body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2009-09-10,1,"MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
1.
CONVENE:
President Ezzy Ashcraft called the meeting to order at 7:09
p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Zuppan
3.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members
Cunningham, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.
ABSENT:
Vice-President Autorino, Board members Cook
and Lynch.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of August 24, 2009 (Pending)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
The applicant requested that item 9-A be continued to the meeting of October 12, 2009.
Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to continue
the item to the October 12, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Motion passes 4-0.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
Future Agendas
Staff provided an overview of the upcoming projects.
6-B Zoning Administrator Report
No hearing was held on September 1, 2009.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Sekhon, owner of the Seven Eleven convenience store at the corner of Lincoln Avenue
and Oak Street, expressed concern with the addition of another convenience store that
would introduce additional competition to existing businesses and have a negative impact
on the quality of the neighborhood.
Mr. Shamar, a youth non-profit organization member, expressed concern that the
establishment would sell tobacco products which would have negative consequences for the
youth of the community. He urged the applicant to develop a business that would be an
asset to the community.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Page 1 of 4",PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-09-10,2,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A Use Permit - PLN09-0253 - 1623 Park Street - Abdulmalik Harbi.
The applicant requests use permit approval to operate a convenience store within 300' of a
residential zone district. The proposed convenience store specializes in the sale of
cigarettes and tobacco products, plus it will offer snacks, beverages, gifts, novelties, candy,
and printed materials such as newspapers and magazines.
The applicant requested continuance of this project to the October 12, 2009 Planning
Board Meeting. Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member
Kohlstrand, to continue to the item to October 12, 2009. Approved 4-0.
9-B Municipal Code Amendment - City of Alameda A Municipal Code Amendment to
amend the Alameda Municipal Codes Sections 30-36 and 30-37 related to Design Review.
(Study Session).
Staff presented an overview of the proposed changes.
President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.
Mr. Baker, Alameda resident, urged that the proposed Design Review amendments
continue to serve in the capacity as gatekeeper in order to prohibit extensive alterations to
historic and architecturally valuable buildings. He also encouraged the Planning Board to
carefully review the proposed exemptions and recommended that an aggressive cost
recovery schedule be implemented.
Mr. Rutter, Alameda resident, spoke about the need to maintain the requirement for design
review for wireless antennas and solar arrays, so that such features do not negatively
impact the aesthetic quality of a building or a neighborhood.
Ms. Matherson, Alameda resident, urged the board to maintain design review requirements
for window replacements on buildings built after 1942.
Ms. Hurt, Alameda resident, proposed using the national standard for declaring a building
""historic' (50 years or older) instead of 1942 and pointed out the need for window design
review on historic homes as windows are an important architectural feature. She stressed
the need for public education and outreach on historic preservation.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member, discussed the submitted
letter to the Planning Board and cautioned against expanding the exemptions lists. He also
provided comment on the need to update the design review guidelines, and public
information handouts on things like window replacements. He wrapped up his comments by
adding that the Board should carefully review the proposed notification process, consider
guidance for privacy and shading impacts in the Design Guidelines, and recommended
maintaining the Minor Design Review process for minor projects like as signs.
Mr. Hoy, Design Committee Chair of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA),
discussed the letter WABA submitted to the Planning Board: and emphasized the need to
retain a design review process for awnings, signs, and storefront modifications subject to
Page 2 of 4",PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-09-10,3,"following the WABA Guidelines and continuing to consult with WABA.
Mr. Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), spoke in
favor of the storyboard requirement and would like to see that a provision be made in the
design review process that would require projects within the Park Street Business district to
also receive PSBA approval prior to submittal to the City. PSBA also endorses retaining the
standards for projecting signs.
President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.
Board member Cunningham endorsed the concept that the applicants carry the cost of staff
time to review projects and asked for a comparison to other jurisdictions' permit fees and
noted support for a public notification process that would be primarily carried out by the
applicant.
President Ezzy Ashcraft endorsed a time and material charge for all projects, regardless of
its scope.
Several Board members provided comment on the notification process and indicated
support for notification proposal # 3 listed in the staff report. Staff was also encouraged to
develop guidelines for erecting story poles and netting, which would reduce the need for
extensive notification on some projects.
The Board asked staff to return with window replacement guidelines, and an updated list of
exempt projects and criteria for the replacement of architectural elements and features.
They also recommended that the department initiate an online permit submittal process to
minimize additional demands on staff time and resources.
Board Member Zuppan suggested that online notification and posting of public hearing
notices be considered and asked that staff evaluate the technological requirements and cost
implications that would be involved with the online posting of these notices.
