2005-09-06 PacketTime:
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - - 6:10 P.M.
Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 6:10 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 LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiator: Beverly Johnson.
Employee: City Attorney.
3 -B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Attorney.
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
3 -D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 2900 Main Street.
Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Gateway,
Ltd.
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:10 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. Library Project 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 and Regular City Council meetings held
on August 16, 2005. [City Clerk]
4 -B. Bills for ratification. [Finance]
4 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send letters to
federal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter), S. 113
(Feinstein), H.R. 2353 (Rogers), and H.R. 3431 (Dent) which
amend federal legislation to further restrict the
establishment of tribal gambling casinos. [City Manager]
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc.
for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 25, No.
P.W. 05- 04 -06. [Public Works]
4 -E. Recommendation to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) for
Restaurant and Bar Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
[Golf]
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Commending Alameda Free Library
Director Susan H. Hardie for Her Contributions to the City of
Alameda.
5 -B. • Adoption of Resolution Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft as
a Member of the Economic Development Commission;
• Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Robert F. Kelly as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission; and
• Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Anthony M. Santare as a
Member of the Golf Commission.
5 -C. Public hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance "Amending
Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and
Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section 13 -4 (Alameda
Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I,
Section 13 -4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004
California Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments
Thereto." [Planning and Building]
5 -D. Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized
demolition; and adoption of related resolution. The site is
located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the R -4, Neighborhood
Residential District. Applicant /Appellant: Erwin Roxas.
[Planning and Building]
5 -E. Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to Employ
Special Legal Counsel; and
• Recommendation to approve Policy regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel. [City Attorney]
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 nominations for appointment to the
Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing
and Appeals Board, Public Art Commission and Recreation and
Parks Commission.
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.
_ = HARBOR
BAY
August 29, 2005
Honorable Mayor Beverly Johnson
Honorable Members of the Alameda City Council
Dear Madame Mayor,
05 AU 30 PH
TREU 11C
We have been advised by staff that the issues concerning our current rezoning application are
being submitted to Council for your consideration in Executive Session.
We feel strongly that our current application is a minor amendment to the existing approvals
which does not require an amendment to the long standing Development Agreement, and as such
is exempt from the City's current Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. We have two (2) legal
opinions supporting our position.
It's unfortunate that there is no one in the current City administration that was around in 1976
when the City ultimately approved Harbor Bay Isle's development plan for 3,200 dwelling units.
At that time we were clearly promised the right and granted the entitlements to develop 3,200
residential units.
Since 1963, Doric has been a responsible and generous member of Alameda's community. We
have supported virtually every organization and philanthropic initiative in the City. We think it is
fair to say that many cities would envy Alameda's good fortune at having a local developer that
has taken pride in executing our Master Plan while actively participating in the community. Our
industry has recognized the quality of our work by awarding us with just about every award they
offer.
Most importantly, we have honored both the spirit and letter of all our agreements with the City.
WE NOW EXPECT THE CITY TO DO THE SAME!
It is clearly understood that should we ever in the future apply for permits to develop more than
3,200 dwelling units, we would expect that those units in excess of 3,200 would be subject to the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Thank you for your conside
�xd►,� -v�� a
Ronald H. Cowan, Chairman
The Doric Group and Harbor Bay Isle Associates
Re: Item #3 -C
09 -06 -05 Closed Session
Doric Realty, Inc. 1141 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 221 Alameda, CA 94502 Phone: (510) 769 -5100 Fax: (510) 769 -5156
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 29, 2005
Re: New Main Library Project Update
Attached to this memorandum is the September 1, 2005, Library Construction Report.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
ane Chisaki
Interim Library Director
L-,47
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report 3 -A
9 -6 -05
Construction R
CI
4
•-
September 1, 2005
Status as of Library Project Timeline
September 1,
2005
2004 2005 2006
Demoliti •
(Completed)
/
I
Bid & Awa
(Complete
Plan Re', ew
(Comple( = •)
/
Construction 33%
/
Entitlements I
(Completed) /
Furnishings & Equipment
/
1I 1III
Library Move
Construction
yi
up
up
CL)
0
En C)
N
U "'
b
I,
b
a)
a)
T
0 0 cn
O
MI
0
N
ct O -,E n O O
U N +41,'
n, N
)-- c1 C% N
0 O 0 E
o, &D o Q
_ y
CT
3 0 Nom, N
E O › bA
tIO
O Ob..O N
E b
6, o a - ( -
o b U .E b
0 0 up
• 3 � �° 0 O
E an • '0 0
O a) ,
U-d 4■ cc n ,-- 0 U • —'
cC
00 m O 00 .4 N
o m cd , ;, a) =--,
U
0 5 +ri CU
6
a _U t E - a.
HZHE- ci HH
• • • • • • • •
nt Procurement
5
on
czta)
0
P.1-(
0
U
W
czt
'� bA
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
tut)
cd
•
N
■
0
U
O
U
U
U
cd
0
•
O
•
4r
0
•
bA
0
O
C
H
i. •
0
U
cd
cd
vi
0
0
O
on
O
•
,-d
0
0
a
on
O
smL
bA
a)
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
c)
d
O
CL o
N
L
5
J �
C y.
' �
0
2
3 c
• O
Z E
as
c
J o
O
d L-
LL d
co al
d O
E+�
Q O
O
4 d
d i
73
CO
0 0
0 00 0
O O o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
N O O O N O O O O
LO 0 co O O) O O O O
�,
MOO O N 0 0 0 0
d O O O LC) co- O Ln O
0) CO O •- co o ti N- N
-0 d- 0 ,— ti O m
= LC) (: N-
M
Sources of Budgeted Funds
FA
State Grant
N
-o
LL
0
c �
a)
°) 2 .
c
O -(7) LL
LL =
• � Q-
0 0 • c LLl m O
Q) t E ( 0 4)
co a a) O o_ C fn CC
2U(/)
c
E
a)
co
ca
ca
2
a)
7
O
U
co
a)
E
c0
Q
U
O
7
Cl-
+C.
U
a)
U-o
CtO
U
O
a)
27,168,249.00
Sources Subtotal:
6,734,249.00
Expenditures to date:
20,434,000.00
Balance Available:
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
O c0 N c0
O O) O O
O f-- co co -
O c0 N LC) L
• ��co O
N- - c
CO
a)
0
",
c
E
O L c
co 45 0>,
_C "0 C co
0 0 0 C
c ` a O)
C co co O
O ()
c U �
O 0) C N �
U O
LC N Su)
C Q
d 0 i C a)
E H 0
O
d
rn
ca
t
U
G: \Library\New Main Library FS 05- 06.xls
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - AUGUST 16, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - AUGUST 16, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Proclamation recognizing John Knowles for his
contribution to the revitalization of the Park Street Business
District.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Knowles.
Mr. Knowles thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05- ) Proclamation designating August 26th as Women's Equality
Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dorie
Behrstock, Vice President of Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women.
Ms. Behrstock introduced Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women members Margaret Seaman and Joanne Ainsworth;
thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the Council and
public to a reception on August 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Harbor
Bay Community Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating Special
Newsrack Districts [paragraph no. 05- ] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
August 16, 2005
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number]
( *05- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting and the
Regular City Council meeting held on August 2, 2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,127,711.09.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for
period ending June 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the period ending June 30, 2005, for sales transactions in the
First Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
second amendment to Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates,
extending the term, scope of work and price for services associated
with the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco
Keller Canyon, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(05- ) Resolution No. 13882, "Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts as Authorized in the Alameda Municipal Code Section 22 -7,
Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article 1 (Streets),
Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks)." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be aware of
the Newsrack Ditricts, which go along with the improvements on Park
and Webster Streets and increase attractiveness in the business
districts.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), urged adoption
of the resolution.
Sherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated WABA
supports adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to recognize the
efforts of former Councilmember Karin Lucas; requested staff to
review posting signs on historic lampposts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
August 16, 2005
Mayor Johnson stated a lot of signs are attached to the poles; the
signs detract from the attractiveness of the poles and should be
avoided if possible.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13883, "Requiring City Council Approval of
Any Amendment to the Employment Contracts of the City Manager or
City Attorney." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13884, "Amending the Alameda City
Employees (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for
the Position of Senior Combination Building Inspector." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13885, "Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the positions of Information
Systems Network Analyst and Safety Officer." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Public Hearing to consider Appeals of the Planning
Board's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review for the parking
garage and new Cineplex components of the proposed Alameda Theater
Project on Oak Street and Central Avenue. This site is located at
1416 Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (Video Maniacs site),
within the C -C -T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Applicants: City of Alameda (DSD) and Kyle Conner, Alameda
Entertainment Associates, LP. Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Valerie
Ruma;
(05- A) Resolution No. 13886, "Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR05 -0028
and Use Permit UP05 -0008 for the Proposed New Civic Center Parking
Garage." Adopted; and
(05- B) Resolution No. 13887, "Resolution Upholding the Planning
Board of the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review
DR05 -0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue."
Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
3
Proponents (In favor of project): Kathy Moehring, Alameda (not
present); Kevis Brownson, Alameda (submitted letter); Debbie
George, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Karen Bay, Alameda;
Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Sherri Steig,
WABA; Gene Oh, Alameda (not present); Barbara Marchand, Marchand
and Associates (not present); Dave Corkill, Cinema West; Marilyn
Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda; Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce; Robb
Ratto, PSBA; Lars Hansson, PSBA; and Frank Lopez, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of project): Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park
Action Committee (EPAC); Dorothy Freeman, EPAC; Stacey Benedetto,
Alameda; Kathryn Vincent, Alameda (not present); Nick Benedetto,
Alameda (not present); Monty Heying, Alameda; Phyllis Greenwood,
Alameda; Richard Tester, Alameda; Julie Chandler, Alameda
(submitted letter); Debra Overfield; Carol Hanson, Alameda; Celine
Perrin, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Ann Channin, Alameda; Michael
Karvasales, Alameda; Douglas Holmes, Alameda (submitted letter);
John McNulty, Alameda; Jay Levine, Alameda (sumitted letter); Ross
Dileo, Alameda; Richard Rutter, Alameda; Kevin Frederick, Alameda;
Ginni Dofflemyer, Alameda; Robert Todd; Chuck Millar, Alameda;
Birgitt Evans, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (RAPS);
Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Randy Watkins,
Alameda (submitted letter); Nils Ohlson, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,
Alameda (submitted comments); Mary Fambrough, Alameda; Mr. Roake,
Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Pat Payne, Alameda; Jim Strehlow,
Alameda; David Baker, Alameda; Mike Fennelly, Alameda; Reyla
Graber, Alameda; Joe Meylor, Alameda (submitted letter); Monica
Pena, Alameda (submitted handout); Jenny Curtis, Alameda (submitted
handout); Ron Schaeffer, Alameda; Carol Stone, Alameda (not
present); Mary Jane Beddow, Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda; Scott
Corkins, Alameda; Stephen Hahn, Alameda; Kimberly Thomas, Alameda;
Judy Beyerstedt, Alameda (submitted letter); Mark Dombeck, Alameda;
Monica Dombeck, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda (submitted
comments); Morgan, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Anders Lee,
Alameda; Vern Marsh, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Appellant (submitted
letter and petition); Victoria Ashley, Alameda (not present); Susan
Battaglia, Alameda (submitted comments); Mallory Penney, Alameda;
Bart Wise, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Appellant; Frederick Koenen,
Alameda (not present); Kristi Koenen, Alameda (sumitted comments);
David Kirwin, Alameda; George Hubbard, Alameda; Christopher
Buckley, AAPS; Carl Lasagna, Alameda; Peter Lamson, Alameda (not
present); Robert Sikora, Alameda; Richard Neveln, Alameda; Heather
Curtis, Alameda; Theresa Fossoff, Alameda (not present); Bill
Smith, Alameda; Linda Hansen, Alameda (presented drawing); Ivan
Rudenko, Alameda (not present); Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita
Dorland, Alameda (not present); Alex Helperin, Alameda (not
present); Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present); Sia Bayat,
Alameda; Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
August 16, 2005
Following Gina Shepard's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at
11:37 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:50
p.m.
**
When the meeting was reconvened, Councilmember Matarrese moved
approval of continuing the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* **
Following Frank Lopez, there being no further speakers, Mayor
Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the cost for the Cineplex and
historic renovation is approximately $13 million dollars; the
report compares the $13 million cost against $5.9 million in
revenues; there is a negative of $7.1 million; inquired whether
interest is included in the $13 million cost.
Tim Kelly, Keyser and Marston Associates, responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the amount would be if interest
were included.
Mr. Kelly responded tax increment should be included if interest is
included; stated the bonds are already funded; all sources of
income that pay for the City's obligations, including tax increment
used to fund the debt service on the bonds and garage income, are
not included.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was an estimate of how
long it would take for property values to raise in order to recoup
the $7.1 million.
Mr. Kelly responded the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
already has the income to pay for the approximately $15 or $16
million in bonds which have been sold; the $7 million for the
parking garage is not paid for yet; some sources of funds would be
the theater and ground lease rent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the sources of funds would
equal $5.9 million.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated the source of funds
would be $5.9 million in present value against a loan of $7 million
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
August 16, 2005
present value.
Councilmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the
Cineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back.
Mr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon
the CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not
have to repay the bonds; the bonds are financed by CIC's existing
cash flow.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax
increment.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the
existing tax increment; the tax increment does not come out of the
General Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General
Fund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used
for certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money
from being used for Police and Fire services.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used
for public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr.
Kelly responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are
used for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be
covered by redevelopment funds.
Mr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing
is to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove
blight; redevelopment financing is not intended for public
improvements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically,
redevelopment funds could be used.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment
money cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to
infrastructure.
Mr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment
captured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to
use the funds for remediation of blight.
The Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is
very clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be
used for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law
findings that state there are no other public monies available must
be made to do an improvement, like a street.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
6
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is an argument that
redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure
improvements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital
Improvement Budget; inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be
used under certain circumstances.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street
resurfacing; pass- through agreements with the County preclude the
City from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain
projects, such as Estuary Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated
with the $47 million bond issue.
The Development Services Director responded the projects include
the new Library and matching funding for some grant money for
Webster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part
of the construction of the Marina Village Project; $13 million went
to capitalize the payments on the long -term obligation to repay the
infrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for
intersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets.
The Development Services Director responded that money for
intersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment
revenues, not bond money.
Councilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results
in a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments
regarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid
from the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not
the project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC
costs against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7
million negative.
Mr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the
historic theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the
theater; the City is buying assets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of redevelopment
is to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect
property taxes if the City owns the assets.
The Development Services Director responded one objective of
redevelopment is to create value; redevelopment also serves to
build the projects which the community needs; the existing tax
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
August 16, 2005
increment supports the construction of the parking structure; the
parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new
value; the money is also used for projects that the public has
decided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a
case and is an eligible, legal project; the lion share of the $5.9
million concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,
stabilization and restoration of the historic theater; part of the
expenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the
theater, which was considered of great concern to the community;
staff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the
investment; the theater did not have a private sector investor all
these years because nobody in the private sector could figure out
what could go into the building to substantiate or support the
investment.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,
to which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net
present value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the
historic theater; Council felt the theater would continue to
deteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the
project cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not
so valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking
garage, without the historic theater; the project is running in the
red because so much money is being spent for the historic theater
infrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a
financial albatross.
The Development Services Director responded public entities restore
buildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to
the community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a
building use that could support the project costs would result in
the building being butchered to increase density, such as public
storage; said type of use would not meet the community's
restoration and preservation goals.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure
design /build allows the design to be modified.
