Loading...
2007-06-19 SubmittalsCHRISTOPHER BUOKLEY 1017 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE ALAMEDA, CA 94501 Mayor and Councilmembers City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA. 94501 June 18, 2007 Subject: Comments an Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment to be considered at the City Council's June 19, 2007 meeting Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The draft General Plan amendment is generally very good, but still needs to address the following issues: 1. Do not allow future residential development in close proximity to Clement Avenue, since Clement Avenue will be a truck route. Properties along Clement Avenue would be more appropriate for commercial, industrial and other nonresidential uses. (Note: Work-Live is considered a nonresidential use under City development rules.) Unfortunately, residential development was allowed along Clement Avenue as part of the Marina Cove Phase 1 project. This was a mistake that should not be compounded. Although a notice was to be recorded on the Clement Avenue lots within Marina Cove informing.prnperty purchasers that Clement Avenue was to be a truck route, I suspect that the residents of these houses will experience an unpleasant surprise when the truck route becomes operational. The amount of separation of residential uses from Clement Avenue will vary depending on the ability of intervening buildings to shelter residences from noise and exhaust along Clement. However, a distance of about 100' is probably a good starting point. Prohibiting or limiting residential uses along Clement should be reflected in Guiding and Implementing Policy Group 10.3, Policy 10.4.c, the General Plan Land Use Diagram and possibly other plan provisions. 2. Address height limits in the General Plan Amendment. The plan amendment area is now zoned M -2 and R -4 -PD. The M -2 Zone has a 100' height limit and the R -4 Zone's 35' height limit is waived under the PD overlay. The maximum building height within the plan amendment area should probably be somewhere 1 Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 06 -19 -07 between 35' and 60' depending on subarea and use. 60' should probably be the maximum height limit Citywide. 100' is too tall for new development anywhere in Alameda. The Plan Amendment should be revised to include height limits. A separate study should be conducted on height limits Citywide with a view toward reduced height limits in the M -1, M -2, C -M and other zones that now permit 100' or greater height limits. The current exemption of height limits for development in the M -X Zone and PD overlay should be deleted. I had submitted similar comments to the Planning Board at its February 26 and March.26, 2007 meetings, but the Board did not give any direction to amend the Plan to address these comments. At the February 26 meeting, one Boardmember said that including height limit changes in a General Plan document is inappropriate and that such changes should instead be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. This comment does not acknowledge one of the purposes of General Plans to set forth a list of implementing action steps (such as zoning amendments) to implement Plan goals and policies (such as ensuring new buildings maintain an appropriate scale with the rest of the community).The existing General Plan actually has a provision similar to the one I am now proposing, i.e. "Implementing Policy" (or action step) 2.5.i to reduce the then - existing 100' height limits within the Park Street and Webster Street Business Districts. This policy was implemented through zoning changes several years after the Plan's 1 991 adoption. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 523 -0411 if you would like to discuss these comments. cc: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager 2 Date: 6/1 4/07 To: The Honorable City Council Members Re: Council Meeting 6/19/07 City Budget Dear Council Members: RECEIVED 2001 JUN 14 P Ob cITY crrY LE OFFICE Most of you are aware of the citizen and staff committee known as the Customer Service Improvement Committee (the CSI) for the Building and Planning Department. At the request Council Member Materrese over three years ago, a group of local residents and business people who work frequently with the department were asked if they would volunteer time once per month to meet with city staff to address service concerns in the department. Topics have included processes among staff, staff interactions with the public, staffing (or lack thereof), permit requirements, inspection procedures, and public perception of the department. As appropriate we have made recommendations to the Planning Board and the City Council at public meetings and via written correspondence. We are recommending to you at this time the approval of the two new staff positions as outlined in the budget before you. A third position, Administrative Management Analyst, is an upgrade of an existing unfunded position (office Assistant) in the Department and we recommend funding that position. Provision of these additional positions will allow staff to give more attention to longer range planning projects, such as much -- needed zoning ordinance updates. Completion of these longer range projects will help streamline the permit process and use staff time more efficiently. Aiameda's current high level of development activity has absorbed most of the Planning and Building Department's staff resources and made it difficult to pursue these longer range projects. We are very aware of the challenges facing the department as a result of the increasing project workload, large and small, throughout the city. We are also aware that we lose staff to surrounding communities and private industry due to better benefits andlor pay, not to mention the Toss of staff due to retirement. Alameda has become a fine training ground for those entering these fields. We must, and need to retain talented and dedicated employees. Cathy Woodbury, the department Director, is working hard to stabilize the personnel situation, improve the working environment (far too limited to meet the demands of our citizens), and create a synergy among staff that ensures a satisfactory citizen experience. Thank you for your consideration. If you have questions you may contact any of us. For t - SI Committee, Marilyn Schumache Broker Associate, Harbor Bay Realty (510)814 -4709 mws@are4s.com Special Joint CCIARRAICIC Re: Agenda Item #3 -B June 19, 2007 Denise Brady Realtor, Kane and Associates; RAPS (510) 469 -6324 dbrady001 @aol.com Christopher Buckley City Planner, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (510) 523 -0411 CBuckley©AlamedaNet.Net Italo Calpestri /NIA (510) 522 -6769 calpestri @_sbcglobal.net Ken Carvalho Buestad Construction Project Estimator (510) 523 - 1925 x206 kenc @buestad.com Jane Friedrich Realtor, Harbor Bay Realty (510) 814 -4810 jfriedrich @hbrhomes.com Derek Pavlik Designer (510) 865 -8850 design @derekpavlikdesign.com Vincent Wu P.E. (510)865 -4623 vince @baselinealameda.com Andrew Thomas Alameda City Planner (510)747 -6850 athomas @ci.alameda.ca.us Greg McFann Alameda City Building Official (510)747 -6820 gmcfann @ci.alameda.ca.us Cathy Woodbury Director, Alameda Building and Planning Department ( 510) 747 -6868 cwoodbury@ci.alameda.ca.us FOUNDED 1918 May 29, 2007 Ms. Beverly Johnson, Mayor City Council Members, Alameda City Hall 2200 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 RE: Alameda Museum Rent Subsidy Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members, R E MAY 3 1 2001 E D CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY MANAGER'S OFFP r In the June City Budget (7 -1 -07 to 6- 30 -08) the Alameda Museum rent subsidy, currently $3,846mo. /$46,152yr., includes a 10% reduction from previous years funding. We respectfully request that this 10% funding cut NOT be implemented for the following reasons. • When Bill Norton was Acting City Manager, every department faced reductions of 10% and the Museum acquiesced to this cut, unaware that two years later, the Masons would increase our rent by $1257 a month to $5103. The funding cut of 10% was never put in place. • The Museum met with the City Manager 11/20/06 to discuss the Carnegie Library Building. It was during this meeting that the Museum was told the Carnegie would become the One Stop Permit Center for the City and that the City Manager intended to implement the 10% cut proposed two years ago. A follow -up letter 11 -28- 06 from the City Manager, cc'd to City Council, said that there would be a recommendation to reduce the Museum subsidy 10% in the next budget cycle, then 10% each subsequent year. I informed the City Manager that annual 10% reductions meant the Museum would cease to exist. • City Council has been provided with itemized expenses showing that we have annually raised approximately $3000 mo. to run the Museum and the Meyers House & Garden Museum. The Museum, since 1948, has been subsidized by the City with either a rent free building or rent assistance, as is every Historic Museum. When the Museum was