2004-10-05 PacketTime:
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 5, 2004 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Tuesday, October 5, 2004, 5:30 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Former Fleet Industrial Supply
Center (FISC).
Catellus Development Corporation and
Community Improvement Commission.
Price and terms of payment.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly
Chair, Co
Commission
/
Mayor
u it Improvement
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 5, 2004 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, October 5, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: City of Alameda v. FG Managing Member, et al.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of Litigation pursuant to Subdivision (c) of
Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly J -h ;�, ayor
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk,
and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the rostrum
and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per
item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council
meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 5, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 5:30 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation honoring Amey Stone for her 17 years of dedicated
service as a Trustee of the Peralta Community College
District. [Mayor Johnson]
3 -B. Certificates of appreciation to staff for serving the City of
Alameda and its residents through their extraordinary efforts
in addressing the Harbor Island Apartments crisis. [Mayor
Johnson]
3 -C. New Main Library update.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Golf Commission
Meeting held on September 15, 2004; the Special City Council
Meeting held on September 16, 2004; and the Special and
Regular City Council Meetings held on September 21, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize call for
bids for the purchase of five (5) marked vehicles.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Opposing Proposition 68, Gaming Revenue
Act of 2004, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot. [Mayor
Johnson]
4 -D. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution appointing Arthur Kurrasch as a Member
of the City Housing Commission.
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution appointing Jeff Knoth as a Member of
the City Transportation Commission.
5 -C Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial
of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related
resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family
Residential Zoning District. The development project includes
expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation
of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the
following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum
Main Building Coverage exceeding 48%); 2) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because
the building extends across the rear property line into the
estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves)
and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the
bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property
line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side
yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard),
Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30-
4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height
extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights)
because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum
permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the
Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because
encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review
approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued
to November 3, 2004]
5 -D. Discussion of Section 30 -15, Work Live Studios, of the Alameda
Municipal Code. [Vice Mayor Daysog]
5 -E. Recommendation to authorize execution of Contract with William
Norton for Acting /Interim City Manager Services. [Mayor
Johnson]
5 -F. Recommendation to approve a Request for Proposal for City
Manager recruitment. [Mayor Johnson]
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Civil "Service Board.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Golf Commission.
7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Planning Board.
8. ADJOURNMENT
* **
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: September 23, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings and Special Joint City
Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of
October 5, 2004
Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City
Council Meetings and the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting of October 5, 2004.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation honoring Amey Stone for her 17 years of dedicated
service as a Trustee of the Peralta Community College
District. [Mayor Johnson]
At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation to Amey Stone who retired on
August 31, 2004 from the Peralta Community College District Board after 17 years
of service to the District.
3 -B. Certificates of appreciation to staff for serving the City of
Alameda and its residents through their extraordinary efforts
in addressing the Harbor Island Apartments crisis. [Mayor
Johnson]
At this time the Mayor will present certificates of appreciation to City staff for their
efforts in addressing the Harbor Island Apartments crisis by their coordination and
support of the HIA testimony taking event.
3 -C. New Main Library update.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 23, 2004
At this time the Library Project Manager will update the Council on the status of the
new Main Library.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Golf Commission
Meeting held on September 15, 2004; the Special City Council
Meeting held on September 16, 2004; and the Special and
Regular City Council Meetings held on September 21, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City
Council and Golf Commission Meeting held on September 15, 2004; the Special
City Council Meeting held on September 16, 2004; and the Special and Regular City
Council meetings held on September 21, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize call for
bids for the purchase of five (5) marked vehicles.
It is recommended that Council adopt specifications and authorize calling for bids
for five marked police vehicles. In consultation with the Public Works Department's
Senior Fleet Mechanic, the Police Department has determined a need for these
vehicles. Funds for their replacement are included in the FY 2004 -05 budget.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Opposing Proposition 68, Gaming Revenue
Act of 2004, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot. [Mayor
Johnson]
It is recommended that Council oppose Proposition 68, Gaming Revenue Act of
2004, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide ballot.
4 -D. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution appointing Arthur Kurrasch to the
Housing Commission.
Adoption of this resolution appoints Arthur Kurrasch as a member of the Housing
Commission.
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution appointing Jeff Knoth to the
Transportation Commission.
Adoption of this resolution appoints Jeff Knoth as a member of the Transportation
Commission.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers September 23, 2004
denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial
of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related
resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single - Family
Residential Zoning District. The development project includes
expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation
of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the
following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum
Main Building Coverage exceeding 48 %); 2) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because
the building extends across the rear property line into the
estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves)
and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the
bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property
line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side
yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard),
Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30-
4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height
extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights)
because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum
permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the
Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because
encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review
approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [To be continued
to November 3, 2004]
It is recommended that Council continue the public hearing to the November 3,
2004 City Council meeting.
5 -D. Discussion of section 30 -15, Work Live Studios, of the Alameda
Municipal Code. [Vice Mayor Daysog]
It is recommended that Council review the information given in the report and its
attachments and provide direction to the City Manager to either retain the existing
ordinance as adopted or provide direction to modify or rescind the existing
ordinance. If Council desires to modify or rescind the existing ordinance, the City
Manager will prepare a draft ordinance for Council consideration at a future public
hearing.
5 -E. Recommendation to authorize execution of Contract with William
Norton for Acting /Interim City Manager Services. [Mayor
Johnson]
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Johnson.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers September 23, 2004
5 -F. Recommendation to approve a Request for Proposal for City
Manager recruitment. [Mayor Johnson]
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Johnson.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's
Civil Service Board.
At this time the Mayor will make a
Service Board.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's
Golf Commission.
At this time the Mayor will make a
Commission.
7 -C. Consideration of Mayor's
Planning Board.
At this time the Mayor will make
Planning Board.
nomination
nomination to fill
nomination
nomination to fill
nomination
a nomination to
for appointment to the
the current vacancy on the Civil
for appointment to the
the current vacancy on the Golf
for appointment to the
fill the current vacancy on the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Proclamation
Whereas, Ms. Amey Stone retired from the Peralta Community College District Board on
August 31, 2004 after 17 years of dedicated service to the District;
Whereas, Ms. Stone also served on the California Community College Trustees Education
Committee, the California Community College Trustees Legislative Committee,
was a member of Alameda County School to Career Taskforce, and was active
in the areas of staff development and trustee education;
Whereas, Ms. Stone is a resident of Alameda and has served the City of Alameda as a
Planning Commissioner, City Councilmember and Vice Mayor;
Whereas, Ms. Stone has always been involved in her community, wherever that
community happened to be. She has lived on three continents: Asia, Europe
and the Middle East, in addition to many parts of the United States. The
Presidents of France and Turkey recognized her for her contributions made to
their countries, especially as a City Planner in Ankara, Turkey;
Whereas, Ms. Stone is to be recognized for her national service to the United States of
America, appointed by President George Bush to the Defense Advisory
Commission for Women and the Services;
Whereas, Ms. Stone's leadership activities include: Peralta Colleges Foundation Board,
Liaison to Alameda Task Force & Alameda Base Reuse Authority, Liaison for
East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, Alameda League of
Women Voters, Member of Business and Professional Women of Northern
California - Outstanding Achievement, and named Alameda Woman of the Year;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby declare
Tuesday, August 31, 2004, as
AMEY STONE DAY
in the City of Alameda and join with the citizens of Alameda in congratulating Ms. Stone for
all her efforts and accomplishments throughout her - : d wishing her every success in
her future endeavors.
Bever y
Mayor
Proclamation #3 -A
10 -5 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: September 21, 2004
Re: New Main Library Project Update
Attached to this memorandum is the October 1, 2004, Library Construction Report.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
By:
Susan Hardie
Library Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report #3 -C
10 -5 -04
Construction Re
•-
October 1, 2004
Status as of
October 1, Library Project Timeline
2004 y
— Option 1 — Negotiate with Contractor
2004 2005 2006
r
/ /
Demolition
(completed) /
Bid & Awar
JI /
Plan Review
1
/
Construction
Entitlements
(Completed, but subject to -
nhanpP SPP attarhPrl ragnrt (
urnishings & Equip ent
/
Library Move
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bid Process
0
3
d
G
a) 0a) -d
a)
0 a) 0
3
o cA
> • o
y '4=1
cc/
o
E oo • 3 '�
a) C +J bA
6.
,0 a . ) 0 0 0 -d
a) an cn
= a)
0 _ = >
o o c
E � S 5 .
Q �>, 0 w • 0 'a' to
'b �" o pq
a
b
00 U o 0 '
� t' i0 a �t ?Ifl1H a) oo � 3 .., a)
a,
3
0 0 t 3
cn C,3
U _0 U a) 'd
= U . 0
b`�"�b�3
U a) 0 I.. .o Z
0
0 v ) 0b ilU
0 pp X a) ►-a
OD ,4 }
a0) 0 U me
a, S4V c,NM-i -
et
7d x
at 0 � 0 - - -
> c •o ego, 0 0 0 0
-a cd i•r s.r 0 U U U
Er"-, `1) 0000
o 0 S
w- .<000
• • • • • •
Entitlements
a)
,.0
00
0
0
o00
U
00
OD
0
0
0
to
•0b
cu
x
(Li 51
E a)
ID
o
0
CA O
Na
x
U
t:1
E
a) -o
E-- U
•
ment Procurement
Planning process for FF &E begins September 2005.
•
Library Move
Planning process for move begins May, 2005.
•
The budget report is attached.
•
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
City of Alameda Library Construction Projects
Inception to date through the month of August 2004
Original Budget
Revenue/Expenditures
to date Balance Available
Sources of Funds
State Grant $15,487,952.00 $2,079,520.00 $13,408,432.00
Measure 0 10,600,000.00 1,644,722.00 8,955,278.00
Contributions 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00
Sources Subtotal $26,097,952.00 $3,729,242.00 22,368,710.00
Uses of Funds 23,827,619.00 3,268,317.00 20,559,302.00
Balance Available $2,270,333.00 $460,925.00 $1,809,408.00
Construction Report October 1 04 Budget Monthly FS Aug 04 9/30/2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND GOLF COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 15, 2004- -5:45 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
AGENDA ITEM
Present: Councilmembers Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson and Commissioners Corica, Gammel,
Santare and Swanson - 7.
Absent: Councilmembers Daysog and Gilmore and
Commissioner Wood - 3.
(04- ) A Work Session was held to discuss: Golf Course Overview;
the Golf Course Seven (7) Year Financial History; and the Golf
Course Clubhouse Project and presentation by Dahlin Group.
PRESENTATION
(04- ) Presentation of Certificate of Service to Tony Corica.
Mayor Johnson presented a certificate of service to Tony Corica.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special
Joint Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Golf Commission
September 15, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - SEPTEMBER 16, 2004- -7:05 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson -5.
Note: Councilmember Kerr was present via teleconference from the
Hyatt Regency Hotel, 200 South Pine Street, Long Beach, CA and
Councilmember Gilmore was present via teleconference from 1631 Park
Street, Alameda, CA.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: City of Alameda v. FG Managing Member, Inc., Fifteen Asset
Management, Inc., Thurman Bridgeport, and Pinnacle Properties, Inc.
(Harbor Island Apartments).
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the status
of the case and gave instruction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 16, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Note: Councilmember Matarrese was present via teleconference from
Windsor Park Hotel, 2116 Kalorama Road NW, Washington DC.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Manager.
(04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations:
Alameda City Employee Association, Management and Confidential
Employees Association, and Police Association Non - Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and the Mayor announced that Council discussed public employment of
the City Manager; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators,
Council adjourned the meeting until after the open session of the
City Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 9:40 p.m.
* **
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and the Mayor announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Gilmore and
Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04- ) Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing
their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
Mayor Johnson recognized the hard work of the committee members and
presented certificates to Barbara Price, Del Blaylock, Karl and
Jean Brietkopf, Jim Franz [not present], Diana and Art Helwig,
Steve Helwig [not present], Diana Lichtenstein [not present],
Billie Trujillio, Dom Dicolen, Lisa Rossie, Kendra Williams, Jim
and Jean Sweeney, and Kendra Holloway.
Barbara Price noted the dedication and hard work of the committee
members, and presented the Mayor with a 2004 Fourth of July poster
signed by the committee members.
(04- )Proclamation declaring September 20 -26 as Pollution
Prevention Week in Alameda.
(04-
Month.
)Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ed Cooney.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 -A
[paragraph no. (04- )] and the Resolution Supporting Proposition
65 [paragraph no. (04- )] were removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
1
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04- )Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 7, 2004. Approved.
( *04- )Recommendation to accept the work of Bluewater Services,
Inc. for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
Accepted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13764, "Approving Parcel Map No. 8320
(1601, 1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop
Road)." Adopted.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13765, "Supporting Proposition 1 -A,
Protection of Local Government Revenues, on the November 2, 2004
State -wide Ballot." Adopted.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda, urged support of Proposition 1 -A.
Councilmember Kerr stated the State has been confiscating local
property taxes for many years; approximately $4 million per year is
taken from the City's budget and given to the State; noted the
State has ceased paying for mandated services; the State plans to
confiscate 50% of the sales tax while promising backfill from an
increase in the amount of property tax the City would be allowed to
keep; Proposition 1 -A has aspects that are better than Proposition
65; voters can vote yes on both propositions; Proposition 1 -A would
prevail if it passes; stated it would be a crime if Proposition 1 -A
did not pass and no one voted for Proposition 65; urged voting for
both propositions; stated that Proposition 1 -A puts more teeth into
the requirement for the State to backfill with property taxes to
compensate for taking additional sales tax; noted support of
propositions does not raise taxes and allows the City to keep local
revenues.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog noted that the State has taken
approximately $36.9 million from the City since 1991; stated voters
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
2
need to support Proposition 1 -A and Proposition 65.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.]
(04- ) Resolution No. 13766, "Supporting Proposition 65, the
Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), on the
November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot." Adopted.
Councilmember Kerr stated the only argument against Proposition 65
was written by the League of California Cities due to the League's
promise to support Proposition 1 -A instead of Proposition 65;
Proposition 65 will not harm Proposition 1 -A; stated propositions
protect local revenues.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.]
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13767, "Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Positions of Housing Assistance
Manager and Financial Services Supervisor." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13768, "Amending the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by
Establishing a Salary Range for the Position of Street Light
Maintenance Technician." Adopted.
( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,486,755.61.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- )Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Transportation
Technical Team's (TTT) decision to approve the installation of a
red curb for the eastbound bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue and
Morton Street.
The Public Works Director provided a brief history on TTT's
decision.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether spending $5,000 would provide
better safety at the bus stop, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired about pedestrian safety at the southwest
corner of the Morton Street and Santa Clara Avenue bus stop.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
3
The Public Works Director responded that if the bus stop was at the
southwest corner [the near side], pedestrians could be blocked by a
bus when a vehicle is traveling eastbound; by moving the bus stop
to the far side, the vehicle would cross behind the bus.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated there are bus stops at southwest corners
throughout the City.
The Public Works Director stated there is a mixture of far and near
side bus stops throughout the City; the TTT keeps bus stops on the
near side when there is no cost effectiveness tradeoff.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether all things are equal when
the $5,000 is taken out of the equation.
The Public Works Director responded that moving the bus stop to the
far side is safer for pedestrians.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (in favor of appeal): Eleanor Wiley, Alameda; Paul
Warner, Alameda; and Cathy Rodriguez, Alameda.
Neutral: Susan Decker, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there are any bus stop platforms
in the City, to which the Public Works Director responded there are
none currently, but there would be platforms on Webster Street.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the previous bus stop location
length was 65 feet.
The Public Works Director responded the length is 65 feet when the
25 -foot driveway is included; the length from the curb to the first
driveway is approximately 50 to 60 feet.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether two driveways at the current
location make up the required 65 feet, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff reviewed the
complications that occur when bus stops are directly across the
street from each other.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
4
The Public Works Director responded the street is wide; there is
12 feet in each direction for each vehicle to adequately pass the
buses.
Councilmember Kerr stated the sidewalk that runs along Morton
Street is 8' 8" from the corner; the first 20 feet of the red zone
is already paved; the new buses are 24 feet from the front to the
rear of the middle door; the new bus stop location could be ADA
accessible at the old stop without removing the tree; provided
pictures to the Council; stated that she has no objections to
moving the eastbound stop back to the original location as long as
street tree is not removed; she suspects the $5,000 estimate
included removal of the tree.
The Public Works Director stated that the $5,000 cost did not
include tree removal; that extensive pruning would be required.
Councilmember Kerr stated a bus could pass under the tree without
any extensive damage to the tree.
The Public Works Director stated the bus angled to avoid the tree
in the past; tree removal is not proposed, only pruning.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the Public Works
Department having 95% of the ADA accessible bus stops in place; AC
Transit's standards are the far side of the intersection;
consideration should be given to not placing bus stops in front of
homes; she does not have a problem with moving the bus stop back to
the original location and implementing improvements to accommodate
the low floor bus.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he also appreciates the work of the
Public Works Director and public transit advocates in providing
accessible and safe bus stops; many bus stops going in the eastward
direction are currently at the southeast intersection; the City
needs to ensure that bus stop locations are at the safest part of
the street; that he supports moving the bus stop to the southeast
corner of Morton Street and Santa Clara Avenue; the City has an
opportunity to have platforms accommodating low floor buses;
suggested the cost should be split between the resident and the
City with a $2500 cap.
Councilmember Kerr stated shrub removal and pavement at the old bus
stop location would provide a concrete area for both the front and
middle doors; requested street tree pruning be limited to the legal
requirement for trees over streets.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
5
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the appeal rescinding the
Transportation Technical Team's decision of October 13, 2003 and
June 9, 2004 [to install a red curb for the eastbound bus stop at
Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street], relocating the bus stop to
the original location, moderately pruning the tree at the original
site, accepting up to $3,000 of neighborhood contributions, and
including the City pay any additional costs for platforms.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson requested the motion include having
Public Works to consider not locating bus stops in front of houses
in the future.
Councilmember Kerr stated there are times when side yards are not
as wide as front yards; a side yard bedroom may be closer to a bus
stop; suggested the matter be addressed at another time.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be discussed further at a
later date but is an important issue to consider; there is
continued communication regarding a bus stop at Grand Avenue and
Buena Vista Avenue.
Councilmember Kerr stated she would like to further review the
Grand Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue bus stop; the appeal matter
should be resolved at this time.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated he appreciates the gesture by the
residents to fund the project; the residents have paid for sewer
improvements in the past; sharing the cost would set a consistent
policy for the future.
Councilmember Kerr stated sewer costs are a separate issue.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.]
Councilmember Kerr requested that staff investigate the large hump
at the Bridgeside Shopping Center bus stop sidewalk.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(04- )Rob Schmidt, Alameda, stated Bay Farm Island is treated as
a sister city of Alameda; he has AP &T cable and internet
installation concerns; Main Island installation was done a year
ago; AP &T offers comparable services at a significant discount; the
City should finish the cable and internet infrastructure; stated
Council needs to pay attention to Bay Farm Island.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
6
Mayor Johnson stated AP &T established a phased cable installation
schedule; Council voted to spend additional money to proceed with
project at Harbor Bay.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a background report on the $7 million
construction progress.
(04- )Michael Leahy, Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA),
stated ACEA members are employees the City selected to provide the
majority of direct services to the citizens and City departments 24
hours per day, 365 days per year; members receive wages, a standard
holiday and vacation plan, and until this year, the Kaiser minimum
for their families; ACEA members are the lowest paid of all Bay
Area communities.
(04- )Terry Flippo, ACEA, stated that he appreciates the
Council's efforts and service to Alameda citizens; requested
Council to work with ACEA on contract settlement; stated open
enrollment medical benefit decisions are difficult without a
contract.
(04- )Marion Miller, ACEA President, stated ACEA has been without
a contract for over a year; members have not had a raise for almost
two years; employees have been patient and continue to serve the
citizens.
Councilmember Kerr stated that ACEA was the only employee
bargaining unit to gather signatures for Proposition 65.
(04- )Alan Elnick, ACEA, stated there is unfinished ACEA
business; ACEA members have been patient and continue to work with
City representatives; ACEA offers made to the City have been
unsuccessful; authorization was given to call a strike six months
ago; patience has worn thin.
(04- )Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated having a two -level theatre
parking garage would be unfortunate; suggested the Council consider
a four -floor parking garage; inquired into the status of the bus
shelters.
The Public Works Director noted six shelters are proposed in a
pilot program; a funding agreement has gone to Alamedans
Responsible for Transit Shelters (ARTS) along with a letter
identifying donation procedures; bus shelters should be ordered by
the end of the month; bus shelters are on schedule to be in place
by the end of the year; ARTS has a contractor who has agreed to
install the shelters.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
7
Mayor Johnson thanked ARTS for their efforts in raising money to
install the shelters.
(04- )Robert Todd, Alameda, stated that he feels the School Board
Trustees have violated the trust of the teachers and the public
regarding Superintendent Dr. Nashino's raise; trust was violated by
not making the issue known until after the ballot was set; further
stated ROMA and Cybertrans' presentation of for the former Base
plans lack total utilization of Base and the surrounding community;
that he has concerns with the community moving back to the dark
ages; Council needs to take an interest in the School and Hospital
Boards.
Mayor Johnson stated the School Board is an elected Board; there
are five people running for three Board seats.
Councilmember Kerr stated the voters decided that the City Council
should not be running the schools in the 1960's.
(04- )Lorraine Lilly, Harbor Island Tenant Association, thanked
Councilmember Kerr for meeting with the Harbor Island Tenant
Association elected members; stated 15 Management Group has become
increasingly hostile to the tenants and have not responded to
tenant concerns; thanked Council, City Manager and City Attorney
offices for continued support.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- )Consideration of Mayor's nominations to the Housing
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Arthur Kurrasch to the Housing Commission.
[Remaining appointment continued.]
City Clerk notify nominee and prepare certificate of Appointment.
City Attorney to prepare Resolution of Appointment.
(04- )Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Jeff Knoth to the Transportation
Commission.
City Clerk notify nominee and prepare certificate of appointment.
City Attorney to prepare Resolution of Appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
8
(04- )Vice Mayor Daysog requested Council deliberation on John
Frankel's request for compensation due to City staff misguidaning
work performed on his house; stated staff does not agree with Mr.
Frankel's allegations; Council needs to review Mr. Frankel's case
and discuss development of a policy.
(04- )Vice Mayor Daysog requested the work /live issue be issued
at the next Council meeting.
(04- )Vice Mayor Daysog requested a detailed memo on: 1) how the
City's benefit system works, 2) the growth of the benefits over the
years, and 3) how the Ca1PERS fresh start process works; stated
that he wants to ensure that Alameda does not fall into San Diego's
financial situation.
The City Manager requested copies of the referenced San Diego
articles.
(04- )Councilmember Kerr stated that undergrounding utilities are
not free; there is an homeowner's undergrounding assessment
applied.
(04- )Councilmember Kerr urged the community to vote for
Proposition 1 -A and Proposition 65.
(04- )Mayor Johnson requested Council policies be organized in
order to be researched.
(04- )Mayor Johnson stated that Ron Cowan Parkway has been open
for a couple of months; requested staff to review ways to encourage
motorists to use the 98th Avenue exit from the 880 Freeway and use
the street.
The City Manager stated that signage could be provided within the
City limits; additional signage along the freeway could be
requested from Caltrans.
Mayor Johnson stated that alternative route awareness could
alleviate High Street congestion; slower traffic signal timing
during commute hours could also help.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 21, 2004
9
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:35 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
September 21, 2004
10
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 29, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize calling for
bids for five (5) marked police vehicles
BACKGROUND
The City's purchasing policy requires that specifications for materials estimated
to cost over $25,000 must first be approved by City Council. The purchasing
policy also requires that the purchase be let out by formal competitive bid.
In consultation with the Public Works Department's Senior Fleet Mechanic, the
Alameda Police Department has determined a need exists for five replacement
patrol vehicles (specifications attached).
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Alameda Journal is the official newspaper of the City for legal advertising for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. With council authorization, the City Clerk
will publish a notice in the Alameda Journal stating Council will receive bids up to
the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Friday, October 22, 2004, for the purchase of five (5)
Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the replacement of police vehicles are included in the Fiscal Year
2004 -05 budget.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -B CC
10 -5 -04
Honorable Mayor and September 29, 2004
Councilmembers Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt specifications and
authorize calling for bids for five (5) marked police vehicles.
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
(Wat64,7--)
By: Burnham E. Matthews
Chief of Police c -Z
JMF /BEM:fI
Attachment —1 (Specifications)
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Notice to Proposers
SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE
The City of Alameda is seeking proposers for the purchase of five (5) police vehicles.
All vehicles must meet the following specifications:
2005 Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptor Package
Axle Ratios
3.27/3.55
Battery
78 Amp (750 CCA)
Brake Type
Power 4 -Wheel Disc Anti -Lock Braking System
Curb Weight
4057 lbs.
Engine
4.6L SOHC V8
Passenger Volume Index (cu. ft.)
114.2 ft.
Front Head Room
39.3"
Front Hip Room
57.1"
Front Leg Room (max.)
42.5"
Front Shoulder Room
60.8"
Fuel Capacity (U.S. gals.)
19.0 gallons
Height
56.8"
Length
212.0"
Horsepower @ rpm
250 @4000
Luggage Capacity (cu. ft.)
20.6 ft.
Rear Head Room
37.9"
Rear Hip Room
58.7"
Rear Leg Room (min.):
39.6"
Rear Shoulder Room
60.3"
Tire Size
P225/60VRx16 All- Season BSW
Torque (Ib.ft @ rpm
287 @ 4100
Transmission
4 -Speed Automatic
Tread (Front)
63.4"
Tread (Rear)
65.3"
Width
78.2"
Wheelbase
114.7"
Proposals must be presented to the City Clerk, in the City Hall, Alameda, California
under sealed cover and plainly marked on the outside, "Proposal for Purchase of Police
Vehicles. Sealed bids will be received up to the hour of 2:00 p.m. on Friday, October 22,
2004.
Contract for such purchase, if awarded, will be awarded subject to the provisions of the
Charter of said City, to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best bid. The
right is reserved to reject any or all bids.
Notice To Bidders
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Alameda will receive sealed bids up to the
hour of 2:00 p.m. on Friday, October2?2004, for the purchase of five 2005 Ford Crown
Victoria's, Police Interceptor package, CHP black and white paint scheme, rear door
locks inoperable, eight way power drivers seat, keyed alike, traction — lok rear axle,
drivers side spot lamp, am/fm stereo radio, drivers /passenger side air bags.. Bidders must
be able to deliver to the purchaser within twenty days of order. If any questions, please
contact Lieutenant Arturo Fuentes at (510) 337 -8410.
Bids must be presented to the City Clerk under sealed cover and plainly marked on the
outside, Purchase of 2005 Ford Crown Victoria, Police Package.
Contract, if awarded, will be to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best
proposal. The right is reserved to reject any or all bids.
Bids will be opened at Room 380, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda,
California, 94501.
LARA WEISIGER
City Clerk
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
DATE: September 28, 2004
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Opposing Proposition 68, Gaming Revenue Act of 2004,
on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Background
This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Johnson.
Discussion
Proposition 68, the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 (Prop 68), is an initiative sponsored by
various card room and horseracing track owners in California. It authorizes the Governor to
negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of slot machine
revenues to government funds, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court
jurisdiction. If compacted tribes do not unanimously accept required amendments within 90
days, Prop 68 authorizes sixteen specified non -tribal racetracks and gambling establishments
to operate 30,000 slot machines, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public,
regulatory, social programs. Prop 68 also provides exemption from specified state and local
tax increases.
The Alameda Municipal Code prohibits gambling in the City of Alameda. If enacted, Prop 68
would not overturn this prohibition. Prop 68 applies to sixteen specified non -tribal racetracks
and gambling establishments. None of these specified establishments are located in the City
of Alameda.
The League of California Cities opposes Prop. 68 because it exempts new casino
developments from local zoning laws and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
thereby undermining local control and exempts these card clubs and racetracks from future
state and local tax increases.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resolution #4 -C CC
10 -5 -04
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 28, 2004
Page Two
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
The passage of Proposition 68 will not directly affect City of Alameda finances.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution opposing Proposition 68, Gaming
Revenue Act of 2004, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Respectfully submitted,
Attachment
James M. Flint
City Manager
By:
o o QQ
Christa Johnson
Assistant to the City Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
PROPOSITION
6
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS.
REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General
Non - Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion.
Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
• Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of
slot machine /gaming device revenues to government fund, comply with multiple state laws, and accept
state court jurisdiction.
• If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined
unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non -tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate
30,000 slot machines /gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety,
regulatory, social programs.
• Provides exemption from specified state /local tax increases.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government
Fiscal Impact:
• Increased gambling revenues — potentially over $1 billion annually. The revenues would be provided
primarily to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and
firefighting services.
• Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of
millions of dollars annually.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
The California Constitution and state statutes specify
the types of legal gambling that can occur in California.
For instance, current law allows wagering on horse
races and certain games in licensed card rooms. In addi-
tion, Indian tribes with tribal -state gambling compacts
can operate slot machines and certain other casino -style
gambling in California.
Card Rooms and Horse Racing
Card Rooms. The state allows card rooms to conduct
card games where the card room operator has no stake
in the outcome of the game. The players play against
each other and pay the card room a fee for the use of
the facilities. Typical card games include draw poker,
7-card stud, and poker pai gow. Certain games —such
as twenty- one —are prohibited. There are 96 licensed
card rooms in the state. Local governments approve
card rooms, as well as establish the hours of operation,
the number of tables, and wagering limits. Current state
54 I Title and Summary /Analysis
law limits the expansion of both the number of card
rooms and the size of existing card rooms until January
2010.
Horse Racing. The state issues licenses to racing
associations that then lease tracks for racing events. In
California, there are 6 privately owned racetracks,
9 racing fairs, and 20 simulcast -only facilities. (These
latter facilities do not have live racing; instead, they
allow betting on televised races occurring elsewhere in
the world.)
Gambling on Indian Land
Federal law and the State Constitution govern gam-
bling operations on Indian land. Tribes that enter into
a tribal -state gambling compact may operate slot
machines and engage in card games where the operator
has a stake in the outcome, such as twenty -one.
Currently, 64 tribes have compacts and operate 53 casi-
nos with a total of more than 54,000 slot machines. Any
new or amended compact must be approved by the
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
Legislature, the Governor, and the federal government.
As sovereign nations, tribes are largely exempt from
state and local taxes and laws, including California envi-
ronmental laws.
1999 Compacts. Most tribes signed their current com-
pacts in 1999. Under these compacts, a tribe may oper-
ate up to two facilities and up to a total of 2,000 slot
machines. In exchange, tribes make some payments to
the state which can only be used for specified purposes
(such as for making payments to tribes that either
do not operate slot machines or operate fewer than
350 machines). These payments total over $100 million
annually. Under these compacts, tribes are required to
prepare an environmental study analyzing the impact
on the surrounding area of any new or expanded gam-
bling facility. These compacts will expire in 2020.
2004 Compacts. In the summer of 2004, five tribes
signed amendments to their compacts, and these
revised agreements were approved by the state. Under
these new agreements, these tribes may operate as
many slot machines as they desire. In exchange, tribes
make a specified payment annually to the state, with
additional payments for each slot machine added to
their facilities. As additional tribes sign similar com-
pacts, payments to the state are expected to total in the
hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Unlike the
payments required by the 1999 compacts, the state can
use these payments for any purpose. The newer com-
pacts also require the tribes to (1) prepare more
detailed environmental studies; (2) negotiate with local
governments regarding payments addressing the
impacts of new gambling facilities on the local commu-
nities; and (3) follow other provisions related to patron
disputes, building codes, and labor relations. These
new agreements expire in 2030, ten years later than the
1999 compacts.
PROPOSAL
This measure, which amends the State Constitution
and state statutes, sets up two possible scenarios regard-
ing new state gambling revenues.
• The first scenario would occur only if all Indian
tribes with compacts agree to specified revisions to
their existing compacts.
• The second scenario would be triggered if the
tribes do not agree to the revisions. In this case,
5 existing racetracks and 11 existing card rooms
would be allowed to operate slot machines.
PROP
68
These two scenarios are discussed below.
Revision of Current Tribal -State Compacts
Under the first scenario, all compact tribes would be
required to agree with the Governor to terms required by
this measure within 90 days of its passage. Specifically, the
measure requires that all tribes with compacts agree to (1)
pay 25 percent of their "net win" to the Gaming Revenue
Trust Fund (GRTF, a state fund established by the meas-
ure) and (2) comply with certain state laws, including those
governing environmental protection, gambling regulation,
and political campaign contributions. Net win is defined as
the wagering revenue from all slot machines operated by
a tribe after prizes are paid out, but prior to the payment of
operational expenses. Under federal law, the federal gov-
ernment would have to approve the revised agreements.
Expansion of Gambling if Compacts Are Not Revised
As noted above, if the current compacts are not
revised under the first scenario, the measure would
allow slot machines on non -Indian lands. Specifically,
under the second scenario, the measure allows speci-
fied racetracks and card rooms located in Alameda,
Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San
Mateo Counties to operate up to 30,000 slot machines
(see Figure 1). The measure would allow the sale or
sharing of slot machine licenses in certain circum-
stances. The measure also makes permanent the limit
on the expansion of both the number of card rooms
and the size of existing card rooms (due to expire in
January 2010 under current law).
Net Win Payments. Racetracks and card rooms would
pay 30 percent of the net win from their slot machines
to the GRTF. They would also pay 2 percent of their net
win to the city and 1 percent to the county in which the
gambling facility is located. The measure specifies that
the payments to the GRTF be in place of any state or
local gambling- related taxes or fees enacted after
September 1, 2003.
The five racetracks also would be required to pay annual-
ly an additional 20 percent of the net win on their slot
machines. These funds would be administered by the
California Horse Racing Board and used to benefit the
horse racing industry, including the increase of race purses.
Distribution of Gambling Revenues
Payments based on net win would be made to the
GRTF under either scenario — whether tribes revised
their compacts or racetracks and card rooms operated
slot machines. In either case, slot machine operators
For text of Proposition 68 see page 130. Analysis 55
PROP
68
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
FIGURE 1
Sites for Slot Machines at Racetracks and Card Roomsa
California Grand Casino
Pacheco
Lucky Chances Casino
Colma
Artichoke Joe's Casino
San Bruno
Bay Meadows Racetrack
San Mateo
San Mateo
County
Bicycle Club Casino
Bel! Gardens
Crystal Park Casino
Compton
Racetrack
• Card Room
Hawaiian Gardens Casino
Hawaiian Gardens
Los Alamitos Racetrack
Los Alamitos
Hustler Casino
Gardena
a Under measure's second scenario (see text).
56 I Analysis
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
would be required to pay for annual audits of their
reported net win and payments made to the GRTF. The
measure establishes a five - member board appointed by
the Governor to administer the GRTF. Figure 2
describes how funds in the GRTF would be distributed.
The bulk of the funds would be distributed to local
governments throughout the state for additional child
protective, police, and firefighting services.
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM
THE GAMING REVENUE TRUST FUND
.1' First, payments would be made for three specific purposes:
• Up to 1 percent of the funds for administrative costs of the
initiative.
• $3 million annually for "responsible gambling" programs.
• Supplemental payments to tribes that do not operate slot
machines or operate fewer than 350 machines.
iSecond, remaining funds would be distributed to local
governments throughout the state as follows:
• 50 percent would be allocated to counties to provide services
for abused and foster care children. The amount allocated to a
county would be based on the number of child abuse referrals.
• 35 percent to local governments (based on population) for
additional sheriffs and police officers.
• 15 percent to local governments (based on population) for
additional firefighters.
The measure also specifies that these funds could not replace
funds already being used for the same purpose.
Related Provisions in Proposition 70
Proposition 70 on this ballot also contains provisions
affecting the number of slot machines authorized in the
state. That measure would allow tribes entering a new
or amended compact to expand the types of games
authorized at casinos. It would also eliminate the exist-
ing limits on the number of slot machines and facilities
a tribe can operate. In exchange for the exclusive right
to these types of gambling, tribes would pay the state a
percentage of their net income from gambling activi-
ties. The State Constitution provides that if the provi-
sions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only
the provisions of the measure with the higher number
of yes votes at the statewide election take effect.
FISCAL E&MMcT
The fiscal effect of the measure on state and local
governments would depend on whether current com-
pacts are revised or if racetracks and card rooms oper-
ate slot machines. The fiscal effect under each scenario
is discussed below.
Revision of the Current Tribal -State Compacts
Net Win Payments. While tribes do not publicly report
information on their slot machine revenues, it is
PROP
68
estimated that the machines are generating net win
of over $5 billion annually in California. If the tribes
agree to this measure's provisions, tribes would pay
25 percent of their slot machines' net win to the
GRTF — potentially over $1 billion annually. These pay-
ments would be provided primarily to local govern-
ments to increase funding for child protective, police,
and firefighting services.
Existing Payments to the State. As described above,
tribes under the 1999 and 2004 compacts pay hundreds
of millions of dollars annually to the state for both spe-
cific and general purposes. This measure does not
specifically address whether these payments would con-
tinue or cease under the compact revision process. As a
result, it appears that the continuation of the payments
would be subject to negotiation between the tribes and
the Governor. If the revised compacts do not include a
continuation of these payments, the state would experi-
ence a reduction in payments — potentially totaling
hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Expansion of Gambling at Card Rooms and Racetracks
Net Win Payments. If the tribes do not agree to revise
their compacts within the time required, specific card
rooms and horse racing tracks would be authorized to
operate up to 30,000 slot machines. These entities
would pay 30 percent of the net win to the GRTF. The
amount of these payments would depend on the num-
ber of slot machines in operation and their net win.
These revenues could potentially be over $1 billion
annually. These revenues would be provided primarily
to local governments to increase funding for child pro-
tective, police, and firefighting services.
Additional Payments to Local Governments. Also under
this scenario, the cities in which these establishments
are located would collectively receive payments in the
high tens of millions of dollars (2 percent of the net
win). Counties in which these establishments are locat-
ed would collectively receive payments of half of this
amount (1 percent of the net win). The use of these
funds is not restricted.
Increased Taxable Economic Activity. If the tribes do not
agree to the requirements of this measure, the expan-
sion of gambling at card rooms and racetracks could
result in an overall increase in the amount of taxable
economic activity in California. This would occur if,
over time, there was a large diversion of gambling activ-
ity and associated spending from other states to
California. This would also be the case to the extent
that the gambling authorized by this measure replaced
existing tribal gambling activities (since much tribal
activity is exempt from state taxation). This additional
gambling- related activity would lead to an unknown
increase in state and local tax revenues.
For text of Proposition 68 see. page 130. Analysis l 57
PROP
68
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 68
Can we share some straight talk?
Indian casinos are earning between $5 Billion and
$8 Billion per year through a monopoly granted to them
by the state of California. Under this monopoly, only
Indian casinos can operate slot machines in California.
But while the rest of us pay taxes on what we earn, the
tribes pay almost nothing on their Billions of earnings —
even though they use the same roads, schools, police, and
fire and emergency medical services that we all pay for.
Last year, one Indian Casino alone had a slot machine
profit of over $300 million and paid no taxes.
It's time Indian Casinos paid their Fair Share.
In Connecticut and New York, Indian casinos pay the
state up to a 25% Fair Share of their winnings in exchange
for keeping their monopolies.
Proposition 68 says to the Indian Tribes: You can keep
your monopoly on slot machines, but only if you pay a 25 % Fair
Share like the Indian Casinos in Connecticut and New York.
The 25% Fair Share would go to pay for local police and
fire services and local programs for abused, neglected, and
foster children. The Tribes would also be required to
comply with the same political campaign contribution and
environmental protection laws that all of us already must
comply with.
Proposition 68 actually gives the Indian casinos a
choice: If they pay their Fair Share, they keep their
monopoly on slot machines. But if they don't, the state will
also grant rights to a limited number of locations where
gaming already exists.
The Indians would keep operating their slots, but they'd
get a little competition. A limited number of card clubs and
horseracing tracks where gaming already exists would be
allowed to add slot machines to their existing games.
These card clubs and horseracing tracks are located in
the cities of: Arcadia, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Compton,
Cypress, Gardena, Hawaiian Gardens, Inglewood, and
Oceanside in Southern California and in the cities of
Albany, Colma, Pacheco, San Bruno, and San Mateo in
Northern California. Unlike Indian casinos, the card clubs
and racetracks would pay 33% of their revenues from the
slot machines to local government.
With California's current budget crisis, we need the
money.
According to the state's former Legislative Analyst, Bill
Hamm, Proposition 68 will generate nearly $2 Billion
every year— monies that will be sent directly to all local
governments around the state with all communities bene-
fiting equally.
It isn't fair that the tribes can build casinos wherever
they want and make Billions of dollars through a monop-
oly granted by the state without paying taxes or a Fair
Share like the rest of us.
But Proposition 68 is fair. It doesn't take any rights away
from the Indian Casinos. But it says that if Indian Casinos
won't pay a Fair Share to support local public services like
all of us, then they can't keep a state monopoly to them-
selves. You can't have it both ways.
It's time for the Indian Casinos to pay their Fair Share.
We urge you to Vote YES on Proposition 68.
LEE BACA, Sheriff
County of Los Angeles
LOU BLANAS, Shenff
County of Sacramento
ROY BURNS, President
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)
REBUTTAL to `Argument in Favor ofd
Proposition
68
Proposition 68's promoters —card clubs and race-
tracks —are using a bait- and - switch scheme. They want
voters to think 68 is about "making the Indian tribes pay
their fair share." It's not.
It's really a deceptive attempt to change California's
Constitution to create huge Las Vegas -size commercial
casinos on non - Indian lands throughout California.
In fact, the very organizations Prop. 68 promoters claim to
help, overwhelmingly reject this deceptive measure:
• Taxpayer groups OPPOSE Prop. 68 because IT WILL
HURT —NOT HELP —THE STATE'S BUDGET —
not one dollar will go to reduce the state's deficit,
and 68 exempts its promoters from paying any future
state and local tax increases.
• The California Police Chiefs Association, California
State Firefighters Association, the California District
Attorneys Association, and more than 30 County
Sheriffs OPPOSE because Prop. 68 means MORE
CRIME AND HIGHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
COSTS. Prop. 68 would place HUGE NEW CASINOS
on non -Indian lands in our cities and suburbs-
58 ( Arguments
30,000 new slot machines NEAR MORE THAN 200
SCHOOLS.
• Education leaders and child advocates OPPOSE
because Prop. 68 WILL END UP COSTING OUR
SCHOOLS MILLIONS, hurting our kids.
• Public safety and local government leaders OPPOSE
because Prop. 68 means MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
on already overcrowded freeways and surface streets.
Please join Governor Schwarzenegger, law enforce-
ment, firefighters, educators, parents, Indian tribes, busi-
ness, labor, seniors, local government, environmentalists,
and taxpayer groups, and VOTE NO ON 68.
STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSI-
TION. It's a bad deal for all Californians.
Please VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 68.
CARLA NINO, President
California State PTA
DAVID W. PAULSON, President
California District Attorneys Association
MIKE SPENCE, President
California Taxpayers Protection Committee
:arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have rwt been chucked for aecuracy by any official ageru-e.
NON - TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION.
TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
ARGUME•
NT Against Proposition
Message from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: `I am officially
opposed to Proposition 68, and I strongly urge you to VOTE NO."
This measure is not what it seems. While proponents claim
the measure will force Indian gaming tribes to pay their fair
share to the state, Proposition 68 does nothing of the sort.
Proposition 68 is not a guaranteed source of revenues for
California from Indian gaming tribes. Instead it authorizes
16 new Las Vegas -style casinos to be built in urban areas
throughout California.
Governor Schwarzenegger has a vision for California that
does NOT include making our state the next pot of gold
for commercial casino gambling interests. Governor
Schwarzenegger believes casino gaming should be limited
to Indian lands.
THE NEW AGREEMENTS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER
NEGOTIATED WITH MANY INDIAN GAMING TRIBES
ARE A WINNER FOR TRIBES AND TAXPAYERS. These
agreements keep California's promise to Indian tribes
while making them pay their fair share. They promote
cooperation between tribes and local governments to deal
with the impact on law enforcement, traffic congestion,
and road construction. Unfortunately, Proposition 68
could destroy these new agreements.
The 16 new casinos authorized by Proposition 68 are
located in urban areas of California. They will be near 200
schools and major streets and freeways in Los Angeles, the
San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, further congesting
our crowded roads.
NOT A SINGLE PENNY FROM THIS INITIATIVE CAN
BE USED TO HELP BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET.
Further, the promoters of Proposition 68 have written it so
they are exempt from paying any future increases in state
and local taxes.
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER JOINS MORE
THAN 400 PUBLIC SAFETY, TAXPAYER, AND OTHER
LEADERS IN SAYING:
VOTE NO ON 68
California Police Chiefs Association, California State
Firefighters' Association, California Coalition of Law
Enforcement Associations, California District Attorneys
Association, More than 50 California Indian Tribes, State
Treasurer Phil Angelides, State Controller Steve Westly,
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell,
Crime Victims United of California, Peace Officers
Research Association of California, Sierra Club California,
California School Boards Association, The Seniors
Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse California, California
Taxpayer Protection Committee.
AND 34 COUNTY SHERIFFS:
• Sheriff James Allen • Sheriff Terry Bergstrand • Sheriff
Virginia Black • Sheriff Ed Bonner • Sheriff Bob Brooks
• Sheriff Bi11 Cogbill • Sheriff Anthony Craver • Sheri f f John
Crawford • Sheriff Jim Denney • Sheriff Bob Doyle • Sheriff
Robert Doyle • Sheriff Bill Freitas • Sheriff Curtis Hill
• Sheriff William Kolender • Sheriff Dan Lucas
• Sheriff Ken Marvin, Ret. • Sheriff Scott Marshall
• SheriffRodney Mitchell • SheriffBruce Mix • SheriffDaniel
Paranick • Sheriff Clay Parker • Sheriff Gary Penrod
• Sheriff Charles Plummer • Sheriff Jim Pope
• Sheriff Ed Prieto • Sheriff Michael Prizmich • Sheriff Perry
Reniff • Sheriff Richard Rogers • Sheri Warren Rupf
• Sheriff Robert Shadley, Jr. • Sheriff Gary Simpson
• Sheriff Gary Stanton • Sheriff Mark Tracy • Sheriff Dean
Wilson.
PROP. 68 WOULD RESULT IN A HUGE EXPANSION
OF CASINO GAMBLING ON NON - INDIAN LANDS.
It's a sweetheart deal for the gambling interests behind it,
another broken promise to Indian tribes, and a bad deal
for the rest of us.
VOTE NO ON 68. STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING
PROPOSITION.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
State of California
JEFF SEDIVEC, President
California State Firefighters' Association
WAYNE QUINT, JR., President
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
BrUµTTALL to Argu.lneni
Against Propvsitionz 68
"[Arnold Schwarzenegger] wants to renegotiate gam-
ing compacts with casino - operating Indian tribes in the
hopes of getting tribes to share revenue with the state. He
noted tribes pay Connecticut 25 percent of their rev-
enues, and said such an arrangement could pay for
'thousands of police officers, thousands of teachers.' "
—Sacramento Bee, Sept. 24, 2003
We agreed then and we agree now. It makes zero
sense for the overwhelming majority of Indian casi-
nos—a $6–$8 billion industry —to operate in California
while paying virtually nothing to support the common
good.
It's time for these immensely profitable Indian casinos
to give something back to the state that has given them
the most lucrative gaming monopoly in history. It's time
for the people of California to get their fair share.