Board Member Kohlstrand requested that the design review process include the PSBA and
WABA organizations, as well as other organizations that would like to be included.
Board member Cunningham asked that staff clarify which projects would be subject to
design review by the Planning Board.
President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that projects over a certain size, or in a specific zone
district, such as the Park Street Business District, be automatically sent to the Planning
Board for approval.
Board Member Kohlstrand requested that solar arrays and antennas not be exempt from
design review, unless State law exempts them from design review consideration.
Board Member Zuppan requested that all design guidelines be written as clearly as possible
and that they consider the economic impact so that Alameda can attract desirable
businesses and encourage homeowners to invest in improvements.
Page 3 of 4",PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2009-09-10,4,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:15 p.m.
Page 4 of 4",PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,1,"NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street, Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola
Brown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
Commissioner Gina Mariani
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
M/S/C
BROWN/RESTAGNO
""That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of May 14, 2009 be
approved.""
Approved (3):
Brown, Kahuanui, Restagno
Abstention (3):
Cooper, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariana
Approval of August 13, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting
Minutes.
M/S/C
COOPER/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of August 13, 2009
be approved.""
Approved (5):
Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman
Abstention (1):
Ogden
Absent (1):
Mariani",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,2,"3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the
agenda.)
None.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Review of FY 2009-10 Budget for the Alameda Recreation & Park
Department- (Discussion Item Only)
Director Lillard provided an overview of the FY 2009-10 Budget for the Recreation &
Park Department. This new budget is in a different format. Budget is much more
detailed/clear by breaking out all of the budget categories. This will be a much more
effective tool to monitor the budget. Budget has been approved by City Council.
Pat Bail, Alameda resident, asked if there will be any more loss of staff. Director Lillard
stated not at this time. We will have to see what the State does for FY 2010-11.
Planning for FY 2010-11 will begin soon.
B.
Status of East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW monies -
(Discussion Item Only)
Director Lillard provided the Commission information on the request from the Alameda
Boys & Girls Club for $2 million of the Measure WW monies for the construction of their
new facility. This item went to the City Council at their meeting on September 1, 2009.
There were a number of speakers and questions that came out of that meeting. There
are a number of questions regarding the eligibility of the project, cost, etc. Council has
asked staff (Interim City Manager & ARPD Director) to meet with East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and come back to Council
on September 15, 2009 with answers to some of their questions.
This item will be on the September 15, 2009 City Council Meeting Agenda. There will
be EBRPD representatives at the meeting to answer any additional questions. The
Interim City Manager will provide answers to the original questions that the Council
asked at their meeting on September 1, 2009. Discussion will be opened and then
Council will take whatever action they choose.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked for clarification that the priority list from the November
2009 meeting still existed. Director Lillard stated that the list is still active. The list of
potential projects that we have far exceeds the $3.4 million we would receive from the
Measure WW funding source.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,3,"Chair Ogden asked if Council has any idea how ARPD will maintain the parks if they
take the $2 million of funds away? Is that any part of their consideration? Director
Lillard stated that he is sure it will be, but has not asked them that question directly.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND
PARK DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
No report at this time.
B.
Recreation Division
No report at this time.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
No report at this time.
D.
Other Reports and Announcements
None.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
None.
11.
SET NEXT MEETING DATE:
Thursday, October 8, 2009
12.
ADJOURNMENT
7:14 p.m.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,4,"NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
DATE:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
TIME:
7:15 p.m.
PLACE:
Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street, Alameda, CA 94501
1.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Terri Ogden, Recreation Commission Chair, called meeting to order.
2.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola
Brown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman
Staff:
Dale Lillard, ARPD Director
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
Commissioner Gina Mariani
3.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Measure WW Funding - (Discussion/Action Item)
Chair Ogden opened the discussion for the speakers.
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident and Estuary Park representative, stated that the
Estuary Park Committee has come before the Recreation & Park Commission before to
discuss the need for funds to develop/purchase Estuary Park. At that time the
Commission told the Estuary Park Committee that the projects on the Measure WW list
were so important that they had to come first. Now we go to the City Council Meeting
and find out that the Measure WW project list is not so important and that we have to
spend funds on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Nobody is at this meeting to say
anything against the Alameda Boys & Girls Club, but they are a private organization and
our parks need the funds. There are parks all over this State that are crying for money.
The Council has no business even considering giving this money to a private
organization when this money was voted for by the people to serve all of our citizens. If",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,5,"we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for
parks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks
the money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look
forward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda
Beltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because
we want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization.
Joseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD
protesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at
the Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys
& Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club
managed to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members.
The people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private
citizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks.
You have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very
important. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda
Beltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now
money is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is
unconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in
their power to oppose it.
Barbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to
EBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant
manager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She
expressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen
was basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys &
Girls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends
that the EBRPD, through whatever process, needs more cross communication from the
City and citizens. Ms. Kerr stated that what bothered her at the last Council Meeting
was the aggressive attempt to bypass the Recreation & Park Commission. She does
not feel that any Board or Commission should ever be considered insignificant the way
the Recreation & Park Commission was at the last Council Meeting. The Council needs
to hear from staff and the public about all projects that are worth while and need to be
heard together on an equal basis. We need to let the Council know how we feel about
their just trying to bypass one of our Boards and Commissions, meaning the Recreation
& Park Commission.
Gretchen Lipow, Alameda resident, provided the Commission with the text/definition of
Measure WW. Ms. Lipow stated that she was amazed at the galvanized Alameda Boys
& Girls Club at the Council Meeting on September 1. When you look at the Measure
WW language it talks about protecting creeks, wild life, purchase and save open space,
wetlands, bay shorelines, acquire, develop and improve local and regional parks, trails
and recreational facilities. She was trying to figure out what justified doing anything for
the Boys & Girls Club, and the only thing that she could see that would apply was
recreational facilities. When you look at the other needs, new parks - Estuary Park and
Beltline, they cover so many other factors in the initiative itself. These projects would
encompass improving local parks, trails, open space, etc. People went to the ballot box
to vote, they did not vote to put money into the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Lipow
was really disappointed and thinks that this is an unfair process. She encouraged
everyone to go to the next Council meeting and speak their mind.
Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.
2
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,6,"Rebecca Redfield, Alameda resident, stated that her son attended the Alameda Boys &
Girls Club until they recently closed. She has moved to where the potential park was
going to be in the warehouse area on Clement Avenue and had moved there based on
the planning map and hopes there will be a park in that area. We have been working
hard and putting energy toward acquiring funds toward this park and now suddenly the
Alameda Boys & Girls Club thinks they should get the money. This is a step backward
in the dream for a park in that area.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda Beltline representative and Alameda resident, stated that she
was one of the participants in the meeting with Mr. Rasmussen and the Ecology panel.
The people on the Ecology Panel were a little dismayed that Mr. Rasmussen would
send an e-mail favoring a Boys & Girls Club project. They did not seem to think that it
would fit within a category. The Panel stated that the process is not to have it referred
by City Council. The process is to have an open meeting where everybody can discuss
what they want to do with the funds. This is City money and a City decision and a
decision to be made by the City Council. The projects are sent to the Council, the City
then takes them to Mr. Rasmussen who then consults with EBRPD lawyers to find out
if
the projects are eligible. To short cut them/the process by having a communication
between George Phillips and Mr. Rasmussen based on Mr. Phillips own material is
patently unfit. Mr. Rasmussen sat there and stated that anybody can go to the Boys &
Girls Club, it is free.
Ms. Sweeney stated that we all know that is not true. He (Mr. Rasmussen) did not even
know where the Boys & Girls Club was located until she showed him the location. He
did not know that the building does not include a field for recreation and that they are
going to depend on Woodstock Park for their outdoor field and activities. He did not
know that the Boys & Girls Club was really a social development organization and not a
recreation organization. He did not know that they were going to have room for family
services to do counseling, a room for medical screening, etc. Mr. Rasmussen did not
understand the mission of the Boys & Girls Club. It is not a recreation program; it is a
private organization and is not free. It gears itself to school-age children; it is closed on
Sundays, closes early on Saturdays, and closes every day at 6:00 p.m. He told me that
Chipman does not have a gymnasium, but she remembers that there was someone
who had a special program to keep the Chipman gymnasium open for activities. She
looked into the Boys & Girls Club itself and they said they had a program, when she
substituted at the school (Chipman) they had activities in the Chipman gymnasium. Mr.
Rasmussen stated that now Chipman will have a gymnasium through the Boys & Girls
Club. Ms. Sweeney stated that he (Mr. Rasmussen) needs to have a more biased
presentation of where this money should go. It should go to our parks. In talking with
Director Lillard, the number of people who participate in the City's recreation and park
activities during the year is in the tens of thousands. Ms. Sweeney would not be upset if
$1 million went to the Alameda Beltline, $1 million to Estuary Park, and $1.4 million went
to recreation and parks. She does not understand why the Boys and Girls Club wants
to apply for a couple of hundred boys that use a big building and deserve to have the
Measure WW bond funds. The Boys and Girls Club does a wonderful job with kids but it
is not a recreational facility.