forced to vacate the Oak Street location in 1991/2, the City assured us that the rent would be paid. In 1996, the City approved the Masons' next rent increase (current City cost). We are NOT asking the City to fund our new rent increase (a 33% increase), only to NOT implement the 10% cut. • Due to the unfortunate Flood at the Masonic Hall February 2nd, the Museum was closed for repairs. We reopened May 16th. The City did not pay our rent for two months, a COST SAVINGS of $7692, or 16.7 %. We still had fixed expenses but NO revenue for 3 7/2 months and then incurred extra expenses to put the Museum back into operation. The City has effectively gotten the 10% cut for this year and most of the next. We should not incur further cuts to our subsidy if you have already saved these funds. Our new rent rate is $5,103. The City Manager proposes our subsidy become $3461. The difference, $1642 is an onerous burden. Would you volunteer to be a working board member who must raise $4642 every month for providing a free -to- the - public community asset? • We are NOT requesting additional funds, only maintaining past funding to continue our service to the City. We are the only entity preserving and providing access to Alameda History for a cost to the City of approximately 62 cents per citizen (population 75,000). We provide a venue for the arts, validating current City support of the arts. We cannot be compared to or evaluated with local art groups as our "raison d'etre" is entirely unique. We respectfully hope you consider our request. Sincerely, CVRO 6-6A- Za}cd Diane Coler -Dark, President, Alameda Museum Cc: Debra Kurita, City Manager Special Joint CC /ARRAICIC Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Item #3-B II. 06-19-07 2321 ALAMEDA AVENUE • ALAMEDA, CA 91501 • 510.521.1233 • alamedamuseum.org I would like this letter I wrote to the Alameda Newspapers included in IL-51TT1�ll9 CE Council meeting packet. Dennis Evanosky Editor: 1ttjtJtt! 1 P 3: I b CITY OF PL1\MEDA CITY C..ER'S OFFICE This is a call to help preserve Alameda's collective memory. I am an author, a local historian and part of the Alameda Museum community as a member, researcher and speaker. I am deeply concerned about City Manger Debra Kurita's plans to reduce the City's museum subsidy by 10 percent and then continue to reduce this subsidy until the museum ceases to exist. I invite Ms. Kurita to look around her and experience the importance of Alameda's past before she does this. She should notice that the past permeates the City of Alameda. Even a casual observer will notice the Victorian -era homes that shape the city and make it unique. People who want to know more about Alameda's history have two choices. They can read about it at the library or they can experience it first-hand at the Alameda Museum; both options are equally important. Alameda is doubly blessed with both a library and a local museum. Over the years the folks at the Alameda Museum have provided the City with a valuable service preserving, interpreting and displaying evidence of Alameda's p ast. A dedicated group of volunteers continues this tradition an accomplishment that certainly deserves the City's acknowledgment and continuing financial support. The City of Alameda cannot afford to lose its museum anymore than it could afford to lose its library. The museum is, in fact, a visual, tangible facility that complements both the City and its library. Indeed both library and City staff should tell researchers that a visit to the museum is an integral part of investigating Alameda. The museum is important not just to researchers, however. Alamedans interested in informally learning about their own history can visit the museum at no cost. There they can learn the history of their homes and stories about their family's past. While there they can visit exhibits like a facsimile of the barber shop where the City's beloved three - term Mayor Chuck Corica plied his trade and his grassroots politics. Museum volunteers will also invite visitors to take in the museum's unique "annex" on Alameda Avenue, the Colonial Revival Myers House. There, for a small admission fee, they can immerse themselves in Alameda over one hundred years ago. Special Joint CCIARRA/CIC Re: Agenda Item #3 -B 11 06 -19 -07 Visitors might be pleased to learn that the museum has always worked with the City's children. As just one example, for the past ten years the museum has hosted "Kids & Queen Victoria," an art show with work from fourteen elementary school classes. And there's more. The museum encourages local artists to display their work on its gallery walls, hosts a lecture series that focuses on Alameda's history, preserves hundreds and hundreds of documents and vintage photos, keeps an incredible tangible array of Alameda's past and hosts special exhibits lovingly put together by volunteers. Is all this worth preserving? Are the Alameda Museum and the Meyers House important threads in the City's fabric? Ms. Kurita doesn't seem to think so. It's time to let her know otherwise because without the City's continuing financial support Alameda may soon lose very precious asset access to its collective memory. Dennis Evanos 3475 B 39th Avenue Oakland, CA 94619 , ' r 0 ky 510-772 -5209 RECEIVED 2001 JUN 19 P 12: 02 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE JUDITH LYNCH 137? Versailles Avenue Alameda, California 94501 510.748.0796 judithal@comcast.net Mayor Johnson, Vice - Mayor Tam, City Council Members: June 19, 2007 I regret that the illness of my husband precludes my speaking to you in person. I have been on the Board of the Alameda Museum for many years, and I ask you not to diminish our funding, even by ten percent. Others will talk to you about our safekeeping of City archives, the artists who have used our free gallery space, and the exhibits devoted to Alameda heritage. They will also remind you that the Museum is the main venue to research buildings. I want to mention how the Museum has encouraged and nurtured Alameda students. Volun- teer Robbie Dileo has provided special tours for thousands of Alameda students over the past twenty years, and many teachers will testify to the academic benefit to their classes when they visit the only place in town to study local history, architecture, and culture. For the past ten years the Museum has sponsored an annual show, "Kids & Queen Victoria," where K-5 students can show off their writing, art, sculpture, quilts, and other material they created after learning about the legacy of Queen Victoria here. This event, co-sponsored by the Alameda Education Foundation, is the only one of its kind throughout all the land. The Museum also brings history to life by enticing historic characters to visit from the ethereal zone. We have welcomed Queen Victoria and her consort Prince Albert, King Edward and Queen Alexandria, Governor Pardee, William Comfort Tiffany, and the Frenchman who invented neon. Finally, please review the attached list. Over the past seven years we have provided an intel- lectual forum that has sparked discussion of local history, development, culture, and architec- ture. Speakers are nationally renowned and respected authors, historians, and architects who receive no fee; they provide their services out of support for the Museum. We already have a full schedule for 2008; it would be a shame if this amalgam of information and entertainment was curtailed because the Museum is slowly starving for funds. Please do not cut our budget. Sincerely, letter.- p. Re: Agenda Item 3-B11 Special Joint CC /ARRAICIC 06-19-07 ALAME1A MLTSEUM LE('FUILE S 200I -2007 IIere is an alphabetical listing of the prominent Bay Area authors and historians who have taken part in our lecture series. Many lectures are sponsored by local businesses and professionals. We have standing room only for most lectures; people respond to our excellent publicity and come from other locales, visiting nearby restaurants and shops and thereby bringing commerce to our historic downtown. 1r Thursday, April 26, 2001, 7 pm: "1900 Meets 2000," Bruce Bradbury, founder of Bradbury & Bradbury Wallpapers in Benicia and global pundit, will plunder B & B's exhaustive research and archival collection for slides of turn of the loth century interiors. 1� Thursday, August 28, 2003, 7 pm: "Queen Victoria Down Under" by Bruce Bradbury, founder of Bradbury & Bradbury Art Wallpapers in Benicia, California and a renowned rake and raconteur. , Thursday, July 31, 2003, 7 pm: `Victorian Classics" by Alex Brammer, who spent ten years feeding his obsession with the fabulous residences of the railroad barons and silver bonanza kings atop San Francisco's Nob Hill. Underwritten by Edward Jones/ Janice Lee. 1r Thursday, August 26, 2004, 7 pm: "Bernard Maybeck and the Secrets of the Palace" by Gray Brechin, Ph.D. author of Farewell Promised Land: Waking From the California Dream and Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin, published by the University of California Press. IP Thursday, May 31, 2001, 7 pm: "Imperial San Francisco," Gray Brechin's slide expose about the impact of the Hearsts and other powerful Bay Area families on the environment of California. 