body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-003 - ) Presentation on the basic requirements for an Indian
Tribe to operate a Casino in California.
The Assistant City Attorney provided a brief report on the basic
requirements to conduct tribal gaming.
Mayor Johnson stated that the purpose of the presentation was to
inform the public on the required process for the Koi Tribe to
obtain approval for a casino; stated that presentation tapes would
be available for public review and that the public should direct
questions to the City Attorney's office.
Michael Scholtes, Bay Isle Pointe Home Owners Association, stated
that he opposes the proposed casino.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to place a resolution opposing the
proposed casino on the next City Council agenda.
Rosemary Cambra, Mowekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay
Area, submitted a handout and cautioned the Council on taking a
stance against the proposed casino.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Council would need to exert
pressure and fight on behalf of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve
Agreement between the Alameda Unified School District and the City
of Alameda [paragraph no. 05-010], the Resolution Authorizing Open
Market Purchase [paragraph no. 05-012], and the Ordinance Amending
the Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 05-016] were removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 21, 2004. Approved.
(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03
(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction
Gears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.
(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley
& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18
and authorize project completion. Accepted.
(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000
to Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.
( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable
Housing Ordinance. Accepted.
(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda
Unified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and
Development of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the
Bayport Residential Development Project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for
having the school and the park built near the Bayport residential
area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the
Preschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim
115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a
Notice of Completion. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,3,"(05-012) - Resolution No. 13807, , ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Allied Sweepers, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Green Machine Sidewalk Cleaning Equipment. ""
Adopted.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) thanked the
Council for their efforts with the Webster Street project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was happy to see the project
progressing; she would like to see the trees replaced as soon as
possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the progress;
requested periodic progress reports on the Streetscape Project.
Mayor Johnson stated schedule updates should continue to be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *05-013 - ) Resolution No. 13808, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8401
(2340 and 2350 North Loop Road). "" Adopted.
(*05-014) Resolution No. 13809, ""Reappointing T. David Edwards as
Trustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.
""
Adopted.
(05-015) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -
PILOT) ; Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in
Enterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III
(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10
(Exemptions) of Section 18-4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I
(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) . Introduced.
Councilmember Daysog stated that increasing the Return on
Investment (ROI) to 3% could cause some impacts; encouraged the
Council not to vote tonight and place the matter as an action item
for the next City Council meeting; $782,000 would be received from
Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) by staying at the original proposal
of 1% ROI; if the $782,000 is relayed back to the rate payer, the
monthly bill could be increased from $1.53 to $2.03.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,4,"Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with
direction that the matter be brought back to Council if there would
be any cause for rate increases.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community
Benefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda
Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation)
.
Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet
Laureat.
The Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process.
Lisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated
that she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's
Poet Laureat.
Mary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities;
thanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,5,"Nina Serrano, Alameda County Arts Commission, commended the Council
for having a Poet Laureat.
Mosetta Rose London, Alameda, thanked the Council for the
dedication of the O'Club to Al DeWitt and for placing her poem on a
plaque at the O 'Club; read a poem that she wrote.
Nanette Bradley Deetz, Alameda Island Poets, read a poem that she
wrote about Alameda.
Ken Peterson, Vice President, Alameda Island Poets, stated the
program has been a tremendous success for poetry and for the City.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-018 ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances V04-
0005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 to permit the construction of a
rear deck and garage addition that was completed without City
permits. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade
to the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left
side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an
expansion of the existing single-family dwelling up to the north
(right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is
requesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the
work completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30-5.7(c) (2) (6) to construct a rear
deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to
the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a
minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve
to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-
5. 7 (e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the
south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three
foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings 3)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d) (7) to construct an attached
garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear
property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback
is required for rear yards 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-
4. 4 (d) (6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the
main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback
where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The
site is located at 913 Oak Street within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District. Applicant/Appellant: Fred and Ursula
Hoggenboom and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,6,"(05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005,
V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a
Single-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak
Street. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background
of the project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story
structure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be
more than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on
the left side.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the
upstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and
table.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the
width of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along
the side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would
make it very difficult for a car to enter the garage.
The Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in
terms of access.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of
using the garage for the proposed use.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires
that garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property
line if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the
house, there are side and backyard setback issues.
The Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut
both the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances
the front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property
line and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main
house and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75-
foot regulation; she is not sure about compliance with the 5-foot
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,7,"separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the
house which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a
smaller detached garage might require a modest variance.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage,
to which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square
feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical
garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage
would be approximately 200 square feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical
garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the
residents wanted storage.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to
which the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance
involved.
The Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance
because it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the
grade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12
and 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear
property line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either
reducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level
with the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the
required set back.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard
fences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6
feet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of
lattice on top.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the
yard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not
clear who owns the fences that surround the property.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued
regardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and
Ursula Hogenboom, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,8,"Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;
Raymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits
makes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the
Appellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over
his property line.
The Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure
is well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches
inward from the original garage.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of
the deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded
three and a half feet at the most.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended
dropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12
inches would equate to two steps.
The Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to
lower the deck 12 inches.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part
of the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.
The Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries
and three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the
spa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs
out of the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits
is because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'
backyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was
established.
The Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted
plans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which
indicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;
the then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current
plans show.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the
neighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put
sheet metal up to prevent rotting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant asked the neighbors
before putting up the sheet metal, to which the Appellant responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the variances are
denied, to which the Supervising Planner responded that two things
could happen; the Appellant could work with staff for a solution
that would allow a garage and deck that is either fully in
compliance or would require a more modest variance or the Appellant
could file a lawsuit against the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant has paid fines, to
which the Supervising Planner responded investigative fees and fees
for working without the proper planning permits have been charged.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution upholding the
Planning Board's decision and denying the Appeal.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated there was only one
decision that the Planning Board could have made given the
circumstances; encouraged the owner to work with the Planning
Department to salvage the intent of the project within the
requirements of the Code.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that the Appellants had
the best of intentions; the Code clearly specifies detached garage
and addition requirements; the project is attempting to be both an
addition to the house and a garage stated future owners could
convert the garage into a living space.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(05-019) - Discussion regarding assistance for tenants at Harbor
Island Apartments.
Mayor Johnson stated that rent control issues are not on the agenda
tonight but that the public is free to speak under Oral
Communications
The Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation
regarding the assistance provided to the Harbor Island Apartment
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,10,"tenants.
Speakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset
Management Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc
Ecology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing
Association; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association
(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law
Caucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill
Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units
currently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17
units that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units
occupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be
available to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment
tenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he
was not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section
8
tenants that remained in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the
immediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still
occupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance
can be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance
opportunities for the remaining tenants through Community
Development programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair
Housing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved
with a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to
produce new affordable housing units through the Substantial
Rehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to
applicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments
security deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past
which allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the
revolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a
result of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would
become available in July.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,11,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a way to work
with the Apartment Owners' Association to help the remaining
tenants.
The Community Development Manager responded there could be some
coordination for specific interventions that may help the tenants
the cash to provide deposits is a longer-term consideration and
might be more difficult without reprogramming of funds.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review loan possibilities.
The City Manager stated that he would work with staff to find
solutions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated aggressive action is needed to help
the remaining tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated that most families would like to remain
at the Harbor Island Apartments but the courts have ruled otherwise
and they must move; the City needs to see what can be done to
facilitate the situation in a manner that dignifies the tenants.
the Council needs to pursue the best policy that prevents the
Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-020 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Webster
Street construction has posed a danger to bus passengers at the bus
stops.
The Assistant City Manager stated that the construction work has
been delayed because of the rain; stated he would discuss the
situation with the Public Works Director.
(05-021) Reginald James, Alameda, encouraged the reappointment of
Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat; stated that he was concerned
about a sign stating that there may be a possible reproductive
harmful environment at the Harbor Island Apartments ; stated that
there should be another meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force.
(05-022) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-023) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed Interim City Manager,
Bill Norton.
Mayor Johnson welcomed the Interim City Manager to his first
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,12,"Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMEN'T
(05-024) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular City Council meeting at 11:15 in a moment of silence
and sympathy for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005- - -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-001) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
(05-002) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed Public
Employment and recruitment of the new City Manager, and Public
Employee Performance Evaluation of the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-01-05,1,"CITY
or
TERBAL
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2005
1.
Meeting called to order at 5:15 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members NakMin Oddie, Michael Robles-Wong, William J. Smith, and Executive
Secretary Karen Willis. A welcome was extended to new member Michael Rich.
ABSENT:
Member Roberto Rocha.