Pat Bail, Alameda resident, stated that a similar agreement was done with the College
of Alameda but the difference was that the City was in control of the project and 25-year
agreement with the option to reevaluate when the 25-year agreement was up. With the
Boys and Girls Club request they are talking about handing over $2 million to a private
organization; we have no control, no input, we will never get the money back. Passive
parks are great, but when she thinks for recreation she thinks of kids playing on fields,
Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.
3
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,7,"in the park, on the play apparatus in the parks. She has talked with the Director about
park improvements and the list is extensive. It should be a priority in all of our minds
that our greatest asset is our children. While she thinks that the Boys and Girls Club is
a great program, they have the ability through their non-profit to raise funds. She
understands that they are in threat of losing their grant if they do not receive the $2
million. Ms. Bail suggested possibly loaning the Boys and Girls Club the funds with
a
decent interest rate (this does not mean she is in favor of the suggestion) to be paid
back. To give the Boys and Girls Club the $2 million out-right is just not in the books.
We need the money for our parks and for recreation. Someone had said that Ms. Kerr
had written an initiative for potentially more park monies. But, in all the years that Ms.
Bail has worked with parks and recreation the ARPD has been the ugly step child. All of
the City monies have gone to redevelopment, none has gone to recreation and parks
which in her mind is one of the more important things we can do in this community.
When you receive funds it is important to keep it in our hands because we do not know
when we will receive any more funds. For recreation and parks it is very questionable
that they will ever get any more funds. Ms. Bail urged the Recreation and Park
Commission to write a very strong worded letter to Council.
Ms Bail stated that she will be doing her lobbying against their proposal. She feels that
the Boys and Girls Club has the ability to go out and raise their own money, hit up their
own sources, and/or go to their national club. Ms. Bail also feels that the City should
never support the School District's problems with their recreation monies. They have
their own ability to raise their taxes. We are all paying additional taxes for the Schools.
The City of Alameda, particularly the Recreation and Park Department, needs to protect
their resources and funds. We need to make it very clear to City Council that there will
be a lot of very unhappy people if they turn this money over to the Boys and Girls Club
without any consideration for the kids in this town that have a great recreational need.
Jim Sweeney, Alameda resident, reiterated what other speakers have said that the
Boys and Girls Club is a good organization and we all believe in the good that the Club
does. That is not the issue. The issue is a short circuiting of park money needed for
park purposes. In looking at all of the 2008 voting materials they are always talking
about shorelines, trails, and parks, etc. There is not one word about funneling money
over into a private entity no matter how worthy it is. We know that the General Plan has
both the Beltline and Estuary Parks in it. They have been in it for quite a while. We
need the funds, particularly in this economic crisis that our City is in at this time. It is
such a sensitive time. In Mr. Sweeney's mind there is no question of the purpose of the
funds. Also, this request/issue came before City Council in a very short time. There
was a lot of rushing at the last minute and getting the City Council to make rush to
judgment. Mr. Sweeney asked about the application timeline. Director Lillard stated
that the application period is January through March with the awarding of the project in
April or May of each year.
Mr. Sweeney stated that what we have here is a claimed emergency by the Boys and
Girls Club to get the shovel in the ground now. Do not worry about the City of Alameda
and what the people want to do. Don't worry about a lot of discussion that is just
troublesome.
Ms. Helena Lengel, teacher at College of Alameda, has been working with the
Sweeney's for a long time for the Alameda Belt Line area. She is against giving the
Measure WW funds to the Alameda Boys and Girls Club.
Ms. Freeman stated that requests for grant monies from Proposition 84 are due March
Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.
4
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2009-09-10,8,"1,2010.
Recreation and Park Commission discussed the Alameda Boys & Girls Club project and
whether they felt it qualified to be on the list of Measure WW funded projects.
Commissioner Brown suggested sending a letter to City Council with the Commission's
recommendation.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/RESTAGNO
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission will send a letter to Council stating
that the Commission strongly urges the City Council to respect the directive of
the voters who supported Measure WW. The voters approved (with their votes)
the allocation of funds (through Measure WW) to maintain, acquire and improve
the city's Recreation and Parks facilities and grounds.""
Approved (6):
Ogden, Restagno , Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman
Absent (1):
Mariani
4.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.
5
Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009",RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf