d U o p o -- ° v
a, cufl g rti 415.,1 . .� a oil
..-.0„, -,,i g 401, ,,t, ..E.D.,a,z,„ .."
+r O .., •0 v x 0 p
Q 4 c 4, v
v a
Q` 1 ▪ O A-r a,
LAP.0,4c,',1 . g 4 - p 0 en- HU .
4 0 V a°
ea •N v
2 Q., 4 .".- ] i4 v u v U cn
ct
'CI i 0 0 v p- O v
.4w(1) tea+
n g- U ,.,.4 'b f � +u
P.4 2 cf) Pr) d 4.1) .t-, 1-4
p• 5 a v g . c4 4) 4:1 al
v +' v 4 v °� y
,g• w,� G a a
W • . G e vv, Ti
`�' p i a al go g o U o O w G G � o
° 2 c6 0 '-' 48 E 0 b, .., -,_,. -5 rd o cu re,
,, qi ti - :E's 4a t, -P.
..0 0 . 2 N si. 4 .5i . p, ___m , a.) it ,,, a) 0 0 v) „ci 'id ad • v V, 0 d , ii
. � 3 O u � �,
' U v . u
. ,. cn .,� d ��aa � v 12 '
} rn am, � i o X 0.4 d V U au 4-4 -6.. t, ur u v-, . — g g ati, ',,
O ..,:, , u . tu ,„ .-- .v vi c.i,, 0 rz u, . .4,-,-; 6 ,- r iiii g i.,.. lg °-'..., t4
u
v g v 4 1y N C2,,', t - ct ¢+ G : u 0 `,'
N , r bt, N c) .5 5 „,- 8 'A 0- K., ',0
O U v o � v o u u o •tu 0 0
r,, u 0 0t x �, c .2 0 'a, o -,
c„ cn -
ITo o a a v to 0 ,4 • ,, v a •� v•
,24 v
.5 i') o • .'0 o 8 ,_, ,N ..5 ,-p 1-' 14 I 4-1 1 d '-' P-, a., 04 0 0 .7
U 1 .tj*w cuU 47.5 5,41:14 ..g . 5utatg) ,,....59 aici .pi . 0011) 4 EC).) -25 1 P-1 73." . lb.° 1 g . 4:9 "P.) ''',,, .zr 4:1 g
'"" 11 -(8 B cu oj 0 cl --,---,,, tr) 0 51 eu.,4 g Itp Lu, 2 cwo cl. .r, ° 0 V, cq
.. v, u Cu) 1) VI 8 1 (i)
0 v rd u o u y V •� °tea w � 4,.
d o c9 (1) i 0 17.4 . g t 4 ' " '' v g'>'
• . d v v q w P4 - q o y,v 20...• 4 a� �
0 • a1 �' + G ta '1 c� �, CL, c� p� u O r v u c� N ' g ' 71 co ‘4 ' u 7:icu -0 49 'S w P., • ' E 1- la°
%;:l s .0 0 4 'b y v v a-+ v �' v
ah c� a cr3 r�y• q"' o o x ,-� o o c�
0 c' u v rd .ti H �, a u u cn ..0 -d
VU a H ...0 g
uu •
P-, el)
4 � d "� "' H
'd to v u p, v FO ri gy''-` fi , G . .i_i
..F1,0,1-1_,SAct 4.4 IIORA'aits 4 0 g
v . f.u4 b U a, +, I� ' G o ❑
co 'v w v b E v -, ct 'd 4) Lt • v 4-, 4 t t,-.0 0 ,..,,,,) cn +-, i'd v U v v v ta, '
0 v 44 110 4 u '�
't210 v o. 4) 4) Ct 4„ a
1 cci p.., i, . G u o 0) o bA v v , s
w ❑
0 ai v5 . gb.° mi . . to .o. m toV4 Qy i � � gr� tev V
i,
a
to
cd cd 3EA
v u
fl:*r�cd C O v '
. ,..4 ,-) II X) U ' in` 'V -5 la r17J .1:/ 0 cti !".q, '--) 13 i c.'..)) . . 010,_,P. ,s, 0
o G 8 Q v v' o �" +, o.0 P, p V v7 0 43 n V ., ,
C•3 .... . 4.) ,.. n , P•x " 1"-1 WO (I) 0 g
0 - c, . a:z 5 fl,-,) T. 0 qj . n 0 . .1 al I) \-J .h r5 cl g F.5 i,-,) 4) co ;2....,) 4) vd 0
u ,,. c., ,1_,-, cei 0 cu tn x .g ..) . 0 ,-, 1--i A PS Ps „, Ps 4a' .4--i
o. P.. a., 4 v . ,A
.1 SP 44 go -g g r-s .., ,,,, ,-,1,c-.). x V,
.9. v o v i-ci ".° '4'3 s,v) fq), ..o rif ca, 8 . E i-1 ''.
o ` ”0 Ps a top :-'9 -rs A ,�, � (lc)/ a u �� v ct v a� 0 p a.) {., 0,9 4 o E b'b 0 a , ii .F.5 v v� �' v
o tz it y go-
v �, tuo
e.-s o ., 0 o ' ri "� Q1 v w of 4 t.4 D p-, u a Cri
0 f� ' 0 W u4 V 4.4 v v v G' v
r g.E-') LI1A all v
o v v b o ° a v
. • o ~ 04.E '5 ..cl ti 0
y • a `� �W q p �+ v, 0 a v v
G .= v.° a3 0 a ct
17 „
i,..c c'+ m 0 °; v v,
cti ,...., '• -`ei R (9-i ' ,i7 u m
cnu ci., „, g ci, • .5 • - •A a, -0::
tL 7' a p . . a. . 5 "_,
,� b ° . � 3
a
a � ."0 'S 6
• 0w Ri �o uv v 4:4
t. a
cis t. v N v � g """ `, .0 g 04
Cd .0 [d
a M ; ro a� C/ 4 Q, a da � ,v I) '�,� b ,�
..8 „,- '' U ., 5 — a r..;
' U U cl
v IdF!lUIi•iI
P41. ko gv��, p�q).,��o4-0
ap 1 Id g "I , ,32 Eu . " 7 "0 7, .6 V, , - 2 - i, U
up O ' 4 .a ' ri� �li A 8 car, u) A b
., v cX
v v v v , {
.x° t,:�0
0 o v ��.2 p, a� 0 a u
(..) la, ,L, ;.4 p-, § aim
°' 2 �,-v,
p v a• a3
� _&
0 -,
i....., , 03 C.) P.
— 8 a' t ti vg,
.g • 5.. .1.4>_, c__,.„.a d
v �
v
Qv3 a � v
0
• �� a 0
iM, b ° U` ; 0 o C a
v
a p cn Phi 0 c, ,_'
o v 'b
.,."8 5 Pc1 — 0 6 10
1JI 'd H f
v 1 t ) ' a} v A
,.`'.4 Q �UA i
•
b.° 40
.1 g
c a1
a1
o MI
V g
U
U
v, H
u • o
✓ a V
~° v .2-
Id L4-4 • rts' E
M
o
0 0 a
v
,mac'
•'ti c� cl H
pl
5 vs
e°c
'5 g`L4'
•
0 a °' 0 0 q 0 u
CA i,1 cd u 0 D3 0 a
G -� ;.� uri d cu 0 g al
0
c� V
G,r R.�
a. .4 p ,,,, r, B-,
a'
vi +-d w .
cl P. u 0
0 • � a �' 0 w' cti
�+ u '''.v.
" . ct li g
0 f-14 d . o
. P its° 0 04 [3 S ° (...)
CI 0 w 0 0 11 4' ;, - ° ')
c� V
.� °
C G C 44 P 1
ill). 4 "" I-1 4 R . qj
(:)-' ti) t, .'- r4 `14 8
0 .3., .. .,.., p o..) 0 cu ,„
1-4 "d cn U rn 5 R., 5 4
G v ..0 0 0 ijF al 0 at ; tj
V 0 a `i as
.d grd v v �, Pg a�
cl '0 gyp..,, pa.,
FV`�' a ° l
0. 'd a) "1::/ 0 o �.� °
!.„ 0 75
-° ,97 8 sz1 c� ill • `1) .d
ot 04 j T:te) '11 rg
41u)'. 04., a..,
a.
0 b, u 0 �, N
..0 .v . C� v)
g ‘g co 7:14 g 2
c) ti, . 0 m, i u "ci
,,, „, MI r4 cn
Vr 4 "8 0 C N 4U CI Q W 9v,g ;b 49 ' p,� ii
•c-) .p
.,...) .
._, ,
. 4)
ba0 •a �.
°-�� 8 "4 -S
• •
sa pou
,1 2 'd
rd
1. �° 0 a ° 0
+� ca +4
P .5
a
N 0 m .1:1 o
v g ; 04
rr•1 a v 1-i c
e. ¢, �. w
0
u 0 4.) v
1 ..., . V
.0 . cn �y • �' +1 �
4.4 §
1-I 14
;) ii I CI. "C1 V .-16
V)
X V
CU ..d "d w M v (1)
0
. rn Qr it) u C' .-�
rn V ''d
b +, : g ,0 0 4
1 1 as o o 5 4
`a 5 u u v u
- � Q a ) 0 0 i
ca . , , E
o w 0 0 an
p '� i-r
u o o ,s a4
.0 G u u ,.0 rd 6)
0> 0 0 u c c
N
iR 4:,„ 0 ° .4 p v
`� u 0 u 0 cua u
v 4-, .4
..:5 ,i),1 b1:1 ;) "V 0 7:11)
cud rd •`r' toO 0 00 b ) o b
o 0 _ u a�
u a a 04 .h.)
‘4. g) 4 - - ' 0
u) g04
^d P. vs run i cl) E : 8
1 0
"c9 u b� rd ' c v
o
bi 0 0 ,L, 0-, 8.,.
'd
o)
. 0
`l as ' v
a O �
0 . .. 0
72, '4 • o 4) u
u . . i..,
. u t,..,,i 4 o4
f,i-,°) „ .,,, o 6
w
c, . . ,), 8 "F,:g
• • •
0 a) f.0 0 0 O '�� •
`� u ay u b.0 0 u
,,, la, 0 cl) . g
a, 4 "d o +u
o a� a) u .431 Rr 0 2 .al .c2 'R
• '4 •y 8 re 1 h) . g _ait-
cd 1g „ u 2,4 ,� E u v
�0 P-' t a rd bA y o .
0 ° u o rd
• emu 0 c ..r - +, g
v . g r . boo u
Fz a u
.� 0 i-1
• 0 a 0 v� d 0 •
.V. ,.d o a.] CLI w v .V g cr. 0 n 0 „, ti. �, b0 ' ' a) v 4 0 ' O r� tu0 r. u r a c pi i'l
4
0
0. b a) 9
.8 Itl g tv
zi. E F.';',4i 0 u ) a v
° a
u ` cn
Q., a ho • u i� . v
. °
A° �4 t Q v nw pc)
A0-. 1. . c”` .) LJ w
rd 43 • •
5
4j
• cr
• N
v
o
.� ai
ucl
✓ o a,
▪ o c cr
0
• ill 4-
E. u S
cct
Cd
• •
r.'
(e) • 5 0 g ry i„..) 43 a r.F,, 0 ;-g
a. o o . u A' § s u A c)/
E., ?;
�b g -0 ° 5 .)