STAFF PRESENT: Marsha Merrick, Executive Assistant, Human Resources.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2004, were discussed briefly by Member
Smith, who then moved to accept, seconded by Member Oddie and carried by a 3-0 vote. Member Rich
abstained, as he was not present at the October 2004 meeting.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich asked that wording be clarified in the Video Production Artist job
specification. Staff, without further need of approval by the Board, will make a minor change. Member
Oddie made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, along with the wording change on the
job specification. The motion was seconded by Member Smith and carried by a 4-0 vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2004:
4-A
ELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Administrative Services Coordinator
12/07/04
Assistant Line Superintendent
11/17/04
Associate Civil Engineer - Plan Check Review Engineer
12/09/04
CATV Line Technician (Cable Technician III)
11/17/04
City Engineer
12/02/04
Data Technician
11/18/04
Electrical Helper
11/20/04
Engineering and Planning Manager (Utility Services Manager)
10/26/04
Executive Assistant
10/22/04
Financial Services Supervisor
11/09/04
Firefighter/Paramedic
12/21/04
Journey Lineworker
10/08/04
Line Working Supervisor
11/09/04
Operations Manager
10/26/04
Police Officer - Lateral
10/21/04
Police Officer - Lateral
12/01/04
Police Technician II - Dispatcher
11/04/04
Police Technician Il - Dispatcher
12/22/04
Program Specialist I - Alternative Modes
11/03/04
Risk Manager
10/13/04
Utility Analyst
12/16/04
Video Production Artist
12/07/04
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-01-05,2,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
4-B
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Fire Apparatus Operator (Promotional)
10/01/03
Intermediate Clerk
04/12/04
Office Assistant
10/17/03
Police Captain (Promotional)
12/08/03
Program Specialist I - Solid Waste/Recycling Services
11/03/03
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson (Promotional)
11/19/03
Public Works Superintendent
11/26/03
Senior Fleet Mechanic
12/10/03
4-C
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Administrative Management Analyst - Environmental
10/25/02
Administrative Services Manager
04/29/04
Apprentice Lineworker
06/24/04
Associate Civil Engineer - Project Manager
11/26/02
Construction Inspection & Survey Supervisor
11/21/02
Customer Service Representative
05/20/04
Engineering Supervisor
04/16/04
Lineworking Supervisor
11/21/02
Plans Examiner
06/28/04
Police Officer - Recruit
12/16/03
Program Specialist I - Alternative Modes
12/29/02
Public Works Maintenance Worker I
11/19/03
4-D
LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
Video Production Artist
5.
ACTIVITY REPORT:
The report for the period of September 1, 2004 through November 30, 2004 was reviewed.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Reggie James, long-time West-End resident, was present and spoke about his life experiences
in Alameda.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
Member Robles-Wong suggested that we add language to the Civil Service Rules under
Article VII. Section 1 Establishment of Lists to include National Guard members in our
definition of candidates with active military service who are eligible for an award of
veteran preference points in our examination scoring process. Language will be revised
by staff and presented at the April 2005 Civil Service meeting for approval by the Board.
Member Smith commented on his review of the oral board questions for Police, Fire and
Planning Department positions. The outcome was favorable, although he felt that rating
dimensions for these positions could be expanded to include determination of a
candidate's ability to interact effectively with the public.
Member Smith read from the City Charter Article XIII Civil Service Board Sec. 13-1 to
better define the Board's role in making recommendations to the City Council for
changes in the Civil Service System policies. After much discussion, Chair Robles-
Wong suggested that a member of the City Attorney's office be invited to the April 2005
meeting to more clearly define the Board's role in making such recommendations to the
City Council. The Board welcomed this suggestion, and Executive Secretary Willis will
be following up with the City Attorney's office.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-01-05,3,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
None
9.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Chair Robles-Wong that the meeting be adjourned in memory of
Member Rocha's mother who had passed away over the New Years' weekend. Member Smith
seconded and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - - JANUARY 5, 2005
-
-
-
5:31
P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present :
Councilmembers / Commissioners / Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider :
(05-025CC/05-001CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators;
Property : Alameda Naval Air Station, Fleet Industrial Supply
Center; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda, Community Improvement
Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda
Point Collaborative; Under Negotiations Price and terms.
Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission/
Authority gave direction to follow the negotiating approach
recommended by the real property negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For
environmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total
agreement amount of $249,000.
2-B.
Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,2,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a
very nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next
meeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out
the ARRA's wishes at that time.
Member DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA
meeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than
anyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up
to speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan
Meyers) who had passed away during this process.
Mayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.
Chair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that
hoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had
been an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the
mainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA
meetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30
p.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could
be held before the regular meeting.
Mayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start
time could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
Member DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next
agenda.
Chair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant
contracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular
meeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,3,"impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment
budget.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
8-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing
from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Board Members McPherson, Anderson, Lynch, & Tilos
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board member Miller arrived at 7:20 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services
Department, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff is requesting Item #2 be continued to a future meeting.
Approval of minutes and Election of Officers will move to the end of the Agenda when full
Board is present.
MINUTES:
Moved to the end of the Agenda. (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Moved to the end of the Agenda (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)
1.
Adoption of 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar.
M/S to adopt the 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar. Anderson/Lynch 4-0-1..
Ayes: 4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1 (Miller); Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)
2.
Certificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential
structure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,2,"Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued
from 9-9-04) Applicant & staff request a continuance to future meeting.
M/S (Anderson/Tilos) to continue this item to a future meeting. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1
(Miller); Motion carries.
Boardmember Miller arrived.
3.
Alameda Point Update. Presentation of the ongoing planning process for Alameda Point.
Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services Department, summarized the information provided in
the staff report. Ms. Johnson indicated that there had been two community workshops and that
there will be three more. Staff will give the Board regular up-dates of the planning process after
each Community Workshop. The next workshop will be held on March 3, 2005 which will be
hosted by the Planning Board. Staff would also like the Board to consider co-hosting one of the
remaining Community Workshops with the Alameda Point Advisory Committee.
Melissa Gaudreau and Chris VerPlanck from Page and Turnbull gave a presentation giving a
brief history of the site, and outlined the Historcal District at NAS. Mr. Plank stated that the
buildings and structures within Alameda Point reflect three distinct periods of development: Pre-
war, War and Post-war. Most of the Pre-war buildings were constructed during 1940-1941 of
reinforced concrete in a styling typical of commercial and industrial design from the 1930's.
This style is known as ""Moderne"".
A comprehensive inventory of pre-1946 buildings and structures was done in 1992 by S.B.
Woodbridge, which focused on determining whether any buildings at Alameda Point qualified
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The report concluded that while
no individual building qualified for listing in the NRHP, an area in the Civic Core sub-area
appeared to qualify for listing as a historic district. The identified area includes 87 buildings and
structures that contribute to the area's historic significance, 35 non-contributing major buildings
and many temporary or minor buildings, which do not contribute to the Historical District.
Vice-Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that AAPS is very interested in the 86 buildings. She encourages
the Board to become involved in the planning process. She is also concerned why the Tower
Bldg was not included in the 86 buildings.
Richard Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Ave., informed the Board that he once lived on the base and is
also surprised that the Tower Bldg. is not included. He felt that Bldg. 400 was also worth taking
another look at. He wants the Board to be cautious when approving buildings for demolition.
Vice-Chair McPherson closed public comment.
Elizabeth Johnson stated that at the time that the inventory was done, there was an addition to the
Control Tower that has since been removed.
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,3,"Ms. Altschuler asked the Board if they would be interested in hosting a community workshop?
There will be more opportunities in the future for the Board to give their comments. This will
be a standing agenda item, so staff can give the Board updates and also allow the public to have
access to the Board if they have any questions. The next community workshop is scheduled for
March 3, 2005. Staff will reschedule the Regular March meeting so the Board may attend the
workshop.
Staff will provide the Board with a copy of the Historical Architectural Resources Inventory for
NAS, and the Guide to Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic
District.
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 28, 2004. (continued from 12-02-04).
M/S (Tilos/Anderson) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2
(Lynch, Miller);
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004.
M/S (Tilos/Miller) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain: 2 (Anderson,Lynch); Motion carries
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
M/S (Lynch/Anderson) to nominate Vice-Chair McPherson as Chair. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0.; Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to nominate Boardmember Anderson as Vice-Chair. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.;
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Rosemary McNally asked why Item 2, 1104 Oak was continued. She also thanked the Board and
Staff for all of their hard work on this item. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff was continuing to
work with property owner to resolve issues.
Boardmember Tilos will be on vacation until March 17, 2005.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the Planning & Building Director has resigned. Staff is
not certain when that position will be filled but will update the Board as needed. Ms. Altschuler
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,4,"also stated that she would be training another member of staff to take over her position as
Secretary.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.04\12-2-04 MIN.doc
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-06,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Special Meeting - Thursday, January 6, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL - 6:33 p.m. Vice President Chen called the meeting to order. Also
present were members Wasko, Flores-Witt, Bonta, Currie, and Hollinger Jackson, President Franz was
absent. Staff present was Beaver and Brown.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Taken out of order to permit Annalisa Moore, AUSD, Woodchip
Program coordinator an opportunity to address the Board regarding housing and community
development needs. She thanked the Board and staff for the support. The Woodchip / RISE program
was able to continue and increased in attendance from 120 to 396 students as a result of CDBG funding
that sustained the Program during a ""dry spell"". This program provides a safe place for students and
parents, and promotes a sense of feeling good and doing better. Daisy, a student in RISE for the past 2
years stated she was disrespectful at first then realized it was a better place and feels great about where
she is and how this program has helped her with bringing her grades up. Shaaquile, a student in RISE
since 4th grade, (she is now in 7th grade) stated the program has not only helped her, but also her parents.
They are able to help with homework and her Dad is now the President of Chipman PTA.
Ms. Moore reported that the Woodchip Afterschool Program recently received a federal ""21st Century""
grant in the amount of $400,000 annually through 2009-2010. Thanks to this funding they will not have
closed in March. There are waitlists at all three schools sites. With the extra funding they could expand
if they had another instructor, which could in turn serve more students. Grades served are 1st through
8th. the program operates Monday through Fridays 3-6 p.m. They collaborate with several other
programs and handle many referrals that filter through.
2. CONTIUNUED DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS - Staff reviewed that most of the December meeting was hearing from community based
organizations regarding needs. Staff provided recent information regarding public service funding,
which has dropped approximately $54,000 from the current year. It was further explained what the
CDBG funds can and cannot be spent on, and where the remaining funds get spent. It was also reported
that the Request For Proposal process is going to be for a 1-year period, rather than the 2-year period
just ending. There was discussion on how the CDBG formula works in determining the amount we
receive and how if the overall federal funds stay the same we receive less because new Entitlement cities
come into the program.
The Board determined that focus areas would be addressed but not prioritized. Due to the funding
reduction the Board had determined that there is a greater need to increase the capacity of service
providers to deliver services efficiently and without duplicating these efforts. Emphasis for funding
should go toward strengthening Alameda's safety net, better access to affordable housing in Alameda,
empowering Alamedans to become self-sufficient and stable, and to support capacity building for
service providers.
Motion to request staff to draft a letter to reflect the consensus of this meeting. Two Members will
review and approve and/or edit the letter (Wasko, Currie). Member Currie was designated to represent
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Excellence",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-06,2,"Special Meeting Minutes from Thurs, January 6, 2005
Page 2
the Board at the January 18th City Council meeting with member Bonta as a back-up. M/S Wasko,
Currie and unanimous.
Member Hollinger Jackson was excused from the meeting at 8:00 p.m. due to a prior commitment.
3. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION - Taken out of Order (2)
5. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned by Vice President Chen at 8:45 p.m. M/S Bonta,
Currie and unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver
Secretary of the SSHRB
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets\2005VJan05\SpecialMinutes0106.doc
F:SSHRB\Agenda & Minutes\200
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Cook, Lynch, Kohlstrand,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was not present for roll call, and arrived during Item 9-A.
Also present were Planning & Building Director Greg Fuz, Development Review
Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner
Judith Altschuler, Planner II Dennis Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of December 13, 2004.
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 2, should be changed to read: ""She
noted that in past site visits to walled-off developments, that the-play yards were was
deserted, which she believed was unsafe for anyone who did use the area.""
Vice President Cook noted that page 14, paragraph 5, should be changed to read:
""
showers for use after swimming, and should open onto the pool area. She believed
that the multitude of angular pathways of the landscape plan seemed very frenetic to her.
She did not believe there was a sense of continuity and flow with respect to the
landscaping and circulation plan.""
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 12, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""She was
disappointed to see a wall along across-Appezzato Parkway.
""
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that pages 17-18 did not indicate the details of the discussion
about the reflectivity of the glass, and noted that she inquired as to whether the reflective
glass was required functionally for the project; the project sponsor indicated that it was
not required. In addition, the conditions of approval included a recommendation that
there would be no reflective glass on the building.
President Cunningham advised that on page 1, the roll call should indicate ""President
Cunningham,"" rather than President Piziali.
President Cunningham advised that page 15, paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect
that he urged the developer to respond to the comments made by the Planning Board in
an effort to clarify their position and stance on the critical elements for success of the
project. He believed that Allen Tai's letter communicated the Planning Department's
point of view.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,2,"M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of
December 13, 2004, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Lynch)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that no speaker slips had been received for Item 9-C, and
proposed that it be moved to the Consent Calendar.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to
place it on the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
7.
Resolution and Commendation for Planning and Building Director Gregory L.
Fuz.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Fuz had accepted a position as Development
Services Director for El Dorado County, and would be leaving the City of Alameda. He
read the following resolution and commendation into the record:
""Acknowledging Planning and Building Director Gregory L. Fuz for his
contributions to the City of Alameda, whereas Gregory L. Fuz accepted
the position of Planning and Building Director for the City of Alameda on
February 25, 2002, and
Whereas Gregory L. Fuz has accepted a position as the Development
Services Director of El Dorado County, and is leaving the employment of
the City of Alameda, and
Whereas, as Planning and Building Director, he assisted in the planning
process of numerous projects, including the completion of the General
Plan Amendment for Alameda Point, and initiation of the Master Planning
Process, the adoption and conditional certification of the 2001-2006
Housing Element, redevelopment of the Bridgeside and South Shore
shopping centers, adoption of new Citywide design guidelines and
development code amendments, and
Whereas he provided clear and complete advice to the Planning Board,
and
Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda extends their thanks for his dedication to his work on behalf of
the City, his staff, and citizens of Alameda.""
President Cunningham added a personal note of thanks to Mr. Fuz for his work on behalf
of the City.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,3,"Mr. Fuz thanked the Board, and said that it was his pleasure to serve the community of
Alameda, and that it had been a wonderful experience. He thanked the members of the
community that he worked with. He thanked the Board for its dedication and
professionalism, and added that it was the best Board he had ever worked with in more
than 20 years in the field. He thanked the Planning and Building Department staff for
their help, expertise and professionalism, and for making his tenure pleasant and
successful.
Vice President Cook thanked Mr. Fuz and noted that she had looked forward to working
with him for a longer time. She noted that she would miss working with him, and added
that she admired his unflappable nature and his ability to maintain calm and a sense of
humor. She added that his analytical mind enabled him to accomplish so much during his
tenure.
Mr. Lynch looked forward to working with Mr. Fuz whenever the chance arose in El
Dorado County, and said that Alameda was a much better place for his work in the City.
He noted that Mr. Fuz set a positive tone for the City's professional representatives
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,4,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Adoption of 2005 Planning Board Calendar.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the 2005 Planning Board Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,5,"8-B. ZC04-0013: Christ Episcopal Church of Alameda - 1700 Santa Clara
Avenue (DB). A request has been received to construct a 38-niche columbarium
wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is not
specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the
installation of a 38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is
being referred to the Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the
primary use remains the church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the
primary use.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve a request to construct a 38-niche
columbarium wall within the interior of the Christ Episcopal Church. Columbarium use is
not specifically listed as a regulated use within the R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District) where the church is located. This zoning determination for the installation of a
38-niche columbarium within one interior wall of the church is being referred to the
Planning Board to review the staff recommendation that the primary use remains the
church use and the columbarium will be secondary to the primary use.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,6,"8-C.
Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda
Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios (JA). (Continued from the
meeting of December 13, 2004.) Staff is requesting a continuance to the
Planning Board meeting of January 24, 2005.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of January 24, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,7,"8-D. ZA04-0002 - Zoning Text Amendment for Design Review Regulations
(JC/JA). Update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously
adopted Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-01
to update the current Design Review practices by clarifying the previously adopted
Webster Street Design Review Guidelines.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,8,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Study Session (JA/JL). GPA04-0004, DPA04-0002, IS04-0003, DR04-0114 -
Warmington Homes - 1270 Marina Village Parkway (Shipways Site)
(JA/JL). Applicant requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the General
Plan to designate the Shipways site as MU-7; a Development Plan Amendment to
amend the approved Development Plan for a 143,000 square foot office building
and permit the construction of 64 residential units with associated parking and
landscaping; an Initial Study to address the environmental effects; and a Design
Review for the project. The site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use Planned Development
District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized this staff report, and noted that the design team would make a
PowerPoint presentation. She noted that no Board action would be taken, and that the
project would require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site an MU-7 (Mixed
Use) area. She added that an office use already existed on the site; staff requested the
addition of a residential component to the site, as well as an amendment to the
development plan. The current development plan approval was for a 143,000 square foot
office building; it would be changed from an office use to a residential use. An initial
study and a design review for a general configuration of the houses, landscaping and
parking areas would be done as well. The staff report requested that the discussion relate
to the site design, the parking plan, the pedestrian access through the site, public
amenities, amenities for the residence, the conceptual architectural style, and the fact that
there was a proposal for three-story dwellings, which is not unusual in this area. She
requested that the Board provide guidance to the applicant to bring back with the design
team, and to incorporate the Board's comments into the proposal. The proposal would be
brought before the Board at a later date for action.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Joan Lamphier, Lamphier Gregory, noted that she worked for the City on this
project, and has been a project planner on this site since 1983. She noted that the primary
question that Marina Village was concerned about was to get a reading from the Board as
to whether it would approve the change office use to a residential use on the site. She
noted that the Marina Village site had always been designated as a Mixed Use
development.
Mr. Don Parker, representing project owner, noted that his involvement in this project
started in 1979. He noted that the mile of shoreline had been developed with public
access and improvements; this would be the last remaining piece connecting the public
access with the overall public access running throughout the rest of the project. He
provided some history of the site development. He noted that the site was constrained by
the fact that it had an existing structure; they planned to leave most of the structure in
place. They also dedicated the public access around the perimeter of the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,9,"Mr. Kevin Levesque, Randall Planning and Design, displayed a PowerPoint presentation
of the site and described the site layout. He noted that there would be in-garage parking
and storage for the homeowners, with 55 parking stalls proposed in the garage, and 46
guest parking stalls on the podium. In addition, there would be 72 parking spots in the
unit garages. The parking ratio would be 2.7:1. He noted that 86% of the homes would be
on the water, with a small group in the center, clustered around the Rec Center and the
pool. He noted that at the front, the underground parking would eliminate the need for
garages on the podium deck, allowing the creation of a central pedestrian plaza running
from the front of the project at the pool, to the back of the project, where the public plaza
space would be created.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the amphitheatre area would be
publicly accessible, Mr. Levesque confirmed that it would be accessible at all times.
President Cunningham commented about the methodology of building a podium, which
would be a complex process, and inquired why the podium would be elevated to
accommodate the parking underneath. He noted that the parking on the other two sides
could be maximized, and noted that a second podium would probably need to be built. He
inquired whether an analysis had been performed to remove the current sloping
rampways to sink it back down to grade level.