1► Thursday May 31, 2007: Author and historian Gray Brechin, author of New Deal California, U.0 Berkeley Press, to discuss WPA buildings in Alameda. 1► Thursday, June 30, 2005, 7 pm: "Preservation Power: Tales of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and its Bulldog Preservation Action Committee," presented by Christopher Buckley and Company. Underwritten by AA PS, whose members will get in free. 1► Thursday, February 27, 2003, 7 pm: "Victorian Polychroming" by expert color consultant Bob Buckter, (AKA Dr. Color), whose glorious slides are the result of his two decades of transforming buildings all over California. This lecture is underwritten by Pagano's. IP Thursday, May 26, 2005, 7 pm: "What of Paris During the Victorian Era ?" by art historian and author, the aptly named Colette Collester. And yes, there is an Alameda connection to the other "City of Lights." Underwritten by Pagano's Hardware. • May 18, 2006: Colette Collester again takes us to France when she focuses on the artist Claude Monet "The Anxious Observer of the Difference of Minutes." (Colette assures us that Monet would have loved living in Alameda in the 187os!) t Thursday September 27: Art historian and enthusiast Colette Collester on the art of Paul Cezanne (1839 -1906) "Cezanne and his beloved hometown of Aix-en- Provence." Underwritten by Rosemary McNally, Raltor, Kane & Associates. I► Thursday, June 27, 2002, 7 pm: "Neon: The Living Flame," by Mr. Art Deco himself, Michael Crowe, author of Deco by the Bay: Art Deco Architecture in the San Francisco Bay Area. Michael will be introduced by neon artist Karl Hauser, who will be wearing his neon- animated hat. Underwritten by Larm's Building Materials, Inc. t Thursday, June 28, 2001, 7 pm, Paul Duchscherer, author of three recent volumes that glorify the bungalow, returns to his true love with `Victorian Glory," slides from his new volume from Penguin Books. , Thursday, April 28, 2005, 7 pm: "Nineteenth Century California Interiors" by architect and historian Hank Dunlop, whose slide show on Fernside wowed audiences during our 2003 lecture series. Underwritten by Judith Lynch, member, Alameda Historical Advisory Board. 1r Thursday July 26, 2007: Architect and historian Hank Dunlop, "The Restoration of the Leland Stanford Mansion," the centerpiece of a fabled state park in Sacramento. Underwritten by Estelle Knowland, Alameda Museum Board. I► Thursday, May 27, 2004, 7 pm: "Cryptic Crypts" by historian Dennis Evanosky, a docent at Oakland's renowned Mountain View Cemetery, a time capsule of California history. Underwritten by Janelle Spatz, current president, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS). 1► Thursday, March 31, 2005, 7 pm: "The East Bay Then and Now" based on a new book of photographs compiled by Dennis Evanosky, whose slide show "Cryptic Crypts" fascinated lecture goers in 2004 and Eric Kos of the Alameda Sun. Underwritten by Janelle Spatz, board member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) and Realtor with Bayside Real Estate. ✓ Thursday June 28, 2007: Dennis Evanosky and Eric Kos will present slides that show Alameda's "Bay Shore before the coming of South Shore." Underwritten by Ginger Schuler, Harbor Bay Realty. , Thursday March 29, 2007: Leslie Freudenheim, author of Building with Nature: Inspiration for the Arts & Crc s Home, published by Gibb Smith. Underwritten by Janelle Spatz, board member Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (RAPS) and Realtor Bayside Real Estate. , April 27, 2006: Melisa Gadreau and Chris Verplanck, architectural historians from Page & Turnbull, will make a PowerPoint presentation about the former Naval Air Station, `Alameda Point: History in Action." 1► Thursday, April 25, 2002, 7 pm: "Storybook Houses," presented by architect and author Arrol G finer, who will discuss the captivating architectural styes of the 19205, with a digression to Stonehenge and Stoneleigh, "a unique tract of Storybook homes in Alameda," designed by architect Walter W. Dixon for developer Christopher Columbus Howard. Arrol is the nationally- syndicated author of the column " Architext," based with the San Francisco Chronicle. , Thursday, April 24, 2003, 7 pm: "Red Tile Style" by architect Arrol Gellner, who will present juicy slides taken by photographer Douglas Meister, who illustrated this new book from Viking. This lecture is underwritten by Alameda Power & Telecom. , March 30, 2006: Curator George Gunn will trot out cobwebbed images that have never seen the light of day as he presents "The Museum Archives Revealed." I► Thursday, June 26, 2003, 7 pm: "Percy & Hamilton: Color, Texture, and Form" by architectural historian Bill Kostura. In Alameda, their plans won the competition for City Hall. The Sharon Playhouse in Golden Gate Park, the Bourne Wine Cellar in St. Helena, early office skyscrapers, and imposing mausoleums are among their other works that will be discussed. Copies of Bill's book, Russian Hill: The Summit, 1853 -1906, will be available. This lecture is underwritten by Centennial Real Estate. 11 Thursday, March 27, 2003, 7 pm: "A. W. Smith: Architect" by Betty Marvin, an Oakland Heritage Alliance member who has made an intense study of Smith and his work. This lecture is underwritten by the Bank of Alameda. • Thursday, June 24, 2004, 7 pm: "Julia Morgan: California's First Female Architect," by architectural historian Betty Marvin, who will assume the dress and persona of Morgan during her lecture, which will feature her dozen or so structures in Alameda. Underwritten by Dahlin Group Architecture and Planning. 1r Thursday, March 25, 2004, 7 pm: "Glass Act" by Alameda glassmaster Ken Matthias, who continues his house -by- -house survey of all the decorative glass on the Island. Come and be stunned! Underwritten by Ginger Schuler of Harbor Bay Realty. IP Thursday, May 30, 2002, 7 pm: "Radiant Panes: Alameda Windows from the Victoria Era to the Time of Arts & Crafts," Alameda glass artist Ken Matthias' glorious slides are a result of his ongoing meticulous survey of decorative glass on the island. Ken will be introduced by a holographic image of glassmaster Louis Comfort Tiffany. Underwritten by Pagano's. I► June 29, 2006: Glassmaster Ken Matthias presents new images of historical glass on the Island, "Glass Act Redux." IP Thursday, April 29, 2004, 7 pm: "Emergence of the Modern in Alameda Architecture: From the Bungalow to the Rancher" by Woody Minor. Underwritten by the law offices of Gina Mariani. , Thursday, March 29, 20017 pm, "Mortar Madness," a revelation of the masonry heritage of the island of Alameda, presented by Woody Minor, author of Pacific Gateway, On The Bay and many more. IP Thursday, February 28, 2002, 7 pm: "Our Houses: Residential Architecture in Alameda," by Woody Minor. Our local hero will use two projectors to take you on a breathtaking cavalcade of Alameda history and houses. 1�► Thursday, July 28, 2005, 7 pm: "History and Commerce on the Island," by raconteur, author, and local historian Woody Minor. This slide show will include book signing of the new edition of Woody's book "Taking Care of Business." Underwritten by Ginger Schuler of Harbor Bay Realty. ✓ July 27, 2006: Local author and historian Woody Minor presents "Joseph Leonard: Architect," a slide clebration of the reprint of Minor's book Leonardville Heritage Area. , Thursday February 22, 2007: Alameda author and historian Woody Minor on "The Architecture of Ratcliff," his new book about a century of East Bay building. Underwritten by the law offices of Gina Mariani. I1 Thursday, July 29, 2004, 7 pm: "The Pardee Legacy" by David Nicolai, curator of the Pardee Home in Oakland. David will dress in character and present George Cooper Pardee's "first person" account of his regime as University of California drum major, Oakland Mayor (1893 -95), and California Governor (1903 -07) Underwritten by Pagano's Hardware. 1► Thursday, March 28, 2002, 7 pm: "A Passion for Pattiani," an exploration of the work of renowned Alameda builder Alfred Washington Pattiani, presented by Paul Roberts, former Alameda Victorian Preservation Society (now AAPS) President. He will be introduced by Alameda writer and historian Woody Minor. 1P Thursday, August 25, 2005, 7 pm: "Pattiani Powerpoint" by Paul Roberts, who will show an expanded version of his "Passion for Pattiani" presentation in conjunction with his new book about that prolific Alameda architect. Underwritten by Nancy Anderson AIA of Dahlin Group Architecture and Planning. 1► August 31, 2006: "Any Style You Want," Paul Roberts returns with an investigation into the work of the Newsom Brothers, prominent Bay Area architects who designed the magnificent Carson Mansion in Eureka. 1i► September 28, 2006: Architect Richard Rutter presents "Steamboating on San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento Delta from 1850 through 1950." 1► Thursday, May 29, 2003, 7 pm: "Early Berkeley," by Richard Schwartz, author of Berkeley 1900, `the first book to approach a true history of day --to -day life at the turn of the century," according to Stephanie Manning of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association. This lecture is underwritten by the law office of Gina M. Mariani. 1► Thursday April 26, 2007: Author and historian Richard Schwartz, author, Earthquake Exodus 1906, published by RSB Books. Underwritten by Judith Lynch, member, Historical Advisory Board. IP Thursday, September 29, 2005, 7 pm: "Trains, Ferries, and Trolleys: How Transportation Shaped Alameda" by Western Railroad Museum trolley operator Bruce Singer, with the assistance of Alameda ferry buff and photo archivist Grant Ute. Underwritten by the law offices of Gina Mariani. 1r February 23, 2006: Bruce Singer and Grant Ute ride the rails for part two of their transportation extravaganza: "Ride the Red Cars" tour of the Encinal and Lincoln lines of the Southern Pacific's Alameda Electric Service. cAlautetra c4tUZiiXffl A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF OUR VARIOUS COLLECTIONS AND THEIR CONTENTS These collections consist of several thousand items dealing exclusively with Alameda, its people and its history. Unless otherwise noted, everything has been catalogued and documented. These are some of our major subject categories: ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL MATERIAL. In 1983 the Alameda Museum was designated as the official repository of historic documents and artifacts of the City of Alameda. Im- portant material in this category includes: Assessment Records ( 1892 - 1910), Assess- ment Block Books (1900 - 1926), former City Hall artifacts including office machines light fixtures, a teller's window grill, an oil painting of Mayor a Noy, and framed photo Y of the first City Assessor, E. Minor Smith, who served from 1872 to 1909. Note: We are in recent receipt from the City of 36 cartons of documents which had been stored at the former NAS, accession work on which will commence as docent time and archival supply funds become available. ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT. This collection includes equipment, helmets, log books, documents, as well as an extensive archive of photographs. ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT. Included in this specialized collection are vintage photographs, criminal "mug shots ", and various correspondence. ALAMEDA PUBLIC SCHOOLS. This extensive collection comprises diplomas, p p a employee records, year books, artifacts such as recess bells, and a photographic col- . col- lection categorized by individual schools - featuring buildings, class photos, sporting p � s p g and theatrical events, faculty members and administrators. NATIVE AMERICAN COLLECTION. These are largely artifacts reclaimed from the several Indian mounds located here, including mortars, pestles, implements and beads. GENERAL REFERENCE MATERIAL. This includes early Alameda County histories, birth and census records, WPA project history of the 1930`s - all g n ertaiin to Alameda. p ALASKA PACKERS COLLECTION. This comprises an artifact display as well as a collection of photographs relating to this significant early Alameda industry. ALAMEDA NEWSPAPERS. This archive consists of over 200 leather bound volumes of former newspapers including the Argos, the Encinal, the Evenin g Times-Star, some of which date back to 1869. Submitted by Goroge Gunn at the 0(0-r1-07 Joint CCI CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #3 -B.II PHOTOGRAPHIC ARCHIVAL FILES. These comprise over 5000 photographs that pertain to every facet of our local history with over 60 major subject categories and over 300 sub - category subject files, including businesses, industries, transportation, schools, sports, churches, Alameda municipal goverment, homes, streets, beaches and parks, bridges, fraternal and social groups, aviation, and many individual citizens of our city. MISCELLANEOUS PAPER ITEMS. Included here are maps, documents, advertising cale n dars, minutes o f civic organ zations, certificates, scrapbooks, and o ther ephemera. ROBERT LIPPERT MOTION PICTURE COLLECTION. This exhibit comprises p cameras, projectors, movie lobby posters and other material associated with Alameda's own Hollywood movie producer. EDWIN SIEGFRIED (1889 -1955) COLLECTION. A group of pastel paintings by this Alameda -born, listed California artist depicting marshland scenes at the future site of the Naval Air Station. OTHER SPECIALIZED COLLECTIONS ON CURRENT DISPLAY: + A period kitchen exhibiting a stove, pots and utensils from Alameda homes. + A 1930's Alameda barber shop with a barber chair and related artifacts. + Transportation items including a locally -made six -seat bicycle, a high-rise bicycle, g y and a rare locomotive bell from the South Pacific Coast Railway. + Ship scale models (sailing ship, ferry boat) and train models - all locally crafted. . y + Decorative arts and furniture groupings from Alameda homes. + Vintage dolls, doll houses and toy collection gathered from pioneer families. + Costumes and textiles, featuring apparel used by Alameda women: shoes, fans, handbags, and other accessories. + Alameda champion Women's Softball Team (1 939 -40) - trophies, uniforms, etc. + Alameda telephone exchange exhibit featuring a switchboard and operator's chair. o p + Locally manufactured decorative items such as Clark Pottery p roducts. THE MEYERS HOUSE & GARDEN. This house museum is filled with a large number of period artifacts, some of which were the personal possessions of the Me ers family. y y Aside from the many items exhibited on the first two floors of this home, a large amount g of miscellaneous furnishings are stored in the basement and in the nearby studio building. June 19, 2007 CJ Kuhne PO Box 1736 Alameda, CA 94501 City Council City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 SUBJECT: TENANT EVICTION AND HEARING RIGHTS To: Beverly Johnson, Mayor Lena Tam, Vice Mayor Doug deHaan, Councilmember Marie Gilmore, Councilmember Frank Matarrese, Councilmember The purpose of this letter is two -fold: first, to ensure that each of you is fully knowledgeable of certain facts pertaining to a Notice and Order to Vacate posted at 1617 Central Avenue that may have previously been withheld from you; second, to make you aware of the abuse of process and abridgement of my rights by City Staff. SUMMARY OF FACTS: 1. The City of Alameda has posted a Notice and Order to vacate "all tenants residing in illegally constructed units"; 2. The City of Alameda records show that 1617 Central Ave. was converted to a 10- unit apartment house in 1945, therefore, there are no illegal units; 3. The City of Alameda has planned an eviction, due to the "illegal" units; 4. I am a Tenant in Possession of a Unit at 1617 Central Ave.; 5. The Building has a Fire Sprinkler System in compliance with the 1985 Superior Court Judgement (Case # 594716 -6, City of Alameda v. John M. Doherty); 6. My Unit is fire sprinldered, a higher level of Compliance than required by City of Alameda Ordinance Nos. 2053 and 1876, New Series; 7. The Fire Sprinkler System Certification is current; 8. The City of Alameda has Denied my Rights to a Hearing. • • • • TIMELINE April 18, 2007, a Notice and Order (Notice to Vacate the property) was posted by the City of Alameda at 1617 Central Ave. This Notice is directed to the owner and to "tenants in possession ". I am a tenant in possession at 1617 Central Ave., Alameda, CA. April 26, 2007, I submitted a Notice of Appeal of Notice and Order of the Building Official to the City Clerk's Office claiming my right to an administrative hearing. (Attachment A) May 10, 2007, I received a letter from Lisa Brand, Adult Protective Services Supervisor, Alameda County Social Service Agency, informing me that she had been notified of the City of Alameda's "planned eviction of all tenants" at 1617 Central Ave. (Attachment B) May 14, 2007, I replied to Ms. Brand's letter. First, to correct her statements as to the adequacy of her Agency's alternative housing; and second, to express my grave misgivings about the false information provided to her by the City of Alameda. (Attachment C) May 16, 2007, having heard nothing about my April 26, 2007 Notice of Appeal, I stopped by the City of Alameda Building and Planning Dept. to inquire about its status. An appointment with Ms. Woodbury, Director of Building and Planning, was set for 2:00 p.m. the following afternoon for this specific discussion. Later that same afternoon, I arrived home from City Hall and received an unsolicited phone call from Mohammed Hill, Assistant City Attorney, City of Alameda and Tim Higares, Code Enforcement Officer, City of Alameda. They told me I had no right to appeal (Attachment E, Page 1); they told me that the tenants would have no hearing. (Attachment E, Page 2) May 17, 2007, I received a phone call 2 hours before my scheduled appointment with Ms. Woodbury, telling me that she had assigned me to meet with a lower level staff person. In response, I sent a registered letter to Ms. Woodbury expressing my disappointment. (Attachment D) May 18, 2007, I had a letter and package of Exhibits delivered to Vice Mayor Tam, via the City Clerk's Office, detailing each of the above events and communications and informing her of the City's refusal to grant me my right to a hearing. I also informed Ms. Tam of the inappropriate and invasive nature of Mr. Hill's and Mr. Higares' questions and comments during the unsolicited phone call. (Attachment E) I asked Vice Mayor Tam what recourse I had and requested that she contact me. It is now June 19, 2007, a full month since the letters and package of Exhibits were delivered and I have not received a reply from anyone at the City of Alameda about any of these issues. Therefore, the above referenced letters and package are now provided to the City Council as part of the Open Communications agenda item at tonight's City Council meeting. • • • In addition to Attachments A through E listed above, each of you is being provided Exhibits 24, 28, 29, 36 and 38, identified as follows: 24 July 30, 1985: Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings for Alameda County Superior Court Case #594716 -6 (City of Alameda v. John M. Doherty, in pro per). Testimony from the City of Alameda that 1617 Central Ave. was converted to a 10 -unit apartment house in 1945 and therefore required copper to be used for the fire sprinlder system. 