The Development Services Director responded that one of the goals
of using the design /build process was to ensure that the project
was built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the
design /build process allows designers and construction to come
together to yield the most efficient garage; the exterior design
review is being resolved to prevent the design /build contract from
growing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up
front provides the additional guarantee that there would be no
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
August 16, 2005
questions about what the design /build team put together; the
objective was to have the most efficient, least expensive project,
with an eye on speed; the exterior design of the project needs to
be known before moving forward, otherwise an intolerable budget
situation could be created; design /build should reduce the number
of changes later and create a more controlled process for bidding
the project and getting the best price and product for the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the first tasks was to
review alternate parking areas in 1999 during the visioning
process; inquired what were the alternate areas.
The Development Services Director responded she does not know what
the alternate parking areas were in 1999; subsequent parking
analysis identified alternative sites, including the Elks Club,
Video Maniacs and the Long's site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not recall Video Maniacs
being one of the sites.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Video Maniacs was included as
an option in the 2000 Downtown Vision Report.
The Development Manager stated that six studies reviewed different
sites since 1972; all studies considered Video Maniacs as one of
the top sites.
Councilmember deHaan stated the 2000 parking analysis indicated
that 498 parking spaces were needed for 1,500 theater seats;
inquired whether the Development Services Director was aware of the
analysis.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the analysis was fairly speculative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the analysis indicated that a certain
number would park in the lot and some patrons would park in other
areas; Park Street as been so successful in recent years that the
200 spaces [in other areas] that were going to be used to support
the theater are being utilized now.
The Development Services Director stated the environmental
assessment included completion of a new traffic and parking
assessment to update the information and confirm that there would
be opportunities for shared parking; the commercial district
setting of the project means people will have already parked
somewhere else.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
9
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first
study has increased.
The Development Services Director responded the new trip manual
published after parking work was completed has identical numbers on
reverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors
that apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday
position has been improved significantly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been
provided.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that the only manual of record published at the time the work was
completed was used for the [first] study; using the new trip manual
staff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was
that, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even
worse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow
into other areas because the parking structure would not be able to
handle all parking needs.
The Development Services Director responded said case would only
occur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the
scope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger
project because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed
project is smaller.
The Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic
and parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of
the 1750 seats and did not include cross trips; the numbers in the
parking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to
support the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support
peak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman
Auditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school.
The Development Services Director responded that staff did not
factor in that every facility in town could have an event on the
same night; the analysis is based on existing trip data at certain
times of the day.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
10
Councilmember deHaan stated the theater is not used during peak
hours; the theater peak time is later.
The Development Services Director stated the parking studies
included a desire for a much bigger parking structure; a 508 space
parking garage was contemplated when the Long's parking lot was
discussed; a long -term parking plan is still needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that existing tax increment covers the
bonds that have already been issued; requested staff to address how
the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan would be paid back,
the developer's buying and selling options, and how much capital
the developer is investing in the project; stated that there has
been a lot of discussion regarding scaling down the theater or just
doing three screens; the number one goal of the Downtown Vision
Plan was to restore the historic theater for first run movies.
The Development Services Director stated all except $3.5 million of
public investment in the project would go to the historic theater
and parking garage; the developer will provide his own furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF &E) in the historic theater; the
developer will bring $5.3 million in equity and bank financing; the
developer has met financing commitments outlined in the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA); the bank financing includes an SBA
(Small Business Administration) portion, which has additional
control and rigor because of the examination SBA completes; the
developer would build the Cineplex; the City will own the land
under the Cineplex and own the historic theater and land; the City
will lease the historic theater and the ground under the Cineplex
to the developer; a $700,000 grant will pay for vertical elements,
such as the elevator, ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
exiting and life safety exiting; the Cineplex entrance will be used
to meet ADA requirements; there are two methods for repaying the
$2.8 million loan in the DDA; $1.4 million will begin to be repaid
in the seventh year after the developer's FF &E financing would be
retired; the other $1.4 million will be paid in a percentage rent,
which is 17% of the project gross above a certain threshold; DDA
provisions preclude the developer from selling or refinancing
without paying off the loans; the historic theater retail rental
income will be retained by the CIC; the developer has the option to
purchase the the historic theater and the land under the Cineplex
from the CIC after successfully operating for five years; the
developer would have to buy both the historic theater and Cineplex
land; the purchase price would be the amount that the CIC paid.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that there is a lot of concern over the
assumptions about ticket sales; the developer has to sell tickets
to meet his obligations to bankers and the CIC; the concern is that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
August 16, 2005
not enough tickets will be sold and that the project will fail;
requested staff to address said assumptions.
The Development Services Director stated the assumptions are
extremely conservative; staff assumed the project would gross
approximately $2 million per year in ticket sales and another
$900,000 to $1 million in concessions, for a total of $3 million;
the financial analysis has determined that the project obligations
to the CIC would be met at the achievement of said $3 million; the
percentage rent is based on the business producing $3 million; the
assumption is that 60-65% of the Alameda market will be captured;
the Bay Area is an anomaly with respect to theater -going trends;
Bay Area theater attendance is almost twice the national average;
theaters in the area are doing twice the amount of business that
staff estimated per screen; staff also wanted to ensure that the
project has enough revenue to maintain the facilities; DDA
provisions require that the buildings need be operated in a certain
manner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the square foot rent would be
for the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
calculate the amount; the rent has been $2,000 per month for the
past few years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the square footage of the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded that the entire building is 33,000 square feet, which
includes space that would not be used.
Mayor Johnson requested an overview of the current condition of the
historic theater and the status of the acquisition.
The Development Services Director responded the Council took action
to begin the eminent domain process late last spring; the building
estimate, based on an appraisal, was deposited with the courts; the
owner has picked up the deposit and advised the court that he would
not contest the sale and is only interested in the value; the value
will now be established through the eminent domain process; the
City will take possession of the theater on October 3 or 4; the
City has worked with the owner to gain access to the building and
begin work, such as investigation of the ground water problem in
the basement.
Mayor Johnson noted that the building has been used as a skating
rink, disco, roller rink and gymnastics auditorium.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
12
The Development Services Director stated that the City has been
working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the
building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to
determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code
and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been
done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the
concrete facade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood
posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and
plumbing work has to be redone; the water in the basement is a
combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water
intrusion.
The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;
the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,
and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered
water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up; buffer
walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the
auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage
along the alley due to a storm drain.
Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received
from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be
received from the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing
and would receive the rents from his own retail space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was
significant to the developer to make the project work.
The Development Services Director responded that the funding is
part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from
the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer
will pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new
Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated
150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the
balcony.
The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the
developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if
he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62 -64 seats each
and would be used to show boutique films.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
13
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could
be downsized if one of the theaters and some retail were removed;
stated that he is concerned with protrusions going in all different
directions; inquired whether the footprint could be reduced.
The Development Services Director responded the buildings are
linked; eliminating a theater from the Cineplex top level would
impact the value of what remains and the project's ability to
support the additional cost of going to a second floor; some of the
value supports the construction cost.
Councilmember deHaan stated protrusions usually cost more money;
removing the 79 -seat theater would allow the building to be brought
back; review of other options would allow reduction of mass; that
he has concerns about design.
Kyle Conner, Project Developer, stated more screens are needed, not
less; eliminating a screen on the second level of the Cineplex
would leave only nine screens; that he would like to have more than
ten screens; that he would have a problem with reducing the number
of screens.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Conner's plan would be to go
forward with the balcony eventually, to which Mr. Conner responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the $72,000 in rent for the
historic theater equals per square foot.
Mr. Conner responded the ground floor is approximately 19,000
square feet, including retail; the cinema would be approximately
15,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog stated that movie theater square footage
comparisons are a way to gauge whether the rent is appropriate.
Mr. Conner stated debt service for construction should be
considered as rent because he has a ground lease and does not own
the property; rent would be approximately $1.30 per square foot
when considering all of the components to service the debt and rent
for the facility.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the figure would be if debt
service were not considered, to which Mr. Conner responded $0.40
per square foot.
The Development Services Director stated that the rent is based on
revenues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
14
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats the historic theater
had on the main floor, to which the Development Manager responded
2,000 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats would be accommodated
now, to which the Development Manager responded 484 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all the space would be
utilized.
Mr. Conner responded old seats were spaced 32 inches apart; new
seats will be spaced 45 inches apart.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 484 seats would utilize
all the space.
Mr. Conner responded in the affirmative; noted old seating areas
underneath the balcony would be used for offices and concessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the historic theater lobby
area would be adequate for a concession stand, to which Mr. Conner
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether rent was compared with other
cities or facilities.
Mr. Kelly responded one integrated business is being run in two
buildings; rent was run against total gross and was around 15%; the
calculations were run on gross, rather than per square foot; the
rent is based upon the estimated volume of business.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the industry reviews rents on
a square -foot basis.
Mr. Kelly responded typical rent would be $1.35 to $1.85 per square
foot in a suburban area; Alameda's situation is unique; the rent
was based on estimated gross sales to be fair to both sides.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a blended figure
for both the new Cineplex and the historic theater, to which Mr.
Kelly responded that the developer is building the Cineplex
building.
Mayor Johnson stated one of the project goals was to save the
historic theater; theaters built today are not like the historic
theater; the developer is taking on a lot of space that would not
be taken on for a modern theater; the project would be a lot easier
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
August 16, 2005
if preserving the historic theater were not a goal; there are
obstacles in determining how to go forward with the project and
save the historic theater at the same time.
Mr. Kelly stated the historic theater costs over $9 million for 484
seats; $9 million is enough money to build a 12 -plex.
Mayor Johnson stated eight years ago, the Council gave direction to
staff to develop a project that would save the Alameda Theater and
have it used for first run movies.
Mr. Conner stated the percentage rent structure was designed to
help protect the downside and have everyone share in the upside;
the City shares significantly [in the upside] more than any other
deal; the amount is three to four times what an average percentage
rent would be in any commercial theater in a suburban setting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City's share of the
percentage rent in net present value terms over 20 to 30 years is
$190,000.
Mr. Kelly responded an aggressive assumption that the theater will
get 100% of the Alameda market would mean the City will have some
significant percentage rents; if the theater does very well, the
City will receive 15 to 17 %, will share in that [profit] and
receive what is believed to be a fair rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 15 to 17% was based on gross or net,
to which Mr. Kelly responded gross, including concessions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated everyone seems to agree that the historic
theater should be restored and preserved; the money being spent to
restore the theater could build a 12 -plex; money is being put into
the historic theater because it almost becomes a public amenity; a
public amenity is not expected to make a return; the new Library is
not expected to make a return.
Councilmember Daysog noted residents voted for the new Library.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the community has clearly expressed that
restoration and preservation of the historic theater is valuable;
the high cost of rehabilitating the theater makes a financially
neutral project difficult; opinions about the rest of the project
differ; restoring the theater does not come cheaply.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been on -going attempts to install
parking in the Park Street area since the 1970's; there was effort
to save the theater in the 1980's; the project will not solve all
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
August 16, 2005
parking problems on Park Street; Webster Street potential parking
problems need to be reviewed; the City has the opportunity to move
forward with the project; the developer is willing; financing is
available; there have been years of public study; that she has not
come across one person in Alameda who has said do not bother saving
the historic theater; saving the historic theater is not easy; no
one has attempted to run the theater for 25 years; that she is
trying to do what she believes is best for Alameda in the long
term.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether adding a multiplex cinema
to the historic theater makes the project economically viable;
stated that he is concerned about the movie marketplace; a minimum
of 15 screens seems necessary to make money; seven screens
definitely will not make money; that he is emphatic about getting
parking on Park Street; the theater should not overtake the benefit
of having a parking structure; the [Cineplex] design is ugly; the
trouble is placing the structure on a small parcel; there is not
enough money for the project.
Mayor Johnson stated the project would be easier to manage
financially if one of the goals was not saving the historic
theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated one reason for the [financial]
shortfall is because the City is paying for assets that will be
acquired, such as the parking structure and theater; evidence
supports the financial feasibility of the project; requested an
explanation of the Planning Board action, including what approval
meant and what changes were made; requested the architect to
explain the basis of the design.
Rob Henry, The Henry Architects, stated that he inherited the
project after Michael Stanton Architectural firm designed the
building, which gave direction as to the massing of the building;
that he tried to include scale, texture and materials that would be
compatible and advantageous to the downtown atmosphere; the project
was very difficult; the building's constraints cannot be ignored;
the building has to have certain proportions in order to be a
successful theater design, which have led to difficult solution
with the building overhangs; that he has tried to cooperate with
the Design Review Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning
Board to address all concerns; the Planning Board placed a couple
of conditions on the design; one condition was to add some
additional texture to the panels on the corner of the building;
many options were studied; the decision was made to enhance the
context of the design, rather than introducing something totally
foreign to the basic design of the building; the established design
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
August 16, 2005
for the panels around the corner of the building was carried into
more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the
overall design.
The Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long
pre- design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that
the developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to
Michael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process
and the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and
Planning Board established the design criteria addressing the
issues that the community thought were important; the criteria was
provided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for
beginning the project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking
garage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like
the buildings to fit together; currently, the two buildings stand
alone.
Mr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two
different buildings with different functions; applying one design
to one type of building and expecting that design to apply to
another type building is difficult; the design comes out of the
internal organization, function and requirements of the project;
there is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex,
which was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does
have a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the
Cineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the
buildings is similar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is
attempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking
structure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having
mostly vertical elements.
Mr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate
whether or not a new building built in a historic context should be
built to look like the historic building or be something of its own
character; both sides have pros and cons.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines
prohibit imitation of a historic building.
The Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of
Standards prohibits mimicking or creating a building that would
give the false impression that it was built in 1920 instead of
2005; the Secretary of Standards encourages incorporating historic
features and elements into the design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
August 16, 2005
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether or not rounding off the
corner would be considered mimicking.
The Development Services Director responded rounding off would not
be mimicking; stated mimicking would be trying to make people
believe the building is art deco.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Cineplex and parking structure
corners could be smoothed; where the Cineplex steps back from the
historic theater there are funny, square windows.
The Development Services Director stated that she met with AAPS
last week; AAPS feels strongly about the need for a much stronger
vertical element; at a number of different public meetings
addressing design, people liked the glass lobby element.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the long, 20
to 21 inch, protrusions, which do not match the downtown district
and result in an awkward mass; that he would be happy if the
project was one - story; however, more screens are needed to make the
project financially feasible.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for taking the time to voice
opinions; stated that the Council would vote on the appeal of the
Planning Board's decision regarding the project design and other
design related elements tonight; that he is troubled by the
business deal aspects of the project and continues to struggle over
what constitutes the proper balance between fulfilling an earnest
desire for a historic movie theater that the community could be
proud of and the wise and prudent use of public dollars; that he is
also troubled by the fact that the cinema project is a negative $7
million and the new information tonight regarding the $0.40 per
square foot [rent] when market is $1.35; that the Council has a
fiduciary responsibility to exercise leadership when the public's
appetite for amenities conflicts with fiscal prudence; that he
understands the desire to restore the historic theater and that
some people want the Cineplex; however, he is struggling with the
rent; $0.40 per square foot is one -third of the market rate.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.35 market rate is
for commercial space or theater space, to which the Development
Services Director responded the rate is for brand new theater
space.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether data on other historic
theaters, such as the Fox Theater in Oakland, was available.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
19
The Development Services Director responded that the Fox Theater is
non - profit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand
new theater] is not fair.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because
people are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new
historically restored theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically
restored makes a difference.
Councilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater
is on the City's dime.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is
at least as close to fair market as possible.
The Development Services Director stated that the developer would
be happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to
build the cinemas.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the
downtown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar
figure on how the project will improve the environment and make the
area more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things
happen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John
Knowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr.
Knowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the
merchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set
up an environment to retain businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in
spite of the City and with no public dollars because the
Redevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment
agency; part of the project's value is that the City is getting
first run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend
money in town, rather than elsewhere.
Councilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized
at $1.10 per square foot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside
whether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's
decision, which is about design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 20
August 16, 2005
Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40
per square foot.
Valerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the
environmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact
report is required by the law before the project can go forward.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative
declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR); a letter from the
Appellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been
required if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative
declaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative
declaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated
negative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not
challenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative
declaration was not challenged.
Ms. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided
contradictory information that there was no specific appeal process
and the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design
review could be appealed but that the environmental review is not
being addressed tonight.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss
the matter with Ms. Ruma.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design /build
project; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed
design, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower
opening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a
construction standpoint.
The Development Services Director responded that she could not
answer whether the openings could be made smaller; there are a
number of structural issues relative to the parking garage because
of other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns
possible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and
view; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the
outside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be some type of
movement on the long, bare sidewall of the parking garage to give
it a feel other than just a flat wall.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
August 16, 2005
The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built
on the property line; that she does not have the answer since the
structural piece has not been completed; a process has been started
to provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable
mural.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical
theater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be
replicated, movement can be done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four
ins and outs.
The Development Services Director stated there is some
articulation.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture
presented would not be the final design; the City has a public art
policy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from
local artists to create a design based on the adopted policy.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion
was to reverse the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning
Board's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design
Review; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is
harmonious in design; experts have discussed vertical and
horizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the
historic theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals
to use the historic theater for first run movies and provide
parking in an unobtrusive way; inquired whether the Council could
attach conditions.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
August 16, 2005
see included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision
are a condition to have the facade treatment on the Oak Street
portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar
to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment
of the Central Avenue facade of the Cineplex provide a less modern
treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the
corner portion of the Cineplex second -story view spot that is
curved outwards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.
Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was
not the garage in Staunton, Virginia.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with
openings.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of
a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have
the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original
renderings.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
referring to "less modern" applies to the overhang that is on the
front of the Cineplex.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that
he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any
direction in defining less modern.
Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping
treatments; however, he is not an architect; the direction should
be general; the architect should come back with something less
modern for that window specifically and the architect should
understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.
Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further
requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket
booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used
to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
23
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning
Board decision with the conditions outlined].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not
support the motion because he is concerned about the business deal;
charging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million;
charging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the
amount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic
theater are the original colors.
The Development Manager responded the original colors are not
known; however, the original colors were light.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too
much on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to
bring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not
occurring, he would not support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(05- ) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club,
submitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working
with Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the
Veterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for
Alameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities;
requested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort
plans as part of the upcoming environmental review.
(05- ) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would
include transit opportunities.
(05- ) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a
proposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the
former Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs
for veterans, low income families, college students, and foster
care children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be
funded by the resort development.
(05- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005
24
(05- ) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking
Structure Public Hearing: Valerie Ruma, Citizens for, Megaplex Free
Alameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary
McNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf
Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code
Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley
to the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to
the Golf Commission.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an
announcement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application
by Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the
Krusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular
does not own the existing site.
Mayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which
Councilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed
the first cell towers at Krusi Park.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that she would
investigate the matter.
(05- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry
has exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement
needs to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be
considered in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 2:40 a.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
August 16, 2005
25
September 1, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
139539 - 140386
EFT 129
EFT 130
EFT 131
EFT 132
EFT 133
EFT 134
EFT 135
EFT 136
Void Checks:
138540
139356
139386
140194
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sible
Council Warrants 09/06/2005
Amount
2,895,723.11
25,610.00
2,074,653.60
240,864.34
1,002,593.17
98,670.29
2,367,250.76
135,815.53
3,117,183.75
(4,250.00)
(16.00)
(16.00)
(166.65)
11, 953,915.90
BILLS #4 -B
09/06/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 30, 2005
Re: Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Send Letters to Federal
Legislators Supporting S. 1260 (Vitter), S. 113 (Feinstein); H.R. 2353
(Rogers), and H.R. 3431 (Dent), Which Amend Federal Legislation to
Further Restrict the Establishment of Tribal Gambling Casinos.
Background
On December 7, 2004, the City Council appropriated funds to secure various
services and supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential
impacts of the proposed Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation (Koi Nation) gambling
casino in Oakland. On January 18, 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution
formally opposing the Koi Nation casino proposal.
On June 10, 2005, the City of Oakland issued a press release indicating that the Koi
Nation's casino proposal was no longer viable because their option to purchase
property to develop their casino had expired and would not be renewed by the
property owner, Legacy Partners. Although the Koi Nation has not formally
withdrawn their application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to place the property
"in trust ", BIA staff have stated that the application is no longer being processed.
Therefore, the Koi Nation's efforts to establish a casino in Oakland have been
derailed.
Discussion /Analysis
Due to attempts by the Koi Nation and other tribes to develop gambling casinos in
urban areas outside of their tribal land, representatives of the United States
Congress have introduced legislation which would amend existing federal legislation,
such as the Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA), to further regulate how and where
a tribe may establish a gambling casino. At the request of the City Council, staff has
analyzed four pieces of proposed legislation and recommends formal support for
them:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4-C
9 -6 -05
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2
August 30, 2005
U.S. Senate 1260 (Vitter)
S. 1260 would permit tribes to take land into trust once the Secretary of the Interior
determines that a new casino would not have a negative economic effect on any
tribe or other local general governmental jurisdiction within a sixty -mile radius of the
proposed site. The state legislature and the governor would need to concur with the
determination of no negative impacts. S. 1260 would also require the tribe to
establish a historical, social, and cultural nexus to the property. Staff recommends
sending a letter to federal legislators supporting S. 1260 and further requesting that
Senator Vitter strengthen the language to require that negative social and
environmental impacts on surrounding jurisdictions, in addition to negative economic
impacts, be considered by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence from the
Governor and State Legislature.
U.S. Senate 113 (Feinstein)
S. 113 repeals the declaration that specified lands accepted by the Secretary of
Interior for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria in California shall be deemed to have
been held in trust. This bill would prohibit the Lytton Rancheria tribe from
establishing a gambling casino in the City of San Pablo. The proposed casino is
opposed by all of the jurisdictions neighboring the City of San Pablo due to its
potential negative economic, social, and environmental impacts on their
communities and the region. Staff recommends sending a letter to federal
legislators supporting S. 113.
U.S. House of Representatives 2353 (Rogers)
The "Common Sense Indian Gambling Reform Act" would require the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) to find that a tribe has a social, cultural, and
historical nexus to the proposed casino site. The DOI must also find that the casino
is not detrimental to the surrounding community and "concurrent or contiguous" local
jurisdictions, the governor, and the state legislature must concur. HR 2353 provides
the City with a greater ability to defeat casino proposals that negatively impact the
Alameda community, therefore, staff recommends sending a letter to federal
legislators supporting HR 2353. However, staff further suggests that the City
encourage the author to amend the bill to expand the area by which impacts are
analyzed to include all jurisdictions within 15 miles of the proposed casino site.
U.S. House of Representatives 3431 (Dent)
HR 3431 removes the exceptions to the IGRA and requires all casino proposals to
be approved by the governor and the state legislature. This bill would positively
impact the City of Alameda when faced with a casino proposal such as the Koi
Nation. However, tribes that have the support of the governor and the legislature
would maintain the ability to establish casinos without the support of affected local
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3
August 30, 2005
jurisdictions. Staff recommends sending a letter to federal legislators supporting HR
3431 and further requesting that Congressman Dent strengthen the language to
require that all local governments within 15 miles of the proposed casino site also
approve any proposed off - reservation casino project.
Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with the requested action.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send letters to
federal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter), S. 113 (Feinstein); H.R. 2353
(Rogers), and H.R. 3431 (Dent), which amend federal legislation to further restrict
the establishment of tribal gambling casinos.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Kurita
City Manager
Christa Jo 'nson
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment A: S. 1260 (Vitter)
Attachment B: S. 113 (Feinstein)
Attachment C: H.R. 2353 (Rogers)
Attachment D: H.R. 3431 (Dent)
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Page 1 of 5
S 1260 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1260
To make technical corrections to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 16, 2005
Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs
A BILL
To make technical corrections to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Common Sense Indian Gambling Reform Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.
Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719) is amended- -
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
'(2) the Indian tribe has no reservation as of October 17, 1988, and the land is located in the State of
Oklahoma and --
'(A) is within the boundaries of the former reservation of the Indian tribe, as defined by the
Secretary; or
'(B) is contiguous to other land held in trust or restricted status by the United States for the benefit of
the Indian tribe in the State of Oklahoma.';
(2) in subsection (b) --
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively;
(B) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)), by striking 'paragraph (2)(B)' and
inserting 'paragraph (3)(B)'; and
(C) by striking '(b)(1) Subsection' and all that follows through clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(B) and
inserting the following:
Attachment A
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./tempt--c109VK5MFn
Page 2 of 5
'(b) Exceptions-
' (1) IN GENERAL-
'(A) EFFECT ON COMMUNITY- Subject to subparagraph (B) and paragraph (2), subsection (a)
shall not apply to Indian lands for which the Secretary, after consultation with the Indian tribe and
officials of all State, local, and tribal governments that have jurisdiction over land located within 60
miles of such Indian lands, determines that a gaming establishment on that land --
'(i) would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members; and
'(ii) taking into consideration the results of a study of the economic impact of the gaming
establishment, would not have a negative economic impact, or any other negative effect, on
any unit of government, business, community, or Indian tribe located within 60 miles of the
land.
'(B) CONCURRENCE OF AFFECTED STATE- For a determination of the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) to become valid, the Governor and legislative body of the State in which a gaming
activity is proposed to be conducted shall concur in the determination.
'(C) EFFECT OF PARAGRAPH- This paragraph shall not apply to any land on which a gaming
facility is in operation as of the date of enactment of the Common Sense Indian Gambling Reform
Act of 2005.
'(2) PRIMARY NEXUS-
'(A) IN GENERAL- The land described in paragraph (1) shall be land --
'(i) within a State in which the Indian tribe is primarily located, as determined by the
Secretary; and
'(ii) on which the primary geographic, social, and historical nexus to land of the Indian tribe is
located, as determined in accordance with subparagraph (B).
'(B) DETERMINATION- For purposes of subparagraph (A), a geographic, social, and historical
nexus to land of an Indian tribe shall exist with respect to land that is --
'(i)(I) owned by, or held in trust by the United States for the benefit of, an Indian tribe;
'(II) located within the boundaries of --
'(aa) the geographical area, as designated by the Secretary, in which financial assistance
and social service programs are provided to the Indian tribe, including land on or
contiguous to a reservation; or
'(bb) the geographical area designated by the Indian tribe during the Federal
acknowledgment process of the Indian tribe as the area in which more than 50 percent
of the members of the Indian tribe reside in a group composed exclusively or almost
exclusively of members of the Indian tribe; and
'(III) located within the geographical area in which the Indian tribe demonstrates that the
Indian tribe has historically resided, as determined by the Secretary; or
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./tempt-c109VK5MFn 8/15/2005
Page 3 of 5
'(ii) located --
'(I) in a State other than the State of Oklahoma; and
'(II) within the boundaries of the last recognized reservation of the Indian tribe in any
State in which the Indian tribe is located as of the date on which a determination under
this subparagraph is made.';
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
'(c) Contiguous Land Requirement- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an Indian tribe shall
conduct any gaming activity subject to regulation under this Act on 1 contiguous parcel of Indian lands.'.
SEC. 3. TRIBAL GAMING ORDINANCES.
Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710) is amended- -
(1) in subsection (b)(1) --
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ', and' and inserting a semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting '; and'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
'(C) the class II gaming is conducted --
'(i) on lands that were Indian lands before the date of enactment of this subparagraph; or
'(ii) on land taken into trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe after the date of enactment of
this subparagraph, but only if the application of the Indian tribe requesting that the land be
taken into trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe stated the intent of the Indian tribe to conduct
class II gaming activities on the land.'; and
(2) in subsection (d) --
(A) in paragraph (1) --
(i) in subparagraph (A) --
(I) in clause (i), by striking 'such lands,' and inserting 'the Indian lands;';
(II) in clause (ii), by striking ', and' and inserting '; and'; and
(III) in clause (iii), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ', and' and inserting a semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting '; and'; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/-c109VK5MFn
8/15/2005
Page 4 of 5
'(D) conducted --
'(i) on lands that were Indian lands before the date of enactment of this subparagraph; or
'(ii) on land taken into trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe after the date of enactment of
this subparagraph, but only if the application of the Indian tribe requesting that the land be
taken into trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe stated the intent of the Indian tribe to conduct
class III gaming activities on the land.'; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
'(10) DEFINITION OF STATE- In this subsection, the term 'State' means the Governor of the State and
the legislative body of the State.'.
SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION AND APPROVAL.
(a) Powers of the Chairman- Section 6(a) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2705(a)) is amended- -
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking 'and' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting '; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
'(5) approve or disapprove the involvement in a gaming activity subject to regulation by the Commission
of any 1 of the 10 persons or entities that have the highest financial interest in the gaming activity, as
identified by the Commission under section 7(b)(3)(A).'.
(b) Powers of the Commission- Section 7(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
'(3) shall --
'(A) identify the 10 persons or entities that have the highest financial interest (including outstanding
loans, debt -based fmancing, and other financial interests) in each gaming activity subject to
regulation by the Commission; and
'(B) conduct a background investigation of --
'(i) each of the persons and entities identified under subparagraph (A); and
'(ii) any other person or entity, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.'.
(c) Tribal Gaming Ordinances- Section 11(b)(2)(F) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)
(F)) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
'(i) ensures that- -
'(I) a background investigation will be conducted by the Commission on --
'(aa) each tribal gaming commissioner;
'(bb) key tribal gaming employees, as determined by the Commission;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./tempi—c109VK5MFn 8/15/2005
Page 5 of 5
'(cc) primary management officials; and
' (dd) key employees of the gaming enterprise; and
'(II) oversight of the individuals described in subclause (I) will be conducted on an
ongoing basis; and'.
(d) Commission Funding- Section 18(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking '$8,000,000' and inserting '$16,000,000'.
SEC. 5. CHANGING USE OF INDIAN LAND.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is amended- -
(1) by redesignating sections 21 through 24 as sections 22 through 25, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 20 the following:
'SEC. 21. CHANGING USE OF INDIAN LANDS.
'Before an Indian tribe uses any Indian lands for purposes of class II or class III gaming, the Indian tribe shall- -
'(1) submit to the Secretary an environmental impact statement that the Secretary determines to be in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) relating to that
use; and
'(2) obtain the consent of the Secretary with respect to the change in use of the Indian lands.'.
SEC. 6. EFFECT OF ACT.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not affect any compact or other agreement relating to
gaming subject to regulation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act.
END
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./tempi-c109VK5MFn 8/15/2005
Page 1 of 1
S 113 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 113
To modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 24, 2005
Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs
A BILL
To modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA.
Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (114 Stat. 2919) is amended by striking the last sentence.
END
Attachment B
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/—c109VrygD6 ;
Page 1 of 4
HR 2353 III
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2353
To make technical corrections to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 12, 2005
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. WOLF, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mrs.
JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. DENT, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. PITTS) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Resources
A BILL
To make technical corrections to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Common Sense Indian Gambling Reform Act'.
SEC. 2. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS AND APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
(a) Background Investigations-
(1) GAMING INVESTORS- Section 7(b)(3) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(3))
is amended to read as follows:
'(3) shall conduct or cause to be conducted background investigations on the 10 persons or entities with the
highest financial interest (such as loans, debt -based financing, financial backing for equipment or other
startup or operation costs, and other financial interests as determined by the Commission) in a gaming
operation regulated by the Commission and such other background investigations as may be necessary;'.