Mr. Parker noted that President Cunningham's suggestion would involve a tremendous
amount of demolition. One of their concerns was that the existing Shipway offices were
next door, which they planned to keep occupied as office space. The demolition would be
very disruptive to the existing uses, and may render the project economically infeasible.
Vice President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so
that a new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it.
She noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.
Mr. Parker noted that the podium would be approximately 9 feet over the flat area of the
site.
President Cunningham requested a physical model of the project, given the complexity of
the project elevations. He believed the treatment of the podium edge relative to the lower
level was a critical element.
Mr. Parker noted that they created planters along the base of the wall and around the
perimeter near the seating areas. They wished to avoid a large, blank wall in that area,
Vice President Cook noted that she was pleased that there would be residential uses on
this site, rather than another office use. She believed a mix of uses would create a more
active waterfront. She wanted to ensure a good relationship between the waterfront and
the public area, and to be sure that pedestrians felt safe by the waterfront.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,10,"Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was
in the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He
noted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President
Cook's concerns.
Vice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or
below.
President Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical
circulation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not
examined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He
believed that idea made sense.
In response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would
be parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of
the project on either side had garages included in the plan.
Vice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted
that high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the
street would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the façade, and
wished to avoid a blank wall.
Vice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide
more information for the public.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the
residents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a
whirlpool.
President Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three-
dimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the
architecture.
Mr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model.
Ms. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of
the orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the
podium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for this
site, but noted that it was a somewhat isolated location, and it was necessary to travel
through office sites and parking lots to get to the residential units. The relationship to the
street for cars and pedestrians was an important issue for her.
Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed
project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office
building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary. She believed
the scale between the Oakland uses and the Alameda uses on the estuary should be
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,11,"consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and
inquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the
amphitheatre.
Mr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the
Shipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking
stalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were
available in the office parking lots.
President Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the
bodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the
ability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially
one big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would
be built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units.
Ms. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were
any plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be
safety railings installed along the entire perimeter.
Vice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this
project, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current
condition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a
complex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board
members to visit the site.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was
currently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a
requirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly
larger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking
ratio is normally 0.5.
Mr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained within the
project, and not dependent on using any of the office parking. The perception of the high
ratio came from the space provided by the garage.
The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will
be
scheduled for a future agenda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,12,"9-B.
ZA04-0001-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide. Review and
revision of Section 30-6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Sign
Regulations (JS/JA). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify current
regulations and establish internal consistency with various sections of the AMC
with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs.
Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, noted that they wanted the district to look as
attractive as possible during the revitalization process. PSBA did not want businesses
jamming their windows with posters obscuring the business, and which made the
storefronts look junky. He expressed concern about the proliferation of grand opening
signs, and the length of time that they are left up. He believed this ordinance would put
an end to that practice. He noted that PSBA and WABA were in agreement that a grand
opening would last 30 days, and that a permit would be necessary for that signage to
remain up. He supported the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council to
enact this ordinance.
Ms. Sherry Stieg, WABA, supported the proposed ordinance, and noted that it was the
result of a lengthy collaboration between PSBA, WABA and the Planning & Building
Department.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding enforcement, Mr. Cormack confirmed
that the Code Enforcement Division would be responsible. There was currently one full-
time Code Enforcement officer, and a planner working part-time in that capacity. He
noted that the Planning and Building Department made a commitment to PSBA and
WABA for increased enforcement along Park Street and Webster Street and the revised
ordinance would assist with that effort.
Mr. Piziali believed that the merchants would police themselves.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding window signs, Mr. Cormack
replied that a business would be in conformance provided no more than 25% of the
window was covered by signage. The content would not be examined. He noted that
many windows had more than 25% coverage, and that the merchants in violation would
first receive a letter, and then the fine system would go into practice. He anticipated that
some businesses would not be happy with the new ordinance, however, with the
assistance of PSBA and WABA compliance could be achieved.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Altschuler, replied that the fee
for a sign permit was upward of $200. She noted that it was necessary to put language in
place to address some of the proliferation of the temporary window signs. She noted this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,13,"AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,14,"9-C.
Use Permit, UP04-0012/Major Design Review, DR04-0099; Tasha Skinner,
Tetra Tech, Inc. For the Alameda Unified School District (Will C. Wood
Middle School), 420 Grand Street (DB). The applicant requests a Use Permit
and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular telecommunication antennae
(4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the school building at the
top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the rear of the
building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval of
above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 9-C from the Regular Agenda and to
place it on the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-02
to approve a Use Permit and Major Design Review to install twelve cellular
telecommunication antennae (4-foot panel antennas) to be located around the top of the
school building at the top perimeter/parapet, plus the installation of a utility shed at the
rear of the building. A Use Permit is required by AMC, Section 30-4.1(b)(3) for approval
of above-ground utility installations for local service in an R-1 (Single-Family
Residential) Zoning District.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,15,"9-D.
Design Review, DR04-0014: Linda Cortez, 1514 Pacific Avenue. Ms. Cortez
is appealing staff's denial of this Major Design Review application (DB). This
application requesting design review approval to raise the existing building one
foot, six inches (1'-6"") and relocate the building two feet (2'-0"") toward the south
(rear) property line to accommodate the elongation of the front stair. The proposal
to raise the building will create approximately 1,618 square feet of new living
space in the basement, resulting in a total completed conditioned floor area of
approximately 3,236 square feet. Staff denied this project because of the
following reasons: 1. The proposal to raise the building approximately one foot,
six inches exceeds the proportionality relative to the upper and lower floors (i.e.,
Golden Mean) by three feet, three inches (3'-3""); 2. The proposal will create an
undesirable massing of the building in relation to neighboring buildings which
appear to be of the same design; and 3. The proposal will elongate the front stair
and create an undesirable massing of the stair in relation to the building. The site
is located within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the appellants had not presented
any new information since the last hearing when the Board had provided general parking
direction on implementation of proportionality issue, (i.e. the Golden Mean) during
Design Review. Staff recommended that the Board uphold the original denial of the
Major Design Review.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Cortez, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, noted that they were attempting to
preserve their house and maintain the inherent architecture of the house during the
remodeling process. Although raising of the house did not conform to the Golden Mean,
she did not believe it would change or detract from the inherent architecture of the house
in a perceptible manner. She noted that the two adjoining houses next to her house were
not identical to hers, and there were slope differences; she distributed photos of those
houses to the Board. She did not agree with staff's assessment that the addition of two
risers would create an undesirable elongation of the stairs.
Mr. Ian Ordinaria, appellant, 1514 Pacific Avenue, requested the Board's reversal of
staff's denial of raising the house. He noted that the Golden Mean did not necessarily
address the connection between proportionality and beauty, and did not believe it should
be a rule. He did not believe the Golden Mean should be applied to the whole structure,
although it was applicable to elements such as doors and windows. It also was not clear
that it should be the sole standard for a horizontal or vertical measurement, and he noted
that the whole structure of the Cathedral at Notre Dame was not in conformance with the
Golden Mean, although sections of it were. He noted that regarding the neighboring
buildings, they were not meant to be tract homes. He noted that there were more than 20
homes with visually longer stairways than their home within a two-block radius of their
home, including the Alameda Fire House. He requested that the Planning Board reverse
staff's denial of their application.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,16,"Mr. Walter McQuesten, 1416 Pacific Avenue, supported the applicant's project, and
believed their plans would be an improvement for the entire block. He noted that he
hoped to undertake a similar project in the future. He believed the raising of the house
would provide safety from flooding. He supported the reversal of staff's denial.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that he was an architect, and supported staff's denial of this
application. He noted that in the past, neighbors came to agreements regarding roof lines
and design proportions.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Mr. Rutter replied that 16 stairs were the limit
before a landing must be included, and that the applicants were not close to that limit.
Ms. Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, spoke in support of
staff's recommendation. AAPS believed that staff's points were valid, and that in the past
contractor Ken Gutlaben had spoken before the Planning Board to say that digging down
was as easy as building up. She believed that should suffice for this project, and believed
the applicants' plans would be visually disruptive.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara whether the neighboring house had a full
unit on the basement level, Mr. Brighton replied that he did not have that information. He
addressed the simple aesthetics of the structures, and the future use of the interior was not
part of the decision. Ms. McNamara noted that there was more than one separate address
on the neighboring home.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern that this house was used in the Planning Board's
discussion of the Golden Mean; this existing architecture already exceeds the Golden
Mean by a significant amount. She was concerned about imposing the Golden Mean on
this applicant given the existing architecture, and did not believe that was the applicants'
fault.
Vice President Cook did not believe there was a reason to make the architecture
proportionality worse, and believed the number of existing houses exceeding the Golden
Mean was one of the reasons for adopting that guideline. She sympathized with the
applicants, but wished to stem the tide of losing Alameda's architectural heritage. She did
not see a unique circumstance to warrant raising the house in this case, and agreed that
digging down was a workable solution.
Ms. Mariani agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. Although she sympathized
with the owners, 1512 Pacific Avenue was a sister house built by the same builder, and is
on the registry. She believed the architectural integrity of this house should be
maintained.
Mr. Piziali noted that he felt for the applicants, and noted that the Board directed staff
that they wished to follow the Golden Mean wherever possible. He agreed with Mr.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,17,"Gutlaben's assessment that going down for the additional square footage would be
workable and cost-effective.
President Cunningham noted that the design guidelines utilized the Golden Mean to aid
staff in regulating houses being raised.
Ms. McNamara inquired whether the Board would issue a blanket rejection, or to use the
Golden Mean in a case-by-case assessment.
President Cunningham noted that context in the buildings was very important in order to
preserve the character of Alameda. He believed that the number of houses being raised
was beginning to erode that character. He did not believe the Board would issue blanket
rejections.
Mr. Lynch believed that excavating down would be a workable solution for the
applicants, and believed there was a difference between how the Board applied the
Golden Mean as a guideline for individual homes. He noted that for the other individuals
who spoke, he would examine every case separately, and would not issue a blanket
rejection.
M/S Mariani/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-03 to support staff's
recommendation to deny this appeal.
AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. McNamara wished to bring staff's attention to the changes made in Ms. Cortez's
comments for the minutes of the November 8, 2004, meeting in which this item was
heard. She wanted to ensure that those changes were made; the excerpt of those minutes
did not reflect that change. Ms. Cortez's original comments were reflected, not the
amended comments. The correct wording should be: ""She believed that families
attempting to increase square footage to accommodate a growing family should not be
lumped in with houses with many illegal residences.""
Ms. Altschuler noted that the changes had been made, and that the draft minutes had been
included in the packet. She noted that the correct comments by Ms. Cortez would be
reflected in the packet.
Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting following this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,18,"Page 18
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,19,"Ms. Altschuler noted that she and Mr. Cormack would be retiring within the next three
and six months, depending upon a variety of factors. The City is currently recruiting for a
Supervising Planner to replace her position, and there was a position open for a Planner
III. She added that City Manager Jim Flint has left, and that Bill Norton was acting as
interim City Manager. He had previously been a City Manager in Alameda.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Altschuler replied that Melodie
Bounds had taken a position in West Hollywood. Currently, the Planning and Building
Department planner staff consisted of Dennis Brighton, Allen Tai, and David Valeska
(part-time).
Mr. Lynch believed that the hiring of any planners and the City Manager would best be
accomplished following the hiring of Mr. Fuz's replacement. He noted that contract
planners were useful, but that their training often took time away from already
overworked staff planners.
Ms. Altschuler noted that waiting to hire planners may cause stress on existing planners
and other staff members.
Mr. Cormack noted that the Board members' comments were well-taken and was
confident that the positions would be filled in a reasonable amount of time.
Ms. Altschuler noted that she was most concerned about the public information counter,
and that the planners' efforts were split between working at the counter and writing staff
reports. She noted that the contract planners could work with use permits and variances,
and the staff planners could work the counter. She noted that she recently spent a day at
the counter.
President Cunningham noted that a problem with contract staff was the consistency of
information given to the public.
Mr. Lynch supported enhancing the staffing levels.
Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board agendize this subject for a future meeting.
Ms. McNamara noted that the photos in the Webster Street Design Guidelines were all
black.
Ms. Altschuler noted that staff would review the document and provide more legible
copies for the Planning Board, City Council and the public.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-10,20,"Respectfully submitted,
Jefry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the January 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
January 10, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-01-12,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
January 12, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Absent:
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice President
Belikove SECONDED the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of January 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of December 8, 2004.
Approved with 2 corrections.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of November 2004. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures
(by fund) through December 2004. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Main Library Project Update
Board member Butter asked when Project Manager Bob Haun would be available to give
the members of the Library Board an updated report on the main library project. Director
Hardie stated that in an effort to make the best use of everyone's time, we are hoping that
Bob's monthly report to Council will serve to inform the Board as well. She also
commented that the Board receives the Construction Report each month. She stated that
Bob Haun is very willing to answer questions directly, and is available by phone or
email. Board members indicated that this arrangement is fine for now.
The Library Director reported that on February 28th a Notice to Proceed will be given
to
the contractor. The groundbreaking ceremony will be in early March. The Steering
Committee will have representatives from Alameda's library and business community.
Vice President Belikove asked if there was a list of changes from Value Engineering that
the Board could review. Library Director Hardie reported that there is a list of items and
recapped some of the items for the Board. She noted that the City Council decided to
proceed with LEED Certification.
Vice President Belikove asked if donations could be solicited to help keep the curved
staircase that was eliminated during Value Engineering. Board member Butter stated
that
1",LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-01-12,2,"the construction contract has already been approved. To change the stair again would
incur substantial additional cost. Director Hardie mentioned the concern that additional
fundraising may be needed for the branches.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
The Library Building Team did not meet during December.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation did not meet in December. The
Foundation will be meeting later this month. The Foundation sent out a year-end
fundraising letter which had some success.
C
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that the Junior Friends will host a themed storytime at the Main
Library on January 22nd. On February 10th the members of the Friends will attend a
benefit screening and reception for Leslie Krongold's documentary My Rabbi. On
February 18th, 19th and 20th the Friends will host a mid-winter book sale at the Al DeWitt
Officers' Club at Alameda Point.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold reported that the newsletter will be sent out this week. The logo team
met this week and they decided not to move forward on the logo for awhile.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Belikove commented on the 20th anniversary of Alameda Reads. She
suggested that everyone in Alameda read the same book as a way to celebrate this
occasion. She also noted articles on Library Closures in Salinas, Reading at Risk and
Time Running Out for Libraries.
Board member Butter distributed an article on Literacy and immigrants.
Board member Schoenrock asked if the City is still having a budget deficit. Library
Director Hardie replied in the affirmative and stated that the new Interim City Manager is
meeting with Council and staff to discuss this issue. The City Council wants to maintain
services and to date no budget cuts have been approved.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie stated that she has not yet received her appointment for Day in
the District but will keep the Board informed. She reported that there was a theft of 5
computer monitors at the Bay Farm Library. The police department is investigating. The
library received a bequest that will be used to purchase materials for the opening of the
new library.
2",LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-01-12,3,"ADJOURNMENT
Board member Schoenrock MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary
3",LibraryBoard/2005-01-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, January 13, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
Suzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of November 4, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the Minutes of November 4, 2004 be approved."" ""
In Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
Absent (0) -
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.)
Pat Colburn, Alameda Arts Center President, discussed with the Commission their request
to amend the Public Art Ordinance (2892) and encourage developers to provide aid to the
established arts venues in Alameda. They will be taking their request to the Public Art
Advisory Committee (PAAC). Depending on the decision of the PAAC, this item may
come forward to the Recreation and Park Commission. RSM Lillard stated that staff is
waiting for a legal interpretation from the City Attorney's Office. In the meantime, this
request will go before the PAAC the week of January 17.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 1, 20055
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,2,"4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Pat Colburn, Alameda Arts Center President, requesting an amendment
to Ordinance 2892 and encourage developers to provide aid to the established arts
venues in Alameda.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City
Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
Discussion was held regarding what to include in the Park Use Policy.
Kahuanui requested a listing of equipment (sheds, etc.) at the parks. So the Commission
will know what is existing to begin the process of developing a policy. The list should be
anything that is not ARPD's. Acreage for each park should also be included on the list.
Oliver stated that individuals selling balloons and ice cream in the parks should have City of
Alameda permits and a permit from ARPD. He also suggested not allowing
demonstrations. RSM Lillard stated that if they are doing business in the City of Alameda
they should have a City of Alameda Business License.
Johnson suggested obtaining park use policies from other cities so that the Commission
does not have to reinvent the wheel. The Commission could then apply points that are
what Alameda needs. Ms. Johnson provided some copies of other cities (e.g., Midland,
Portland) as examples.
Chair Ingram stated that there are other cities that we can borrow from when generating the
policy. RSM Lillard stated that some ideas from other cities could be used.
Chair Ingram suggested not putting anything in a park when the park is less than three (3)
acres. Councilmember Kerr's comment regarding incorporating traffic should also be
considered.
RSM Lillard stated that staff will put together a draft policy with the sample policies from
other cities and recommendations by the Commission.
George Phillips, Boys and Girls Club Executive Director, stated that he was at the meeting
to be aware of the process. Mr. Phillips stated that he hopes the Commission will look at
the following:
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,3,"-
During deliberations the Commission will make the distinction between protecting
park property and keeping it as an integral part of the community.
-
Service issues to the community.
-
Do not discount size or anything else in terms of evaluating what benefits non-park
and recreation programs in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods should not be
deprived of potential services just because of park size.
Chair Ingram asked Mr. Phillips if he knew that Alameda is way underserved as far park
acreage in the community, more so than a lot of other cities. Mr. Philips stated that he is
very well aware.
Chair Ingram asked Mr. Phillips the status of rebuilding the Boys and Girls Club. Mr.
Phillips stated that they have prepared a proposal for the School District. Everything
seems acceptable with the School District. The proposal needs to go before the School
Board.
B.
Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -
(Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard stated that the staff and City Clerk are still trying to confirm a date for the Joint
Meeting with Council.
C.
Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments
Including Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
Chair Ingram stated that he would like to have the list of Goals, Objectives, and
Accomplishments for the Joint Meeting with Council.
Suggested list of accomplishments were:
-
Marina Waterfront Park
-
DeWitt Officers' Club has been fully utilized. Is booked six months to one year in
advance.
-
Small Dog Park - Development of Small Dog Park Website/installation of bulletin
board.
-
Dog Park Drainage
-
Creation of Sport Advisory Committee
-
Use of Coast Guard park field easing shortage of athletic fields.
-
Collaborated with Friends of Franklin Park for funding additional improvements to
Franklin Park Playground Renovation.