28 August 8, 1985: Judgement for Case #594716 -6. Superior Court Judge ordered installation of the metal overhead sprinlders at 1617 Central Ave., or alternatively, reduce the occupancy to two dwelling units. 29 Declarations of former City Attorney Carter J. Stroud (July 27, 2006) and former Lieutenant, Bureau of Fire Prevention, Steven McKinley (May 14, 2007). Confirming City records and inspections that 1617 Central Ave. has been a 10 -unit apartment house since 1945. 36 August 22, 1986: Inspection Card - Certificate of Occupancy. Showing original signatures and sign offs as to compliance with the 1985 Superior Court judgement. 38 January 26, 2005: Invoice — 5 -year Wet Sprinkler System Certification. Showing up-to- date compliance for the fire sprinlder system at 1617 Central Ave. I expect the City Council to: - Carefully review and investigate the facts that I am providing; - Schedule and hold an administrative hearing by August 19, 2007. I am aware of several other avenues of recourse in order to ensure that these matters are investigated and that my voice is heard on each of the issues brought to the City Council's attention tonight, including: - County of Alameda, Civil Grand Jury California Department of Fair Employment and Housing - Fair Political Practices Commission, Enforcement Division California State Assembly Member, Mary Hayashi - California State Senator, Ellen Corbett California Department of Consumer Affairs Federal Bureau of Investigation, Public Corruption Squad Respectfully submitted, C Kuhne Attachments A -E Exhibits 24, 28, 29, 36 and 38 3 • • • April 26, 2007 City Clerk City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 RE: NOTICE of APPEAL of Notice and Order of the Building Official To Whom It May Concern: APR 2 7 CITY OF AL. MEDA CITY (3;._F-1::-;:K's OFPCE Please be advised that this is my appeal of the Notice and Order served on April 18, 2007 for 1617 Central Ave., Alameda, CA 94501. I have read and understand the July 27, 2006 Declaration of former City Attorney, Carter J. Stroud. This is the grounds for my appeal. I reside in Unit -03 at 1617 Central Ave., Alameda, CA 94501. I am claiming my right to an administrative hearing. I am requesting a Hearing Officer not employed by the City of Alameda and not residing in the City of Alameda. Sincerely, cfettgidE Tenant Name 5% //5 /- 7oS Tenant Phone Number Tenant Social Security Number Pvhev 1756 -79 r- , Tenant Mailing Address Pl+f-c6kv,a_,-1— • • Alameda County Social Services Agency Depmtment of and Services Division of Adult Protection n Adult Protective Services 6955 Foothill Boulevard Ste 300. Oakland, CA 94605 510/577 -1900 Linda Krelz Assistant Agency DiTector Chet Hewitt, PhD., Agency/ Director May 3, 2007 C.J. Kuhne P.O. Box 1736 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Tenant of 1617 Central Ave.: The City of Alameda has contacted Alameda County Adult Protective Services (APS) because of the planned eviction of all tenants in your building due to fire danger. There is concern that you and other residents will not be able to exit the building safely if there is a fire. This office has identified three apartments in Oakland that are available for immediate occupancy and we can assist you with moving costs. We hope that you will accept our help to move to a safer place. Gwen Lloyd, APS sodal worker, is available to meet with you regarding a new housing situation. Ms. Lloyd's phone number is 577 -3522. We hope to hear from you soon. Very truly yours, Lisa Brand Adult Protective Services Supervisor Go. Tim Higares, City of Alameda Code Enforcement Michael Lee, Assistant to Alameda County Supervisor Lai - Bitker Lena Tam, Vice Mayor, City of Alameda Linda Kretz, Assistant Agency Director, Alameda County Dept. of Adult & Aging Services C(c �� B May 14, 2007 CJ Kuhne PO Box 1736 Alameda, CA 94501 Lisa Brand Adult Protective Services Supervisor Alameda County Social Services Agency, Department of Adult and Aging Services Division of Adult Protection, Adult Protective Services 6955 Foothill Boulevard, Ste. 300 Oakland, CA 94605 Dear Ms. Brand I am in receipt of your letter dated May 3, 2008, postmarked May 8, 2008 of which I received May 10, 2007. The purpose of this letter is two -fold: 1) to respond to your offer of housing and 2) to respond to your statement regarding the planned eviction due to fire danger. I spoke to Ms. Lloyd on May 8, 2007. Contrary to your letter, I was told that all she had was a bed at an assisted living facility and a studio at 2e and Telegraph that did not take animals; neither of which meet my need. I called on Friday to speak with Ms. Lloyd and received her voice mail with a message stating that she does not work on Fridays. I left a message to contact me. It is now noon on Monday and I have yet to hear from Ms. Lloyd. Regarding the planned eviction regarding fire danger, I am unaware of any stated fire danger • from the City of Alameda. The building is fully sprinklered and l have been informed that Mr. Doherty submitted all paperwork to the City of Alameda as well as the Fire Marshall to clear fire citations from 2004. • I have grave misgivings if you are proceeding under false information from the City of Alameda or that the City of Alameda believes that they have now met their obligation of finding housing for me as a disabled person prior to proceeding with an eviction. Please contact me as soon as possible. CJ Kuhne 510/521 -2705 cc: Tim Higares, City of Alameda Code Enforcement Michael Lee, Assistant to Alameda County Supervisor Lai- Bitker Lena Tam, Vice Mayor, City of Alameda Linda Kretz, Assistant Agency Director, Alameda County Dept of Adult & Aging Services r�+ • • • May 17, 2005 Cathy Woodbury Planning and Building Director City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 Sent Registered, Receipt Requested Subject: Rescheduled Meeting Dear Ms. Woodbury, I came into your office yesterday afternoon, Wednesday 5/16/07, to set up a meeting with you. I had a specific agenda which I shared with your assistant, Latisha. You scheduled a meeting for today at 2:00 pm knowing that agenda Today, two hours before our scheduled meeting, I received a phone call telling me that you had assigned me to meet with a lower level staff person I am extremely disappointed that you could not take 30 minutes out of your schedule to meet with a citizen of the City. Sincerely, CJ Kuhne 1617 Central Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 • • • May 17, 2007 CJ Kuhne PO Box 1736 Alameda, CA 94501 Ms. Lena Tam Vice Mayor, City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Tam: As background, I was scheduled to meet with Ms. Woodbury, Planning and Building Department on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.. This meeting was scheduled the previous day and Ms. Woodbury was aware of the reason for my request for a meeting. Approximately 2 hours prior to the meeting, I received a call from a lower staff member informing me that Ms. Woodbury had assigned him to take the meeting with me. I originally agreed to the meeting but upon contemplating the situation, felt that because Ms. Woodbury had known the reason for my request in the first place, had she wanted me to meet with that staff member then I should have been informed at that time, not two hours prior to our scheduled meeting. The reason you are receiving this communication is primarily because you were copied on a letter I received from Adult Protective Services (APS). My purpose in meeting with Ms. Woodbury was to discuss my tenant appeal to the Notice and Order for 1617 Central and I stopped by her office after dropping off your copy of my response letter to APS. However, after I left the office Wednesday afternoon, I received an unsolicited phone call from Mr. Hill and Mr. Higares. That phone call has now prompted the second reason for this communication: • they told me I had no right to appeal • they took the conversation outside the scope of the original purpose for their phone call. First let me discuss my appeal rights. In looking at the Notice and Order of April 18, 2007, it specifically states "tenants in possession." I am a tenant in possession. As a tenant in possession I believe I have appeal rights and submit the following documentation in support of the appeal. (See Exhibits 1 -40) To summarize: 1. The Notice and Order consists of 2 broad, generic plumbing and electrical statements and one statement that the building has more than 2 legally recognized units. 