(2) TRIBAL GAMING OFFICIALS- Section 11(b)(2)(F)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(i)) is amended --
(A) by striking 'conducted on' the first place it appears and inserting 'conducted by the Commission
on tribal gaming commissioners, key tribal gaming commission employees, and'; and
(B) by striking 'such officials and their management' and inserting 'such individuals'.
(b) Approval of Financial Interests- Section 6 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 91ni) is
amended --
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/—c109kLdWK6
Attachment C
Page 2 of 4
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking '; and' and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting '; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
'(4) approve financial interests between the 10 persons or entities with the highest financial interest (such
as loans, debt -based financing, financial backing for equipment or other startup or operation costs, and
other financial interests as determined by the Commission) and a gaming operation regulated by the
Commission.'.
(c) Commission Funding- Section 18(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(2)(B)) is
amended by striking '$8,000,000' and inserting '$16,000,000'.
SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF INTENT TO GAME ON TRUST LANDS.
(a) Class II Gaming- Section 11(b)(1) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)) is amended- -
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking 'and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting '; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
'(C)(i) conducted on lands taken into trust before the date of the enactment of this subparagraph; or
'(ii) conducted on lands taken into trust after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph only if
the application requesting that the land be taken into trust stated that the Indian tribe intended to
conduct gaming activities on such land.'.
(b) Class III Gaming- Section 11(d)(1) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(1)) is amended-
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking 'and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and inserting '; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
'(D)(i) conducted on lands taken into trust before the date of the enactment of this subparagraph; or
'(ii) conducted on lands taken into trust after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph only if
the application requesting that the land be taken into trust stated that the Indian tribe intended to
conduct gaming activities on such land.'.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION REGARDING CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR EXCEPTION TO
GAMING RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN LAND.
Section 20(b)(1)(A) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A)) is amended- -
(1) by striking 'appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes' and
inserting 'officials of any State or local government or Indian tribe with jurisdiction over land located
within 50 miles of the land proposed to be taken into trust; and
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/—c109kLdWK6 8/15/2005
Page 3 of 4
(2) by striking 'and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community' and inserting 'and, after
conducting an economic impact study, determines that a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands
would not have a negative economic impact on business, government, or Indian tribes within a 50 mile
radius of the land proposed to be taken into trust or be otherwise detrimental to the community with such
50 mile radius'.
SEC. 5. APPROVAL OF COMPACTS BY STATE.
Section 11(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
'(10) For the purposes of State approval under this subsection, the term 'State' shall mean the Governor of
the State and the legislative body of the State.'.
SEC. 6. RESTRICTION ON GAMING.
(a) Amendments- Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719) is amended- -
(1) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (b) to read as follows:
'(1)(A) Subsection (a) shall not apply to Indian land of an Indian tribe if each of the conditions in
subparagraph (B) are satisfied and the Indian tribe --
'(i) was newly recognized after October 17, 1988 (including those newly recognized under the
Federal Acknowledgement Process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs);
'(ii) was restored by legislation, court decree, or any other process after having been terminated by
Federal law; or
'(iii) on the date of the enactment of subsection (e), had no lands held in trust by the United States
for the benefit of the Indian tribe, no reservation, and no lands held by the Indian tribe subject to
restriction by the United States against alienation over which the Indian tribe exercised
governmental power.
'(B) The conditions referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
'(i) The Secretary determines that the lands acquired in trust for the benefit of the Indian tribe for the
purposes of gaming are lands within the State where the Indian tribe has its primary geographic,
social, and historical nexus to the land.
'(ii) The Secretary determines that the proposed gaming activity is in the best interest of the Indian
tribe, its tribal members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.
'(iii) The State, city, county, town, parish, village, and other general purpose political subdivisions
of the State with authority over land that is concurrent or contiguous to the lands acquired in trust for
the benefit of the Indian tribe for the purposes of gaming approve.'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
'(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an Indian tribe may conduct gaming regulated by this Act
on only one contiguous parcel of Indian lands. Such Indian lands must be located where that Indian tribe has its
primary geographic, social, and historical nexus and within the State or States where the Indian tribe is primarily
located.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/—c109kLdWK6 8/15/2005
Page 4 of 4
(b) Statutory Construction- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be applied prospectively. Compacts or
other agreements that govern gaming regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that were in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act shall not be affected by the amendments made by subsection (a).
END
http: / /thomas.loc. gov /cgi- bin/query /C ?c 109:. /temp / —c 1 09kLd WK6
Page 1 of 1
HR 3431 111
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3431
To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to limit casino expansion.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 26, 2005
Mr. DENT (for himself, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. AKIN, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. WOLF,
Mr. GERLACH, Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, and Mr. CANTOR) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on Resources
A BILL
To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to limit casino expansion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INDIAN LAND ELIGIBLE FOR GAMING.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the 'Limitation of Tribal Gambling to Existing Tribal Lands Act of
2005'.
(b) Repeal of Certain Exceptions- Section 20(b)(1) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1))
is amended --
(1) by striking subparagraph (B);
(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking '; or' and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking 'Subsection (a) of this section' and all that follows through '(A) the Secretary' and inserting
'Subsection (a) of this section will not apply when the Secretary'.
(c) Approval of State Legislature- Section 20(b)(1)(A) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)
(1)(A)) is amended by striking 'only if the Governor' and inserting 'only if the Governor and the legislature'.
(d) Applicability- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Such amendments shall not apply to lands regulated, on the date of the enactment of this Act, by a valid Tribal -
State compact that was entered into under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act before the date of the enactment of
this Act.
END
Attachment D
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./tempi-c109mu9MG8
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 22, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for Repair & Resurfacing of
Certain Streets, Phase 25, No. P.W. 05 -04 -05
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2002, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and called for bids for the
Repair & Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 23, No. P.W. 08- 02 -10. On February 4, 2003, the
City Council awarded the contract to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., in the amount of $406,044. The
contract contained the option to mutually extend the contract on a year -by -year basis for up to four
additional years based on satisfactory completion of the work. Upon each extension, the contract
terms and conditions remain the same, except the contract cost will escalate in accordance with the
increase in the construction price index for the San Francisco Bay Area as reported in the
Engineering News Record (ENR) for the previous calendar year. On October 23, 2003, the first
contract extension was executed and an amendment to increase the contract amount to $336,651.38
was approved. On March 8, 2005 the second contract extension was executed and an amendment to
increase the contract amount to $395,902.36 was approved.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to
the Public Works Department. No extra work orders were issued for this project. The final project
cost is $388,470.31. The final project cost was 2% lower than the contract amount because the final
quantities were slightly lower than the estimated quantity used for budgeting purposes.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP# 82 -01 using Measure B funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
CityciAlemtda
QubO cWorks
Department
Public Works Wevisfir rm!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4 -D
9 -6 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
August 22, 2005
The City Manager recommends that the City Council accept the work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for
Repair & Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 25, No. P.W. 05- 04 -05.
MTN:BH:gc
Respect lly submitted,
2d
i-
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
0)414
l -1
Aa-
By: Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \090605\Accept, Resurfacing Ph 25.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofAhmeda
uubIICWorks
Department
Public Wake NEvkf r
City of Alameda
Memorandum
Date: August 26, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Request for Proposal for Restaurant and Bar
Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
BACKGROUND
On November 1, 1995, Sports Restaurant Inc., DBA Legends and Heroes, began
operations as the food and beverage concessionaire at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The initial term of five years and two months ended December 31, 2000. Sports
Restaurant, Inc. renewed the agreement for a second term, which will end on December
31, 2005.
DISCUSSION
Given that Legends and Heroes has operated at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex for ten
years and that the current agreement will be open for renewal in December, it would be
prudent at this time for the City to issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of
these food and beverage services. (See Attachment A.) This process would ensure that
the City will continue to receive the maximum value for its investment at the Golf
Complex. The proposals will be reviewed and ranked by a sub - committee of the Golf
Commission, together with staff. The City has contacted the principles of the current
concessionaire to notify them that the agreement will not be extended for a third term and
to encourage their participation in the RFP process.
FINANCIAL /BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
The revenue from the golf course concessionaire totaled $199,015 for the past three
years, averaging $66,338 annually. These funds are reinvested in the Golf Complex to
support operations and capital improvement projects.
Report 4 -E
9 -6 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
August 26, 2005
It is recommended that City Council accept the RFP for restaurant and bar services at the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex and direct the City Clerk to advertise the RFP.
DVB
cc: Golf Commission
Respectfully submitted,
Dana
General Manager, Golf Complex
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS
FOR RESTAURANT AND BAR SERVICES
Sealed proposals will be received by:
City of Alameda
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
1 Clubhouse Memorial Road
Alameda, CA 94502
Proposal Deadline:
October 7, 2005, 10:00 a.m.
Questions regarding the attached specifications
may be directed to:
Dana Banke
General Manager, Golf Department
(510) 747 -7822
Tntroduction
The City of Alameda is inviting prospective restaurant concessionaires to submit qualifications and
proposals for the operation of food and beverage services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The
successful applicant will be required to provide quality restaurant service, which will include
provision of service for breakfast, lunch and dinner, a full liquor license, and limited catering and
banquet services for golf tournaments.
Background
Alameda is an island community located across the bay from San Francisco and to the west of the
city of Oakland. Rich in heritage, Alameda is a thriving East Bay community with a population of
80,000 building upon its past achievements to create a better future. Alameda is a 12.4 square -mile
"island" city located 20 minutes from San Francisco and in close proximity to the Oakland
International Airport, Bay Area Rapid Transit and the Oakland- Alameda County Coliseum.
Recreational opportunities include parks, golf courses, tennis, beaches, fishing and a variety of
recreation programs and facilities for children and adults. Alameda's five yacht clubs and seven
marinas make it the hub of boating and water - related sports and activities in the Bay Area.
The City of Alameda operates a 45 hole golf complex, night lighted driving range, pro shop, snack
bar and a restaurant with full bar services. Last year, 151,607 rounds of golf were played at the
Complex including many tournaments.
The restaurant was built in the mid- 1950's and can seat 120. A full service bar was added in the
1980's. There is a snack bar on the Earl Fry (North) Course and food and beverage service on the
Jack Clark (South) Course is provided by using a snack cart. All food and beverage service is
operated seven days a week. The City of Alameda is committed to providing quality restaurant
services to the public, including golf patrons, residents and local business people.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSAL PROCESS
A. ProcesR
The selection process will be completed in one phase. The City will solicit proposals from
experienced restaurant operators and select up to three finalists based on experience and
financial capacity.
A staff advisory committee will interview the selected fmalists and will recommend an
operator to the City Manager, who, in turn, will make a recommendation to the City
Council. The committee may use consultants in the area of food service, and economics to
assist in the evaluation of the operator's proposals and qualifications and may take site visits
to restaurants operated by the finalists.
B. Submittal Deadline
Sealed original proposals and four copies must be submitted to the office of the Golf
Operations Manager, at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road,
Alameda, California, 94502, by October 7, 2005, 10:00 a.m. Proposals must be clearly
identified as the "Restaurant Services Concession For The Chuck Corica Golf Complex ".
Questions or clarifications should be directed to Golf Operations Manager at (510) 747-
7820.
C. Proposal Submission Requirements
Each operator who responds with a proposal is required to provide specific information as
identified below. To facilitate review by the City, proposals should be submitted following
this format and identifying each item by number.
1. Describe the operator's restaurant experience and facilities owned and/or managed.
Provide brief description and photograph of these operations, including the location,
size, specific role of operator and a brief financial overview of the success of these
restaurants.
2. Describe the operator's previous experience with the ongoing management,
operations and ownership of restaurant/bar facilities.
3. Identify the person in charge of negotiations and key personnel who would be
involved in decision making. List names, addresses, telephone numbers and type of
business (i.e. corporation, limited partnership, etc., including any complaints or legal
action operator has experienced during management of a restaurant facility).
4. Present evidence that the operator and any joint venture partners have the financial
capability to carry out the proposed commitments. The preferred evidence is the
two most recent audited financial statements of the operator and any joint venture
partners. However, other evidence may be submitted at the operator's discretion or
at the request of the City. MITE: Financial information may be submitted
confidentially under separate cover.
5. Identify and specify the experience of known key consultants, such as marketing
consultants, etc.
6. Submit a proposed organization chart for the facility, which includes all employees
and their reporting responsibilities.
D. Financial Data
2
List estimated costs associated with operator's expenditure for restaurant's operation.
1. Training (How much will be spent on staff training ?)
2. Staff weekly schedule (provide salary ranges and part-time or full -time position)
3. Consulting and design fees
4. Flatware and glassware (identify by category)
5. Inventory necessary to operate on a daily basis
a. Food
b. Beverages
c. Linens
d. Uniforms
e. Furniture
6. Miscellaneous equipment
7. Kitchen utensils (i.e. pots, pans, knives, etc.)
E. Outline operator's proposed method for financing capital and operating expenditures.
Provide verifiable evidence of cash and other assets pledged to your proposal.
F. Present proposed business plan for operation of restaurant food, beverage and retail sales,
based on the City's food service objectives.
1. Cash Flow Projections
a. Revenues
b. Expenses
2. Concept/Theme
3
3. Space Configuration
4. Price Range of Patron Check and Average Patron Check
5. Sample Menus
6. Hours
a. Breakfast and Lunch
b. Catered Lunches
c. Dinner
d. Lounge
7. Capital Reserves
8. Return on Investment
G. Marketing P1 an
Describe marketing events that will create market awareness for the food and beverage
facility and retail operation.
1. Media
2. Advertising
3. Chamber of Commerce
4. Preopening Events
5. Local Events
6. Other
H. Prepare a comprehensive marketing plan that addresses methods of attracting and capturing
surrounding daytime and nighttime markets.
1. Capture rates within a one mile radius.
2. Capture rates within a five mile radius.
4
I. Business Terms
1. Submit proposed lease /rent structure for the facility. (City reserves right to
implement different payment structure)
a. Minimum monthly fixed rate.
b. Percentage monthly rent relative to gross revenue.
c. Other proposed terms.
2. Present the proposed lease terms as desired by the operator.
a. Initial term.
b. Option period.
3. Specify additional lease provisions proposed by operator.
a. Commencement of term
b. Insurance provisions
c. Security deposits
d. Termination clauses
e. Signs
f. Restrictions /limitations
g. Gross sales and records
4. Develop financial and service performance clauses that may be used to measure
operator's ability to maximize revenue and profitability.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING
J. City of Alameda Nonliahility
All facts and options stated within this proposal and all supporting documents and data they
5
include, but not limited to, statistical and economic data and projections are based on
available information from a variety of sources. No representations or warranties are made
with respect thereto. Additional feasibility and marketing studies, etc., are the responsibility
of the operator.
K. City Reserves the Right to Reject All Proposals
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.
L. Signature Requirements
Proposals must be signed by duly authorized official of the operator's entity. Consortiums,
joint ventures or teams submitting proposals must clearly establish that all contractual
responsibilities rest solely with one firm or legal entity.
M. Other Costs
Except as provided herein, fees and other costs and expenses of preparation and
development of the proposal are solely that of the operator. The City has no financial
responsibility with respect to such costs. All submitted material becomes the property of
the City of Alameda.
N. Insurance
The successful vendor shall provide and maintain insurance at its sole cost for the term of
the Contract with the following coverage:
Commercial General Liability and Auto Liability ($1,000,000); Professional
Liability ($1,000,000); and Workers' compensation insurance in accordance with
state law.
O. Tndemnification
The successful operator shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss,
damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, regardless of the merits or outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or
in any manner connected to Operator's negligent performance of services or work
conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement.
The successful operator shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss,
damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
6
attorney's fees, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner
connected to the Operator's negligent performance of services or work conducted or
performed pursuant to this Agreement.
7
APPENDIX A
ANTICIPATED CONTRACT/LEASE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND ISSUES
1. Concessionaire to provide tenant improvements, furniture, furnishings, and betterments as
necessary to implement proposal at own expense. Improvements are subject to the approval
of the City.
2. Be open for business every day of the year, and in full operation during hours designated by
the City of Alameda.
3. Concessionaire to pay rent to the City as specified in the agreement.
4. Concessionaire to maintain all food and beverage facilities and equipment. Also,
concessionaire shall be responsible for custodial services as specified in the agreement,
including such items as flue cleaning.
5. Concessionaire must possess or be able to secure appropriate California Alcoholic Beverage
license.
6. Concessionaire required to obtain all applicable operating licenses and permits.
7. Concessionaire to pay all utilities as specified in the agreement, including telephone, cable
television, alarm service, electric and gas, water, sewer, refuse, etc.
8. Concessionaire to provide a continuing performance bond in an amount to be determined at
the time a contract is negotiated, payable to the City of Alameda and conditioned upon
faithful performance of the agreement by the concessionaire, including final inspection of
the facility by the City at the end of the term of the agreement.
9. Concessionaire to maintain insurance acceptable to the City as specified in the agreement.
10. Concessionaire may propose additional services related to the food and beverage
concession, such as large screen television(s) and barbecue services. Limited catering
services are desired and should be included in the proposal.
11. May propose entry sign for Clubhouse Memorial Road, subject to approval by the City.
12. This is an interim operator contract. (The City may consider building a new
clubhouse/banquet facility in the next 3 - 5 years.)
8
APPENDIX "A" (Continued)
13. Operator shall have exclusive right to serve all food and beverage at Golf Complex
including the operation of a golf tournament hospitality cart.
14. City will provide prior financial data upon request.
15. Concessionaire must use automated alcoholic pouring system in bar service.
16. Specify operator's accounting firm and accounting principals used.
9
August 23, 2005
Dear Prospective Operator:
The City of Alameda is pleased to announce that it is inviting prospective restaurant
concessionaires to submit qualifications and proposals for the operation of food and beverage
services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
It is the intent of the City to select the most qualified operator and enter into negotiations for the
management of the bar and restaurant as well as other services to provide related food and beverage
services.
A sealed original proposal and four copies must be submitted to the office of the Golf Operations
Manager, at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, and
California 94502, by ... 1 s - 11 1.11. If Proposals must be clearly identified as
the "Restaurant Services Concession For The Chuck Corica Golf Complex."
Questions regarding this request for qualifications /proposals should be directed to Golf Operations
Manager at (510) 747 -7820.
Very truly yours,
Dana Banke
General Manager
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Enclosure
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION
COMMENDING ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY
LIBRARY DIRECTOR SUSAN H. HARDIE
FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA records its appreciation for the years of
service faithfully rendered by LIBRARY DIRECTOR SUSAN H. HARDIE for the City of
Alameda; and
WHEREAS, SUSAN H. HARDIE'S career with the Alameda Free Library spanned from
May 3, 1999 to October 3, 2005, as Library Director; and
WHEREAS, SUSAN H. HARDIE has made significant contributions to the City of
Alameda, among those being:
• Provided outstanding leadership and direction to the members of the Alameda Free
Library
• Under her direction, the Alameda Free Library continues its reputation as "Alameda's
premier information source"
• Worked cooperatively with the business community, residents, various civic groups,
and library support groups on the successful passage of Measure 0 with a 78% yes
vote
• Navigated the complex Proposition 14 State Library Grant Application to a
successful award of $15.5 million for the construction of the new Main Library
• Provided the vision to bring the Alameda Free Library's technology into the 22nd
Century
• Encouraged new parents to read to their children by establishing the "20 Minutes a
Day" campaign to promote brain development in babies
• Has been a integral member of the executive team of the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, SUSAN H. HARDIE, upon retirement, plans on spending more time with
her family, in particular her two grandchildren, and taking vacations, especially bike trips; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2005, SUSAN H. HARDIE will officially retire from her
position as Library Director of the Alameda Free Library.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does
hereby congratulate SUSAN H. HARDIE for her outstanding achievement in her service to the
City of Alameda and to the profession of Library and Information Technology.
* * * * **
Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Councilmember Doug deHaan
Councilmember Frank Matarrese
Reso 5 -A
9 -6 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING MARILYN EZZY ASHCRAFT AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(COMMUNITY -AT -LARGE SEAT)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-
z 14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No. 12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor,
cc
i_ MARILYN EZZY ASHCRAFT is hereby appointed to the office of Community -At -Large Member
H
of the Economic Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing September 6,
H
V 2005 and expiring on August 31, 2009 and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #5 -B
09 -06 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REAPPOINTING ROBERT F. KELLY AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(MARINE – WATERFRONT SEAT)
C BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-
w14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No. 12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor,
o
N—Z) 0 ROBERT F. KELLY is hereby reappointed to the office of Marine - Waterfront Member of the
G
• Economic Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing September 6, 2005 and
F" - expiring on August 31, 2009 and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified.
V
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 , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REAPPOINTING ANTHONY M. SANTARE AS A MEMBER
OF THE CITY GOLF COMMISSION
E
›- BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Sections 2 -9.2 of
W
O
OJ ccthe Alameda Municipal (''nr-1p and upon nomination of the Mayor, ANTHONY M 1 SANTARE
Cl) O
= whereby reappointed to the office of member of the Golf Commission of the City of the City of
om
t- .Alameda, for a term commencing October 1, 2005 and expiring on September 30, 2009 and to serve
0
until his successor is appointed and qualified.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said
City this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, Acting City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 3, 2005
Re: Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code by
amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by repealing Article I Section
13.4 (Alameda Electrical Code) in its entirety and adding a new Article I
Section 13.4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to adopt the 2004 California
Electrical Code, and approving certain amendments thereto.
BACKGROUND
Periodically, the State of California adopts new sets of technical building and fire
regulations known as the California Building Standards Code. Effective July 1, 2005 the
State of California has adopted the 2004 edition of the California Electrical Code. Local
jurisdictions may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary
because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
On April 1, 2003, The City Council of Alameda adopted the 2001 edition of the Uniform
Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California
Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Fire Code, Uniform Housing Code,
Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation.
DISCUSSION
The State of California has adopted the 2004 California Electrical Code. The California
Electrical Code is based on the 2002 National Electrical Code. This code became effective
throughout California on July 1, 2005. By locally adopting this code the City clearly
establishes legal authority for enforcement of this code and enables the City to adopt
various administrative amendments and all technical amendments necessary due to local
climactic, geological or topographical conditions.
It is proposed to adopt local code amendments, including,
• Prohibition of metallic pipe, conduit or duct under concrete floor slabs,
• Various AP &T requirements for service equipment and meters.
Re: Public Hearing and
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Intro of Ordinance 5 -C
9 -6 -05
Honorable Mayor and August 3, 2005
Councilmembers Page 2 of 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the 2004 California Electrical Code required the purchase of new 2004
California Electrical Code books and will require that inspection staff be trained on the new
code. The new codebooks cost approximately $1,500 and were budgeted and purchased
in the 2004/2005 FY. Staff training will cost approximately $2,500 and is currently
budgeted in the 2005/2006 FY. Permit fees cover funding for both the codebooks and the
code training.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
All other sections of the Municipal Code dealing with this subject matter have been
thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the
Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council introduce the subject ordinance
amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)
by repealing Article I Section 13.4 (Alameda Electrical Code) in its entirety and adding a
new Article I Section 13.4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to adopt the 2004 California Electrical
Code, and approving certain amendments thereto.
e ,•ectfully submitted,
Grego Fann
Acting Pla g and Building Director
G: \PLANNING \CC \REPORTS\2005\p -Aug 16\2004 Electrical Code Staff report.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING AND HOUSING) BY
REPEALING ARTICLE I SECTION 13.4 (ALAMEDA
0
u. �. ELECTRICAL CODE) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADDING A NEW
0 Q ARTICLE I SECTION 13.4 (ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL CODE) TO
*- �J
cc ADOPT THE 2004 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA
0 ELECTRICAL CODE, AND APPROVING CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS THERETO.
>. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by repealing Article I
Section 13.4 of Chapter XIII in its entirety.
Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Article I
Section 13.4 to Chapter XIII of the Alameda Municipal Code which shall read as follows:
ARTICLE I. UNIFORM CODES RELATING TO BUILDING, HOUSING AND
TECHNICAL CODES
13.4 ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL CODE
13 -4.1 Adoption of California Electrical Code.
Except as hereinafter provided, the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, published by the
National Fire Protection Association is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set
forth herein at length, and shall be know as the Alameda Electrical Code. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2)
13 -4.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Electrical
Code.
a. Article 230 -8, Raceway Seal, of the California Electrical Code, 2001 Edition, is
amended by adding the following:
Raceways or ducts within the underground box shall also be sealed.
b. Article 230 -26, Point of Attachment, of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is
amended to read as follows:
Unless special permission is granted in advance to do otherwise, the location of the point of
service drop support or attachment on a building shall be at that portion of the building
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -C
09 -06 -05
facing and nearest to the street, alley, easement, or public way on which is located the utility's
pole having facilities for rendering service of the type required to fit the needs of the
particular installation involved.
The point of attachment shall be the portion of the service conduit adjacent to the service
head. The service conduit shall be securely fastened to structure served and space provided
for attachment of a service drop strain clamp by the serving utility.
The outer or upper end of the overhead service conduit shall not overhang or project
horizontally more than eighteen inches (18 ") beyond the last point at which the conduit is
supported and fastened.
In cases where it is necessary to obtain the required height for support of the service drops by
extending the service conduit above the roof of the building, only rigid metallic and
intermediate metal conduit shall be used for this purpose and shall not be smaller than one
and one - quarter inches (1 1/4 ") trade size, not to extend more than thirty inches (30 ") beyond
the last support for periscope service without brace. If nonferrous metal conduit is used, it
shall not be smaller than two inches (2 ").
c. Article 230 -30, Insulation, of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended
by deleting the exceptions and adding the following:
Service entrance conductors entering buildings or other structures shall be insulated.
Conductors installed in underground raceways shall have XHHW, THW or other suitable
insulation as listed in 75 ° C column of Table 310 -16 of the National Electrical Code.
d. Article 230 -8, Insulation of Service Entrance Conductors, of the California Electrical
Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by adding the following:
Ends of service conductors in underground boxes shall be sealed to prevent entrance of
moisture.
e. Article 230 -43, Wiring Methods for 600 Volts, Nominal, or Less, of the California
Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by deleting items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 and by
adding the following:
Except when installed as busways or cablebus, all service entrance conductors in or on
buildings shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit
Service entrance conduits installed to supply single and duplex family units shall not be
smaller than one and one - quarter inch (1 1/4 ") trade size.
f. Article 230 -49, Protection Against Physical Damage - Underground, of the California
Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by adding the following:
Underground service entrance conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or rigid
non - metallic conduit sized not smaller than two inches (2 "). On utility poles conduit risers
shall be rigid non - metallic up to a height above grade of eight feet (8').
g. Article 230 -54, Connections at Service Head, of the California Electrical Code, 2004
Edition, is amended by adding the following:
The service head shall be located on that portion of the building served which is facing the
serving line. The service head shall be located at that height which will allow for the proper
clearance of the service drop over street, curb, and sidewalk. This will require that the service
head for residential occupancies be not less than twelve feet, six inches (12'6 ") above the
driveway where the drops may cross a private driveway, and not less than ten feet, six inches
(10'6 ") above the ground where persons may walk, other than a public walk, which requires a
clearance of sixteen feet (16') above the curb.
If the height of the building involved is such that these clearance heights cannot be
maintained, then a periscope -type service or some other auxiliary structure shall be resorted
to. In the event that a periscope -type service is used, it may be placed on the side of the
building served not more than eighteen inches (18 ") back of the wall which is facing the
serving line.
h. Article 230 -70, General, (a) Location, of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is
amended to read as follows:
The service disconnecting means shall be located at a readily accessible point nearest to the
entrance of the service conductors, and in residential property shall be accessible from the
exterior, except where a meter room is provided. Such service disconnecting means shall not
be installed under show windows, or in the cases of multiple occupancies, in any location not
readily accessible to all parties concerned. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed
in bathrooms.
i. Article 230 -71, Maximum Number of Disconnects, of the California Electrical Code,
2004 Edition, is amended to read as follows:
A separate service disconnecting means shall be provided for each separately metered
subdivision of the service conductors. Switches or circuit breakers accessible from the
exterior of the building shall be limited to one for each meter; in new construction however,
exceptions will be granted in cases involving provisions for the installation of major
household appliances, provided that the over current devices are contained within a single
panel board assembly approved for the purpose, in which case the number of circuits shall be
limited to six (6). More than six (6) disconnects will require a main disconnect. The service
disconnecting means shall have provisions for locking each subservice disconnect in the
"Off' position with a utility -type seal.
j. Article 240 -24, Location in or on Premises, (b) Occupant to Have Ready Access, of the
California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by adding the following:
In new installations, not more than two feeder or branch - circuit over current devices shall be
installed on the load side of any meter in any meter cabinet opening to the exterior of a
building. For a larger number of over current devices, a distribution center shall be provided
at a suitable location within the building. Exceptions to this rule will be granted in cases
involving provision for the installation of major household appliances, provided that the over
current devices are contained within a single panel board assembly approved for the purpose.
In apartment houses and other buildings of multiple occupancy, branch circuit over current
devices which are located in an apartment or portion of the building intended to be separately
occupied by a tenant will not be considered as being readily accessible iftheyprotect circuits
supplying any outlets or equipment not for this exclusive use of this tenant.
The over current device may be located in a commonly accessible location, but all circuits
supplying individual apartments in multifamily dwellings shall be confined to each
individual apartment served.
k. Article 250 -50, Grounding Electrode System, of the California Electrical Code, 2004
Edition, is amended by adding the following:
The concrete encased electrode described in 250 -52 A (3) shall be installed during the
construction of all new buildings as the primary ground and when new foundations are
constructed for existing buildings. A ground rod electrode shall be installed at the service
entrance location at time of alteration or installation of service to existing buildings as a
primary grounding means.
1. Article 250 -104 B, Bonding of Piping Systems, of the California Electrical Code, 2004
Edition, is amended by adding the following:
General. Interior and exterior hot and cold water system shall be bonded to the neutral buss
and the interior gas piping. Such connection shall not be located in under- the -floor crawl
spaces, except by permission of the Building Official.
m. Article 300 -3, Conductors, (c) Conductors of Different Systems, of the California
Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by adding the following:
Conductors Supplied by Individual Disconnecting Means in Two or More Occupancy
Buildings. Conductors or circuits derived from a sub - service disconnecting means for an
occupancy shall not occupy the same wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway with conductors for
other occupancies.
Exception 1. Emergency circuit wiring
Exception 2. Group - mounted service boards in single enclosures and auxiliary
gutters at service switchboard location.
n. Article 334.10, Uses Permitted, of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is
amended by adding the following:
Nonmetallic- sheathed cable maybe used in the hollow spaces of walls and ceilings of wood
frame construction and must be concealed by the permanent finish of the building. It is
limited to use on circuits not exceeding 300 volts between conductors or 150 volts to ground.
o. Article 334- 15(c), In Unfinished Basements, of the California Electrical Code, 2004
Edition, is amended by adding the following:
In wood frame construction where cable is not exposed to physical damage, the cable shall
either be run through bored holes in joists, parallel to joist, or on girders or running boards
and shall closely follow the vertical surface of such members.
Where cable is exposed to physical damage, a metal -clad system of wiring shall be used in
the unfinished area of the building.
p. Article 338.10, Uses Permitted as Service- Entrance Conductors, of the California
Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is deleted.
q. Article 358.16, Use, of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is amended by
adding r the following:
Electrical metallic tubing shall not be used in the ground floor slab or in any location where it
would be in contact with the ground.
n. Article 394 of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, is deleted. (Ord. No.
2898 N.S. § 2)
13 -4.3 Findings.
Subdivisions (a) through (r) of Section 13 -4.2 are based upon the following findings:
Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City
Council finds that the modifications of the California Electric Code, 2004 Edition, contained in
subdivisions (a) through (r) of Section 13 -4.2, are reasonably necessary because of certain local
climatic, geographical and topographical conditions existing in the City of Alameda which are more
specifically described as follows:
a. The City of Alameda is an island community with access dependent upon bridges and
underwater tubes and, in the event of a disaster, could be completely isolated from outside assistance.
b. The City of Alameda is adjacent to several earthquake faults, which make buildings and
structures susceptible to structural ruptures and fires.
c. The entire municipal water supply for the City of Alameda is transported via three
aqueducts, which are vulnerable to earthquake and tidal flooding.
d. Alameda is a low -lying island community with soil and groundwater conditions, which
are corrosive to metals.
e. Alameda has very fine, sandy soil conditions.
f. The City of Alameda lies in the path of two (2) airport landing and takeoff zones.
g. Electrical power in the City of Alameda is provided by Alameda Power and Telecom, a
City owned and operated municipal utility, which has the authority to regulate acceptable materials,
arrangement, location and type of service equipment. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2)
13 -4.4 Copy of California Electrical Code with Planning and Building
Department.
A copy of the California Electrical Code, 2004 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of
the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official
for use and examination by the public. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2)
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of
Alameda herby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 6. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with
the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby
repealed.
Section 7. The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this
ordinance to be published in the Official Newspaper of the City of Alameda
Section 8. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements,
orders and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect 30
days after the date of its final passage and adoption.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted
and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
Date: August 29, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Appeal of Historical Advisory Board decision to uphold the imposed penalties
for unauthorized demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue. The property is within the
R -4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin Roxas
BACKGROUND
In 2002, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) initiated a process to revise the sections of
the Alameda Municipal Code related to the preservation of historical and cultural
resources. The purpose of this process was to expand the purview of the HAB review of
proposed substantial demolitions of historic buildings to include all structures constructed
prior to 1942, as well as to establish penalty provisions for the unauthorized demolition
of buildings identified as historically significant. As a result of this revision process,
which included reviewing ordinances from other municipalities, conducting several
work -study sessions, and holding a number of public hearings, the HAB developed
language that was adopted by the City Council on April 2, 2003. The penalty provision
of this language, which is provided in its entirety in the Municipal Code Section of this
report, restricts the remedy for the removal of 30 percent or more of the value of a
structure listed on the Historic Building Study List without prior review and approval by
the HAB to the imposition of a five -year stay in the issuance of any construction- related
permits.
On July 12, 2004, the appellant received Major Design Review approval for first and
second story additions to the single - family residence at 616 Pacific Avenue. The
Building Official reviewed the plans and determined that the demolition activity
associated with the construction project constituted less than 30 percent of the value of
the residence. Therefore, although the structure had been identified on the Historic
Building Study List, consideration of the approval by the HAB was not warranted. As a
result, the building permits for this project were issued on January 10, 2005. However,
on May 5, 2005, during the investigation of a complaint, City staff found that the
contractor had exceeded the scope of work approved on the plans and the structure had
been completely demolished. In conformance with the penalty provisions of the
Municipal Code, City staff issued a five -year stay to the property owner for failure to
secure approval prior to demolition of a historically significant structure. The property
owner appealed this action to the Historical Advisory Board.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Resolution 5 -D
9 -6 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
August 26, 2005
On August 4, 2005, the HAB held a public hearing on the appeal to determine if the
property at 616 Pacific Avenue should be subject to the five -year stay on construction.
Although staff recommended granting the appeal based on extenuating circumstances, the
HAB elected to uphold the imposition of the penalty.
DISCUSSION
There are a number of extenuating circumstances regarding the demolition of the
structure at 616 Pacific Avenue that resulted in the staff recommendation to the Historical
Advisory Board that the appeal of the imposition of the five -year stay be upheld. The
report prepared for the HAB meeting (See Attachment 1) analyzes the following five
main points supporting the recommended waiver:
1. Applicant believed he had obtained all necessary permits
The applicant, an owner- builder, felt a discussion he had with staff permitted him
to dismantle the residence; his interpretation of the directions received may have
prevented a full understanding of the conversation.
2. Historic Designation
The historic designation assigned to the structure at 616 Pacific was level "H."
Of the five assigned levels of historic resources listed in the Historic Building
Study List, this designation is the lowest; it encourages further evaluation of the
resource to determine its actual significance. Although constructed in 1905,
significant alterations to the facade occurred in 1932 when the side porch access
and concrete steps may have been added. Further, in 1958, the structure was re-
sided with asbestos shingles. Staff conducted research on the property and did not
uncover any additional information regarding this building that would indicate
historical importance.
3. Similar project was granted Certificate of Approval
Another property in similar condition and built in 1900 was granted a Certificate
of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board in July 2005.
4. Structure suffered from extensive wood rot
After the fact, the property owner submitted a letter from a licensed structural
engineer stating that the structure suffered from the extensive wood rot.
5. Imposing five year no -build penalty would be detrimental to this neighborhood
The penalty provision in the code does not provide for any other remedy other
than the five -year stay; there is no flexibility to impose a fine or grant a lesser stay
in development. Neighbors of this property oppose the five -year stay, as they
believe that leaving the property vacant will create a blight to the neighborhood.
Letters in support of the reconstruction and testimony were presented at the
Historical Advisory Board meeting by neighbors.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Page 3
August 26, 2005
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget
necessary related to planning activities for this project.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This appeal refers to the Alameda Municipal Code §13-21.10b: Penalties., which states:
"The removal or demolition of any contributing structure in a district
designated a Historical Monument or main building, or other designated
structure, such as water towers, coach houses or landscaping, listed on the
Historical Building Study List without prior approval of a certificate of
approval shall result in a five (5) year stay in the issuance of any building
permit or construction- related permit for any new construction at the site
previously occupied by the historic resource. For the purposes of this
section, the date of demolition shall be the date the City first was advised
of the removal or demolition, unless the property owner can demonstrate
an earlier date. The removal or demolition shall be presumed to have
occurred on the date the City has actual knowledge of the removal or
demolition, and the owner shall have the burden of proving an earlier date,
if entitlement to an earlier date is claimed. The owner shall have the
affirmative obligations to submit a landscape plan or other site
maintenance plan to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director
and to maintain such landscaping or implement the maintenance plan and
to prevent the accumulation of debris and waste on the property during
this period. The site shall not be used as a private or commercial parking
lot."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15321 —
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal by determining that the five -year stay in the
issuance of any building or construction related permits will not be imposed for the
single family dwelling at 616 Pacific Avenue.
2. Direct the City Manager to review provisions of Section 13 -21 of the Municipal Code
related to the demolition of historic structures and develop, with input from the
community and the Historical Advisory Board, recommended amendments and
penalty options.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Respectfully submitted,
Page 4
August 26, 2005
Gregory J.
Acting Planning
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report: August 4, 2005 HAB Meeting
2. August 4, 2005 Draft Minutes (HAB)
cc: Historical Advisory Board Members
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
uilding Director
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERIVIINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
5
Consideration of penalties for unauthorized demolition at 616
Pacific Avenue. The property is within the R -4, Neighborhood
Residential District.
Medium Density Residential
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines,• Section
15321 = Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies
Emily Pudell, Planner II
Waive the five (5) year stay in development, and allow for the
single - family home, approved by Major Design Review (DR04-
0051) to be constructed.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
DR — Major Design Review
1. Draft Resolution
2. Notice of Preliminary Major Design Review Approval (DR04-
0051)\ Project Plans
3. Notice of Violation (Code Compliance Division)
4. Letter of Appeal, dated May 12, 2005
5. Building Permit
6. Letter from Structural Engineer
7. Letters from Neighbors
8. Photos
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2004, an application for Major Design Review (DR) was received by the Planning
and Building Department for the proposed e` and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the
detached garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of August 4, 2005
Council Report
Attachment #1
square feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed located at 616
Pacific Avenue.
The description of work, in the Major Design Review application, clearly states that the scope of
work would affect a significant portion of the existing
structure. Although the demolition of the structure is
not specifically called out in the project description,
two of the four exterior walls and the dwelling's roof
would need to be removed to allow for the proposed
expansion of the building. Additionally, the project
involved remodeling a significant portion of the .
existing building's interior spaces. (See Attachment #1:
Notice of Preliminary Major Design Review Approval
(DR04- 0051)\ Project Plans)
The DR plans were approved by staff, with conditions,
on July 12, 2004 and building permits were issued on
January 10, 2005. Although the Major Design Review application and Building Permit do not
identify demolition within their scope, the Appellant believed all necessary permits were secured
to do the work performed.
On May 3, 2005, an inquiry was received by the City of Alameda's Code Compliance Division
regarding the demolition of the house. Field: inspections were conducted by the Code
Compliance Division and Planning Division Staff, which determined that the dwelling had been
demolished. Due to the fact that all structures, constructed on or before 1942, are under
demolition control, the Code Compliance Division responded on May 5, 2005 informing the
property owner that a five (5) year stay in the issuance of any building or construction related
permits would be issued (See Attachment #2) (§13-21.10b.: Penalties. "The removal or
demolition of any... main building, or other designated structure... listed on the Historical
Building Study List without prior approval of a Certificate of Approval shall result in a five year
stay in the issuance of any building permit or construction- related permit for any new
construction at the site previously occupied by the historic resource. "). A letter of appeal was
submitted by the project applicant on May 12, 2005. (See Attachment #3)
II. STAFF ANALYSIS
1. Applicant believed he had obtained all necessary permits.
In the case of 616 Pacific Avenue, miscommunications occurred between the applicants
and Staff. The Design Review approval did not specify a requirement for a demolition
permit and the applicant relied upon this approval and the issuance of a building permit
as authorization to "deconstruct the house ". The letters received from the applicant,
structural engineer, and letters from neighbors assumed that Staff approved the
dismantling of the building. As a result, the dwelling located at 616 Pacific was
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of August 4, 2005
demolished without first obtaining the proper approvals. Staff believes that applying the
five (5) year stay in development for this case is, therefore, inappropriate.
Historic Designation
According to available resources, the building that was located at 616 Pacific Avenue
was a single- family dwelling, constructed in 1905 (Alameda County Assessor's records).
City records also show that very few building permits have been issued for the single -
family, dwelling since the building was first
constructed. (See Attachment #4)
When a project is submitted for review, Staff guide to
the Architectural and Historical Resources of the City
of Alameda. According to this document, the subject
property is listed with an (H) designation, which
means that it, "may have Historical importance
because of its apparent age or location,
or... similarity to other buildings done by important
architects and/or builders," however, "research
should precede further evaluation of this resource." No additional
become available regarding this building since it was originally listed.
3. Similar project was granted Certificate of Approval
On June 6, 2005, the HAB considered the demolition of 826 Lincoln Avenue. Although
the. Lincoln property is not listed on the Building Study List, the two buildings (826
Lincoln Avenue and 616. Pacific Avenue) were very similar architecturally. According to
information provided on the Lincoln property, this building appeared to be in a similar
state of disrepair. At that meeting, the Historic Advisory Board found that the building at
826 Lincoln Avenue was not historically significant and approved the Certificate of
Approval for its demolition.
information has
4. Structure suffered from extensive wood rot
Information provided, to the Planning and Building Department, by the structural
engineer for the project indicated the exterior walls had extensive dry . rot damage and
presented a danger of collapse to the workers involved with the remodel. He further
stated that there was no other viable alternative than to remove the damaged wood and
replace it during reconstruction. (See Attachment #5) This is also substantiated by the
neighbor (owner of 610 Pacific Avenue) and his knowledge of the contractor's
construction practices.
5. Imposing 5 -year no -build penalty would be detrimental to this neighborhood
The neighbors at 610 and 620 Pacific Avenue have expressed their support of the
applicant and his wish to rebuild the dwelling, as approved by Major Design Review
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of August 4, 2005
DR04 -0051. (See Attachment #6) As indicated in their Letters, they believe that
upholding the five year stay and preventing the reconstruction of the dwelling would not
only create an eye -sore so close to the Webster Street Community Commercial District,
but also leave an empty lot among other developed properties which would have a
negative impact on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood.
IL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project qualifies for a Class 21 Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines under
Section 15321 — Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies, which exempts the adoption of
an administrative decision or order enforcing or revoking the lease, permit, license, certificate, or
entitlement for use or enforcing the general rule, standard, or objective.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Building Department recommends that the Historical Advisory Board hold a
public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, and then determine that the five
(5) year stay in the issuance of building or construction related permits' for the property at 616
Pacific Avenue should be set aside.
G:\PLANNING\HAB\ REPORTS\ 2005\ 08- 04- 05\Pacific616_DR04 -0051 appeal.doc
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of August 4, 2005
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. Draft
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA WAIVING THE FIVE (5) YEAR STAY IN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 616 PACIFIC AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004 Planning and Building Department Staff approved Major
Design Review DR04 -0051 for the proposed 13t and 2 °d story additions, enlargement of the detached
garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the
dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2005 Planning and Building Department Staff issued building
permits for the approved modifications, mentioned above; and
WHEREAS, an inquiry was received by the Code Compliance Division on May 2, 2005
regarding the demolition of the main dwelling at 616 Pacific Avenue; and.
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2005, a Stop Work Order and notice of a five (5) year stay in
development was placed on the subject property, pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC)
§13-21b.; and
WHEREAS, the property owner filed an appeal of the five (5) year stay with the Planning and
Building Department on May 12, 2005; and
WHEREAS, a letter was submitted on June 28, 2005 from a structural engineer indicating
that the main building had extensive dry rot damage; and
WHEREAS, City records show that very few building permits have been issued for the single -
family dwelling since it was first constructed, indicating that the property may not have beenproperly
maintained; and
WHEREAS, letters of support have been received from neighboring property owners stating
that they encourage the redevelopment of the property, as originally proposed; and
WHEREAS, if the Site remained vacant on a street that is otherwise substantially developed,
the property would likely have a negative impact on the adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
Attachment #1
1
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Advisory Board finds that the
project is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section
15321 — Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies;
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historic Advisory Board finds that the
demolition of the house at 616 Pacific Avenue; Alameda, CA is not subject to the five (5) year stay in
development according to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) §13 -21b. and that construction of the
single - family dwelling, approved by Major Design Review #DR04 -0051, should be constructed,
subject to the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PLANS. The construction of the single- family dwelling shall be completed in
substantial compliance with the plans dated May 24, 2004, prepared by Design Planning
Associates, Inc., marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building
Department.
2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DR04 -0051. The construction ofthe single- family dwelling
shall comply with all conditions of approval identified in the Notice of Preliminary Major
Design Review Approval, dated July 12, 2004.
HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant,
or its successors in interest, defend, indenlify, and hold harmless the. City of Alameda or its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers,
and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject
property: The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the
conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness
of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval
to be exercised.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision.
GAPLANNINGHAB\RESO\2005\Pacific 616_Approval.doc
2
. 'City of Alameda • California
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
Note: This is not a Building Permit.
This is for approval of Design Review On Iv. Please check with the Central Permit Office at
(747 -6800) to see if the Building Permit is ready . to issue.
Erwin Roxas
616 Pacific Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Project Number: DR04 -0051
Project Address: 616 Pacific Avenue
Project Description: The proposal involves a second story addition of. approximately 430 square feet. The addition
will measure approximately 23 -feet from grade to the highest point of the gable roof and will be setback from the
property lines by approximately thirty six feet (36') from the north, six feet six inches (6'6 ") from the east, thirty three
feet (33') from the south, and three feet eight inches (3'S") from the west. Also proposed is a second story balcony, first
floor deck, and expansion of an existing three (3) car garage. The second story balcony will measure approximately 15-
feet from grade and will be approximately 208 square feet in size, and the deck will measure approximately 3.5 feet
from grade and will be approximately 794 square feet in size. The proposed garage will measure approximately 24' by
30', an expansion of approximately 7.5 feet in depth. The new garage will accommodate three (3) standard -size parking
spaces (8.5' wide by 18' deep) and will be built, in the same location as the existing garage, up to the side and rear
property lines.
Conditions:
(1) This approval is valid for one (1) year. Work must be started under valid building permit prior to July 12, 2005,
unless the applicant applies for and is granted a one (1) year extension by Design Review Staff prior to
expiration. Only one (1) extension may be granted.
(2) The completed project shall be in substantial compliance with plans prepared for the 616 Pacific Avenue
residence, dated May 24, 2004, consisting of six (6) sheets of plans, on file in the office of the City of Alameda
Planning Department.
(4) Window framing and construction shall be wood clad, as shown on plans marked Exhibit "A ". Internal
grids are not permitted. Windows shall be recessed from the surface of the exterior wall.
Final Design Review Inspection shall be required prior to Final Building Inspection.
Finals plans shall show that drainage is diverted to Pacific Avenue.
All Time and Materials charges shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
All plans shall conform to Uniform Building Code standards and the Alameda City Municipal Code.
Any changes to the exterior details from the approved plans shall be submitted for Planning Staff review and
approval.
(7)
(8)
(9)
Environmental Determination:
(1) The proposal is Categorically'Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Findings:
(1) The project will have no significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity.
(2) The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties.
(3) , The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines.
Planning & Building Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 OR LAN G,C CO 1P cAve6161DLAPPROVAL.IIr doc
Alameda, California 94501.4477
510.747.6850 • Fax 510.747.6853 • TDD 510.522.7538
*Printed o#RedaPap(
Attachment #2
• Note: This Notice of Decision is required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-36.1 To appeal this decision, a written
appeal must be filed withthe required appeal fee in accordance with Section 30 -36.4 within ten (10) days of
approval.
Approved: Greg Fuz, Director of Planning and Building
Melodie Bounds, Planner
Date: July 12. 2004
di\PLANNINO iCO RRCORR123120041PaoificAve _6161DIJ.PPROVAL.11rdoc
•Taos -cu (ono) ir:o�
crc =ow•.ini
:
pi I
IN a NI
Isca iotd
%ATolIPd9Io
3
NOW/ IONI MOO
Q 7HaHI MINB %Ha 3
11 0
W
w
C.)
L.1-1
CC
v
1
,9
J
8
0 E
• 0 Z
2
do
• ro
4.
• ee
"c•
Alfra Bn.b C
----- /
•
• , L.Z
a
!!'
• !
)1 I
2
0-
a a
;P
n9-1E •
,91£
a
May 5, 2005
Erwin Roxas
1091 Melrose Avenue
Alameda, Ca 94502
City of Alameda • California
RE: NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION AT 616 PACIFIC AVENUE
Dear Mr. Roxas:
On May 2,. 2005, based on a complaint,. City of Alameda Code Enforcement staff
conducted an exterior inspection of your property located at 616 Pacific Avenue. On this
inspection staff observed that the entire building had been demolished. Although a permit
history revealed several permits for work on this property, none of them included the
complete demolition of the property. Your building is included in the City of Alameda
Historic Building Study List and is considered a historical resource. A Stop Work notice
was posted for exceeding the scope of the existing permits and demolition of a historical
resource.
On May 3, 2005 you met with City staff to discuss the illegal demolition of the historical
property you own at 616 Pacific Avenue. As staff explained to you during this meeting,
the demolition of this building is a violation of The City of Alamedas Historical
Preservation Ordinance 13 -21 b. Copies of this ordinance were given to you at this
meeting.
The City of Alameda hereby demands that you immediately cease all construction at
your property located at 616 Pacific Avenue, as stated in the Stop Work Notice
issued on May 2, 2005. Additionally, pursuant to Alameda Historical Preservation
ordinance 13 -21 (b) a five (5) year stay in the issuance of any building or
construction related permits would be implemented. The effective date of this stay
will begin May 2, 2005 and expire May 2, 2010. Additionally, you must submit a
landscape or site. maintenance plan to be approved by the Planning & Building
director within Sixty -(60) days from the date of this notice.
r
D m
O 3 m
l7n ti
> g3ttildilaServi .egC
�D )de anpl
▪ rri
N
O 2'263 Santa C ara A
Alameda, CA 9450]
nue, Room 190
Office 510 748.455 • Fax 510 748.4548 • TDD 510 522.7538. 1
C Printed on Recycled Paper
Attachment #3
If you disagree with this decision you may appeal it to the Planning Board. To appeal a
decision to the Planning Board, the appellant must pay the required fees, including a
deposit for time and materials and submit the appropriate form and 15- copies of any
supporting plans and/or exhibits. These fees and materials must be submitted to the
Planning and Building Department, Room 190, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda,
within 10 calendar days which would be no later than Monday, May 16, 2005 before
5:00 PM.
PIease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this notice.
I am available Monday through Thursday 8:OOam to 4:OOpm
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated,
i n Higares
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Greg McFann — Building Official
Jerry Cormack — Interim Planning Director
Julie Harryman — Deputy City Attorney
George Carder — Supervising Building Inspector
Alan Tai — Planner III
2
.PETITION FOR APPEAL
"TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA
City Hall
22.63 Santa Clara Av
Alameda CA 94501
Planning Board -
(Planning Board or City Council)
enue 1190.
•
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the
Code Enforcement Officer, Tim Higares
(Planning Director /Zoning. Administrator /Planning Board /Historical
Advisory Board) .
which: stopped work purportedly pursuant to Preservation Ordinance 13 -21(b)
(Denied /Granted /Established Conditions)
renovations /improvements
(Application Number) (Street Address)
at
616 Pacific Avenue
Design Review Use Permit
Subdivision Map Rezoning
Development
Planned Development /Amendment
on 5/2/05.
(Specify Date)
The basis of the appeal is:
See Attached
for-
for a
Variance
Plannned
% Other Construction
(Specify)
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attach
additional sheets.)
Erwin Roes
(Name)
1091 Melrose Avenue
(Address)
Alameda, Calif.
(City /State)
(Telephone - Work)
(51) 551 -6659
(Telephone- Home)
******************:*******;********** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * *t * * * ****
(For Office Use Only) Date Received Stamp
D Received
r
D V
1m
mA
O �
•
D.�
D m
�z
Pm
D
\FORMS \APPEAL01.WPD
Attachment #4
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to renovate and improve my parents' home to make
it safer and more handicapped accessible for them and to enlarge the house so that family
members can stay and take care of my parents. My mother is very ill. She suffers from
Alzheimer's and has a severe case of arthritis which made it impossible for her to get
around the house without a wheelchair. Due to her medical condition, she is currently on
Sutter VNA and Hospice care. My father also suffers from a severe illness. He has
cancer and liver problems. The original structure of the house made it difficult to
maneuver in the house with my mother's wheelchair and my father's walker. The need to
improve the house was emphasized when social worker Erin Louer with Sutter BNA
Hospice determined the house to be an unsafe environment for my parents, was run
down, fire hazard, and the structure of the house was wheelchair inaccessible.
The house, pursuant to approved plans, will change from three bedrooms, one
bath, one story to six bedroom two story house. This will allow family to live in the
house and take care of my parents, rather than putting them in a nursing facility.
This project is to renovate the home to accommodate my parents' physical needs
which allow them to spend their remaining years in their home with family and not to
have them move away to a nursing home.
The project was designed by the appropriate design professionals and obtained all
permits and approvals.
1
The project includes excavating the basement and improving drainage.
During construction it became apparent that especially at the lower floor there
was significant mold and significant wood rot within the floor joists and wall studs. We
were concerned that excavating the basement as called for in the approved plans would
be dangerous given the extent of the wood rot in the studs and floor joists. We therefore
stopped construction and consulted with the Planning & Building Department on March
30, 2005.
We discussed this matter with Mr. Alan Tai, Planner III with the Building
Department. We asked Mr. Tai if we could disassemble the floors and walls in order to
excavate the basement and then reassemble with the same wood and joists (substituting
for any decayed wood) after the basement and foundation were constructed. Mr. Tai
advised that that would be acceptable.
We did not demolish the house. In order to preserve the historical value of the
house we manually disassembled the floor joists, wall studs and removed the wood rot.
We felt there was no safe alternative given the extent of the wood rot. We have set aside
all reusable lumber and will be reassembling the house in as true to original construction
as .possible.
The project was issued a Stop Work Notice on May 2, 2005 on the grounds that
d demolished the house. Again, we did not demolish the house. With what we
2
thought to be approval of the Building Department we disassembled the house with the
full intent of reassembling once the basement and foundation were constructed.
My parents are currently living with my sister during construction. This is not a
good situation as my sister's house is also not wheelchair accessible. To stall this project
for five years is an extreme hardship to everyone not the least of which is my parents.
698028
3
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CENTRAL PERMITS OFFICE, RM 190
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
(510) 747 -6800 FAX (510) 747 -6804
Permit to Perform Work
Permit Number:
CB04 -0678
Group
Type
Subtype
Category
Permit
Address
Building
Combination Building Permit
Residential
Addition
616 PACIFIC AVE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
Parcel No. 074 - 0430 - 027 -00
Owner
ROXAS ERWIN
616 PACIFIC AVE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
510 - 337 -1737
MARTIN MARTINEZ
Applicant 163 JUSTIN CIR
ALAMEDA, CA 94502
510 - 551 -6659
Valuation $ 200,000.00
(Contractor)
Fee Items
Ea# of
ch
Amount
10- Building Permit Fee (1)
1
$1,663.50
20- Electrical Permit Fee - 20
Percent of Bldg. Permit Fee (1)
1
$332.70
30- Mechanical Permit Fee -15
Percent of Bldg. Permit Fee (1)
1
$249.53
30- Plumbing Permit Fee - 20
Percent of Bldg. Permit Fee (1)
OR
1
$332.70
50 -Bldg. Srvs. Plan Check Fee (1)
1
$1,663.50
250 -FY01- Filing Fee (per activity)
4
$156.00
620 - Records Management Fee
126
$428.40
740 - Design Review - Planning -
Bldg. Inspection Fee (hr)
1.41
$94.47
782- Engineering Plan Check Fee
(free form)
176
$176.00
920 - School Fee - Residential
(sq.ft.)
1532
$6,419.08
950 -SMIP - Residential (1)
1
$20.00
960- Reconnect/Temporary Fee
(free form)
250
$250.00
965- Community Planning Fee
(Enter 1)
1
$600.00
1100 - Police and Fire Fees
1532
$237.46
1110 - Improvement Tax (1)
1
$2,000.00
Permit Tracking Fee _1
$219.90
Total
$14,843.24
LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION
1 hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under the provisions of
Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business an
Professional Code and my license is in full force and effect.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations:
_I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self - insure for workers
compensation as provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance
of the work for which is permit is issued. OR
_I have and will maintain workers compensation insurance, as required by Section
3700 the labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued.
My workers compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:
_I certify that the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not
employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers compensation
laws of California, and agree that if I should become subject to the workers
compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply
with these provisions or is permit shall be deemed revoked.
WARNING: FAILURE TO SECURE WORKERS COMPENSATION
COVERAGE IS UNLAWFUL, AND SHALL SUBJECT AND EMPLOYER TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL CRIMES UP TO ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF
COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3700 OF
THE LABOR CODE, INEREST, AND ATTORNEY S FEES.
OWNER- BUILDER DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the Business and
Professions Code, Chapter 9, Divisions 3, for the following reasons:
_I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole
compensation, will do the work, and the structure in not intended or offered for safe.
I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to
conduct the project.
1 certify that 1 have read this application and state that the information given is true
and correct. I agree to comply to all city ordinances and State laws relating to the
building construction and hereby authorize representatives of this city to enter upon the
aforementioned property for inspection purposes at any time and I make this statement
under penalty of law.
This permit will expire if work is not started in 180 days, or if no inspection is
scheduled for more than 180 days. This is a building permit when property filled out,
signed and validated, and is not transferable.
I will not conceal or cover any construction until the work is inspected and the
inspection is recorded on the back of the job copy. All inspection requests required are
24 hours in advance of the inspection.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Government Code, Section 65850.2 requires that a person making application for a
non - residential building permit declare if any hazardous material will be used or stored
at the address contained within the application. Therefore, as the applicant, 1 hereby
declare that materials considered as hazardous by the State of California, _ Will,
Will Not be used and/or stored at this location. _ Not Applicable.
I hereby agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Gonzales and its
officers, employees and agents all liability, judgments, costs, and expenses which may
in any way accrue against the City of Gonzales consequence of the granting of this
permit, and will in all things strictly comply with the conditions of this permit.
I understand that the issuance of a permit based on plans, specifications and other data
does not give authority to violate or conceal the provisions of the state of local laws and
does not prevent the City of Gonzales from requiring the correction of errors or from
preventing building operations being carried on when in violation of said laws.
CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY
I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the
work for which this permit is issued (Section 3097, Civ,1.),c
Lenders Name:
Lenders Address:
Description of Work:
1532 SF ADDITION TO SFD (225 @ 1ST FLOOR: 2 MASTER SUITES & 1 BEDROOM; 1307 @ 2ND
FLOOR: 3 BEDROOMS, STUDY, 2 BATHROOMS); 794 SF ATTACHED DECK @ REAR ; TEMPORY
POWER POLE (BLDG /ELEC /PLUM/MECH)
Attachment #5
Wes Ogawa Associates
Structural Engineers
1504 Franklin St., Ste.. 310
Oakland, Ca. 94612
(510) 763-0888
6/20/2005
City of Alameda
Building Services
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, Ca. 94501
Re: Roxas Residence
616 Pacific Ave.
Alameda, Ca.
Dear Building Services:
It has come to my attention that the building at 616 Pacific Ave. has been cited with a
stop work order due to removal of building walls for the addition. The exterior walls
had extensive dry rot and presented a danger to the workers involved in the remodel.
It is my understanding that the developer, Mr. Martinez, obtained approval for the
disassembly in a meeting with Mr. Alan Tai of your department. In the meeting they
obtained verbal approval; they proceeded to disassemble the walls to avoid further
danger from the wood rot condition such as collapse-of the walls in construction. There
was no other viable alternative.
They have kept the lumber from the removed walls on site. However, they cannot re -use
some of the material due to the wood rot.
I hope this sheds more information about the process of disassembling of the existing
walls.
Sincerely,
*241'(- o raz
Wesley M. Ogawa
Wes Ogawa Associates
RECEIVED
JUN282005
PEPM!T CENTER
ALAMEC%A, C;:, 94501
Attachment #6
May 24, 2005
To the City of Alameda Building Department,
I am providing a response to the "Notice of Public Hearing" notice I recently recently received pertaining to
the remodel project at 616 Pacific Avenue.
My name is Paul Rezucha, the homeowner of the property next door, 610 Pacific Avenue. Martin Martinez is
the person responsible for the remodel at 616 Pacific Avenue and has been
performing the work thus far on the property.
I have known Martin for 5 years now and have seen that he has a great rapport with the building inspectors on
his own house remodel and the project next door and always prides himself in doing above and beyond quality
work on his projects. If he is not sure about a particular aspect of the plans, he will discuss this with the
inspectors to ensure that he does the work correctly. This just saves time and money in the long run. Recently
on the 616 Pacific project, there was a problem with the foundation for the garage that the inspector pointed
out and Martin promptly made the changes to make it right.
As for the house remodel, Martin made a special trip to the building department to discuss the problem with
the 2 required existing walls that needed attention. There were issues of wood rot in many of the studs and
floor joists, obviously needing replacement. He was also concemed about safety and wanted to make sure that
workers would not be in any danger when digging out the basement. The-safest way to do this was to
dismantle the stud walls and rebuild them as according to the plans using all original solid studs. After
returning from the building department and getting the "go ahead" (apparently the building planner said it was
ok to continue as long as the structure was built according to the plans), Martin hired a crew to dismantle the
complete wall structure stud by stud and retain all the good wood. This took a substantial amount of labor and
probably cost a fair extra amount to complete. All this wood is neatly stacked at the back of the property. No
heavy equipment was used anywhere to take down the structure. No bulldozer ever was on the property.
Only a Bobcat was used to break up cement pathways and stairs. I was. told that someone complained that a
bulldozer was on the property demolishing the building. This is NOT true. I was home during the whole
dismantling process and it was all done carefully to retain as much of the good lumber as possible.
This project has been delayed now for over a month and I certainly hope that the decision to continue the work
is made soon. I would not like to have an empty dirt pit as a neighbor for the next 5 years and certainly would
not appreciate what this would do to my property value.
In my opinion, Martin has followed the rules and regulations to the tee and if there is anyone at fault, it would
be in the response and advise of the building planner. It should have been clearly stated what could, and what
could not be done to abide by the regulations of the permit. Martin was looking after the best interests of the
workers safety and in building a solid, long lasting house for his in -laws.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul Rezucha
610 Pacific Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel: (510) 864 -7551
L
PERMIT CENTER
ALA EDA, CA 54501
JUN - 2C05
Attachment #7
620 Pacific Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
June 11, 2005
Planning Division, City of Alameda, City Hail
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm. 190
Alameda, , CA 94501
Dear Planning Division,
e9
RECEIVED
JUN 2 21005
PERMIT CENTER
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
It has been brought to my attention that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda wilt be holding
a public hearing to consider Major Design Review DR04-0051 - Erwin Roxas - 616 Pacific
Avenue. !understand that based on the outcome of the hearing Erwin Roxas may or may not be
allowed to build on his property for a period of five years. It concems me that a lot that once
played an active role in the neighborhood's landscape will simply be unproductive for five years.
With West Alameda's Webster Street improvements, I trust nearby neighborhoods would
embrace the benefit this growth offers. It would be inconsistent to have so much invested in the
local businesses and lack of support for the residents that sustain the growth of Alameda from
just around the comer. 1 would like to see Alameda reach its full potential both residentially and
commercially. An empty lot would be a symbolic representation to everyone that a lack of
continuity exists. I would hope that a mutually beneficial compromise can be made on this
matter.
Sincerely,
maid Fong
Property Owner
Roxas house
Attachment #8
Roxas house
"DRAFT" Historical Advisory Board Minutes from Regular Meeting of 8 -4 -05.
5. Consideration of penalties for unauthorized demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue.
Emily Pudell briefly reviewed the staff report.. Ms. Pudell stated that an application for Major
Design Review was approved in 2004. The description of work that was provided on application
stated that the scope of work would affect a significant portion of the existing structure; however,
demolition of the structure was not specifically called out in the project description. The
applicant felt that he had obtained all necessary permits to "dismantle" the house. Staff feels that
there was a miscommunication with the applicant. Although this building was listed on the
Historical Building Study List with an (H) designation, which means that it may have Historical
importance because of it's age or location or similarity to other buildings done by important
architects or builders, staff was unable to find any historical significance to warrant the inclusion
of 616 Pacific Ave. on the list.
Staff has received several letters from the neighbors opposing the five year stay in development.
Staff is recommending waiving the five year stay in development with conditions stated in draft
Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Birgitt Evans, Kevin Frederick, Nancy Hird, spoke in opposition of waiving the five year stay in
development.
Bill Smith spoke on penalties of unauthorized demolition occurring in the City of Alameda.
Paul Rezucha, spoke in favor of waiving the five year development stay.
There were no more speakers. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board discussion.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that staff is currently considering revisions to the Historical
Ordinance, most importantly the Interim Review section and penalties section. They intend to
bring them to the Historical Advisory Board for public hearing soon.
In response to Chair Anderson's question regarding the process of modifying a structure on the
Historical Building Study List, Ms. Eliason responded that Staff would evaluate the application
with the Building Official to determine if it meets the criteria for a Certificate of Approval for
demolition. Currently the definition of a demolition is set at 30% of the value. If so, it would
need to have HAB approval as well as Design Review.
Board Member Miller confirmed that there is a requirement that the property must be maintained
during the five year stay which would be enforced by the Code Compliance division.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
8
Council Report
Attachment #2
Erwin Roxas, owner, informed the Board that during construction they found extensive dry rot
damage. He stated that he then came to the Planning and Building Department and asked staff if
they could dismantle the house. He .feels that was when the miscommunication occurred. • He
believed he had approval. When they dismantled the house they saved the wood and intended to
use the historic wood in the new structure. Mr. Roxas also stated that the house was dismantled
for safety reasons.
Ms. Pudell stated that the plans do not identify which studs would be placed at which location.
That information would not be required in the Design Review process.
Martin Martinez, applicant, brought the proposed plans do state they were going to sister the
existing wood with new 2 x 4 studs.
Chair Anderson called a brief recess for the Board to look at the plans.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:00 pm.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to extend the meeting until 10:30 pm. 3 -0 -1.
Chair Anderson confirmed that the plans do say the old wood would be used in the new
construction.
Chair Anderson feels that the Board should have been notified in the beginning of this process.
This is something that the Board seriously needs to look at with staff and reiterate the Boards'
purpose. She spoke in favor of the five -year stay, would like the owner to submit a landscaping
plan as stated in the notice sent to him from Code Enforcement. Although she concurs with the
neighbors regarding the blight of a vacant lot for five years, she does not approve of waiving the
five year stay in development.
Board Member Miller stated he has difficulty with the term "dismantled ". He stated the
demolished house does not resemble the new house at all. He was on the Board when they
worked on five year stay, and feels if it is not enforced in this case, then it will send the wrong
message to the public. Board Member Lynch concurred with Board Member Miller's statement.
In response to Board Member Lynch's question regarding why the landscaping plan has not been
submitted, Ms. Pudell stated that once staff receives direction from this Board, they will know
how to proceed.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to waive the five year stay in development for the unauthorized demolition
at 616 Pacific Ave. as stated in the draft Resolution. 0 -3 -1.
Ayes: 0; Noes: 3; Absent: 1. Application is denied.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
9
as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
GRANTING THE APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY
BOARD'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE FIVE -YEAR STAY IN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 616 PACIFIC AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004 Planning and Building Department Staff approved Major
>- Design Review DR04 -0051 for additions to the 1St story, a new 2nd story addition, interior remodel,
porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,500 square feet to the dwelling located at 616
OPacific Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official made a determination that the proposed project did not
involve demolition because it would not affect more than 30% of the value of the structure; and
—
V WHEREAS, on January 10, 2005 Planning and Building Department Staff issued building
permits for the approved modifications, mentioned above; and
WHEREAS, an inquiry was received by the Code Compliance Division on May 3, 2005
regarding the demolition of the main dwelling at 616 Pacific Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2005, a Stop Work Order and notice of a five year stay in
development was placed on the subject property, pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC)
§13-21b.; and
WHEREAS, a letter was submitted on June 28, 2005 from a structural engineer indicating
that the main building had extensive dry rot damage; and
WHEREAS, letters of support have been received from neighboring property owners stating
that they encourage the redevelopment of the property, as originally proposed; and
WHEREAS, if the site remained vacant on a street that is otherwise substantially developed,
the property would have a negative impact on the adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented research and information regarding the dwelling's deteriorating
condition and lack of historic significance at a public hearing of the Historical Advisory Board
(HAB) on August 4, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the HAB made a determination that the property should be subject to the five
year stay in the issuance of building and construction related permits; and
WHEREAS, there are extenuating circumstances with regard to this property that make
imposition of the five year no -build order inappropriate; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15321 —
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies;
Resolution #5 -D
09 -06 -05
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council supports the appeal and
overturns the Historical Advisory Board's determination that the property at 616 Pacific Avenue
shall be subject to the five year stay in the issuance of any building permit or construction- related
permit. The dwelling, approved by Major Design Review #DR04 -0051, should be constructed,
subject to the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PLANS. The construction of the single - family dwelling shall be completed in
substantial compliance with the plans dated May 24, 2004, prepared by Design Planning
Associates, Inc., marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of Alameda Planning and
Building Department.
2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DR04 -0051. The construction of the single - family
dwelling shall comply with all conditions of approval identified in the Notice of Preliminary
Major Design Review Approval, dated July 12, 2004.
HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda
or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City
concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify
the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the
applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus
extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this
day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 31, 2005
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of City Council
Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Resolution Empowering City Attorney To Employ Special Legal Counsel;
City Council Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal Counsel
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On July 19, 2005, the City Attorney provided a proposal for new procedures, at City
Council's request which would provide: 1) greater Council oversight for expenditures on outside
counsel fees, 2) a competitive process for the hiring of outside counsel, and 3) monthly financial
reports on the status of expenditures on outside counsel fees. The City Council directed that the
new procedures be brought back to Council in the form of a Resolution for action at the next
available Council meeting.
A form of Resolution was submitted for Council review at its August 2, 2005 regular
meeting. At the August 2, 2005 City Council meeting, Council requested changes to the form of
the Resolution for consistency with the Charter limitations set forth in Section 8 -5 of the City
Charter. Additionally, it was suggested that the procedures for hiring of outside counsel be
considered as a separate Council policy. Copies of both a form of Resolution and a separate City
Council policy regarding hiring procedures (including reporting requirements) are attached to
this staff report.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT
The outside counsel budget was previously appropriated by the Council on June 6, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution Empowering the City
Attorney to Employ Special Legal Counsel, and the separate City Council policy regarding
procedures for hiring special legal counsel.
ectfully submitted:
Carol A. Korade
City Attorney
Attachment
Re: Resolution 5 -E
9 -6 -05
CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR HIRING OF
SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
• City Attorney is authorized by Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriated budget without prior Council approval
• City- initiated litigation requires prior City Council authorization
• For matters estimated to cost less than $35,000, City Attorney hires outside co-
counsel from legal panel selected through RFQ process
• City Attorney meets with Council in closed session at the earliest possible time
and provides an analysis of the litigation, including litigation costs, as a
confidential document if any of the following apply:
o Estimated to exceed $35,000 in defense costs
o Involving policy questions
o Having significant ramifications for the City
o If requested by City Council
Limitations on Settlement Authority
• City Attorney's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters;
settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by City Council
Reporting Requirements
• The City Attorney keeps the Council apprised of the status of the litigation
through periodic confidential reports
• Monthly financial reports provided to City Council on costs of outside counsel on
litigation and transactional matters
• City Attorney provides confidential bi- annual litigation status reports to Council
in January and July, with updated budget and analysis
o Litigation status reports identify outside co- counsel for each case
o Litigation status reports summarize the proceedings for each City initiated
and defense case, including all "closed" cases for the current fiscal year
and the preceding five (5) fiscal years
o Litigation status reports include more detailed, separate confidential
analysis provided for each litigation matter as attachments to the litigation
status report
1
o Litigation status report includes costs of litigation and any
settlements /payments made by the City
• City Attorney meets periodically in closed session with Council to discuss any
pending litigation matter
Limitations on Hiring of Outside Counsel
• City Attorney will limit his /her hiring of outside counsel legal services from one
of the following legal panels, which shall have been selected by City Attorney
using a competitive (RFQ) process:
1) Bond Counsel
2) Litigation Defense (Tort, Public Safety, Construction Contract,
Federal, etc.)
3) Real Property /Condemnation/Unlawful Detainer
4) Miscellaneous Specialty (such as Tax, Labor, Federal/BRAC,
Environmental/CEQA/land use, Airport)
• All new contracts for the outside counsel legal panel will be subject to the
$35,000 spending limitation, without express authority to exceed the budget; City
Attorney may not exceed this limitation on budgeted appropriations without
seeking Council authorization in open session
2
E
O
LL.
O
cn
ca
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
EMPOWERING CITY ATTORNEY
TO EMPLOY SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
WHEREAS, the City Attorney is the legal advisor to the City Council pursuant to the
City Charter; and
WHEREAS, Charter Section 8 -5 provides that the City Council may empower the City
WAttorney, upon request, to employ special legal counsel; and
Z
WHEREAS, at regular City Council meetings during June and July 2005, the City
OF- Council reviewed its past procedures regarding any specific Council action to empower the City
I— Attorney to employ special legal counsel for both consistency with Charter requirements and for
consistency of procedures with other legislation bodies within the City for which the City
Attorney acts as General Counsel and determined a need to memorialize a consistent
v empowerment procedure; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution provides the parameters for City Council empowerment of
the City Attorney to employ special legal counsel pursuant to Charter Section 8 -5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA THAT:
1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby empowers the City Attorney to
employ special legal counsel, pursuant to Charter Section 8 -5 unless any of the following
occur:
a) Estimated legal fees to exceed $35,000, or
b) Litigation involves policy questions, or
c) Litigation has significant ramifications for the City, or
d) If requested by the Council, or
e) Litigation is to be initiated by the City.
If any of the above criteria is present, the City Attorney must seek City Council
empowerment to employ special legal counsel as soon as practical. In the interim, outside
counsel retention is limited to the amount necessary to provide preliminary analysis and
assistance.
2. City Attorney's settlement authority is limited to $15,000 for all matters;
settlement proposals exceeding $15,000 must be approved by City Council.
3. The City Attorney is , to comply with City Council Policy Regarding Procedures
for Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
Resolution #5 -E
09 -06 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
the said City this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
Lydia L. Chan
Karen Green
Linda M. McHugh
Michael E. Soderberg
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ONE VACANCY
COMMUNITY -AT -LARGE SEAT
Robert A. Bonta
R. Annette Brisco
Michael R. Fassler
Claire Fitzgerald
Jay L. Ingram
Janet W. Iverson
Carrolyn M. Kubota
Lenard L. Lee
Diane C. Lichtenstein
James A. Price
Stephanie L. Prothero
Valerie Ruma
William C. Russell
Jay J. Seaton
Brad C. Shook
Jay G. Townley
Morris H. Trevithick
Randy K. Watkins
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT /ARCHITECT/DESIGN BUILD SEAT
Hanson D. Hom
Janet W. Iverson
Greg J. Klein
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING AND BUILDING CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
Jacob M. Chapman
James A. Price
David A. Solis
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
TWO INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Monetha G. Hatcher
Karen Lee, Incumbent
Dian McPherson
K.C. Rosenberg, Incumbent
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05
Kathryn F. Boyle
Michael Cosentino
John F. Curliano
James R. Currier
Lauren R. Eisele
Linda Gilchrist
Harry L. Hartman
Lee A. Kaplan
Geoffrey M. Lee
Jessica Lindsey
Tim Marr
Scott A. McKay
Lissa V. Merit
Jessica S. Niland
Terri Bertero Ogden
Donald E. Oransky
Cookie Robles -Wong
Rueben Tilos
Gail A. Wetzork
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
09 -06 -05