Proposition 68 isn't a blank check for the politicians
in Sacramento. It requires a real and meaningful fair
share payment that must be used to hire local police and
sheriffs, keep local fire stations open, and fund proven
educational programs for abused and neglected children.
To make sure it's truly fair, we give the Indian casinos
the final choice. They choose to make this 25% contribu-
tion just as they do in New York and Connecticut.
Otherwise, the state will allow limited and highly regulat-
ed competition with an even bigger financial return to
California's communities.
Before you make your decision, please read the initia-
tive. We think you'll agree: it's time the Indian casinos did
the right thing. And pay their fair share.
LEE BACA, Sheriff
County of Los Angeles
LOU BLANAS, Sheriff
County of Sacramento
ROY BURNS, President
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)
:irgurnnttc printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agenn. Arguments 59
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 68,
GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004
WHEREAS, Prop. 68 would authorize racetrack and card club owners, to
operate casinos with 30,000 slot machines in California cities and suburbs; and
WHEREAS, Prop. 68's backers are advocating their measure as a way to help
the state's fiscal crisis, yet according to the Legislative Analyst's report, no money generated
from Prop. 68 could be used to reduce the state budget deficit; and
WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association, California State
Firefighters' Association, California District Attorneys Association, and other law
enforcement groups and public safety officials, strongly oppose Prop. 68 because the
new casinos would increase crime and traffic, straining already - stretched local public
safety budgets; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities opposes Prop. 68 because it
w exempts the new casino developments from local zoning laws and the California
• Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thereby undermining local control; and exempts
® these card clubs and racetracks from future state and local tax increases; and
• WHEREAS, except for the few cities and counties that would host these casinos, Prop.
68 funds cannot be used to reduce existing budget deficits of individual cities and
counties, and the measure denies cities and counties the right to use funds where local
governments determine they are most needed; and
WHEREAS, according to law enforcement experts, the funding this measure
provides for local police, sheriff and fire departments is "exclusively" for "additional"
personnel and cannot be used for any other purposes such as equipment, support,
training, supervision, and other necessary expenditures required to support new
personnel; and
WHEREAS, according to the former California State Auditor General, cities
and counties must use existing budget dollars to establish a baseline or maintenance of
effort expenditure for child protective services, sheriffs, police officers and firefighters to
be eligible for any new funds generated by the measure which could end up worsening
local budget problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby opposes Proposition 68.
Resolution #4 -C CC
10 -5 -04
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
September 30, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
128748 - 129160
EFT 093
EFT 094
EFT 095
Void Checks:
126352
128648
128853
128886
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
City Clerk
Approved for payment:
Date:
Finance Director
Council Warrants 10/05/04
Amount
1,894,089.96
1, 039, 513.11
248,142.66
33,250.00
(20,262.32)
(6,325.00)
(45.00)
(940.00)
3,187,423.41
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibiey
BILLS #4 -D
10/05/04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING ARTHUR KURRASCH AS A MEMBER OF
THE CITY HOUSING COMMISSION
(MEMBER -AT- LARGE)
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of
Subsection 2 -12.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ARTHUR
KURRASCH is hereby appointed to the office of Member -At -Large member of the Housing
Commission of the City of Alameda for the term commencing on October 5, 2004, and expiring on
June 30, 2008, and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified.
0
ua * * * * *
® 2:
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #5 -A
10 -5 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING JEFF KNOTH AS A MEMBER OF
THE CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to provisions
of Section 2 -8 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JEFF KNOTH
is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Transportation Commission of the City of
Alameda for a term commencing on October 5, 2004 and expiring on June 30, 2008 and to serve
until his successor is appointed and qualified.
E
0 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and
passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
-.r day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit:
CL AYES
CL
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #5 -B
10 -5 -04
City of Alameda
Memorandum
DATE: September 27, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Request for Continuance - Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major
Design Review, DR04 -0026 for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive. The
development projects also include the expansion of the residence into the estuary and
installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following Variances:
1) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3)(Maximum Main Building Coverage
exceeding 48 percent; 2) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2
(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the
estuary; 3) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(a)(Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d)(Bay
Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 -feet
from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side
yards; 4) Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1)(Rear Yard) /Subsection 30-
2(definitions)(Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7)(Rear Yard) because decks
over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5)
Variance to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.14(c)(Barrier Heights) because the wind- screens
around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board
also found that Variance for the Bay window encroachment be withdrawn because
this encroachment is currently in compliance, subject to Design Review approval.
The site is located within an R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District.
Appellant/Property Owner: Rita Mohlen of 3017 Marina Drive.
BACKGROUND
The appellant and City staff are both requesting a continuance of this public hearing to November 03,
2004. The continuance is requested to allow City staff additional time to continue to work with the
Federal mediator and to also arrange for a field trip of this property and possibly other properties
along the estuary waterfront.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The City Manager finds that a continuance is appropriate because the additional time is necessary to
continue to review this project and engage with the Federal mediator.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Resolution #5 -C
10 -5 -04
Honorable Mayor and September 27, 2004
Councilmembers Page 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no additional funding required in the Planning & Building Department budget relating
to Planning activities for this project. Application fees and processing costs are the responsibility of
the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, acknowledge the
request for continuance, and then, by motion, continue the public hearing to the meeting of
November 03, 2004.
By:
Attachment: 1
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Fuz
Planning & Building Director
Cormack
ev- opment Review Manager
cc: Rita Molhen, Property Owner /Applicant/Appellant
Andrew Stoddard, 3011 Marina Drive, Alameda, CA 94501
John Piziali, Planning Board President
Italo A. Calpestri III
Laurence Padway
Gene Lafollette
Greg Fox
BCDC
Army Corps of Engineers
Greg McFann
G:\ PLANNING \CC\ REPORTS\ 2004\ 4VO4- 0006,07,08,09,10continue.c.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
09/27 /2004 09:49 FAX 415 353 0990 BERTRAND FOX & ELLIOT
SEP -24 -2004 17 12 LAURENCE PADWAY
Law Offices of
LAURENCE F. PADWAY
Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy, NBTA
Diplomate, National College of Advocacy
Writer's Direct Tel : (510) 814 -0680
Facsimile : (510) 814 -0650
Office Number : (510) 814 -6100
E -mail : LPepadway.com
September 24, 2004
Gregory M. Fox, Esq.
Bertrand, Fox & Elliott
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Re: Sktinde v. City of Alameda
Dear Mr. Fox:
fj 002/002
510 914 0650 P.01/01
1516 Oak Street
Suite 109
Alameda, CA 94501
I spoke with Mr. LaFollette, who as you know has been working with Ms. Korade
on these matters. If we withdraw the appeal to the City Council, as you and I discussed, then a
new appeal later would (a) be untimely and (b) cost additional fees. Moreover, I find no
authority in the City Code to allow a new appeal later. Finally, the Planning Board provided
nothing more than a Kangaroo forum last time around, which dissuades us from voluntarily
returning for more tar and feathers.
The City apparently plans to undertake an outside review of the 3017 property and
possibly the adjacent parcel as well. Accordingly, it makes sense to delay our appeal to the City
Council until the City has had the opportunity to complete that review.
Therefore, by this letter, Ms. Mohlen and Mr. Skrinde request a continuance of the
hearing on their variance appeals to the City Council for a reasonable period not to exceed 60
days, to a date convenient to the City far enough distant to allow the City to complete its outside
review.
As the City is represented in this matter, I think it inappropriate for me to direct
this request for continuance to City staff, and so I direct it to you as their counsel. Kindly
consider this letter as the applicants` formal request to continue the hearing now set for October 5
to a date convenient to the City no later than November 30.
Attachment #1
City of Alameda
Date:
To:
Memorandum
September 27, 2004
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From:
James M. Flint,
City Manager
Re: Discussion of Section 30 -15, Work Live Studios, of the Alameda Municipal
Code.
BACKGROUND
At the 3 August 2004 meeting, the Council considered an appeal of an approval by the Planning
Board of a Use Permit to allow the development of work -live studios at 2515 Blanding Avenue.
While the Council upheld the Planning Board's approval, several Council Members requested that an
item be placed on a future agenda to allow the Council to discuss and provide direction regarding
possible modifications to the Work -Live Studio Ordinance. The Council also asked the City
Manager to provide data relating to the structures within the Work -Live Studio study area.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Work/live Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1998 in order to implement the
General Plan which proposes redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront as a mixed use area and
identifies work/live development as a way to reuse existing underused and vacant commercial and
industrial buildings. Work/live studios may only be developed within a limited geographical area,
bounded on the west: Sherman Street as projected northerly to the Estuary; on the north: the Estuary;
on the east: Tilden Way; and on the south: Buena Vista Avenue. Within this area, Work/live studios
may only be developed in the following zoning districts: C -M (Commercial- Manufacturing), M -1
(Intermediate Industrial [Manufacturing]), and M -2 (General Industrial [Manufacturing]). Only a
portion of the geographical area described above is zoned for Work/live Studios. Please see
Attachment #1.
Work/live studios are conditionally permitted commercial/industrial facilities with a strictly
regulated incidental residential component that meets basic habitability requirements. While one of
the stated purposes of the Ordinance is to preserve historic buildings, the Ordinance does not limit
conversion to work -live studios to historic sites. One of the questions the Council raised relates to
the number of historic buildings within the study area. Attachments #1 and #2 show eight such
resources: the Del Monte Building, which is a City Monument, and seven resources listed on the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Report #5 -D
10 -5 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 27, 2004
Historical Building Study List. One of these resources has been approved for conversion: 2515
Blanding Avenue. An application has been made to rehabilitate the Del Monte Building which
includes the development of 60 Work -Live Studios.
Based on the lot and building sizes and the limits for development contained in the Ordinance (2,000
square feet of parcel area for every studio and a minimum of 1,000 square feet of floor area per
studio), the remaining six listed resources could contain up to 34 studios. However, that number
would likely be reduced because many of parcels along the northern waterfront which were
developed prior to 1958 do not provide sufficient open area to develop the required parking (1.5
spaces minimum per studio).
The Council further asked the City Manager to provide information on the total number buildings
within the study area. There are more than a hundred residential dwellings in the
commercial/industrial zoning districts in the study area. It would seem unlikely that it would be
economically feasible to convert a residential building to a commercial/industrial use, which would
include making the structure compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and then add a
residential accessory use, and then secure a Use Permit for Work -Live Studios. Thus, staff focused
on the existing commercial buildings within the study area.
According to a review of information in the Win2Data database, there are approximately 110 such
commercial buildings within the study area (these include the sites discussed in the paragraph
above). Attachment #3 is a list of those sites, including the address, owner, land use, lot and
building size. Many of these buildings are repair garages and other auto - related uses which would
generally not be considered good candidates for conversion to Work -Live Studios due to the
character of the existing building; the Ordinance limits both additions and other modifications to
existing buildings. The vast majority of the remaining buildings are on constrained sites or have
limited floor area, which would result in conversion possibilities of between 3 and 10 studios; lower
numbers are likely due to parking requirements.
Other buildings within the study area are a large mini- storage facility (AAAAA Rent -A- Space), a
federal facility, several City buildings and some marine- related buildings. It is doubtful that any of
these buildings would be converted to Work -Live Studios. At least one site (2235 Clement Avenue
— NW corner of Oak Street and Clement Avenue) contains severely deteriorated buildings that would
be difficult to rehabilitate and convert in- place. Other factors the Planning Board would need to
consider in approving a conversion is whether the Work -Live Studios would conflict with or inhibit
existing commercial/industrial uses in the area; whether there are hazardous or toxic substances on
the site which may pose a potential health risk to users of the Work -Live Studios; and whether the
design of the Work -Live Studio will function predominantly as a commercial/industrial use.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no additional funding required in the Planning & Building Department budget
relating to this discussion item.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers September 27, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council review this information and provide direction
to either retain the existing ordinance as adopted or provide direction to modify or rescind the
existing ordinance. If the Council desires to modify or rescind the existing ordinance, staff will
prepare a draft ordinance for Council consideration at a future public hearing.
By:
Attachments
Respectfully sub�ru
Gregory Fuz
`Planning and Building Director
Judith Altschuler
Supervising Planner
1. Work -Live Studio Study Area
2. Photographs of buildings within the Study Area on the Historical Building Study List
3. List of Commercial/lndustrial Sites within the Study Area
4. March 25, 1998 Off- Agenda Report on Development of Work/Live Regulations
5. AMC Section 30 -15 — Work/Live Studios Regulations
cc: City Attorney
Michael Murphy
Ed Murphy
Stuart Flashman
G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \s -Oct 05 \work- live.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
I• ttachment #
trans:
▪ o) 0)
(0 4E. c c
m c a) a) a) � - c c
aO
c c
4-Eaa0 >c3c13
0• D000Wmm
NCD =LO N • =r
� �C CDCD0)V)VC)
0 N- N N N N- N N
4t
Attachment
Attachment #3
Win2Data®
Page: 1 of 3
APN
Owners
Situs Address
Lot Area
Bldg /Liv
Land Use
Yr Blt
3
070 - 0166 -003
WALTZ JAMES R SR & BARBA
2516 CLEMENT AVE
6,750
2,772
GARAGE
1966
8
070- 0166 -008
KARSH HYMAN & MURIEL
2530 CLEMENT AVE
6,750
2,588
GARAGE
1968
28
070- 0166 -027
WALTZ J R SR & BARBARA J 61814
EVERETT ST
14,054
8,400
GARAGE
1964
54
070 - 0167 - 025 -05
BUONO JOHN F
1710 EVERETT ST
25,200
2,548
CARWASH
1969
59
070 - 0192 -001
GONSALVES WILLIAM M JR &
1726 PARK ST
6,067
988
CARWASH
1939
6o
070 - 0192 -002
BOLLER WILLIAM C
2406 EAGLE AVE
5,200
5,400
GARAGE
1946
79
070 - 0192 - 021 -01
CAVANAUGH LEE R & DAVID N
1700 PARK ST
22,569
11,916
AUTO SALES
1948
eo
070 - 0192 -024
CAVANAUGH LEE R & DAVID 1%1716
PARK ST
5,634
2,239
AUTO SALES
1923
B2
070 - 0193 - 003 -02
YIP PAK L & SAU F
2410 CLEMENT AVE
11,250
INDUSTRIAL LOT
ea
070 - 0193 - 005 -01
GOODE LEONARD
2420 CLEMENT AVE
15,000
9,073
WAREHOUSE
1974
85
070- 0193 -006
GOODE LEONARD
2424 CLEMENT AVE
15,000
12,000
WAREHOUSE
1964
86
070 - 0193 -007
PAGEL TRUST
1829 EVERETT ST
4,666
1,134
WAREHOUSE
1900
91
070 - 0193 - 012 -02
GOODE LEONARD
2419 EAGLE AVE
4,000
COMMERCIAL LOT
1910
95
070 - 0193 -016
DIBBLE YVONNE W
2405 EAGLE AVE
4,469
2,000
GARAGE
1937
96
070 - 0193 -017
GONSALVES WILLIAM & PATR
1800 PARK ST
5,400
836
SERVICE STATION
1951
99
070 - 0193 -021
GONSALVES WILLIAM M JR &
1820 PARK ST
2,787
1,750
GARAGE
1962
101
070 - 0194 - 002 -01
STAUDENRAUS DOLORES M
2424 BLANDING AVE
15,000
15,182
WAREHOUSE
1909
102
070 - 0194 - 002 -02
THOMPSON JEFFREY J
1925 EVERETT ST
21,600
19,689
WAREHOUSE
1940
e 110
070 -0194 -010
OLSSON LAWRENCE & LILLIA
2425 CLEMENT AVE
7,500
4,264
WAREHOUSE
1900
111
070 - 0194 -011
GOODE LEN
2421 CLEMENT AVE
4,800
INDUSTRIAL LOT
112
070 - 0194 - 014 -04
GOODE LEN
2415 CLEMENT AVE
17,700
4,098
WAREHOUSE
1968
114
070 - 0194 - 017 -04
YIP PAK L & SAU F
1914 PARK ST
23,537
13,400
OFFICE BUILDING
1950
115
070 - 0194 - 017 -05
GROUPER HOLDINGS
2420 BLANDING AVE
15,000
11,098
WAREHOUSE
1935
119
070 - 0195 -006
MCDONALD JOAN H
2435 BLANDING AVE
5,250
5,406
GARAGE
1940
120
070 - 0195 -007
ALLIED LAND COMPANY
2421 BLANDING AVE
21,600
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
121
070 - 0195 -015
ALLIED LAND COMPANY
2033 EVERETT AVE
61,855
43,513
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1940
, 124
070- 0196 -002
SCHUITEMA SANDRA R & EMC
1912 EVERETT ST
7,027
3,144
GARAGE
1953
128
070 - 0196 -006
GIOVANNOLI DAVID & SHAROI1926
EVERETT ST
7,027
7,193
GARAGE
1931
129
070 - 0196 -007
MOSSEY DALE
2510 BLANDING AVE
7,027
5,300
GARAGE
1961
130
070- 0196 -008
DOOLITTLE STEVE A & JANE E2512
BLANDING AVE
6,750
INDUSTRIAL LOT
131
070 - 0196 -009
EASON SUSAN E
2516 BLANDING AVE
6,715
5,815
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1946
132
070 - 0196 -010
SMITH PHILIP J & MARGARET
2520 BLANDING AVE
9,000
4,964
COMMERCIAL (NEC
1925
133
070 - 0196 -011
RICHARDS SIM B 3RD & SALL12528
BLANDING AVE
18,000
7,954
WAREHOUSE
2002
135
070 - 0196 -013
FOX DERMOT P & COLETTE B
1913 BROADWAY
7,000
6,222
OFFICE BUILDING
1970
136
070 - 0196 -014
DELANOY JOAN C
1901 BROADWAY
14,016
7,569
WAREHOUSE
1940
138
070 - 0196 -016
MOSSEY DALE
2527 CLEMENT AVE
6,750
4,425
WAREHOUSE
1968
142
070 - 0196 -020
GUTLEBEN KENNETH & CAND2517
CLEMENT AVE
6,750
COMMERCIAL LOT
144
070 - 0196 -022 V
CAL VITA LLC
2515 BLANDING AVE
14,054
15,840
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1931
145
070- 0196 -023
ALLIED LAND COMPANY
2020 EVERETT ST
35,153
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
146
070 - 0196 -024
OLSON PROPERTIES
2517 BLANDING AVE
42,390
10,320
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1941
152
070 - 0196 -031
CARPENTER PHILIP W
1920 BROADWAY
7,008
2,875
GARAGE
1946
164
071- 0198 -004
EMBERLEY WILLIAM D
2310 CLEMENT AVE
7,250
4,998
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1920
165
071 - 0198 -005
PRICE JOHN F & BILLIE J
2318 CLEMENT AVE
10,875
8,256
GARAGE
1946
167
071 - 0198 -007
CUNNINGHAM SCOTT & VIRGII2326
CLEMENT AVE
5,438
3,447
GARAGE
1935
16e
071 - 0198 - 009 -02
GOODE LEONARD
1825 PARK ST
32,681
4,637
AUTO SALES
1946
170
071 - 0198 - 012 -01
GOODE LEONARD A
1801 PARK ST
15,257
414
COMMERCIAL LOT
1971
195
071 - 0199 - 016 -01
GERMAN AUTO SERVICE INC
1719 PARK ST
6,162
4,475
GARAGE
1946
197
071 - 0199 - 018 -02
SIMAS EDWARD T
1701 PARK ST
10,650
1,248
SERVICE STATION
1995
198
071 - 0199 -019
SIMAS EDWARD & CAROL L
2329 BUENA VISTA M7,250
1,248
SERVICE STATION
1995
232
071 - 0222 -027
BCJ ALAMEDA INVESTMENT L
1835 OAK ST
112,325
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
233
071 - 0222 -028
SKS DIE CASTING & MACHININ
1849 OAK ST
123,676
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
235
071 - 0228 - 001 -02
HAGSTROM PROPERTIES LLC
2100 CLEMENT AVE
121,306
81,444
WAREHOUSE
1941
Attachment #3
Win2Data®
Page: 1 of 3
Win2Data®
Page: 2 of 3.