N U V
E � �
.g O 3" O aO " 1-, r ;1 B rd 'b � , v[o
u O o'� .� '' � T -5 , u .„, „,, 8
v 't Q) c d a] O O � t v n t cd .•
F., u ▪ . • .0 4-' q ] M 4 O
. Li' ° 12% C.Z1 ,-,ziw .g .v '.-8 v C--) ,y, _d”
0 ... e . coo 6.0 , B, 0 ,,„ o
t
c 0 x O ' ou n } v prU
• u ,
t
o
01 1-0 0 °" � c°
• .-2� `°. X4"'4)
M t4)~d0�Q)0 0 °
i-, 0 c 0 4)PO u o
a." 2 b v) to - � x„ w
,
pv 0 0.,1,- ,,1 .2 ,g tS1 , 'id ii O 'v 'b . .1-4 d p:1
- v Q, G O
4
•
O pa- 7 ..o cu 4-1 .0 ii .g . A I-1 ig.., 0 0
PA
Ufli
E,,2 'WUU
• u `" u
fl O
.4E°4 .
u i u
o ff.
u
.
.d 175, 1C-4
g C: Ord
O • 4
• -13
w
,v U v
o ,
0 .. d.5�.., 0
u
N • (4.) v
c4 0
• o b o
�' g)
H
oV rd RI •Q
F o
u O `�
w O 0
0 � .0
▪ u
0
.5v
2 g
a) c
•c Q,
• CLI
• v
g
1
4-1 u
2
� o
,-i CI]
•1
''1.51,° a3
U 0 > ..0 •121
.o a G 1 c
Mi 4.% 0
- t 5
0 .fi 0
o
o
° o x -d L 4) ca
G '4
N
.1=1
a3 rl ''d 0 "S V)
u
91, ,2, .1), Cl.) 0
ci. U +, ' " 6.0 ca u 4.) .71 4 1,
„d ., .
.— 5 0
o
a . u 7d
o
• a1 b1 .
w 0 0
-'•5 • o H i
o ai
0 d e d • — r, al -Li
0 0 %-i 4.) 4) 1 r 4.42r,t)
o 1, 1
r) (11
uu)0 .o •
'� 0 'd i'di 0) '- as �d t, d a) bA .d N u) 'S m ' .g a1
g u 0 .-
,.d +, �, d 'd ", v u U a3 41 4-1:
°} a" 0 0° u 0 F--1 ,A .� q o u °' o
'� �' ca %' *ti o ups 0 0 G O +; v
cu
• ti 0 �4 rd G G bQ 'S u `4-+ a a�
0 0 'b d > a a) 0 B 0 o t .
'5 .,$1, ,1) c4 "5 .2.1 cl P. B 42 8 -' ',13 . ,.4
cu ,.., d 0..) CU " 0 0
x
,.a o o 5 °' N
; " FU o °' �
0.) Pd 0 i d u
0 , . G cl a 'V, " p,, �;
u o
, ,d i • o oo�'005 u o ° Pz0
a; ' rd 0 U +.+ V) .n G. V QvU r 8 w a)
4) 17.: cn .., ,..., 4 4.4
S ri) 18 cp c, .t.: .4.1 •
b w u
as G v cd , i � � � � �, q U � ;� +-� o as rd E v o4 1.1 0 a� o V, o -4 2 a ,9 cl .;
p cd o }, to X '� rn tU3 0 414
as ,.d as V . '� q rdC "' w U G
a0 4] 0 rn — ,n . aT u , s„ cd C/3 1 0 va
0 . '. 0 . `') cd a, • ,-. P. 4-, u ..z .... .4-, 0 0 4) r.C) "1::/ ;..1
• •
*d 4j CL) CU a.) v V3 CU 4 t4-4 O) ., , j
^
. i 3 v v U 1 • •' 0.7 i' 1a En
cid 4—, • . rd V A • ° • ,•° o w o ° ,b L ii 0
�d VI
,g 4 .• . p., V cq 0-) 4 0 2, cu . 0 . N �+ I t"' o u n3 • ,Y4 xi
4 0 ' -5, -0 ;-, .0 .5
d gy
•v p as }� ► N w v o v c' 'a."
•p v 4 g 0.4 I . _ _ ., - uo " g - : " -'. - lo .2 c.) 4 0
,d 1-4
o u
, 0 0 a. . . 0 .-,:i t '—',., =4 ) Ti . - . 14 ) 1 4 ,39
4-, u • , — - 9:10 "pu ,ts cu c,.., • �' �; G 0.3 Ts +U-+ :+, +i} U t t 0- g po 43
cn cii 4_, 4 ° ..8 p,° .;
• ,,, 0 a) l'AJ E — 0 .,,...
• 0 '5 4) ' . .
*5 IR l aw � ' • a 8 , 6'4 8 ._,_, • „d ...0 ,s1 u 1 b., 0
.0 o '.0 o o . , a G
v 4_, v 0 0 2 a c" � ° w v 1I1
60 • • a • -0 C ft •i, R
u co ct 0.: „, u . .2 if, • 0,,gp.-1; 0
,,i • .71 ,P,--D. ;4, F cri e g u a) i r 84 —6.' ,$), ps) A
O.7 G 0 p-+ cn li U • "0 ,]-r t • n czi P-i rn cn
• • •
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ATTACHMENT D
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 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
g
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.
111. 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
p g
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:
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 City and
promoting a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable.
2
r
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
Resolution #5 -B (3)
07 -17 -07
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, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Member of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 17, 2007
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Collection of
Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the
Property Tax Bills
BACKGROUND
The State Public Resources Code and the Health and Safety Code require proper disposal
of all refuse and discarded material. To maintain these required public health standards,
the City of Alameda's Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance requires all residential and
commercial properties to receive and pay for integrated waste management (IWM)
services, as provided by the City's franchise hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI ).