-
Design and Renovation of Littlejohn and McKinley Park Play Areas as well as the
Alameda Point Multi-Purpose Field.
-
Initiated discussion with the Peralta Community College District (PCCD) for use of
the soccer field and track at the College of Alameda.
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,4,"-
Made significant progress in cost recovery.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
Alameda Point Gymnasium: Community use of the gymnasium by Alameda sponsored
organizations has increased 20 percent this year. Beginning in January, Encinal High
School and St. Joseph Notre Dame High School will share court time after school for
basketball practices through March. FUTSAL (indoor soccer) will begin its 5th season at
the gym commencing in January. Approximately 40 teams participate in this league. All
games are scheduled on weekends and are open to the public.
Also, the Golden State Warriors will be holding a basketball camp at the gymnasium from
December 20-23, for boys and girls between the ages of 8-16. The focus of this camp is
individual skill development, learning proper fundamental skills, and development of a
healthy team attitude. This camp will also feature appearances by current and former
Warriors players and coaches.
Franklin Park: Friends of Franklin Park purchased three beautiful Victorian picnic tables
with benches which have been installed. The Park Division staff worked with the
Recreation Division and Friends of Franklin Park to find the best location for the tables.
Also, a new driveway was installed at the entrance to Franklin Park. This work has
enhanced the appearance as well as the safety of the location.
Veteran's Building: Meetings are continuing between a local Veteran's Committee and
City staff to develop plans to renovate the kitchen. Staff has been informed by the
Alameda County Health Department that a commercial kitchen will be required and an
onsite meeting with the Health Department is scheduled for Thursday, December 16. This
project will be financed by the Veteran's Committee, who plan to hold fundraising events
and obtain donations from local businesses.
Leydecker Playground Renovation: A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the relocation of
the Leydecker Playground was recently completed and is being reviewed. This project will
include relocating the existing playground to the volleyball court area and removal of the old
play equipment once the project is completed. This project will be funded by the 2002
Resources Bond Act-Per Capita Block Grant (Proposition 40) and is expected to be
completed by May 2005.
Alameda Point Multi-Purpose Field: The Public Works Engineering Department has
hired a new contractor to finish the park. The Park is still under construction and
Engineering is working hard to have the new contractor complete the project. The park is
already looking better and should be ready for limited baseball use in March 2005.
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,5,"Field renovation work: At this time each year we complete renovation work to our turf
areas to ready them for the upcoming season. The work completed this month includes
replacement of 14,000 square feet of sod at Lincoln Park, aeration and fertilization of all
Parks, and over seeding of all fields.
B.
Recreation Division
All youth from ages of 8-13 years have been participating in the National Elks Hoop
Shoot at all of our parks. The City Finals will be held on January 8 at the Old Alameda
Gym at 3:00 p.m. Please feel free to drop by the parks and check out the fun.
More than 500 residents attended the Annual Mayor's Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony,
held this year under clear skies. This year's ceremony featured performances by the
Community Band, Dancing Christmas Trees (who actually competed in the Macy's
Thanksgiving Day Parade), music by the Mistletones, and an appearance by Santa Clause.
On December 11, Breakfast with Santa took place at the newly dedicated Albert H. Dewitt
O' Club. More than 55 parents and children enjoyed a special breakfast with Santa. The
children also wrote letters to Santa, made a special reindeer door hanger, colored Holiday
pictures, and took a photo with jolly old Santa Claus.
On the weekend of December 18 & 19 Santa made a special visit to Alameda by personally
going to 33 homes and spreading the Holiday cheer. Our Santa's Visits Program offers
Alameda citizens the opportunity to have Santa and his helper makes a visit to your home
and personally talks with your children.
The Winter Wonderland Camp at Harrison Center in Lincoln Park takes place from
December 20-24 and December 27-31. Wonderland Camp provides opportunities for the
camper to experience special Holiday crafts, drama, games, cooking projects, and loads of
fun. During the first week, there are 51 youth (Grades K-5) enjoying the Camp while for the
second week there are 40 registered so far. The Camp runs from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
everyday and extended care is available before and after camp from 7:30 -9:00 a.m. and
3:00 -5:30 p.m.
Other news, the ARPD ""Blues News"" Gazette, second edition, was published to promote
all of our programs and special events for the winter 2004-2005. The ""Blue News"" Gazette
is a handy quick reference guide to all of Alameda Recreation and Parks youth division
programs. The ""Blue News"" Gazette was distributed to all Kindergarten through 8th Grade
children in Alameda as well as at the libraries and local parks.
Another upcoming special event at the Al DeWitt O' Club is the ever popular
Father/Daughter Valentine Dance. The Dance will take place on February 10 & 11 from
the hours of 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Sign-ups will begin January 10, 2005. This is usually a sold
out event with over 200 Fathers/Daughters in attendance.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,6,"Attendance at both teen centers remains high. The Teen Underground had 320 drop-ins,
and the Chipman Teen Program had 410 drop-ins during the month of December (while
school was in session). During the winter break, the Teen Underground is open from
Monday through Thursday from 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We will also be going on some
special Holiday trips which include bowling, ice skating in San Francisco, and a trip to
Boomers in Livermore for games during winter break. Chipman Teen site is closed during
the break.
The Teen Program is getting ready for a new and exciting 2005. We are sponsoring a 3-
On-3 Teen Hoop Tournament which starts from middle January through March. The
tournament will be at Encinal High School Gym and times will vary.
The Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has been busy being good helpers during this
Holiday season. They were busy with the Mayor's Tree Lighting Ceremony on December
4th, by selling warm beverages and treats and assisting regular staff with the event. They
brought in $119 from snack sales due to their hard work and dedication. Another event in
which AYC helped out was the Albert H. DeWitt Officers' Club Dedication which was held
on December 18, 2005, and assisted staff with serving beverages to guests. In other news,
AYC board has been discussing going to Boomers as an AYC outing, bonding activity, and
year-end (mid year) celebration for their work and commitment.
This years Teen Spring Break Trip will be traveling down to Southern California which
includes; Magic Mountain, Universal Studios, Medieval Times (Dinner and Show), then
Disneyland. Sign ups are currently underway.
Recreation After school Program (RAP) for K-5th Graders, continues to help parents by
providing the youth of Alameda with an after school recreation program at selected park
sites throughout Alameda. Participants may sign up for either 5, 3, or 2 days a week and
the hours are from after school until 5:30 p.m. each day.
Parks and Playgrounds, our free drop-in recreation program, has continued to thrive at
our 10 sites (Franklin, Krusi, Leydecker, Lincoln, Littlejohn, Longfellow, McKinley, Miller,
Tillman, and Woodstock).
The Public Art Policy Guidelines have been adopted by the Recreation & Park
Commission. The Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) has been gearing up for several
new projects that will be starting after the first of the year. The PAAC will be meeting about
infusing public art into the Webster Street Renaissance Project and the Park Street
Streetscape & Town Center Projects. A formal Public Art plan should also be coming
together for the South Shore Shopping Center project. Staff has met with Tad Savinar, art
consultant, for the project and a formal plan should be implemented into the new year.
Harsch Investment Properties has provided the City with a $150,000 performance bond to
insure they will complete public art for the Center.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,7,"We are taking registration for the Junior Warriors Basketball program for K-5 Grades.
The program will run on Saturdays at the Larry Patton Gym. The program will start on
January 22 and run until March. The fee is $65 which includes jersey, tickets and
instruction.
The Hoop Shoot Contest is currently taking place at all park sites. The City finals will be
held on January 8th at 3:00 p.m. at the Larry Patton Gym.
Both the Adult Softball and Adult Flag football has come to an end. Both leagues had a
great turn out and all players where really happy.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
November 2004 Statistics (Statistics are two months behind):
Volunteers: 114
Volunteer Hours: 1,830 (1830 X $8.51= = $15,573)
New Members: 128
Total Membership to Date (July 1, 2004 to present): 2,199
(Note: Membership renewal is tied to the new Fiscal Year)
Average Number of Lunches Served Daily: 52
Monthly Sign-ins: 12,277
Holiday Closures at Mastick: Mastick Senior Center will be closed for the following
holidays:
New Year's Day Holiday, Saturday, January 1, 2005.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Monday, January 17, 2005.
Note: Meals on Wheels is available to provide meal service on the days Mastick is closed.
To reserve a meal, please call 865-6131.
Medical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) is designed to provide a more
responsive system for getting home after/from medical appointments. The City of Alameda
has contracted with Friendly Transportation to provide transportation services after/from
medical appointments. On Friday, December 17, 2004, a letter with five (5) complimentary
vouchers was sent to 251 interested Paratransit users. The program is made available
through Measure B funding. This program is being administered at Mastick Senior Center.
Start the year off right by getting your affairs in order! Join Mary Widenor, Attorney and
Alameda Adult School instructor, for her five-week class on Will and Estate Planning.
This class is scheduled for Friday, January 21 & 28 and February 4 & 11, between 10:00
and 11:30 a.m. in second dining room. Please pre-register in the office, or call 747-7506.
Join us for the New Member Orientation on Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in
the Lobby. The New Member Orientation familiarizes new members with the Center
7
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,8,"providing information on the various activities, programs, and services; a guided tour of the
Center, and a complimentary lunch prepared by Bay Area Community Services (BACS)!