APN !
Owners
Situs Address
Lot Area
Bldg /Liv
Land Use
Yr Bit
236
071 - 0255 -002
WILLIAMS KIM H
2056 CLEMENT AVE
7,800
6,100
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1939
237
071 - 0255 -003
GHIGLIONE FRANK L
2060 CLEMENT AVE
6,233
WAREHOUSE
256
071 - 0255 -022
LISTO PENCIL CORP
1914 STANFORD ST
24,266
17,000
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1958
257
071 - 0255 -023
LISTO PENCIL CORP
1916 STANFORD ST
6,883
4,000
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1954
259
071- 0256- 003 -01
TAFORO JOHN L & BARBARA
.2006 CLEMENT AVE
7,480
3,270
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1925
260
071 - 0256- 004 -01
LESLIE SALT CO
2012 CLEMENT AVE
6,900
INDUSTRIAL LOT
261
071 - 0256- 004 -02
LESLIE SALT CO
2016 CLEMENT AVE
6,900
3,840
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1954
282
071 - 0257 -001
PACIFIC SHOPS INC
2033 CLEMENT AVE
420,354
28,033
INDUSTRIAL (NEC)
1942
283
071 - 0257 -002
PACIFIC SHOPS INC
2005 CLEMENT AVE
333,670
20,237
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1942
Z--- ---a7-1
-0.257 -003°
PACIFIC SHOPS INC
2027 CLEMENT AVE
2,645
DUPLEX
1893
287
071 - 0259 -002
HARPE JACK D & ILSE I
1910 CLEMENT AVE
3,800
3,552
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1940
288
071 - 0259 -003
CRAIGS CABINETRY
1912 CLEMENT AVE
3,443
1,780
WAREHOUSE
1926
304
071 - 0286 -001
LATHAM FOUNDATION PROMO
1826 CLEMENT AVE
16,200
7,790
OFFICE BUILDING
1940
305
071 - 0286 -002
DIERS GAY P
1925 LAFAYETTE ST
8,100
2,200
WAREHOUSE
1932
317
071 - 0287 -002
LANDEROS JESUS & ANGIE E
1810 CLEMENT AVE
5,000
605
INDUSTRIAL LOT
1946
320
071 - 0287 - 005 -02
VIVIANO WANDA
1921 SCHILLER ST
2,030
1,590
OFFICE BUILDING
1985
336
071 - 0288 - 001 -02
PACIFIC SHOPS INC
1801 CLEMENT AVE
377,230
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1940
340
071 - 0289 -004
AAAAA RENT A SPACE ALAME
2201 CLEMENT AVE
131,116
69,447
WAREHOUSE
1975
342
071 - 0289 - 006 -01
DUTRA BILL T
2199 CLEMENT AVE
204,732
11,250
INDUSTRIAL (NEC)
1976
343
071 - 0289 - 007 -03
AAAAA RENT A SPACE ALAME
2201 CLEMENT AVE
89,734
37,416
WAREHOUSE
1986
344
071 - 0290 -001
COLLINS FRANCIS D & CATHE2235
CLEMENT AVE
297,079
124,066
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1908
345
071 - 0290 -003
TENNANT ROBERT H & ARLEIN
2303 CLEMENT AVE
1,875
1,875
GARAGE
1957
346
071 - 0290 - 005 -01
TENNANT ROBERT H & ARLEN
2307 CLEMENT AVE
14,500
12,000
GARAGE
1981
347
071- 0290 - 008 -02
PARODI JACK S & DOLORES
2301 CLEMENT AVE
5,625
INDUSTRIAL LOT
348
071 -0290- 008 -07
SEIWALD CHRISTOPHER D & 12308
BLANDING AVE
50,965
31,720
OFFICE BUILDING
1968
349
071 - 0290 - 008 -08
VINCENT 2000 TRUST
2026 OAK ST
10,584
5,241
WAREHOUSE
1950
350
071 - 0290 - 009 -01
CHANGE THRU XANTHOS INC
2325 CLEMENT AVE
14,500
11,655
OFFICE BUILDING
1987
355
071 - 0290 -015
THOMPSON JIMMIE D & DIANE
1913 PARK ST
4,900
4,900
GARAGE
1927
356
071- 0290 -016
THOMPSOM JIMMIE D & DIANE
1917 PARK ST
5,100
1,500
GARAGE
1945
357
071 - 0290 -017
FRANCHI ISABELLE J
1919 PARK ST
3,931
3,922
GARAGE
1947
359
071 - 0290 - 019 -01
FRANCHI JAMES A JR & MART
2334 BLANDING AVE
7,250
INDUSTRIAL LOT
360
071 - 0290 - 019 -03
FRANCHI JAMES A JR & MART2336
BLANDING AVE
7,250
960
GARAGE
1961
361
071 - 0290 - 019 -04
STANLEY PENNY L
2338 BLANDING AVE
7,250
2,500
GARAGE
1953
362
071 - 0290 -020
FRANCHI ISABELLE J
23 BLANDING AVE
7,250
AUTO WRECKING
367
072 - 0292 -002
QUAN ERIC F & KATHLEEN J
1927 MINTURN ST
607
INDUSTRIAL LOT
368
072 - 0292 -003
QUAN ERIC F & KATHLEEN J
1923 MINTURN ST
5,413
3,800
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
1958
377
072 - 0292 - 012 -01
MORRIS SCOTT
1922 GRAND ST
2,850
440
OFFICE BUILDING
1924
379
072 - 0293 -002
LISTO PENCIL CORP
1925 UNION ST
24,039
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
380
072 - 0293 -003
LISTO PENCIL CORP
1920 MINTURN ST
17,647
4,980
OFFICE BUILDING
1980
394
072 - 0295 -009
WHITMORE LOUIS A 2ND & DI11701
BUENA VISTA M6,600
970
GARAGE
1939
403
072 - 0323 -005
HALLETT KATHRYN J
1817 GRAND ST
4,644
1,311
GARAGE
1916
411
072 - 0381 -001
PENNZOIL PRODUCTS COMPP2015
GRAND ST
148,407
LIGHT INDUSTRIA
412
072 - 0381 -002
PENNZOIL PRODUCTS COMPA2015
GRAND ST
32,075
WAREHOUSE
414
072 - 0381 -004
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
13,273
INDUSTRIAL LOT
415
072 - 0381 -005
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
81,601
INDUSTRIAL ACRE
417
072 - 0381 -007
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
4,094
INDUSTRIAL LOT
418
072 - 0381 -008
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
124,084
INDUSTRIAL ACRE
419
072 - 0381 -009
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
13,896
INDUSTRIAL LOT
420
072 - 0381 -010
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2019 GRAND ST
4,274
INDUSTRIAL LOT
421
072 - 0381 -011
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2017 GRAND ST
26,824
INDUSTRIAL LOT
429
072 - 0382 -001
ENCINAL REAL ESTATE INC
1523 BUENA VISTA M290,992
INDUSTRIAL ACRE
430
072 - 0382 -002
ENCINAL REAL ESTATE INC
1521 BUENA VISTA M782,992
INDUSTRIAL (NEC)
Win2Data®
Page: 2 of 3.
Win2Data® Page: 3 of 3
APN
Owners
Situs Address
Lot Area
;Bldg /Liv;'
Land Use
Yr Blt
432
072 - 0382 -004
FORTMAN BASIN LTD PTSHP
1535 BUENA VISTA AV
83,790
INDUSTRIAL ACRE
434
072 - 0382 -006
ENCINAL MARINA LTD
2099 GRAND ST
12,997
INDUSTRIAL LOT
450
072 - 0383 -004
ENCINAL REAL ESTATE INC
1501 BUENA VISTA M481,767
WAREHOUSE
452
072 - 0384 -031
ENCINAL REAL ESTATE INC
1551 BUENA VISTA M
311,232
INDUSTRIAL (NEC)
Win2Data® Page: 3 of 3
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
OFF - AGENDA
Date:
To:
March 25, 1998
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Colette Meunier
Planning Director
RE: Development of Work/Live Regulations
BACKGROUND
Under a strategy endorsed by the Planning Board on July 8, 1996, development of regulations for
work/live uses was to be deferred until after the overall framework of the proposed Development
Code was completed. Work/live was identified as an issue that would require further analysis and
should be addressed following adoption of the Development Code. The completion of the
Development Code has been delayed because of higher priority work items, but moving forward with
developing work/live regulations may be desirable at this time. Several properties may become
available for reuse in the Northern Waterfront area, and recent interest has been expressed by
developers to establish work/live studios in this area.
This memorandum outlines the policy issues that must be addressed if the City Council decides to
proceed with developing work/live regulations. A significant issue involves the classification of the
use and conformance with Article XXVI of the City Charter (Measure A) and Section 30 -52 of the
Alameda Municipal Code (Remodeling Ordinance). Other issues involve the type of construction
and the location of work/live projects.
DISCUSSION
Classification of Use
The General Plan (Policy 2.6d) and the recommendations in the Area Wide Strategy Report promote
the adaptive reuse of existing industrial buildings along the Northern Waterfront for work/live
studios. These policies recognize the potential positive contribution of these buildings to a mixed
use waterfront and endorse work/live as a desirable land use alternative. Work/live studios are
commonly located in older industrial buildings which have been converted into multi -tenant spaces
for artists, artisans, and other professionals. The costs of rehabilitating older industrial buildings
is quite substantial, and work/live may be the only viable option for making the reuse of such
Attachment #4
Printed on recycled paper
buildings economically feasible. . Examples of successful projects can be found in Berkeley,
Emeryville, and San Francisco.
Work/live raises an issue regarding the appropriate classification of the use and conformance with
Article XXVI, Section 26 -1 of the City Charter (Measure A) and Section 30 -52 of the Alameda
Municipal Code (Remodeling Ordinance). Article XXVI prohibits the construction of multiple
dwelling units in the City, defined in the Zoning Ordinance as a "building designed and/or used to
house three (3) or more families, living independently of each other." Section 30 -52 does not allow
altering a building to contain more than two dwelling units. Staff believes that work/live uses should
be considered a commercial use that includes an accessory residential component. These uses should
be essentially treated as the opposite of a home occupation. A home occupation recognizes that the
primary use of the property is residential, but allows restricted commercial uses as an accessory
activity. Similarly, work/live could be established as a primarily commercial use with a restricted
residential use allowed as an accessory activity. Stringent standards could be attached to this
accessory use. As a commercial use, work/live would be consistent with Measure A and the
Remodeling Ordinance because these spaces would not be considered dwelling units.
Zoning regulations could ensure that work/live uses will remain primarily commercial in nature, with
each proposal subject to a use permit to allow for discretionary review. Staff has explored
regulations for ensuring that such projects would be principally designed for a non - residential use
and could not be converted to a solely residential use. Regulations that could be considered include:
establishing design and construction standards that restrict the amount of allowable living area;
requiring living areas to be integrated into the work space to prevent the residential portion from
being rented out separately; and requiring work areas to comply with modified building and fire code
standards for light industrial or commercial uses. Other possible standards include requiring at least
one occupant of a work/live studio to maintain an up -to -date business license at the studio's address,
and/or requiring the recordation of a deed restriction on the studio that stipulates the use limitations.
Regulations that limit the sale of products, crafts or artwork to those produced on the premises could
also be considered. Further, for projects located in a redevelopment area, the Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) could enter into an owner participation agreement with the
property owner as an additional enforcement mechanism.
Additionally, by defining work/live as a commercial use, these studios could be subject to the
building and fire code standards for commercial or industrial occupancies. The City also has the
authority to modify building code requirements in order to feasibly accommodate the joint use of
a building for work and living quarters.
The California Health and Safety Code, Section 17958.11, (see Attachment A) provides the
conceptual basis for defining work/live as a light industrial /commercial use with an accessory
residential use. This State Code section allows a city or county to adopt alternative building
regulations to facilitate the conversion of outdated industrial and commercial buildings into "joint
living and working quarters which would be physically and economically suitable particularly for
artists, artisans, and similarly- situated individuals." Under Section 17958.11(c), a work/live space
2
is defined as a use where "the residential use of such space is accessory to the primary use of such
space as a place of work." In adopting these provisions, the State Legislature recognized the local
and statewide public benefits that could be realized by converting vacant industrial buildings into
economically viable work/live spaces. The State also recognized the special financial and housing
constraints faced by persons who are engaged in the arts. As a charter city, Alameda may expand
the application of work/live to other professions.
Adaptive Reuse/New Construction
As mentioned above, work/live projects have historically focused on converting old industrial
warehouses to create an affordable studios for artists and artisans. Suitable buildings in Alameda
that might be feasibly renovated and reused for work/live spaces are located along the Northern
Waterfront, such as the old Del Monte building and the Weyerhaeuser property. More recently,
work/live projects in other cities have also included the construction of new or significantly
upgraded "loft" spaces in industrial areas. Examples of such developments in Berkeley and San
Francisco convey a more upscale appearance. For the City of Alameda, this development (rend
needs to be considered when crafting its work/live ordinance. A determination regarding the ability
of work/live spaces to encompass both adaptive reuse and new construction will affect the
development opportunities for the Northern Waterfront. General Plan policies endorse work/live
spaces as a strategy for reusing antiquated industrial buildings. Adopting regulations that permit
work/live spaces as including new construction can also be consistent with the goal of creating a
mixed use environment along the waterfront.
Location of Work/Live Uses
Another issue concerns the suitable locations for work/live projects, which can be regulated by the
City. Because work/live uses are primarily a commercial use, they are most appropriately located
in the City's industrial or commercial zoning districts. The prime location for work/live projects
would be in the City's industrial areas, particularly the Northern Waterfront, on sites with existing
under - utilized industrial structures. Staff recommends developing regulations to allow work/live
uses with a use permit in the C -M, Commercial Manufacturing, M -1, Intermediate Industrial
(Manufacturing), and M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning Districts. Standards could
be defined in the Zoning Ordinance that provide criteria for evaluating the suitability of a proposed
site for a work/live project.
Consideration could also be given to allowing work/live projects with a use permit in the
commercial zoning districts. Possible locations where such uses may be feasible are on the upper
level of commercial buildings. At these locations, allowing for, the conversion of commercial space
into work/live studios could facilitate the rehabilitation and reuse of older commercial buildings and
could enhance the commercial district. These studios could be very appropriate in such a setting,
especially if combined with a retail activity. Design criteria and use restrictions could be defined
to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.
3
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that work/live studios should be considered a primary commercial use with an
accessory residential component. By defining the living area as an accessory use and enacting
appropriate standards and restrictions, work/live studios would be classified as commercial space;
not a dwelling unit, and would be consistent with Article XXVI of the City Charter and Section 30-
52 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
Although work/live uses could be considered appropriate in both industrial and commercial districts,
the primary interest at this time appears to be on properties located in the Northern Waterfront
industrial area: Staff suggests that, in response to this initial interest, regulations should focus on
allowing work/live uses with a use permit in the M -2, M -1, and C -M Zoning Districts only.
Expansion of work/live uses to commercial areas could be considered later once the City has had a
opportunity to evaluate an established project(s) and if interest is expressed to establish these studios
at other locations. This would also allow for a better evaluation of how such developments might
affect surrounding uses.
Staff recommends that, initially, work/live uses should only be allowed for projects that involve the
adaptive reuse of industrial buildings. Expanded regulations authorizing new construction should
be delayed until Alameda has had some experience with work/live uses. Staff also believes that it
would be beneficial to meet with artist/craft groups and developers of work/live projects to receive
input on the appropriate regulations for these uses.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council members consider the approach outlined in this memorandum
and then direct the City Manager to place this item on a future Council agenda to receive public
comments and to provide policy direction to staff on developing a work/live ordinance.
Attachment A: State Health and Safety Code, Section 17958.11
cc: Planning Board Members
James Flint, City Manager
Carol Korade, City Attorney
Robert L. Wonder, Assistant City Manager
Dona Hoard, Community Development Director
Bob Warnick, Public Works Director
Tim McNeil, Acting Fire Chief
Steve Davis, Building Official
Steve McKinley, Captain, Assistant Fire Marshal
g:\cc\corres\2workliv.mem
4
§ 17958.11. Alternative building regulations; joint living and work
quarters; geographic areas
(a) Any city or county may adopt alternative building regulations for
the conversion of commercial or industrial buildings, or portions thereof,
to joint living and work quarters. As used in this section, "joint living
and work quarters" means residential occupancy by a family maintaining
a common household, or by not more than four unrelated persons, of one
or more rooms or floors in a building originally designed for industrial or
commercial occupancy which include (1) cooking space and sanitary
facilities in conformance with local building standards adopted pursuant
to Section 17958 or 17958.5 and (2) adequate working space reserved for,
and regularly used by, one or more persons residing therein.
The alternative building regulations adopted pursuant to this section
shall be applicable in those geographic areas specifically designated for
such occupancy, or as expressly permitted by a redevelopment plan with
respect to a redevelopment project area. The alternative building regu-
lations need not impose the same requirements as regulations adopted
pursuant to Section 17922, except as otherwise provided in this section,
but in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary to accom-
modate joint living and work quarters, the alternative building regula-
tions shall impose such requirements as will, in the determination of the
local governing body, protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(b) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that a substantial num-
ber of manufacturing and commercial buildings in urban areas have lost
manufacturing and commercial tenants to more modern manufacturing
and commercial premises, . and that the untenanted portions of such
buildings constitute a potential resource capable, when appropriately
altered, of accommodating joint living and work quarters which would be
physically and economically suitable particularly for use by artists,
artisans, and similarly- situated individuals. The Legislature further
finds that the public will benefit by making such buildings available for
joint living and work quarters for artists, artisans, and similarly - situated
individuals because (1) conversion of space to joint living and work
quarters provides a new use for such buildings contributing to the
revitalization of central city areas, (2) such conversion results in building
improvements and rehabilitation, and (3) the cultural Life of cities and of
the state as a whole is enhanced by the residence in such cities of large
numbers of persons regularly engaged in the arts.
(c) The Legislature further finds and declares that (1) persons regular-
ly engaged in the arts require larger amounts of space for the pursuit of
their artistic endeavors and for the storage of materials therefor, and of
the products thereof, than are regularly found in dwellings, (2) the
financial remunerations to be obtained from a career in the arts are
generally small, (3) persons regularly engaged in the arts generally find
it financially difficult to maintain quarters for their artistic endeavors
separate and apart from their places of residence, (4) high property
values and resulting rental costs make it particularly difficult for per-
sons regularly engaged in the arts to obtain the use of . the amount of
space required for their work, and (5) the residential use of such space is
accessory to the primary use of such space as a place of work.
It is the intent of the Legislature that local governments have discre-
tion to define geographic areas which may be utilized for joint living and
work quarters and to establish standards for such occupancy, consistent
with the needs and conditions peculiar to the local 'environment. The
Legislature recognizes that building code regulations applicable to resi-
dential housing may have to be relaxed to provide joint living and work
quarters in buildings previously used for commercial or industrial pur-
poses.
(Added by Stats.1979, c. 434, p. 1557, § 3.5.)
ATTACHMENT A
30-14 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE
30-15. WORN/LIVE STUDIOS.
30-15.1 Purpose.
The intent of this section is to set forth regula-
tions and standards for establishing and operating
work/live studios as a primary commer-
cialrndustrial use, in which the proprietor would
be allowed to reside as a secondary land use activ-
ity. 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 indus-
trial zoning districts as proposed in the Alameda
General Plan;
b. To provide cost - efficient alternative work
space that will provide an incentive for entrepre-
neurs, 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 im-
pacts on air quality, energy resources, and the
quality of life in the City by reducing the number
and length of work - related trips by employed
Alameda residents;
d. To promote the preservation and reuse of
commercial or industrial buildings that contribute
to the historic character of the community in a
manner that is consistent with other community
goals and policies;
e. To allow activities that are compatible with
and will not compromise or interfere with existing
and potential industrial or commercial uses in the
districts where such work/live studios are estab-
lished;
f. To ensure that work/live studios will func-
tion predominantly as work spaces with incidental
residential accommodations that meet basic habit-
ability 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;
3072
g. To ensure that the exterior design of struc-
tures converted to work/live use reflects the pre-
dominant industrial or commercial character of
such buildings and will be compatible with adja-
cent commercial or industrial uses;
h. To ensure that, where there is adjacent resi-
dentially zoned land, changes to the exterior of
structures converted to work/live are - designed to
make the commercial or industrial building being
converted more compatible with the adjacent resi-
dential 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 pur-
poses 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. Workllive studio shall mean a commercial
or industrial unit with incidental residential ac-
commodations occupying one. (1) or more rooms or
floors in a building primarily designed and used
for industrial or commercial occupancy and provid-
ing.
1. Adequate working space reserved for com-
mercial or industrial use and regularly used for
such purpose by one (1) or more persons residing
in the studio;
2. Living space as defined in subsection 30-
15.3(a) and in accordance with the provisions of
this section.
c. Adjacent shall mean that properties share
a common property boundary or are directly across
a street right -of -way. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6)
Rev. Ord. Supp. 1/99
Attachment #5
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 30 -15
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 living space as defined in Section
30 -15.3. The rest of the gross floor area of each
work /live studio shall be reserved and .regularly
used for working space.
c. Separation Required. Each work /live studio
shall be separated from other work/live studios or
other uses in the building. Access to each
work/live studio shall be provided from common
access areas, common halls or corridors, or directly
from the exterior of the building.
d. Parking. Each work/live studio shall have
at least one and one -half (11/2) parking space for
up to one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor
area plus one -half (]!2) additional space for every
additional five hundred (500) square feet of floor
area above the first one thousand (1,000) square
feet subject to compliance with all other applicable
requirements. The provided parking shall comply
with the requirements of Section 30-7. This park-
ing requirement may be waived or modified if the
following findings can be made in addition to any
other findings required by the ordinance codified
in this Section 30-15:
1. That the proposed parking will be adequate
to meet the demand created by the project given
the character of the proposed uses; and
2. That a waiver or modification of parking re-
quirements will not, under the circumstances of
the particular project, either conflict with nor
adversely affect commercial or industrial uses or
adjacent residentially -zoned uses in the area
where the project is proposed.
e. There shall not be less than two thousand
(2,000) square feet of lot area for each work/live
studio. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6)
30 -15.5 Additional Requirements.
a. Use Permit Required. Each building that
contains work/live studios shall be subject to a use
permit, which shall indude conditions of approval
as required to assure adequate standards of
health, safety, and welfare and consistency with
the purposes for work/live studios set forth in this
Chapter. Each work/live studio shall be subject to
all conditions of approval for the building in which
it exists unless the use permit states otherwise.
b. Work /Live Permit Required. Each tenant or
owner of an individual work/live studio must ob-
tain a work/live permit prior to occupancy. Such
permit shall be issued by the Planning Director
based on a determination that the proposed occu-
pancy is consistent with the approved use permit
and all applicable requirements of this section.
Application for a work/live permit shall be made
to the Planning Department in writing on a form
approved by the Department and shall be accom-
panied by a fee as set by resolution of the City
Council.
c. Design of Work /Live Studios. Subject to all
applicable building and fire code requirements:
1. Work/live studios shall be designed to ac-
commodate commercial or industrial uses as evi-
denced by the provision. of ventilation, interior
storage, flooring, and other physical improvements
of the type commonly found in exclusively com-
mercial or industrial facilities used for the same
work activity; and
2. Areas within a work/live studio that are
designated as living space shall be an integral
part of the work/live studio and not separated
from the work space, except that mezzanines and
lofts may be used as living space subject to compli-
ance with other provisions of this Article Exam-
ples of ways to integrate the work space and living
space in compliance with this section include, but
are not limited to, the following.
(a) Doors or solid walls between the work space
and areas used for living space do not extend all
the way to the ceiling, except for sanitary facilities
and rooms used primarily for sleeping,
(b) There is a single entrance to the work/live
studio,
(c) There are no walls separating the food
preparation area from the work space,
(d) Only the sanitary facilities and rooms desig-
nated for sleeping are enclosed and all other por-
tions of the living area are not separated from the
work space.
d. Permitted Work Activity. The work activity
in a building where work/live units are allowed
shall be any use permitted by right or use permit
in the zoning district, except that, in order to
protect the health and safety of persons who re-
side in a work/live studio or in a building which
contains one (1) or more work/live studios, no
3072.1
Rev. Ord. Supp. 1199
30-15 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE
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 Plan-
ning Board when considering a use permit, finds
would, by virtue of size, intensity, number of em-
ployees or the nature of the operation, have the
potential to create significant impacts by reason
of dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor,
smoke, traffic, vibration or other impacts, or would
be hazardous by way of materials, process, product
or wastes including, but not limited to: auto ser-
vice/repair, vehicle sales or leasing, car washes,
service stations, bars/lounges/night clubs, adult
businesses, marine engine repair/refueling facili-
ties, animal kennels/grooming /pet shops, liquor
stores, veterinary offices/hospitals, funeral par -
lors/mortuaries, outdoor storage as a primary use,
crematories/columbaria, dismantling facili-
ties/scrap yards, public utility structures and
facilities, tire sales/service, truck stops/repair.
Uses allowed under the foregoing paragraph
that may, depending on how they are operated,
also have the potential to . generate impacts or
would constitute a change in occupancy under the
building code shall not be approved unless the
Planning Director finds that as proposed to be
conducted, or as modified by conditions of use
permit, they. would not conflict with or adversely
affect existing work uses in the building and in
the area where. the work/live studio is located. No
use shall be approved where, given the design or
proposed design of the work/live studio, there
would be the potential for adverse health impacts
from the proposed use on the people residing in
the studio. An example of a potential health im-
pact is the potential for food contamination from
uses which generate airborne particulates in a
studio with an unendosed kitchen.
Retail activities must be accessory and subordi-
nate to any permitted commercial or industrial
work activity in buildings used exclusively for
work/live studios.
e. No Separate Sale or Rental of Portions of
Unit. No portion of a work/live studio may be
separately rented or sold as a commercial space
for a person or persons not living in the 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 shall meet all applicable requirements
for those uses, and proper occupancy separations
shall be provided between the work/live studios
and other occupancies, as determined by the
Building Official.
h. Notice to Occupants Required. The owner or
developer of any building containing 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 in-
dustrial uses at higher levels than would be ex-
pected in residential areas. State and Federal
health regulations notwithstanding, noise and
other standards shall be those applicable to com-
mercial or industrial properties in the district
where the project is located. For purposes of noise
control, work/live studios shall be classified as
commercial property under Table II in Section
4-10.4 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
i. Change of Use From Work /Live Studio. No
work/live studio shall be changed to exclusively
residential use in any building where residential
use is not permitted, where two (2) or more resi-
dential units already exist, or where the conver-
sion would produce more than two (2) attached
dwellings. The conversion of an existing work/live
studio to exclusively nonresidential use is permit-
ted when the conversion meets all other applicable
zoning and building code requirements for the
proposed use. Such a change shall be subject to all
applicable requirements for the district where the
proposed dwelling unit is located.
j. Increase in Residential Use. No 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 in-
creased to more than four hundred (400) square
feet or thirty (30%) percent of the gross floor area
of the unit whichever is more.
k. Additions to Building Envelope. No modifi-
cations shall be made to the exterior of a building
proposed for or in current use as a work/live occu-
pancy that would result in a substantial increase
in the building envelope resulting in an increase
3072.2
Rev. Ord. Supp. 1/99
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 30-15
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 conver-
sion to work /live. studios. All changes to the exteri-
or 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 es-
tablished within the original building envelope
shall be permitted and shall be considered as part
of the existing floor area for purposes of this sec-
tion.
If there is adjacent residentially zoned land,
then the expansion of the building envelope shall
be the minimum necessary to comply with health
and life safety requirements and minimum
habitability requirements.
1. Deed Restriction Required. The owner of
each work/live studio or each building containing
work/live rental studios shall record a notice on
the property specifying the limitations of use and
operation included in the use permit.
m. On premises Sales. On-premises sales of
goods is limited to those produced within the
work/live studio. Retail sales of goods produced
within the work/live studio shall be incidental to
the primary work use in any building used exclu-
sively for work/live occupancy. These provisions
shall permit participation in occasional open stu-
dio programs and gallery shows.
n. Nonresident Employees. Up to two (2) per-
sons who do not reside in the work/live studio may
work in the studio unless such employment is
expressly prohibited or limited by the use permit
because of potential detrimental effects on persons
living or working in the building or on commercial
or industrial uses or residentially -zoned areas in
the vicinity of the subject property. The employ-
ment 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 find-
ings that such employment will not adversely
affect traffic and parking conditions in the area
where the work/live studio is located. The employ-
ment of any persons who do not reside in the
work/live studio shall be subject to all applicable
Building Code requirements.
o. Client and Customer Visits. Client and
customer visits to work/live studios are permitted
subject to any conditions that may be imposed by
the use permit in order to ensure compatibility
with adjacent commercial or industrial uses or
adjacent residentially -zoned areas.
p. Landscaping. Where a building to be con-
verted to work/live use is adjacent to residentially -
zoned land, screening landscaping shall be provid-
ed 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 En-
vironmental Assessment for a site proposed for
work/live occupancy, including but not limited to
an expanded site investigation to determine
whether lead based paint and asbestos hazards
exist, is required to be submitted as part of the
application for a use permit. The purpose of this
requirement is to assess whether there are any
hazardous or toxic materials on the site that could
pose a health risk. Where the Phase I shows that
there are potential health risks, a Phase 2 Envi-
ronmental 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 of any use permit
required under this Chapter shall require a find-
ing that the proposed use is consistent with the
purposes for work/live studios set forth in Section
30 -15.1 with respect to the circumstances and
conditions of the subject property. The following
additional findings must also be made:
a. The proposed or existing use of each
work/live studio is a bona fide commercial or in-
dustrial activity consistent . with Section 30-
15.5(d);
b. 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;
c. Any building containing work/live studios
and each work/live studio within the building has
been designed to ensure that they will function
predominantly as work spaces with incidental
residential accommodations meeting basic habit-
ability requirements in compliance with applicable
regulations;
3072.3
Rev. Ord. Supp. 1/99
30-15 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE
d. Any changes proposed to the exterior ap-
pearance of the building will be compatible with
adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all
adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial
uses. If there is adjacent residentially -zoned land,
then the proposed changes to the building shall
make the commercial or industrial building being
converted more compatible with the adjacent resi-
dential area. (Ord. No. 2784 N.S. §6)
3072.4
Rev. Ord. Supp. V99
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
September 28, 2004
To: Members of City Council
From: Mayor Beverly Johnson
Re: Employment Contract for Acting/Interim City Manager
Background
The City desires to appoint an Acting/Interim City Manager until a new City Manager
is found to replace outgoing City Manager Jim Flint.
Discussion
Council has asked former City Manager William Norton to be the Acting/Interim City
Manager. Mr. Norton has agreed to serve the City under the terms described in the attached
draft agreement. Norton will be appointed Acting/Interim City Manager effective January 1,
2005. He serves at the will of Council until the earlier of the appointment of the new City
Manager or until Mr. Norton has worked 960 hours in 2005, the maximum normally allowed
for a retiree under CaIPERS rules.
Fiscal Impact
It is anticipated that the total cost of the contract would not exceed $102,184 for salary
in 2005. This amount represents $7683 bi- weekly salary for 13 bi- weekly pay periods (26
weeks). In addition, the City will pay up to 72 hours of unused vacation time and the cost of a
cell phone. In addition, the contract provides that any services provided during calendar year
2004 will be at the equivalent hourly rate. The total not -to- exceed amount of the contract is
$128,824. This money is available from a combination of existing budget and general fund
reserves.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council appropriate $82,000 from general fund reserves for the
retention of Mr. Norton. It is further recommended that the Council delegate to the Mayor
execution of a contract with Mr. Norton. - :: of the form of the employment agreement is
attached.
Attachment
everly Jo
Re: Report #5 -E
10 -5 -04
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF ALAMEDA
AND WILLIAM C. NORTON
This Agreement made and entered into the _ day of October, 2004, by and
between City of Alameda, herein referred to as "City" and William C. Norton, herein
referred to as "Employee."
WHEREAS, the 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; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have Employee serve as Acting City Manager
pending retirement of the incumbent City Manager, and then as Interim City Manager
pending recruitment of a new City Manager; and
WHEREAS, based on the professional qualifications and experience of
Employee, the City Council has determined that he is qualified to serve as Acting City
Manager and subsequently Interim City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Employee understands and agrees that he shall serve at the pleasure
of the Council, and that the terms and conditions of this agreement set forth the full and
entire understanding of the parties with respect to Employee's terms and conditions of
employment with the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,
the City and Employee agree as follows:
I. APPOINTMENT
Effective January 1, 2005, City appoints Employee to the position of Acting/Interim City
Manager to serve at the pleasure of Council pending recruitment of a new City Manager.
II. TERM
This Agreement shall be effective October 6, 2004, until the appointment of a new City
Manager or when Employee has worked 960 hours in calendar year 2005, whichever
occurs earlier.
III. TERMINATION
City retains the right provided under Labor Code Sec. 2922 to terminate this Agreement
at any time for any reason and with or without cause. City and Employee recognize and
agree that Employee serves at the will of the City Council. Employee may terminate this
Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to the Mayor. Upon such notice, City's
obligations under this Agreement shall cease.
IV. SCOPE OF WORK
Employee shall manage the daily affairs of the City under the direction of City Council.
Employee's duties and responsibilities shall include, but shall not be limited to the duties
and responsibilities set forth in Exhibit A, as well as the following:
a. Assisting as necessary in the recruitment process for the City Manager;
b. Regularly conferring with and directing all department heads in the development,
formation and implementation of administrative policies and practices;
c. Submitting revisions to the annual budget;
d. Performing any other City responsibilities as the Council may assign in its
discretion.
Employee shall devote himself to these responsibilities and shall devote such time as may
be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Employee's obligations under
this Agreement. Employee will not have a specific work schedule, but for convenience it
is estimated that Employee will have a 36 hour work week for performance of work for
City. Employee shall undertake no other professional employment during the term of this
Agreement.
Employee, while performing work under this Agreement, shall be considered an
employee of City for purposes of laws relating to workers' compensation, liability of
public agencies and liability and defense of public employees, and performance of duties
by public employees.
V. INDEMNIFICATION
City shall defend and indemnify Employee for acts or omissions arising within the course
and scope of his responsibilities under this Agreement, as provided in Government Code
Secs. 825 -825.6 and 995- 995.6.
VI.. WORK PRODUCT
Employee agrees that all files, notes, documents, data, specifications, correspondence,
drawings, reports and other material prepared by or furnished to. Employee in connection
with his employment hereunder shall be and remain solely and exclusive property of the
City.
VII. COMPENSATION
a. Salary
City shall pay Employee a salary of $7683 bi- weekly in accord with the City's regular
payroll practices, and subject to withholding required by law. As an exempt manager,
Employee shall not be eligible for overtime or compensatory time off. Solely for
purposes of compliance with Government Code Sec. 21224, Employee shall report
monthly to City the number of hours worked by Employee pursuant to this Agreement
based upon a 36 hour work week. Employee shall not perform work under this
Agreement that exceeds 960 hours in calendar year 2005. Any services performed by
Employee during calendar year 2004 shall be at the equivalent hourly rate.
b. Employee shall be given a 72 hours vacation time and 54 hours sick leave at the
commencement of this Agreement. Employee shall be paid for any unused vacation time
at the conclusion of this Agreement. Employee will be paid for any City holiday
occurring during the term of this Agreement.
c. Computer
City shall provide Employee with a laptop computer, an email address and access to the
City's computer network. City shall also provide a cellular telephone for use in the
performance of services under this Agreement. Employee agrees to reimburse City for
use charges, if any, related to the provision of services to others. Employee agrees to
abide by all administrative rules and regulations governing conduct of City's employees
and use of City's equipment, property and facilities. Employee agrees to promptly return
laptop computer and cellular telephone to City in good working condition upon
termination of employment.
VIII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Employee warrants that he presently does not have and agrees that he will not acquire
any direct or indirect financial interest which would conflict with his performance of this
Agreement. Employee agrees to comply with all state and local reporting obligations in
connection with his employment under this Agreement. Employee acknowledges that his
employment shall be subject to the provisions of Government Code Sec. 87406.1, which
restricts Employee's post -City employment in connection with lobbying the City, its
Council or staff, or in representing persons, interests or entities before the City for a
period of one year following the end of Employee's City employment.
IX. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended or extended only by the written agreement of the City
and Employee.
X. ASSIGNMENT
Employee shall not assign or transfer his rights and obligations under this Agreement, or
any part thereof, without the written consent of the City Council.
XI. VALIDITY
The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or
affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
XII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Employee agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules,
regulations or ordinances. All provisions required thereby to be included herein are
hereby incorporated by reference.
XIII. CAPTIONS AND SECTION HEADINGS
Captions and section headings used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of
the Agreement and will not be used in construing the Agreement.
XIV. INTEGRATION
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties concerning Employee's
employment, and supersedes and replaces other agreements, express or implied, between
the parties except as expressly stated in this Agreement. No oral representation or
modification concerning this Agreement shall be effective absent a written amendment,
signed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date first
hereinabove written.
CITY OF ALAMEDA EMPLOYEE:
By:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor William C. Norton
Approved as to form:
By:
Carol A. Korade, City Attorney
■ 1111DR. U l-I1HHIII1 ■
" JObi` Dascription
City. Manager
JC1040 exempt 37.5 CSB 0000 -00 -00 rev. 1996 -09 -04
Definition
The City Manager serves as the chief administrative officer of the City and as such directs and controls municipal.
operations In accordance with established policies. Performs other related work as required. The City Manager is one
of three Council - appointed City officers.
The City Manager shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of the City and shall be chosen by the Council on the basis
of his/her executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference to his/her actual experience in or
knowledge of, accepted practice in respect to the duties of his /her office as hereinafter outlined. City Charter, Article
VII, Sec. 7 -1. •
Example of Dudes ,
As defined in the City of Alameda City Charter, the City Manager shall have the power and it shall be his/her duty:
1. To administer and execute policies and undertakings formulated by the Council.
2. To enforce all laws and ordinances, except as provided by Sec. 6-1, (emergency powers granted the Mayor by
proclamation) and he /she Is hereby declared to be beneficially interested in their enforcement and to have power to
sue In proper courts to enforce them.
3. To appoint, discipline and remove all officers and employees of the City under his/her jurisdiction, subject to Civil
Service requirements.
4. To attend all meeting of the Council unless excused by the Council or the Mayor.
5. To keep the Councll at all times fully advised as to the needs of the City and to recommend such measures and
policies as he /she may deem expedient
6. To conduct such investigations and prepare such plans, specifications or reports as may be specified by the
Council. •
7. To see that all contracts and franchises made under his/her jurisdiction or that of the Council are faithfully
performed, and to report all violations thereof to the Council. • -
), 8. To supervise and administer all public parks, golf courses, recreation areas, wharves, docks and other public 4
properties, utilities and facilities belonging to the City except as in this Charter otherwise provided.
9. To appoint technical advisory experts or boards with the consent of and at such compensation as may be provided
- by the Council.
10. To prepare and submit a budget as required by this Charter. (...transmit to the Council a detailed budget showing
the estimated revenues and expenditures of the City and all departments thereof for the ensuing fiscal year at such
times as the Council shall require) Article XVII, Sec. 17 -3
.1.1. To investigate the conduct and proceedings of any officer or board of the City when he /she shall deem the same
necessary, or when so directed by the Council. •
12. To devote his/her entire time to the duties of his/her office. •
13. To formulate rules and regulations for officers and employees under his/her jurisdiction.
The City Manager provides direction and management for the administration and operation of the municipal functions
of the City; establishes and encourages direction and motivation for the entire organization; prepares and submits to
Council reports of financial and administrative activities; advises Council of financial conditions, program progress and
the present and future needs of the City; approves new or modified programs or systems and
administrative/personnel procedures in accordance with established policies; directs the development, presentation
and administration of the City budget; oversees the preparation of financial forecasts; monitors revenues and
expenditures; interprets, analyzes and explains policies, procedures'and programs; confers with residents, taxpayers,
businesses and other individuals, groups and agencies having an interest In affairs of City concern; responds to and
resolves difficult and sensitive inquiries and complaints; represents the City in the community and at professional
meetings; coordinates City activities with other governmental agencies and outside organizations; performs all duties
as may be prescribed by the Council.
Education & Experience
Any combination equivalent to education and experience likely to provide the required knowledge and abilities. A
typical way to obtain the knowledge'and abilities would be: -
Education
Graduation from an accredited four -year college or university with major course in public or business administration or
a related field. A related advanced degree is desirable.
Experience
Broad and extensive experience In all major phases of municipal government administration, in the capacity of City
Manager, Assistant City Manager, or senior executive for a comparable private or public sector organization.
EXHIBIT A
• knowledge ..
,Knowledge of the principles and practices of public administration and.modem municipal government administration
Including govemment budgeting and financial administration; laws, rules, regulations, court rulings and legislated
mandates affecting municipal government; personnel administration and labor relations; current social, political and
economic trends and operating problems of municipal government.
..Ability
Ability to effectively serve as chief executive and administrative officer of the City; direct overall municipal operations
in accordance with established policy; demonstrate effective leadership, vision and political sensitivity; plan, organize,
direct and coordinate the work of City management and staff personnel to achieve efficient operations; establish
organizational priorities; relate City programs to social, environmental, political, and economic needs within the
community; review and analyze complex. and technical information; draw valid conclusions and project consequences
of decisions and recommendations; interpret, apply and explain rules, laws, regulations, policies and procedures;
issue instructions, directions and orders; analyze situations and make quick decisions requiring sound' judgment;
maintain level of knowledge required for satisfactory Job performance; ensure maintenance of accurate records;
prepare and present concise, comprehensive reports; communicate effectively; act with resourcefulness, courtesy
and initiative; exercise independent judgment; establish and maintain effective working relationships with public
officials, employees and the general public.
Other Requirements
Requires possession of a valid California Driver's License and satisfactory driving record as a condition of initial and
continued employment
Medicated to Excellence, Committed to Service'
Human Resources Department
2263 Santa Clara. Avenue, Room 290, Alameda Califomia 94501
• Tel (510) 747 -4900 Fax (510) 747-4902
E -Mail hra(ci.alameda.ca.us -
[Normal view]
HOME NEWS SERVICES GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS
Privacy Accessibility Contact Webmaster Site Map Search
City of Alameda California
www.ci.alameda.ca.us
copyright O 1998 - 2004 all lights reserved
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
September 30, 2004
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Beverly Johnson
Re: Request for Proposal for Recruiting a City Manager
Background:
The City desires to select a search firm to assist it in recruiting a new City
Manager to replace outgoing City Manager Jim Flint.
Discussion:
Council seeks assistance in recruiting a City Manager. The estimated schedule
for this process is as follows: request proposals from qualified search firms by October
22, 2004; interview the firms best suited for Alameda by November 2; selection of the
search firm will be brought back for Council action at a November Council meeting;
selected search firm is to begin the recruitment process in early December 2004; and the
new City Manager to start no later than July, 2005.
Council requires a recruitment process by the search firm which significantly
involves them in screening resumes, developing a supplemental questionnaire, selecting
finalists, interviewing finalists and reference checking the top candidate(s). Council has a
Profile for the City Manager which describes the "ideal" person that will guide the efforts
of the search firm, set forth in Attachment A to the attached Request for Proposals.
Fiscal Impact:
It is anticipated that the total cost or recruiting assistance could fall in the $25,000.
to $30,000 range for professional fees and reimbursable expenses of the search firm.
This money is available from prior appropriations.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve ttached Request for Proposal to
Recruit a City Manager.
Attachment
Beverly Jo
Re: Report #5 -F
10 -5 -04
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO ASSIST
THE ALAMEDA MAYOR/COUNCIL
RECRUIT A CITY MANAGER
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
The City of Alameda, California, has about 700 full -time employees, between 250
to 400 part- timers and the municipal budget for the 2003 -2004 fiscal year was over $211
million. The five person Mayor /Council establish policy for the municipal government
and hire the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. The Mayor is directly elected
for a four -year term and the four Council members serve four year staggered terms. In
November 2004 two Council seats will be up for election. One incumbent is running and
the other is not due to term limits.
The City of Alameda is a unique island community of 76,000 residents in the San
Francisco Bay connected to the East Bay mainland by four bridges and two subterranean
tubes and by ferry services to San Francisco.
Alameda, California, was incorporated in 1854 and in 1916 became a Charter City
and a Council- Manager form of government. It is an architecturally and historically rich
community with over 10,000 buildings constructed prior to 1930. Alameda has a
Historical Preservation Ordinance and a Historical Advisory Commission to document
and protect this heritage.
Alameda has been able to maintain a small -town atmosphere with a diverse mix
of housing and neighborhoods and shady streets and pedestrian friendly shopping areas.
The residents of Alameda have a household income averaging over $67,000, about two -
thirds of the residents over 25 are college educated and 40% are employed in executive,
managerial and technical occupations. The community is home to the College of
Alameda and the California School of Professional Psychology. California State
University at Hayward and the University of California at Berkeley are in close
proximity.
Alameda Point, site of the former Alameda Naval Air Station which encompassed
about one -third of the City's land area, is being converted to new residential
neighborhoods, shopping districts, recreational facilities and business parks. This mixed
use development is all by the shores of San Francisco Bay with spectacular vistas of the
Bay, its bridges, and the City of San Francisco, just a short ferry -ride away.
Alameda is served by AC Transit, BART shuttle service and two ferry systems. It
is readily accessible to Highway 880 and is adjacent to the Oakland International Airport.
The community also is bicycle friendly.
ATTACHMENT A
1
Alameda has 14 parks along the San Francisco Bay. Marinas abound with a half
dozen yacht clubs and over 3,400 boat slips and dry boat storage places, second in the
nation to Marina Del Ray in Southern California. Alameda has a municipally owned
golfing complex with two 18 -hole courses and a par 3 executive course. The City also has
a civic light opera, a community band, and a historical museum and is within minutes of
all the cultural activities in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.
Another unique feature of Alameda is its municipally owned electrical, cable
television and internet services utility.
THE CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT
Jim Flint, the current City Manager, is retiring in January 2005 and a former City
Manager, Bill Norton, will serve as Interim City Manager until a new City Manager is
selected. Jim Flint has been Alameda's City Manager for close to eight years.
The current Mayor /Council and when their terms expire are: Beverly Johnson,
Mayor (December 2006); Tony Daysog, Vice -Mayor (December 2006); Frank Matarrese
(December 2006); Barbara Kerr (December 2004); and Marie Gilmore (December 2004).
The Alameda Mayor /Council feel the selection of a City Manager is one of their
most important tasks and will be highly involved in the selection process. A two- person
City Manager Search Committee will be working closely with the executive search firm
selected to conduct the recruitment. The members of the Search Committee will be
The Mayor /Council has already engaged in a facilitated process designed to
describe the "ideal" City Manager for Alameda. This City Manager Profile is presented in
Attachment A of this request for proposal.
DESIRED SCOPE OF SEARCH WORK
The Mayor /Council of Alameda seeks a collaborative working relationship with
the search firm they retain for the City Manager recruitment. The work tasks the
Mayor /Council envision, who is responsible for each one and a tentative schedule are
outlined below.
WORK TASKS
RESPONSIBILITY
TENTATIVE
SCHEDULE
2
1. Review "candidate profile" for City
Manager and address issues that
impact Alameda's ability to attract
good candidates
• Interview Mayor /Council
members to clarify their needs
and concerns regarding the
search.
• Interview other direct reports to
Mayor /Council and selected
department heads to
understand operating
environment and issues.
• Assess the competitiveness of
compensation package for City
Manager.
• Assess options for handling
possible housing cost issues.
• Determine outreach activities to
be stressed to identify and
attract the best candidates.
• Identify and assess options for
handling other issues impacting
the City Manager search.
2. Develop and place "eve catching"
advertisements.
• Prepare and place visually
attractive advertisements for
relevant publications, web sites
and professional journals read
by City Manager types (EG
Western City, ICMA Newsletter,
Jobs Available)
Candidate Profile Provided
By Mayor /Council
Search Firm to Meet with
Mayor /Council to Review
Issues, Options and Solutions
Search Firm
Draft Ads Approved by
Search Committee
Week 1 and 2
Week 3
3
3. Prepare and send an informative
and attractive brochure to
candidate sources and prospective
candidates.
• Prepare a brochure that helps
"sell" the Alameda City Manager
position, describes the "ideal"
candidate, identifies the issues
the new person will address,
presents compensation
information, timing of the search
and provides useful information
about the Mayor /Council and
Alameda organization.
• Research and prepare mailing
list of organizations and
candidates. Insure that City
Managers, Assistants, and
County Managers in
communities in California and
other states that could meet the
City Manager Profile receive
brochures.
• Print and distribute brochures.
4. Conduct at least a week -long
telephone- sourcing program to
further identify and interest highly
qualified candidates.
•
Contact members of
professional City Manager
organizations and reliable
sources of potential candidates.
• Contact qualified City Manager
candidates identified.
• Talk with by telephone or email at
least 75 sources and possible
candidates
Search Firm
Content and Design Approved
by
Search Committee
Search Firm
Search Committee
Will be Provided With List of
People Contacted and the
Names and Titles of People
Who Expressed An Interest
and Might Apply
Week 4 -5
Week 9
4
5. Closing deadline for receiving
resumes.
6. Screen resumes.
• Screen candidate pool to top 15
to 30 candidates by comparing
resumes to characteristics of the
"ideal" candidate as set forth in
Alameda City Manager Profile
• Identify specific questions that
the Search Committee and
Search Firm have of each
candidate based on their
background.
• Prepare confidential progress
report to the Mayor /Council
identifying the top candidates
and their background.
• Notify all candidates of their
status in the recruitment.
7. Develop a Supplemental Quest -
onnaire to be completed by the
more qualified candidates.
• Prepare and distribute a supp-
lemental questionnaires to
obtain additional background
information from the selected
candidates.
8. Closing deadline for supple-
mental questionnaires.
• Analyze supplemental quest-
ionnaires completed by top
candidates.
Search Firm
And
Search Committee
And Finalized
In a Group Meeting
Resumes will be available to
all members of the Council
and individuals can provide
input to the Search Committee
Search Firm
With Questions Approved by
the Search Committee
Individual Member of the
Council Can Provide Input to
the Search Committee
Search Firm
Search Committee
Week 11
Week 12
Week 12
Week 14
5
9. Complete personal interviews with
selected candidates.
• Conduct interviews (in person or
by phone) with up to 30
candidates using the City
Manager Profile as the basis for
interview questions as well as
the specific questions
developed for each candidate
based on their resume
submittal.
10. Screen candidates further to a
semi - finalist group and prepare a
progress report.
• Provide a list of the top 10 to 15
candidates and a summary of
qualifications.
• Include resumes, supplemental
questionnaires
11. Screen candidates to develop a
finalist list.
• Utilize resumes, supplemental
questionnaires, writing samples
and interview results to acquaint
the Mayor /Council with the
candidates. Select final 5 to 8
candidates for Mayor /Council
interviews.
12. Facilitate the Candidate interviews.
• Provide a list of "suggested"
questions and if desired, rating
forms.
• Serve as a facilitator for the
interview process including
post - interview discussion and
candidate ranking.
Search Firm
Search Firm
Search Committee
Mayor /Council
Facilitated by
Search Firm Leader
Search Firm Leader
Week 14 - 15
Week 16
Week 17
Week 19
6
13. Conduct reference checks of the
top candidate(s)
• Conduct a thorough reference
check of the top candidate(s);
include site visits by
Mayor /Council members.
• Determine what reference
checks will be done by
Mayor /Council and what will be
done by Search firm.
14. Negotiate compensation.
15. Notify all candidates.
• Provide feedback on performance
during recruitment and selection
process.
16. Meet and appoint new City Manager
17. New City Manager begins work
Mayor /Council and Search
Firm
Search Firm or Search
Committee
Search Firm
Mayor /Council
After Final
Interviews
As Soon As
Possible
As Soon As
Possible
As Soon As Possible
July 1, 2005
7
INFORMATION NEEDED FROM THE SEARCH FIRM
If you are interested in assisting the Mayor /Council of Alameda in this
collaborative and important City Manager recruitment, we would like a proposal from
you which addresses the following points:
1. The background and experience of the Search Leader from your firm who would
be working with the Mayor /Council and its Search Committee. We are
particularly interested in the City Manager and Department Head searches he or
she has done and who should be contacted (with titles and phone numbers) as
references for her or his' current and previous search work.
2. What you have been doing in current and past searches to attract highly qualified
people to local government leadership positions in communities and organizations
in areas like the Bay area with high housing costs and significant competition for
the good people available.
3. The reasons you feel the Mayor /Council should engage you to assist us on this
City Manager search.
4. The steps you would take in conducting the search within the desired scope of
work we have previously outlined. If you feel the Mayor /Council should take
some additional step not thought of or there is some step that should be modified
or eliminated, please feel free to suggest it or them.
5. Your time frame for assisting us in conducting the recruitment within the context
of the one we have proposed.
6. The professional fee and reimbursable expenses you feel will be required to assist
the Mayor /Council in conducting the search.
7. The extent to which you will guarantee your work.
If, prior to developing your proposal you wish to obtain some additional information or
clarification as to what the Mayor /Council wants in this recruitment, please feel free to
contact: (name, title, phone and email address).
You can either email us the proposal and we shall print out copies for the
Mayor /Council or you can send us your proposal. If you choose to send it, we would very
much appreciate receiving six (6) copies.
SCHEDULE FOR SELECTING THE SEARCH FIRM
8
Our tentative schedule for selecting the search firm and its search leader and
beginning the recruitment process is as follows:
Deadline for receiving search firm proposals
October 22, 2004
Review of proposals and identification of
best ones for Alameda
October 26, 2004
Interview of search firms and search leaders
and ranking
November 2, 2004
Reference Check Top Firms
By November 9, 2004
Development of Agreement
November 16, 2004
Start of Search Firm work
December 1, 2004
*
*
*
*
We look forward to receiving a proposal from you and learning more about your
firm and its search team leader and how you plan to assist the Mayor /Council. Thank
you.
Beverly Johnson
Mayor
9
ATTACHMENT A
THE "IDEAL" CITY MANAGER
City of Alameda, California
1. A seasoned City Manager in a medium -sized community similar to the
cultural and economic diversity of the City of Alameda, California. This
seasoning would be demonstrated by 15 to 20 years of local government
experience, including 10 years as a City Manager and Assistant City Manager.
The preferred community size is 50,000 to 100,000 residents.
While California local government experience is a plus, City Managers from
similar communities in other states would be acceptable. County
Administrators or Department heads from larger organizations also would be
considered.
Experiences working in communities with military base re -use,
redevelopment programs, publicly owned utilities and housing authorities also
would be plusses.
2. A professional with fully developed management skills, specifically in:
• Working productively with the elected Mayor /Council, with an
emphasis on regular communications, and assisting them in fulfilling
their planning, policy making and operations oversight roles citywide
and with the various departments regardless of their funding source.
• Working well with the public and various stakeholders and earning
their trust and respect.
• Successfully coordinating the work of Alameda with other local
agencies and representing the interests of the City.
• Working productively and collaboratively with employee associations
and unions and managing expectations and insuring equity among
contracts.
• Budgeting and managing finances, including bringing the
Mayor /Council budget balancing options and strategies which take
into account operational efficiencies, service level changes, program
elimination, cost cutting, productivity improvement and revenue
enhancing measures.
10
• Project management, including contractual staff, to insure deliverables,
schedules and budgets are met and any deviations are corrected.
• Analyzing services and operations to insure high productivity,
efficiency, people are working smarter not harder and no duplications
exist.
• Managing the performance of department heads, including setting
clear expectations, monitoring and evaluating actual performance,
holding people accountable for results and problem solving and taking
corrective action as well as insuring this occurs within the various
departments.
• Recruiting, hiring and developing high performing and customer
service oriented department heads and insuring this occurs within their
respective departments.
3. A proactive, hands -on, approachable and action oriented leadership and
management style which embraces task delegation, where appropriate, but
also holds subordinate managers accountable and enforces this accountability.
4. A person who has earned the reputation as someone with:
• Highly ethical behavior and a strong work ethic.
• Good communication skills and the ability to listen.
• The ability to craft a motivating environment for subordinate managers
and staff.
• Creativity in finding new and different ways to solve problems.
• The ability to accept responsibility for his or her actions and models
the behaviors expected of others.
• Sensitivity to the issues of diversity.
• An appreciation of and support for the role of the Council setting
policy.
• Consistency and timeliness in decision - making.
• No personal or political agenda.
• A commitment and dedication to Alameda and the Mayor /Council's
goals for this community.
11
5. A person who has earned an advanced degree and who has performed in
leadership positions in that educational field
6. A manager with the skills and abilities to successfully assist the
Mayor /Council and lead the management staff in:
• Completing the Alameda Point conveyance.
• Bring the new Main Library project back on track and closer to
budget.
• Implementing the Park and Webster redevelopment.
• Clarifying the financials for AP &T.
• Improving traffic flows.
• Revitalizing the economic climate.
• Replacing aging infrastructure.
• Insuring each department is operating efficiently, costs are under
control and good customer service exists.
• Keeping residential neighborhoods livable.
• Resolving issues with state agencies, particularly HCD.
• Building a bridge, tunnel, BART station or gondola.
12
ATTACHMENT B
EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT FIRMS
Avery Associates
3 %2 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
Suite A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Ralph Andersen & Associates
Corporate Office
5800 Stanford Ranch Road
Suite 410
Rocklin, CA 95765
Richard Perry & Associates
PO Box 188
The Sea Ranch, CA 95497
CPS Executive Search
241 Lathrop Way
Sacramento, CA 95815
The Mills Group
2314 North Olive Lane
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Waldron & Company
info @waldronhr.com
RJA Management Services, Inc.
550 W.Duarte Road
Suite 6
Arcadia, CA 91107
The Oldani Group
10900 NE 4th Street
Suite 2030
Bellevue, WA 98004
The Mercer Group
551 West Cordova Road
#726
Sante Fe, NM 87505
The Hawkins Company
5455 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1406
Los Angeles, CA 90036
The Lakeside Group
1405 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94612 -4305
Mathis & Associates
3435 Valle Verde Drive
Napa, CA 94558
13
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
Dr. Jerome B. Healy
Amy D. Martin
Raymond E. O'Loan
Tom Pavletic
Michael K. Rich
Council Communication #7 -A
10 -5 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
GOLF COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
ONE INCUMBENT ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Edmundo H. Balagot
Bill L. Boscacci
Robert Chung
Susan J. Fornoff
Ray A. Gaul
Arthur R. Huntly
Victor Jin
Steven W. Kling
Frederick W. Leitz
Paul D. Mountain
Terri Ogden
Victor K. Quintell
Thomas Reilly
Richard B. Robison
Heidi A. Shelton
Steve J. Sorensen
Svend Svendson
Sandre Swanson, Incumbent
Daniel D. Tagliaderri
Joe B. Watson
Council Communication #7 -B
10 -5 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
Partial term expiring June 30, 2005
Paul A. Bergamaschi
Thomas N. Billings
Jeffrey A. Cambra
Penny L. Cozad
Edward R. Depenbrick
Betsy P. Elgar
Michael K. Henneberry
Greg J. Klein
Rebecca L. Kohlstrand Parsons
Samuel D. Mayhew
Christopher G. Monahan
Tom Pavletic
Cookie Robles
Roderick L. Smith, II
Jean S. Sweeney
Debra D. Turnage
John W. Knox White
Lawrence R. Witte
Roger D. Wise
Council Communication #7 -C
10 -5 -04