2. Documentation has been provided to the City of legal action taken by the City of Alameda against the building owner in 1985 to either sprinkler the building or 1 • • • reduce the occupancy to two dwelling units. The current City administration has, for some reason, chosen to ignore this documentation, yet here it is in black and white. During my conversation with Mr. Higares and Mr. Hill, one of them stated that they were using county records, not City records, yet the Notice and Order states "more than the 2 legally units recognized by the City." Do we as tenants and tax paying citizens of this City then pay the price of a decision by City administrators? 3. Also during my conversation, I asked about a fire danger, one that is not even stated (as referenced in #1), and one that I had to hear about from an outside agency (Adult Protective Services). Mr. Higares's comment was that if he wrote everything, the Notice would be a 20 -page document. I am concerned; however, upon reading his declaration and finding his comment that he is concerned that I would have difficulty exiting my apartment in the event of a fire. He was not very specific in what his concern entailed and obviously did not see the sprinkler head INSIDE my apartment, which I believe is a higher level of compliance than the requirements for sprinklered buildings. 4. In their letter, APS also stated that there was a planned eviction. The Notice and Order states to vacate "all tenants residing in illegally constructed units." To answer this question, we must go back to #2 and according to the Superior Court (See specifically Exhibits 24, 29,36,38) 1617 Central is a 10 -unit apartment house and has been such since 1945. I am worried that I may come back from a Dr. appointment and find I can't get into my home. I have received no notice of eviction and now have been told I have no right to an appeal. I stated in #3 that I've read Mr. Higares's declaration. I feel that I need to comment about his rendition about entering my unit. What Mr. Higares fails to mention is that prior to entering my unit, he, the Fire Marshall and two police officers were pounding on my door. I'm not sure who all was pounding; I just remember being scared to death, trying to get to my door as someone was yelling to break down the door. What I find despicable is the omission and innuendo that Planning and Building staff as well as the City Attorney's staff are using to promote some sense of due diligence for their job. As I stated earlier in my letter, the second reason for this communication is the phone call from Mr. Hill and Mr. Higares. The stated purpose of their phone call was because of my letter in response to Adult Protective Services. However, they went beyond that scope and once they told me that the tenants would have no hearing, began speaking about the pending hearing for the building owner. My response to this is listed below: 1. Here are two gentlemen, a Code Enforcement Official and an Assistant City Attorney, who feel they need to get on the phone immediately to make sure that their side of the story was told. 2. I said I was concerned that I should not be speaking with them. Their response was to be very solicitous, telling me they were just trying to let me know there were two sides. • • 3. Often I felt that they were trying to get information about the building or the building owner. 4. This is inappropriate, there is pending legal action, they are talking to me outside of a courtroom, without representation. 5. I am a tenant with a stake in the outcome and supposedly no appeal rights. So, in essence the City has told me, a citizen, that I have no right to speak, that it was up to the building owner to do the speaking for me, and yet City staff can call me at my home and speak about anything they wish. What is my recourse? I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. I can be reached at 510/521- 2705. Thank you, CJ Kuhne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TaE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT K. BARBER, JUDGE DEPARTMENT HO. 14 ---000--- CITY OF ALAMEDA, vs. JOHN 4. DOHERTY, Plaintiff, Defendant.. No. 594716 --6 REPORTER-fa aL.l3AdaaaF n - Q '�,- BBOCIEDIL Q Administration Bu LQLng, Oakland, California TUESDAYS JULY 30 3985, 1985 APPEARANCES: eor the Plaintiff: CARER J. SROUD. Attorney at Law For the Defendant: In Propria - Persona &///Zff 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 1 Tuesday, July 30, 1985 A.R. Session THE COURT: Tne City of Alameda versus John Doherty, 594716. MR. STROUD: Thank you. your Honor. We're ready to proceed. tray I give jut a brief opening statement? I might save some time a brief opening statement. THE COURT. very good. SIR. STROUD: yea. The State or California adopted by virtue of l' a little -- I could not rind the file last ` night. by secretary was gone so - -: adopted as part of the Health and Satety Code a provision which require retrofitting of buildings that ante three stories or higher . for fire exits and fire safety. 1t' a quite an imposition on property owner sometimes iai terms of cost, bu `nevertheless, it has CO ' ae dohs. They adopted as the. standard for that retrofitting the 1970 version of the Uniform Building Code. Even though the cities are also required to adopt more modern versional, the current version in our city is 1979. However. with the exception of ` same numbering, as we have stated in. the Complaint, the provisions os the '70 and the '79 code are identical in regard to this matter. So we will be giving you copies o: the '70 ode. In this particular building, we have two problems. Oise is uhc=er 1313(f). Interior stairway needs a one hour fire protection or sprinkling. I believe that's in the alternative. "sae have mispled, i discovered this morning, 1 * 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 2 the second item. We pled it as the first cause of action, I313(d). It's actually I313(h). However, they're the same subject. They're the -- requiring a second exit. In this case tae second exit is thee, but there's a open or _unprotected opening aear it which invalidates it. So we'll -- we should be talking about closing up that opeaiag. So its 1 13(h) instead of 9. There are no e..1z0ePtions or ways of getting around this legislation. The building is -- was built in 1007 converted to a it.wae 4-big single family homer converted to a 10 unit apartment houSe.-ia 1945. It is 13 three and a half stories tall. 14 The -- what the defendant was talking about in 15 chambers a little whileago relates to the use of plastic 16 pipe in buildings that are either single family homes or 17 duplezes. Of course, that authorization has not yet been 13 completed and the waY the Uniform Building Code PeoPle 19 work -could take years, in any case, it does not apply co 20 tais building. Et's been an apartment house since 1945. 21 I would call as my first -witaess Steve McEinley of 22 the tire department, and to save some time I may just ask 23 him, if it's all right with the Court's permission, if tha 94 statement I made was correct within his understanding. 25 THE COURT: Rr. Donerty, did you want to say 25 anything about the case at this poiat or you want to wait 27 until he's finished? 28 UR. DOHERTY: Ho, your Hoaor. i still -- still 1 tike to petition the Court for a . continuance. It would be I think beneficial to botil parties concerned at the time 3 taat One baited Laboratory's final report :Mould be 4 received, .'d be willing to resubmit it to the local 5 building department for their review and it 1i gait mean €i that we could come to some mutual agreement, let as get on 7 with ta.s. a It is my intention to fire sprinkler the building. 9, Ify l kiderwriter my insurance underwriter has encouraged 10 me co Rio so, and t has been my intent all along to do ii tflat. ri oriiy trying to do it at a cost that is more 2 beneficial to me than using metal pipe tubing 13 so at the time his United Laboratory report, I 14 could resubmit it to the building department and fire 15 . departments for their review, and .1 don't think youTd have 16. to see us again, ; your llonnor. 17 `!HC COURT :. '' eli, . continue. € a HR. STROUD: Thank you, lg "Ir. McKinley. 20 THE COURT: Your request was denied because 1 did 21 not see a=ir ground }:or - a continuance at this po nL 22 THE CLERK: Raise your right hand„ please. 23 STEVEN MCKINLEY r called as a witness on . behalf of the Plaintiff, aster 25 :?crag first duly sworn, testified as follows: 26 THE CL? K: Thank yoga. Could you please state your 27 name anti spell it for tae record. 