Pre-registration is required. To make a reservation, please stop by the office or call 747-
7506. You will be amazed at what we have to offer!
Monthly dance moves to new date in January! Mastick Swingers
Presents ""Winter Wonderland"" on Monday, January 24, 2005, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm (Doors
open at 12:30 pm). Dance to the music of Manny Gutierrez, socialize with friends, and
enjoy refreshments in the Mastick Social Hall. Cost: $3 per person w/ membership card or
$4 per person w/out membership card.
Mastick ""Pool"" Team Wins 8-Ball Tournament! Mastick & Ruggieri (Union City) Senior
Centers competed in an 8-Ball Pool Tournament on Friday, November 19, 2004. Two
rounds of 8-Ball were played resulting in a tie. In the play-off game, Team Captain Chuck
""Stroker"" Young won the final game, giving Mastick a final victory of 9 to 8, retaining their
undefeated streak for the last three years! The Mastick Pool Players are very appreciative
for the thrilling and fun tournament, delightful refreshments and lunch hosted by Union City.
The Mastick Pool Players graciously donated their cash prize, $20, to Mastick Senior
Center! Hip Hip Hooray for Mastick's Pool Players!
Book Donation Policy: Thanks to your generous donations, the Mastick library continues
to burst at the seams! In November 2004, additional shelving was added to accommodate
the overflow! The Mastick library is now accepting books copyrighted 1995 through 2005,
""classics,"" and current month magazines ONLY. The Friends of the Library accepts books
on behalf of the Alameda Free Library for their semi-annual books sale. For small to
moderate donations, please contact the Alameda Free Library at 747-7777. For moderate
to large donations, please call 521-7745. Again, thanks for making the Mastick library a
wonderful resource within our community!
On Thursday, January 13, 2005, AC Transit representatives will be in Room D between
10:00 and 11:00 am to process applications and take photographs for senior and disabled
AC Transit I.D. cards. A new card is $3 and a replacement card is $5. Seniors, 65 and
older, are eligible with proof of age (e.g., DMV I.D., Passport, Alien I.D., or Visa).
Individuals, 65 years and under, can apply for a disabled discount card with proof of
disability (e.g., DMV Placard receipt or Medicare card) and Medical Certification Form
(available in the Mastick office) completed by your doctor. If you have any questions,
please call Norman Davis, AC Transit, at (510) 891-4709. To register, please come to the
Mastick office.
Trips! Trips! Trips! - Join us on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Media
Room for a slide show of the 2005-2006 Extended Trip Travel Packages presented by
Collette Tours. Preview the June trip to South Dakota Black Hills and Badlands, the
November trip to Costa Rica, as well as a sneak preview of the 2006 Australia & New
Zealand Trip. Don't miss this opportunity to walk through fantastic vacations. Also, ask
Mariel about 2005 Overnight Trips to Sacramento and LA/ Palm Springs.
8
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,9,"How Respond to a Power Outage and Other Disasters: Living in earthquake country,
we experience infrequent, yet disrupting events such as power outages. We now face new
challenges in the forms of hazardous material and terrorism. Do you know what to do and
are you prepared to ""ride out"" a minor to disastrous event? Alameda Power & Telecom
(AP&T), the Alameda Fire Department, the American Red Cross, and Mastick Senior
Center have joined together to offer a one hour disaster preparedness training to help you
face the challenge on Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 1:00 pm in Room D. Learn how to:
make a disaster plan, build a disaster kit, take advantage of opportunities for additional
training such as CPR, First Aid, and AED, take advantage of opportunities in disaster relief
areas, and give blood. There will be an emphasis on unique challenges faced by seniors
and resources available to help relieve these challenges. To reserve a seat, please call
747-7506. However, we will gladly accommodate those that ""drop-in!""
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)
Commissioner Oliver will see if the Committee is being disbanded.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
3.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
No report at this time.
4.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No Report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City Council to
Develop a Park Use Policy
9
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-01-13,10,"Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council
Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments
Including Park Master Plan
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 10, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 8:39 p.m.
10
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-01-13.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
JANUARY 18, 2005
(Revised 3/16/05)
DATE:
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, First Floor, Room 160
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston (late), Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members
(CM) Cecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on December 15, 2004
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on December 15,
2004 be approved.'
Approved (3) - Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Huston
Abstain (1) - Wolfe
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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
-
Letter from Pat Colburn regarding the funding of art centers through the
Public Art Allocation
-
Staff report from RSM Lillard regarding the Webster Renaissance Project
Public Art and the Park Streetscape & Town Center Project
5.
Old Business
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,2,"A.
Consideration of 2005 Meeting Dates - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi inquired about the fourth Thursday of the month as a possible
meeting date. C Huston stated that this would fit her schedule, at least
through June; PAAC members agreed. CAS Bailey will send out the
dates and meeting locations via e-mail.
B.
Continued discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
CM Rosenberg shared that she would like to see the program goals, from
the Guidelines, worked into a Mission Statement. RSM Lillard stated that
if the PAAC chose a couple of goals, then staff could draft a short Mission
Statement.
C Huston asked that each member choose the goals they'd want to see in
the Mission. CM Cervantes shared that ""supporting the promotion of arts
in Alameda; in order to provide the Community with art opportunities"" is
important. CM Rosenberg shared that ""promoting a diverse and
stimulating cultural environment, and strengthening cultural awareness,
innovative thinking, lifelong learning and the City's sense of community""
should be highlighted. VC Lee chose ""Public art integrates the vision of
artists and design professionals in planning and designing the urban
landscape.""
VC Lee asked whether the PAAC would be dealing with physical objects
or contributing to the operating costs and salaries of local non-profits. RS
Russi stated that it would be up to the PAAC. C Huston stated that she
would be more inclined to have more interesting art pieces throughout the
City, rather than supporting the existing non-profits.
CM Rosenberg stated that it would be difficult to monitor funds provided
to non-profit organizations for the purposes of supporting ongoing
operation and staff costs. RSM Lillard shared that a number of
organizations that provide grants have strict guidelines detailing how the
funding may be used. Most tend to emphasize the program or service to
be provided while attempting to avoid evaluating the particular non-profit
themselves. Physical pieces of art can be enjoyed by everyone when
placed throughout the City.
C Huston asked about the legality of issuing Public Art Fund monies to
local non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that the way he understood the
ordinance, funding could not be provided to non-profits for ongoing
operating expenses such as staff salaries but that funding could be
utilized to provide a performance, exhibition or special event.
CM Cervantes inquired about using monies for appropriate exhibits. RSM
Lillard stated that the in-lieu fund could be amended. CM Rosenberg
asked about the possibility of deciding on a specific defined event and
offering a competition for non-profits. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC could
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,3,"move to do that, but would need to specify funds go only towards
exhibits/events. CM Rosenberg suggested that the PAAC take a look at
local non-profits on an annual basis for the purpose of assessing
communications.
C Huston inquired as to whether the permits are being written in a way
that is minimizing the one percent. She wanted to add this to the Annual
Plan under Political.
C Huston asked PAAC if they wanted to have data collection maps. VC
Lee stated that it would be a good idea to have specific sites and goals in
mind. C Huston also inquired about having a project calendar. RSM
Lillard stated that the Planning/Building Department lists projects in terms
of seasons.
RS Russi explained that he has been working on a generic RFP and
Public Art application. Each RFP will have different details and a unique
cover letter. RSM Lillard stated that PAAC would receive a draft by the
February meeting.
C.
Discussion of Art Donation - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard explained that Emily Lewis, a St. Joseph Notre Dame
student, approached Alameda Recreation & Parks and she would like to
paint a mural on or in one of our buildings. Director Ota and RS Russi
met with Emily, her mother, and high school art teacher. The project will
be no cost to the City. The Department proposed that the mural be
painted on three panels for easy mobility.
C Huston suggested that the student-artist use canvas and Velcro; this
process makes displaying, moving, and storing the piece easier. CM
Rosenberg added that a sona tube could be used to store the piece, if
canvas and Velcro are used.
CM Rosenberg also stated that if one of her students came to her about
painting a mural, she would suggest that they look into past murals from
the City where they are doing the piece. This way, they could better their
own work.
6.
New Business
A.
Webster Renaissance Project Public Art and the Park Streetscape &
Town Center Project - (Discussion Item)
Sue Russell from City Development Services attended the meeting to
share the progress of the Park & Webster Streetscape Projects. She
mentioned that both streets would be under construction simultaneously.
She also expressed a desire to have a representative from the PAAC sit
on each project's subcommittee. CM Wolfe mentioned that he had been
part of the Webster Street Design Committee, as well as the Downtown
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,4,"Commission Taskforce. VC Lee stated that she would be willing to
volunteer also.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Huston
(approved)
""That Peter Wolfe be appointed as the liaison between the Public Art
Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park Streetscape
Projects.""
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Huston
(approved)
""That Karen Lee be appointed as the substitute liaison between the
Public Art Advisory Committee and the Webster and Park
Streetscape Projects.'
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
B.
Consideration of funding of art centers by the Public Art Allocation -
(Discussion Item)
Pat Colburn, President and founder of the Alameda Art Center,
addressed PAAC members on behalf of the AAC. She stated that the
Center has been open for eight months and has 160 members. She
expressed the Center's struggle to obtain funding as a non-profit 501 (c) 3.
She inquired as to whether or not Public Art Fund monies could be
allocated to local non-profits. She also mentioned that she had contacted
Harsch Development about their one percent.
Meeting attendee, Marilyn Pomeroy, was part of the group that drafted
the original Public Art Ordinance. She thought that the in-lieu fund was
meant to go towards grant proposals, and that the PAAC was developed
to handle these grants. CM Rosenberg stated that the role of the PAAC
is to see that the quality of artwork meets a certain quality level.