Collection services may be paid for by the property owner or a tenant; however, since
1995, the City has held property owners responsible for delinquent accounts that are
unpaid by their tenants.
In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the Alameda Municipal
Code (AMC) and the Franchise Agreement (FA) between the City of Alameda and ACI,
ACI may assign delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection through the property tax.
Prior to assigning its rights to the City, AC1 is obligated to make at least four attempts to
collect the delinquent accounts. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing prior
to collecting through the property tax bills. On June 5, 2007, the City Council set July 17,
2007, as the date for this public hearing.
DISCUSSION
On April 19, 2007, ACI assigned a list of delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection.
The current list includes 65 delinquent accounts include 38 multi -unit properties and 27
single- family residences. In accordance with the AMC, the City sent letters to each
assigned account and the corresponding property owner requesting immediate payment of
the delinquent account by 5:00 p.m., on July 17, 2007. The letters stated that if payment
was not promptly received, the City would consider collecting delinquent accounts by
means of the property tax bills at a public hearing that evening. A cover sheet stating
"Important Notice, Please Read or Contact the Public Works Department at 749 -5840 for
Information," translated into the six most commonly spoken languages within the City, was
included with each letter.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5-C
07-17-07
Honorable Mayor and
Member of the City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Pursuant to the AMC and the FA, the City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent
accounts. Accounts that remain delinquent and are not approved for collection through the
property tax bills are considered "bad debt" and will be included in the next rate review,
commencing July 1, 2008, and potentially result in an increase in the rates.
The total sum of unpaid delinquent charges consists of the unpaid balance and the City
fees. City fees include interest, administration costs, and the consultant fee for filing with
the County Auditor. The list of unpaid delinquent charges will be forwarded to the County
and placed on the property tax bills. As the deadline for curing delinquencies is 5:00 p.m.
on the day of the public hearing, an updated list of lien properties will be provided at the
Council meeting. A draft listis included as Attachment 1.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total amount due for this group of non -paid accounts, not including City fees, is
$35,569. Since the City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI on all paid accounts, the
loss in General Fund revenue is $3,556. Staff estimates the cost to administer this
program is approximately $5,000 per year, and the lien program is structured to provide full
cost recovery for the past due accounts. There is no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Integrated Waste Management Program is consistent with the General Plan
Health & Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing to adopt a resolution authorizing collection of delinquent integrated
waste management accounts by means of the property tax bills.
Rest =' _ Ily submitted
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Direct
By: Mia F. Di Meglio
Environmental Services Manager
MTN:MFD:gc
Attachment: Draft list of lien properties
Ika L cc Ltec\Rrop2sAke.s
Public Hearing
Attachment to
Agenda Item #5 -C
07-17-07
APN Number
Property Owner Name
Service Address
Balance
interest
Admin Fee
Fee
Total
1
072 - 029700300
JONES PAMELA
1730 BUENA VISTA AVE
$ 544.37
$ 32.66
$ 35.00
,Filing
$ 10.00
$ 622.03
2
074 - 106808000
GONZALEZ, GHEZAL
1165 CAMINO DEL VALLE
$ 466.00
$ 27.96
35.00
$ 10.00
$ 538.96
3
069 - 009504500
LEVERTON PATRICIA
3261 CENTRAL AVE
$ 601.83
$ 36.11
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 682.94
4
074 - 107100100
DEMONTE JEANNE & LENOIR
100 DAHLIA DR
$ 381.29
$ 22.88
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 449.17
5
074-107513000
MAHALLATI NANCY & ABBAS
3458 DUTCHCAP LN
$ 641.01
$ 38.46
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 724.47
6
074 - 132113500
CORRAL, REBECCA
206 INVERNESS CT
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
7
074 - 119007400
KECHLEY, KEVIN
343 LAGUNA VISTA
$ 613.41
$ 36.80
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 695.21
8
074 - 103911700
LEVERTON, PATRICIA J.
301 LAGUNARIA LN
$ 547.10
$ 32.83
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 624.93
9
074 - 046301200
CIO MATTHEW DUNCAN
319 LINCOLN AVE
$ 547.10
$ 32.83
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 624.93
10
071 - 025001400
DULCY, KELLY
2045 LINCOLN AVE
$ 411.31
$ 24.68
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 480.99
11
074 - 132614900
FINDLEY, THEODORE P.
157 OLDCASTLE LN
$ 919.05
$ 55.14
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 1,019.19
12
073 - 041700800
CHIN, SAMUEL Y.
729 PACIFIC AVE #A
$ 506.57
$ 30.39
$ _ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 581.96
13
071-023303500
KOFFLER CHARLES & HILARI
2120 PACIFIC AVE #A
$ 512.36
$ 30.74
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 588.10
14
070 - 017901200
KEENE, CAROL
2441 ROOSEVELT DR
$ 583.30
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 663.30
15
074 - 046901100
BROWN, CLARENCE F.
231 SANTA CLARA AVE
$ 369.36
$ 22.16
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 436.52
16
074 - 042701400
HUIE, SAMUEL J.
617 TAYLOR AVE
$ 522.88
$ 31.37
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 599.25
17
074 - 125509200
GRAHAM, JANICE
1810 CLINTON AVE #A
$ 601.83
$ 36.11
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 682.94
18
074-123507100
HALL, DARRELL
2004 CLINTON AVE
$ 783.47
$ 47.01
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 875.48
19
070 - 017402800
MADLUNG, JOANNE
1204 REGENT ST
$ 261.08
$ 15.66
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 321.74
20
072 - 030200900
SINGER, M.A.
1723 CENTRAL AVE #5
$ 434.47
$ _26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
21
074 - 123500400
WOODLIFF, WAYNE A SR
628 SANDALWOOD ISLE
$ 625.30
$ 37.52
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 707.82
22
073 - 039701503
CLAYTOR W G III
1303 CAROLINE ST
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
23
074 - 134501800
CIO HARBOR BAY REALTY
206 BANNISTER CT
$ 596.00
$ 35.76
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 676.76
24
073 - 038301700
KASO JOHN & E K
1808 CHAPIN ST
$ 599.96
$ 36.00
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 680.96
25
072-032101100
KOKA, MOTI
1702 PARU ST #A
$ 512.36
$ 30.74
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 588.10
26
074 - 132106800
OTTO, JAMES & SALLY
206 PUDDINGSTONE RD
$ 457.63
$ 27.46
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 530.09
27
071 - 023900700
ANDERSON, CRAIG & SHABNAM
2165 SAN JOSE AVE
$ 512.45
$ 30.75
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 588.20
28
072 - 029300400
OYEN, NICHOL
1900 MINTURN ST
$ 523.94
$ 31.44
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 600.38
29
074 - 107512200
DOUGAN, MICHAEL & ANDREA
1069 MELROSE AVE
$ 523.94
$ 31.44
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 600.38
30
074 - 042901 100
SAAVEDRA MAX & NOFA
633 HAIGHT AVE
$ 601.83
$ 36.1 1
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 682.94
31
073- 042200400
BAIRD, MARK
735 TAYLOR AVE
$ 500.78
$ 30.05
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 575.83
32
072 - 032101100
KOKA, MOTI
1702 PARU ST #B
$ 523.94
$ 31.44
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 600.38
33
069 - 006800100
COSTELLO, MICHAEL J.
3272 ENCINAL AVE
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
34
073 - 041700800
CHIN, SAMUEL Y.
729 PACIFIC AVE #C
$ 457.63
$ 27.46
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 530.09
35
071 - 023302800
YU, SHERRY & LISA
1608 WILLOW ST #C
$ 411.31
$ 24.68
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 480.99
36
071 - 025003600
FLEISCHMAN, JAMES & SEAN
2024 PACIFIC AVE
$ 613.41
$ 36.80
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 695.21
37
074 - 125509200
GRAHAM, JANICE
1810 CLINTON AVE #B
$ 411.31
$ 24.68
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 480.99
38
072 - 032102100
KOKA, MOTI
1702 PARU ST #C
$ 433.50
$ 26.01
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 504.51
39
074 - 103903600
SOUZA, NANCY 1 MARRAS, CHRISTO
214 CHINABERRY LN
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
40
072-036701600
STROUD, JENNIFER
1606 BAY ST #A
$ 523.94
$ 31.44
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 600.38
41
DAUGHERTY, SHANELL
470 PENSACOLA LANE
$ 288.20
$ 17.29
$ ' 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 350.49
42
073 - 042003600
CHOW, MON Y & SEN
722 HAIGHT AVE
$ 399.82
$ 23.99
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 468.81
43
071 - 020501 400
DONNELLY, MARYLYNN
1214 OAK ST
$ 457.63
$ 27.46
$ 35.00
$ 1 0.00
$ 530.09
44
073 - 041401600
LING, TONY & WU LING
741 C LINCOLN AVE
$ 543.94
$ 32.64
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 621.58
45
074 - 042901100
SAAVEDRA MAX & NOFA
633 HAIGHT AVE #1/2
$ 601.83
$ 36.1 1
$ 35.00
$ 1 0.00
$ 682.94
46
073 - 039203700
TOM, D U A N E G.
1417 CAROLINE ST #C
$ 305.22
$ 18.31
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 368.53
47
071- 023700100
RIVENBARK, HAROLD
2168 ALAMEDA AVE
$ 613.41
$ 36.80
$ 35,00
$ 10.00
$ 695.21
48
073- 040900600
CLEMENTS, JESSE
1715 WOOD ST
$ 523.94
$ 31.44
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 600.38
49
071 - 023303500
KOFFLER CHARLES & HILARI
2120 PACIFIC AVE #C
$ 473.28
$ 28.40
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 546.68
50
071- 027800100
ANGULO, JESUS & MARY
1538 SCHILLER ST
$ 361.18
$ 21.67
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 427.85
51
073 - 038200300
TR A N, TAM
940 EAGLE AVE #A
$ 702.88
$ 42.17
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 790.05
52
071- 025602300
SARASPI, MARCIANO & LISA
1918 CHESTNUT ST
$ 268.18
$ 16.09
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 329.27
53
071- 027402300
WILLIAMS, SUZANNE
1820 ENCINAL AVE #A
$ 126.31
$ 7.58
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 178.89
54
071 - 023302800
YU, SHERRY & LISA
1608 WILLOW ST #D
$ 433.50
$ 26.01
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 504.51
55
073 - 038702400
DONATELLO HUGH & YOUALANDA
1010 FACIFIC AVE
$ 365.00
$ 21.90
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 431.90
56
074-107605300
SOARES, HENRY
3336 SOLOMON LN
$ 173.22
$ 10.39
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 228.61
57
073 - 038201500
JAMES, JESSE JR & JESSIE
939 BUENA VISTA AVE #A
$ 166.97
$ 10.02
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 221.99
58
073-039101100
PRINCE, FREDERICK
1019 TAYLOR AVE
$ 743.47
$ 44.61
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 833.08
59
072 - 032900900
KOKA, ESTHER
1591 PACIFIC AVE #A
$ 457.63
$ 27.46
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 530.09
60
070 - 015100100
AVOI, MELE F.
1256 BROADWAY
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 505.54
61
074 - 044305100
LOPEZ, EMILY N.