28 THE WITNESS: Ay name is Stezen McKinley, last name 1 2 5 6 7 10 12 13 14 16 17 le 13 20 21 22 ?3 23 26 27 23 -c, capital K -i -n -i -e -y. THE CLERK: . Thank you. i' BY MR. STROUD: Q. Mr. McKinley, what is your Loitlorn With Tile City of Alameda? I'm the l ieuteaatlt in Fire Prevention Bureau, City of Alameda. Q. And has it been your duties at least recenty to inspect buildings t3a conform with the retrofit provisions of the Health and :Safety .Code? A. less it has. g. All right Are you familiar with building at 1617 Central ?.venue in the city of Alameda? A. Yes y ► am. Q. All right. Are you familiar .with the owner of that building? ts. Yes, ' - 0. Is that the deco :.dan :, fir. DohercY? Hid you inspect this building for compliance with retrofitting provisions? A. Z personally did not inspect it. it was inspected before . came in the bureau. I've been by the building trop the outsider and it does meet the requirements of the code. 0.. You have the records --- A. Q. Yes, T do. ee previous inspectors? 1 J iN 5 7 9 .i1 12 14 15 16 17. 18 19 •20 Z 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Row, is there a violation of 1313(f) of the 1970 Building Code relating to the interior stairways? A. Yes, there ie. Q. Would you describe that to the-Court in a little more detail? A. Yes. Your Honor, basically the law requires that any staircase in a. three story building with open that is open to all floors be protected by one hour enclosure, which means that all door: in one staircase must be 20 minute rated doors and the stagy: rcase - mu t ne cut off at Baca :moor.. Therefore, } you bad a: fire on one floor, . would not go ali the way ip all three floors. An alternative to cutting g off the sprinkler system and doing the one hour enclosure is to sprinkler the entire staircase so that if are is -ire it is under control aad the Qecupants there can exit that staircase. 0. Does the law .permit plastic pipe .f or that mind of a sprinkler.. system? A. No, it daesrs °t. . Ur. Doherty °s mentioned that there ° s some . indication that there may be a change to plastic pipe and some circumstances. Are you aware of that? A. Yes, 1 amil, the term. Q. To what would it apply? H. Basically the term plastic pipe is a little misleading. There' e a pipe on the market called poiybucane pipe, w ich is a plastic material developed by Steil Oil. it does have a i:i. r . approval by sprinkler 2 3 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 systems that are installed under 13(d) 13(d) is a requirement for sprinkler systems in single family dwellings, duplexes, and .mobile homes. At the time tae California State Fire Marshal recognizes 13(d) with the use o± poly 'octane pipe. This building is not classed as a single family . welling,:. nor a dup.:ex, nor a mobile .to e. Therefore, 13(d) would not apply nd .F.P.A. 13 would apply. N.F,PdA 13 requires that all piping either be metal copper tubing. Q. so even if the suppo-rt comes out :favorable it will ncaire no bearing on to s case? A. That true. HR. STROUD: Now, the second cause of action, your Honor, we would act. the pleadings be amended on the first cause of action excuse me We did the second cause of action first. The , first cause of action like 'to have the paragraph 10, it says 1313(d) , and that should be amended ro. 13: 3(h) .. They're very relative matters. Tag COURT: Hay be amended on its :ace. HR. STROUDg Thank von. Q. Now, the second, the other violation, would you f describe the other violation to the Court, please? A. The ocher violation is the building naa a: stair a fire escape coming down the other side of the building which was a required second exit underneath this code. It passes i.r front of some open windows that need to be protected. 1 1 they can either. be protected by a sprinkler system. 2 or wire glass or closed completely oft. The ideal 3 situation in this case would be to protect teem by a 4 sprinKier systear ... O. But ne has his choice in that regard? 6 A. Yes. MR. STROUD: All right. Those` are . the ..only two .•,.. 3 vio1at ous that we've .brought before the Court. Does the Court; have any :questions of the witness THE COURT 1 don't." Do you nave Soule: gaest o is €IR. DOH ERT Y : des,, 1 do your Honor. HE COURT; Ali right. 9 Zl .33. 15 17 38 19 2Q' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 BY MR. DOHERTY d Q. Hr. iIoK3.nley is referring to a product pit': out ` by Shell Oil Company waicti is not the particular Product that I'm interest in using. And again, i Visa tO impresa upon the Court that the B. F. Goodrich Conpany product, whicn is si; i ar isn;. nature, only it's put together rathex. with a chemical .sears rather than 4. h4ogla heat treatment., .: and hat is tfie ' report. that the U. IS people are cr ing..o�xt with, . `mat's B.F. Goodrich, and .: don't know, is U. ..acKinley, " are - You aware of the product made by B.F. Gootiric:n 3 'm aware that is a product being tasted that is glued , together but Q. Just update, that testing has been completed and the Gaited Labortory's fire control people are now reviewing that report. so 3 a 7 �3. 9 s F 0 ii. 12 13 14 '15. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 A. Okay. MR. DOHERTY: No more questions, your donor. MR. STROUD: Yes. I will present the Court with a copy or Chapter 13 which has those provisions. We should have that marked, sorry, our only exhibit. THE COURT: May be marked Plaintiff's Lao. 1. €Copy. of Chapter 13 was marked as P1aintifr''s Exhibit No. 1 for '. identi- fication.) REDIRECT EIMMINAlIati ay 4R. STROUD: Q. Do you remember -- gr. HcKinley, do you remember :t the code section ,i a the Health and Safety Code, the number of it? 1 believe It pled in the Complaint in allY case that we 3 re that makes .._ that has the requitement of conforming to . the Chapter 13, A. i thick THE COURT REPORTER: i can ':t hear you.. THE COURT: iep your voices up so the reporter can have a complete record. THE WITNESS: (Indicating to counsel.) aa. STROUD I believe it's 17,920.7 of the Health and Safety Code. 1 believe it's pled in the Complaint, TEE COURT. Yes. It's referred to at page three. MR. STROUD: Thank sou. We have no more, your Honor. THE COURT: Si.r, you may step down. 27 THE WITNESS Thank vou. 28. MR. STROUD: And that completes our cask. 2 3 4. 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 9 THE COURTS Okay. idow, did you want to testify, it . Doherty, or call sole witnesses? • NR. DOHERTY: i didn't request my --- without the report, Your Honor, 1 have no case against the use of the plastic pipe. THE COURT: Weil, i appreciate your posi tion of feeling that testing- results may come up with something that you feel would be ultimately acceptable, but : it may not, and in wily evens can only decide the case on the laws that now exist and that's. .what they re seeking . to enforce. So although s have some sympathy for you, 1 can't be wholly sympathetic because avert' other property owner apparently not undoubtedly are some others who are not in compliance, but here is -- appears to ire no reason not to enforce the provisions of the code as to you and Your building. too so it you don't have anything . to present.' otherwise 1 1 have to grant the judgment for the plaintiff as they asked, okay? f , • STROUD: 1 will prepare an order-, your honor THE COURT: Nothing further you :wanted to present? You had no other evidence tact you wanted to present to the Court? MR. UGHuR`i`Y: No. THE COURT: All right.. Then judgment may be entered for the plaintiff as prayer. MR. STROUD: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. 2 4 7 9 14• 15 16 17 .. 18 _. 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25: 27 28 10 THE CLERK:: Yair1i prepare tue judgment? icR. STROUD= =Ill prepare a judgment. ent. 'THE CL RK . Thank you. (Whereupon ,> the proceeding were conclude d.) . 111 CARTER J. . STROUD 1 City Attorney 2 ,' City Hall Room 314 I1 Santa Clara at Oak Street 0 3 � Alameda, CA 94501 4 (415) 522 -4100 a 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 • IS 22 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 EN DC) RSED FILED AUG 08 1985 RE NE C. OAVtWSON. County Clerk By Cathy Alv:so, DcPUVf IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CITY OF ALAMEDA, a ) ) ) NO. 594716 -6 ) ) JOHN H. DOHERTY and ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter came on regularly for trial before the Court without a jury on July 30, 1985, with Carter J. Stroud appearing for the plaintiff and defendant John J. Doherty apperaring on his own behalf; and the Court having ruled for plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED: That defendant is hereby enjoined from maintaining the property at 1617 Central Avenue in the City of Alameda with unsprinkled interior stairways to units above the second floor unless they are enclosed with a one -hour firs wall. Defendant is further enjoined from maintaining said municipal corporation, Plaintiff, -vs- DOES I through V, inclusive, JUDGMENT ,Xth8'tT ZS 2 • 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E 1 property with fire escapes adjacent to unprotected openings. In the alternative to the above, defendant may re,'Ice occupancy of the building to two duelling units. Dated: AUG 0 8 1985 . Jt ON McKfBBEN Robert K. Barber Judge of the Superior Court -2- 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • a' Wawa PA. ( %oontad, 49. SBN 104961 Attomey at Law PO Box 1381 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 865 -4555 Attorney for Appellant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ALAMEDA COUNTY GEORGE McDONALD COURTHOUSE JOHN M. DOHERTY Appellant, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA, TIM HIGARES, BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JEFF CAMBRA, HEARINGS OFFICER, DOES 1 through 500, Appellee. No. 457843 -9 DECLARATION OF FORMER CITY ATTORNEY CARTER J. STROUD 1, CARTER J. STROUD, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury: 1. I was the City Attorney for the City of Alameda [hereinafter "CITY "] for over 15 years. As part of my official responsibilities, I enforced the Uniform Building and Fire Codes for CITY Building and Fire Departments. In 1985, the CITY instituted complaints against property owners, both in Municipal and Superior Courts of Alameda concerning Fire Code amendments to the Uniform Building Code. 2. These specific Code changes required the installation of overhead metal sprinkler systems in residential buildings which had both of the following: (1) more than two residential units and more than (2) stories of living space. 3. In bringing these actions on behalf of the CITY, I relied on the business records kept in the normal course of business by the CITY Building and Fire Departments. A review of those records at that time, evidenced that the building at 1 X!4i&r 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1617 Central Avenue, Alameda, had been converted into ten (10) units in 1945. 4. On February 7, 1985, I filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 594716 -6. The complaint sought compliance with the Fire Code from John Doherty for property he owned at 1617 Central Avenue Alameda. 5. I presented the facts to the court that 1 had obtained from the Building Department records, e.g. the building was built in 1887, and converted to a ten unit apartment house in 1945. I introduced oral testimony from Fire Marshall Steve McKinley who stated that although he had not personally inspected the building, that he relied on the inspections done by previous fire department personnel, which were maintained as business records by the Fire Department. 6. The Honorable Robert K. Barber rendered a judgement in the case on or after August 8, 1985. This judgement required installation of the metal overhead sprinklers at 1617 Central Avenue; or alternatively, the property could be reduced to no more than two units. 7. I would not have sought nor do I believe the Court would have entered such a judgement had the CITY's records indicated the property was only two units. Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California in Alameda, California on July 27, 2006. 2 fu` Carter J. Stroud 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 John M. Doherty 1617 Central Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 510- 865 -6556 In Pro Per IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA John M. Doherty, in Pro Per Plaintiff, vs. City of Alameda and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendant Case No.: RG07320859 DECLARATION OF FORMER LIEUTENANT, BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, FIRE INVESTIGATION UNIT, STEVEN McKINLEY I, STEVEN McKINLEY, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury: 1. I was the Lieutenant in the Fire Prevention Bureau with the City of Alameda (hereinafter "CITY "] in 1985. As part of my official responsibilities, I was called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in City of Alameda v. John M. Doherty (Superior Court Case #594716 -6). 2. My DIRECT EXAMINATION was as follows: THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. STEVEN MCKINLEY, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, after being first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK; Thank you. Could you please state your name and spell it for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Steven McKinley, Last name Declaration of Steven McKinley - 1 • Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 M -c, capital K- i- n- l -e -y. THE CLERK: Thank you BY MR. STROUD: Q. Mr. McKinley what is your position with the City of Alameda? A. I'm the lieutenant in Fire Prevention Bureau, City of Alameda. Q. And has it been your duties at least recently to inspect buildings to conform with the retrofit provisions of the Health and Safety Code? A. Yes it has. Q. All right. Are you familiar with building at 1617 Central Avenue in the City of Alameda? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you familiar with the owner at of that building? A. Yes, I -- Q. Is that the defendant Mr. Doherty? A. Yes. Q. Did you inspect this building for compliance with retrofitting provisions? A. I personally did not inspect it. It was inspected before I came in the bureau. I've been by the building from the outside and it does meet the requirements of the code. Q. You have the records -- A. Yes, I do. Q. -- of previous inspectors? Now, is there a violation of 1313(f) of the 1970 Building Code relating to the interior stairways? A. Yes, there is. Q. Would you describe that to the Court in a little more detail? Declaration of Steven McKinley - 2 Doherty v. City of Alameda Case it RG07320859 A. Yes. Your Honor, basically the law requires that any staircase in a three story building with open -- that is open to all floors be protected by one hour enclosure, which means that all doors in the staircase must be 20 minute rated doors and the staircase must be cut off at each floor. Therefore, if you had a fire on one floor, it would not go all the way up all three floors. An alternative to cutting off the sprinkler system and doing the one hour enclosure is to sprinkler the entire staircase so that if there is a fire it is under control and the occupants there can exit that staircase. Q. Does the law permit plastic pipe for that kind of a sprinkler system? A. No, it doesn't. Q. Mr. Doherty's mentioned that there's some indication that there may be a change to plastic pipe and some circumstances. Are you aware of that? A. Yes, I am, the term. Q. To what would it apply? A. Basically the term plastic pipe is a little misleading. There's pipe on the market called polybutane pipe, which is a plastic material developed by Shell Oil. It does have a U.L. approval by sprinkler systems that are installed under 13(d). 13(d) is a requirement for sprinkler systems in single family dwellings, duplexes, and mobile homes. At the time the California State Fire Marshal recognizes 13(d) with the use of polybutane pipe. This building is not classed as a single family dwelling, nor a duplex, nor a mobile home. Therefore, 13(d) would not apply and N.F.P.A. 13 would apply. N.F.P.A 13 requires that all piping either be metal or copper tubing. Declaration of Steven McKinley - 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 Q. So even if the support comes cut favorable it will have no bearing on this case? A. That's true. Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California in Grass Valley, California on /7") , 2007. ,Steven McKinley Declaration of Steven McKinley - 4 522.4100 • DATE FORMS KEEP THIS CARD H THE FREMiSES ACCESSIO.LE TO THE INSPECTOR CITY OF ALAMEDA, Building Department 1_7), - VALUATION JOB ", ADDRESS 6.17 OWNER .• VAULT TOILET PERMIT # Y)-1, 17k,, CON T RAC T OR WILLIAM C. NORTON BY W/6 vr BUILDING OFFICIAL • x'(-)/ PRELIMINARY GROUND PLUMBING INTERIOR LATH FINAL GROUND PLUMBING EXTERIOR LATH ROUGH PLUMG ROUGH HEATING & VENTILATING • ROUGH ELECTRIC SUB FLOOR FRAME INSULATION DO NOT OCCUFY STRUCTURE UNTIL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. REMARKS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INSULATION CERTIFICATE TRACT CONDITIONS P.U.D. CONDITIONS FINAL ELECTRIC FINAL - FIRE DEPT.r-, FIN L PLUMBING ea, ••: FINAL HEATING & VENTILATING FINAL BuILDING_Te-2 -4 4- CERTIFICAT F COUFUED 1.."24.;"*E" BY 2864 EXhre/r 36 Bay Cities Pvrotector Inc. 1435 Park Ave_ Emeryville CA 94608 Bill To: John Doherty 1617 Central Ave Alameda, CA 94501 Invoice Invoice #: 00028725 Ship To: John Doherty 1617 Central Ave Alameda, CA 94501 SALESPERSON YOUR NO. SHIP VIA COL PPD SHIP DATE TERMS DATE PG. Ryan Warren RW7N56656 1/26/05 Net 20 1/26/05 1 QTY. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE UNIT DISC EXTENDED TX. 1 5YWSP 5 Year Wet Sprinkler System $99.75 test $99.75 • Sprinkler mechanically is permanently System test per code. Fire escape ladder inspected and is sound. Flexible bottom portion not tested because ladder in the down position. Thank you. SALE AMT. FREIGHT SALES TAX TOTAL AMT. PAID TODAY $99.75 $0.00 $0.00 $99.75 $99.75 BALANCE DUE $0.00 YBtT AA WieggfrAM*21,M,LAW..,AZA<MO. A'', fe"P -14r1,,Pt7 LALA (le isoLwr‘,.4, vitmiry AgEA Poole -roPtCessIA4 AMA resitzT lsmotuere AvEA