1416 5TH ST
$ 434.47
$ 26.07
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
1 505.54
62
073 - 039106300
TODD, VANESSA
944 SANTA CLARA AVE
$ 126.31
$ 7.58
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 178.89
63
071- 024700300
QI, KEVIN
2065 ALAMEDA AVE #A
$ 457.63
$ 27.46
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 530.09
64
BRADFORD, ROY
773 SANTA CLARA AVE
$ 270.51
$ 16.23
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 331.74
65
073 - 042301301
ABBOTT, WILLIAM
735 CENTRAL AVE
$ 252.12
$ 15.13
$ 35.00
$ 10.00
$ 312.25
City Council
$30.796.02
$ 1,847.76
$ 2,275.00
$ 650.00
$35,568.78
Public Hearing
Attachment to
Agenda Item #5 -C
07-17-07
Approves! as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS BY MEANS OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 21-20.6b, the
amount of charges, penalty, and interest imposed is assessed against the property
and, if not paid when due, shall constitute an assessment against the property and
shall be a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director shall file with the City Manager a
written notice of those persons on whom the City will file liens; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of such notice, the City Manager shall present
same to the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda and pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 21- 20.6b:
1. The City's Franchise Hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI), has
submitted a fist of delinquent accounts and corresponding properties. AC1
has established that each delinquent account is at least 60 days late in
payment.
2. ACI has established that it sought collection for one year from the invoice
date and has made at least four efforts to collect on the delinquent account.
3. On April 19, 2007, ACI assigned its right to the unpaid accounts to the City
in writing.
4. City staff provided Council with a report and filed said report with the City
Clerk listing each property and the amount due in unpaid charges, plus any
penalties, interest, and other collection fees.
5. On June 5, 2007, Council authorized Public Works to set a public hearing
for delinquent integrated waste management charges for July 17, 2007.
6. On June 7, 2007, and June 27, 2007, the City Clerk mailed a first and
second letter to each property owner and tenant requesting payment and
stating that if payment was not received by 5 p.m. on July 17, 2007, the City
will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers to consider
placing a lien on the property in order to collect the delinquent amount with
the property tax bill.
7. On July 17, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing and confirmed the
staff report and directed the Clerk to forward to the County Auditor the total
sum of unpaid delinquent charges including any penalties, interest, and
other collection fees.
Resolution #5 -C
07 -17 -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 1 7tn day of July, 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 July, 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: July 17, 2007
Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and
Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda
Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and Housing) to Incorporate
Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems
BACKGROUND
The City's fire sprinkler ordinance was last updated on September 2, 1983. It requires
fire sprinklers in newly constructed buildings that are: (a) two stories or taller, (b)
buildings that are 5,000 square feet or larger, and (c) remodeled buildings when the
remodel costs exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the structure. The existing
ordinance does not require the installation of fire sprinklers for new residential single-
family or residential double- occupancy structures or new commercial construction with
fewer than 5,000 square feet.
DISCUSSION
At the September 19, 2006, City Council meeting, the Fire Department presented the
fire sprinkler ordinance to Council and provided a brief PowerPoint presentation
outlining the changes. The City Council had several questions regarding the proposal,
and staff has provided answers to those questions in Attachment 1. The Council also
requested that additional community outreach be undertaken prior to any consideration
of an amended ordinance.
A key element of the proposal to amend the fire sprinkler installation requirements was
a public education and outreach effort designed to explain the costs and benefits of
these proposed changes. The Fire Department met with developers and business
associations and conducted two community forum meetings to inform them of these
anticipated changes, respond to questions, and solicit feedback. The community
forums were noticed in the Alameda Sun and the Alameda Journal for three weeks prior
to the meetings.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -D
07 -17 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 17, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Under the current proposal, fire sprinklers would be required in all newly constructed
commercial and residential buildings. Existing commercial structures would be required
to be retrofitted if the remodel, repair, or alteration costs exceed 25% of the current
value of the building. In addition, the fire sprinkler ordinance will include the following
exceptions to the fire sprinkler installation requirements:
(1) Remodeled single - family homes.
(2) Remodeled duplex apartments.
(3) Remodeled three unit or larger apartment buildings.
(4) Detached Group U Occupancies (utility buildings) less than 300 square
feet.
(5) Temporary buildings in which the floor area (as defined in the Uniform
Building Code) is less than 1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance
from any point is less than 50 feet.
(6) Group B (business), Group F (factory), and Group S (storage)
occupancies in which the floor area is less than 300 square feet.
Changing the fire sprinkler ordinance will likely require additional expenses for property
owners and property developers. Staff conducted a survey of four local fire sprinkler
installation contractors to determine the average cost of fire sprinkler installations. In
new residential construction, the costs range from $2.35 to $2.95 per square foot. In
new commercial construction, the costs range from $1.60 to $5.50 per square foot, and
for retrofitting $1.60 to $6.00 per square foot. Cost estimates do not include costs for
underground work, which may be considerable depending on the project.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The additional construction costs associated with the installation of fire sprinkler
systems will be borne by developers and property owners. There will be no impact to
the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Municipal Code change affects Chapter 13 Building and Housing, Section 13 -2
Alameda Building Code, subsection 13 -2 -2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions
to the California Building Code. Each section has been thoroughly analyzed and found
to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This ordinance is exempt under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3), which is
the "general rule" that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
July 17, 2007
Page3of3
Introduce an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending
subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California
Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and
Housing) to incorporate specific requirements for the installation of fire extinguishing
systems.
Respectfully submitted,
(,Aames �
Reed
Interim Fire Chief
qiuthaa FL:LituA /042.Q_
By: Michael Fisher
Fire Marshal
MF:mf
Attachment:
1. Fire Sprinkler Facts
Fire Sprinkler Facts
• How do sprinklers operate?
Automatic fire sprinklers are individually heat - activated and tied into a network of piping
with water under pressure. When the heat of a fire raises the sprinkler temperature to its
operating point (usually 165 °F) a solder link will melt or a liquid -filled glass bulb will
shatter to open that single sprinkler releasing water directly over the source of the heat.
• Why are sprinklers so effective?
Sprinklers operate automatically in the area of fire origin preventing a fire from growing
undetected to a dangerous size while simultaneously sounding an alarm.
Automatic fire sprinklers keep fires small. One or two sprinklers handle the majority of
fires in sprinklered buildings.
▪ Why are sprinklers important for life safety?
Sprinklers do not rely upon human factors such as familiarity with escape routes or
emergency assistance. They go to work immediately to reduce the danger.
Sprinklers prevent the fast developing fires of intense heat, which are capable of trapping
and killing dozens of building occupants.
• What about smoke?
Smoke, a by- product of fire, is generally the cause of death to building occupants.
Although smoke is produced as sprinklers extinguish a fire, such quantities of smoke are
less than those that would be produced by an unsprinklered fire permitted to grow.
• What is the life safety record for fully sprinklered buildings?
Aside from fire fighting and explosion fatalities, there has never been a multiple loss of
life in a fully sprinklered building due to fire or smoke. Individual lives have been lost
when the victim or his clothing or immediate surroundings became the source of the fire.
A National Fire Protection Association study for the years 1971 -1975 found that
approximately 20 lives are lost each year in this country in sprinklered buildings
compared to approximately 4,000 per year in unsprinklered buildings. Some 68% of the
lives lost in sprinklered buildings were due to explosions, and an additional 18% were
due to the fact that the fire originated in an unsprinklered area of the building.
1
City Council
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5 -D
07-17-07
• How reliable are fire sprinklers?
All fire protection features have a reliability factor. Walls and shafts can be breached by
means of poke throughs and building alterations. Exit doors can be blocked or locked.
Sprinklers may be the most reliable fire protection system known. Detailed fire records
for Australia and New Zealand (where fire must be reported) for the years 1886 through
1968 showed that 99.76% of all fires were extinguished or controlled by the sprinklers.
Fire records in this country are less dependable due to lack of full reporting, especially
for small fires where the sprinklers are successful. Nevertheless, the range includes a
96.2% success record reported by the National Fire Protection Association for the years
1925 through 1969, 98.4% success record for New York city high -rise buildings between
1969 and 1978, and a 98.2% success record for U.S. Department of Energy facilities
between 1952 and 1980.
• How can you be sure a system will operate when needed?
Electrical supervision of sprinkler systems to monitor valves and water flow is a major
plus in assuring system reliability and effectiveness and is required by many building
codes for large and important system installations.
• Can sprinklers discharge accidentally?
Loss records of Factory Mutual Research indicate that the probability of a standard
response spray sprinkler discharging accidentally due to a manufacturing defect is only 1
in 16,000,000 sprinklers per year in service.
• Aren't sprinklers ugly?
Due to advances in sprinkler technology, sprinklers look better than ever, if you can see
them at all. Sprinklers can be concealed behind ceilings, out of sight until needed to
extinguish a fire. Sprinklers are also available in a range of colors and sizes to blend into
the background of any room.
• What about water damage?
Reports of water damage due to fires in sprinklered buildings are often exaggerated due
to comparisons with the small fire loss, which occurs thanks to the sprinklers.
The amount of water which is put on a fire by fire department hoses in a non - sprinklered
building fire is nearly always tens to hundreds of times more than that which sprinklers
would have discharged. During a fire only those sprinklers closest to the fire activate
limiting the total amount of water needed. The fire damage, as reflected by insurance
claims, is also many times greater.
2
There have been hundreds of multiple -death (three or more people killed) building fires
in the United States since fire sprinklers were invented. These fires, all in non- sprinklered
buildings, have killed thousands of people, not to mention the property damage.
• Is property insurance more expensive ifmy building has a fire sprinkler system?
Most insurance companies have a reduction in the fire insurance premium of the policy.
Estimates are that fire insurance premiums are reduced 10% to 15% for single - family
dwellings and up to 50% in non - residential buildings.
3
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 13- 2.2(e) (MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS AND
DELETIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE) OF
SECTION 13 -2 (ALAMEDA BUILDING CODE) OF CHAPTER XIII
(BUILDING AND HOUSING), TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIRE
EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, given that Alameda is an island that could render it isolated in the
event of a disaster, the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings is one of the City's
long term fire protection strategies to reduce the loss of life and property due to
unwanted fires; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing several scientific studies, the City has determined
that the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings often reduces the loss of life and
property when fires do occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that:
Section 1; The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California
Building Code):
13- 2.2(e). Section 904.1.1 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition,
is amended to read as follows:
Section 904.1.1 General. Fire extinguishing systems required in this Code
shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Fire
hose threads used in connection with fire - extinguishing systems shall be
National Standard hose threads or as approved by the Fire Department. In
buildings used for high-pile combustible storage, fire protection shall be in
accordance with Fire Department findings. The location of all Fire
Department hose connections and the main control valve (i.e. Post
Indicator Valve) shall be approved by the Fire Chief.
All automatic sprinkler systems, other than those installed in detached
single and two- family dwellings defined as Group R Division 3 occupancies
and Group U occupancies in this Code, shall be provided with supervision
of all control valves and flow alarm signal devices. Valve supervision and
flow alarm signals shall be transmitted to an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed Central Station.
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -D
07 -17 -07
Installation, inspection, and maintenance of the fire alarm system required
by this Section shall be in conformance with Underwriters Laboratory and
the National Fire Protection Association Standards established in the
National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA -72, 1996 Edition, including amendments
thereto, as may be made from time to time.
Section 904.1.2. Standards. Fire - extinguishing systems shall comply with
California Building Code Standards Number 901, 902 and applicable
National Fire Code Standards for type of system being installed. The
minimum hazard classification shall be designed to meet "Ordinary Hazard,
Group 2."
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Automatic sprinkler systems may be connected to the domestic
water supply main when approved by the Fire Chief, provided the domestic
water supply is of adequate pressure, capacity, and sizing for the combined
domestic and sprinkler requirements. In such cases, the sprinkler system
connection shall be made between the public water main or meter and the
building shutoff valve. There shall not be any intervening valves or
connections. The Fire Department connection may be omitted when
approved by the Fire Chief.
Section 904.2 Automatic Fire - extinguishing Systems.
Section 904.21 Where required. An automatic fire - extinguishing
system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in
this section.
Section 904.2.2 Occupancies requiring automatic sprinkler
systems; exceptions. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in all newly constructed occupancies regardless of occupancy
group type or buildings moved into or relocated within the City and shall
comply with NFPA Standard 13 and 13 -R, and the following:
Bathrooms, regardless of size, and spaces under stairs used for the
storage of combustible materials.(2) When an existing building is added to,
repaired or remodeled, if the cost of addition, repair or remodeling, is over
25% of the current value of the building. The value shall be based on the
International Code Council Building Valuation Data. Area separation walls
do not exempt this requirement for an automatic sprinkler system.
EXCEPTIONS:
Detached Group U Occupancies (utility) less than 300 square feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a temporary building as defined in the California Building Code is less than
1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance from any point is less than 50
feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a Group B (Business), Group F (Factory), and Group 8 (Storage)
Occupancy is less than 300 square feet, as determined by the Fire Chief.
Existing Group R, Division 3 and Group R, Division 1 occupancies are
excluded from the automatic sprinkler requirements of section 904.2.2 (2).
For newly constructed Group R, Division 3 occupancies, including but not
limited to one and two- family dwellings and mobile homes, an automatic
fire - extinguishing system shall be installed that complies with NFPA
Standard 13 -D and the following:
All fire extinguishing systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard
13 -D shall be tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at
200 psi for a two -hour duration or at 50 psi above static pressure in access
of 150 psi for two -hour duration.
(2) Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection
systems shall have a single indication -type control valve, arranged to
shut -off both the domestic and sprinkler systems and a separate
shut -off valve for the domestic system only. The location of the
control valve shall be approved by the Fire Chief. A separate shut-
off valve is not required for the domestic water supply in multi-
purpose piping systems.
(3)
Local water flow alarms on residential type sprinkler systems
(Standard 13 -D) shall be powered from the kitchen refrigerator
circuit.
Attached garages, bathrooms, attic spaces regardless of size, and
spaces under stairs used for the storage of combustible materials.
In the event that another section of the Alameda Building Code is more restrictive,
then that section will apply.
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council
of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision
of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to
render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
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
assembled on the 17th day of July, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
1400 K STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PH: (916) 658 -8200
FX: (916) 658 -8240
ll\ oFEAGUE
CITIES
RECEIVED
WWW.CACITIES.ORG
Please review this memo carefully. New �iage�d�eii0- -'vialire
adopted in 2006 regarding designation ditiottrgiticiMitiMf s and
alternates and voting at the AnWEN
June 8, 2007
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference — September 5 -8, Sacramento
The League's 2007 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5 -8 in Sacramento. An
important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for Saturday
morning, September 8, at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. At this meeting, the League
membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting
delegate. In the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, your
city may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. The ability to appoint up to two alternates
is the result of approval last year of a League bylaws amendment that increased the number of
voting delegate alternates from one to two.
Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no
later than August 13, so that voting delegate /alternates records may be established prior to
the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting
Delegate Desk located in the conference registration area.
Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
process at the Annual Business Meeting.
• Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate
and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the
attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that
reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming
that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that
designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and
cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
• Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be
registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting
and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote. Voting delegates and alternates
Council Communication #7 -A
07 -17 -07
are requested to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the
voting delegate card at the Voting Delegates Desk. This will enable them to receive the
special stamps on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the
Business Meeting.
• Transferring Voting Card to Non - Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting
card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only
between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find
themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card
to another city official.
• New Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals
with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to
those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting
delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they should
be sure to sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges.
The Voting Delegate desk in the conference registration area will be open September 5, 6 and 7,
and prior to the Business Meeting on September 8. The conference registration area will open at
12:00 p.m., on September 5, at the Sacramento Convention Center. The Voting Delegate desk
will also be open at the Business Meeting, but not during a roll call vote, should one be
undertaken.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share
it and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals your council designates as
your city's voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to
the League office by August 13, 2007. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough at
(916) 658-8247.
Attachments:
• 2007 Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate /Alternate Form
LFEAGUE
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
2007 Annual Conference
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city
council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are
identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick
up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. We
encourage voting delegates and alternates to sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk so that they
may receive a special stamp on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at
the Business Meeting.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates
(or alternates) and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to
the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a
resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be
transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to
another city official who is not either a voting delegate or alternate.
6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting
card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special
stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the city's
voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, all should sign in at the Voting Delegate
desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the
validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the
Business Meeting.
LEAGUE F
CITIES
CITY:
2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE /ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the League office by August 13, 2007. Forms not sent by
this deadline may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference
Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by
your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the
Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the
council.
Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business
Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates)
who are identified with a special stamp on their conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and
alternates wish to sit together at the Business Meeting, they are all encouraged to sign in at the Voting
Desk in order to obtain the identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting area.
1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:
Title:
2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to
designate the voting delegate and alternate.)
Name: Phone:
Title: Date:
Please complete and return by August 13 to:
League of California Cities
ATTN: Mary McCullough
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 658 -8240
AC2007VotingDelegateLetter.doc