Ms. Pomeroy inquired as to what the PAAC thought about local non-
profits writing proposals directly to developers. C Huston stated that their
proposals would inevitably end up in front of the PAAC for approval. VC
Lee expressed concerns over non-profits being pitted against each other
for limited funds. In addition, it could also lead to friends and relatives of
the developers unfairly lobbying for funds.
Ms. Pomeroy asked if Harsch Development had already set aside its one
percent for onsite art. RSM Lillard stated that they have an art consultant
and plan to exceed the one percent. The developer sees public art as
adding to the Center's appeal.
C Huston shared that it might be helpful for local non-profits to submit a
one-page ""wish list"" to the PAAC. Those submissions would help the
PAAC make changes to the Guidelines in the future.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-01-18,5,"C Huston expressed her hesitation in rushing to use money from the
Fund. CM Rosenberg echoed her sentiment that the Committee would
not want to make hasty decisions about the money. CM Wolfe stated that
there are so many organizations and so few developers; the developers
might become antagonized by all the groups seeking money. VC Lee
also expressed her concern over how the PAAC would establish an
organization's value, if they were to offer grants for non-profits.
C.
Role of Committee Members serving as representatives to public art
projects - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard stated that PAAC members, serving on other subcommittees,
would report to PAAC at their next scheduled meeting (e.g., CM Wolfe will
attend the Park and Webster Streetscape Project meeting, and will then
report to the PAAC).
7.
Oral Communications, General
CM Wolfe inquired about the concept of gifts and donations. RSM Lillard
stated that this was the first time in 17 years that a citizen had
approached the Department about donating art and PAAC could look at
this at a later date. CAS Bailey shared that a file on Gifts and Donations
is being compiled.
RS Russi updated the PAAC on Tad Savinar, Art Consultant for Harsch
Development. Due to a setback in the developer's conceptual plan, the
development and placement of art has been delayed. Despite this setback,
Mr. Savinar is familiarizing himself with local artists.
8.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes Revised
January 18, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from The
Capital Hilton, 16th and K Street NW, Washington DC only for the
Resolution Opposing the Proposed Casino paragraph no. 05-037].
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-027) Councilmember Matarrese moved that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of J. Barni [paragraph no. 05-034]; the Public
Hearing to consider amendment to Zoning Map [paragraph no. 05-035];
and the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen
[paragraph no. 05-036] be moved to the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson -
1. ]
(05-028) - Councilmember deHaan moved that discussion regarding
options for relocation assistance legislation [paragraph no. 05- -
040] be heard first on the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the
following voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan -2.
Noes : Councilmember Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 2.
[Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-029 ) Proclamation declaring January as Blood Donor Month in
the City of Alameda.
Acting Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Beth
Wren, Donor Recruitment Account Manager.
Ms. Wren thanked the Council for their support of the Red Cross and
announced that there will be a blood drive on Friday in San Leandro
at the Creekside Community Church.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,2,"Michael John Torrey, Alameda, commented on the importance of
donating blood.
(05-030) Presentation by Peter Simon, Dean, College of Alameda and
Liz Sullivan, Organizer with Oakland Community Organizations
regarding the proposed Oakland Aviation High School at the Oakland
Airport. Withdrawn by presenters.
(05-031) Presentation of letters of appreciation to members of the
Alameda Police Department by NC1 Danielle Carter, Recruiter, Naval
Reserve Recruiting Area Pacific.
NC1 Randy Montrose, Recruiter in Charge, Naval Reserve Recruiting
Area Pacific, presented letters of appreciation to members of the
Alameda Police Department ; Sergeant Jill Ottaviano, Alameda Police
Department, accepted the letters of appreciation on behalf of the
Alameda Police Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,
including continuing the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of J.
Barni to February 1; continuing the Public Hearing to consider
Amendment to Zoning Map to February 1; and noticing the Public
Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen for a later date.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*05-032) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting of December 21, 2004; the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 4, 2005;
and the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting of January 5, 2005. Approved.
(*05-033) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,049,755.31.
(05-034) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300
square foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to
replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,
with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related
resolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the
C-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning
Districts. Appellant: J. Barni. Continued to February 1, 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,3,"(*05-035) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to
rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett
Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community
Commercial and
(*05-035A) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to
Designate APN 070-170-15, Approximately One-Fifth Acre, from R-5
Hotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial, on Central Avenue at
Everett Street. Continued to February 1, 2005.
(*05-036 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Variances, V04-0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and
denial of Major Design Review, DR04-0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution.
The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning
District. The development project includes expansion of the
residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks.
Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30-4.1(d) (3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding
48%) i 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d) (7) and Section 30-2
(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property
line into the estuary 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(a)
(Roof Eaves) and 30-5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof leaves
above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side
property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into
side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(c) (1) (Rear Yard) ,
Subsection 30-2 (Definitions) (Yard-Rear) and Subsection 30-
4. 1 (d) (7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36-inches in height extend
into the required side and rear yard setbacks 5) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30-5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens
around the patios exceed the maximum permitted - -foot height. The
Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window
encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,
subject to Design Review approval. Applicant/Appellant: Rita
Mohlen. To be noticed for a later date.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( (05-037) Resolution No. 13811, ""Opposing the Proposed Lower Lake
Rancheria-Koi Nation Casino in the City of Oakland. "" Adopted.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that it is important to make
sure that the Rancheria-Koi Nation does not get the land trust.
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber
supports the Resolution; submitted a packet of information from the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,4,"Chamber's Town Hall Meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to send a strong
message in support of the Resolution opposing the Rancheria-Koi -
Nation proposed casino; Alameda's vote, along with the City of San
Leandro, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland, will send a
strong message to the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated she had the
opportunity to speak with Congressman Stark and that he will
support Alameda in their efforts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the casino proposal is not good
for Alameda, the adjoining wildlife refuge, the City of Oakland and
is a false economy that he would oppose any casino by any tribe in
any urban area; he hopes that there is unanimous support of the
Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he joins his
colleagues in opposing the casino; Council should consider joining
the City of Oakland in pursuing legal issues.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has spoken to the Interim City
Manager and meetings have already taken place Alameda is working
with San Leandro to jointly respond to the environmental documents;
staff is working with the City of Oakland; Alameda County should be
included in pooling resources to save money in the battle opposing
the casino.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there should be an amendment to
the Resolution which would include directing the City Attorney to
work with colleagues in the surrounding jurisdictions to actively
oppose the proposed casino.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Resolution should be very strong,
clear and precise regarding Alameda's position on the casino; that
she would prefer to give separate direction to staff to work with
the surrounding communities and Alameda County.
Acting Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
amicable to giving staff direction, to which Councilmember Daysog
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he commends the Council in taking
the lead; the matter will be an uphill push involving federal
regulations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,5,"Counci lmember Daysog stated that he opposes the proposed casino for
a number of reasons, including crime and the urban planning impacts
on Alameda and other cities. the proposed casino is only one of a
wave of casinos to come which are inappropriate for the area.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Oakland City Council wanted to
ensure that Alameda has no desire to have a casino.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( 05-038) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.
The Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation on the
housing and community development needs.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report update on the
Section 8 funding.
Jim Franz, American Red Cross, urged the Council to encourage the
continuation of a balance of service provisions that provide a
safety net in the community.
Hugh Cavanaugh, Alameda Food Bank, stated there has been a 50%
growth in the past three years and that he expects the growth to
continue over the next few years.
Steven Currie, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), read
a letter from SSHRB encouraging the Council to continue the safety
net services and programs that empower and support residents'
efforts toward self-sufficiency.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services Human Relations
Board for their work; stated that he looked forward to receiving
the Board's recommendations.
(05-039) Report regarding Corrective and Preventive Plan in
response to the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the matter was being discussed
because Council requested staff to respond to questions resulting
from the City's annual audit.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the amount of the
fund balance deficit ; inquired whether the list of items in the
audit recommendation regarding the budget represents surplus or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,6,"deficit.
The Finance Director responded that she would provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the
requested information coordinated with the budget information
provided in the first week of February.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has become dependant on
Information Technology services system failure would result in
countless hours of lost productivity; Council should carefully
review the costs of addressing the issue and prioritize
accordingly.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Plan makes a lot of the
internal mechanisms of the City transparent; requested information
on the debt reserve compliance issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bonds are typically
refinanced without the qualification process.
The Finance Director responded there would be a competitive bid
process if a bond is straight forward and uncomplicated;
complicated bonds would be negotiated; the underwriters would
respond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stating what could be
done at what price; staff would then recommend a selection to the
governing body.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the bond bidding process be
placed on a future agenda for discussion; stated that it is
important for Council to be involved in the bidding of bonds and in
the decision not to bid.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City's retirement and
health benefit costs have increased dramatically; the City's Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS) contribution increased 615% from
2002 to 2004.
(05-040) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance
legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,
demolition and condominium conversion in the ""West End Atlantic
Corridor Area"" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific
Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).
The Interim City Manager provided a brief outline of the Harbor
Island Apartment eviction process and staff's coordinating efforts
to financially help the remaining tenants move.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,7,"Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council would not be taking
action tonight; public testimony would be taken and the matter
would be continued to the February 1, 2005 City Council Meeting
;
the two meeting nights constitute one meeting; stated speakers can
speak at tonight's meeting or on February 1, but not at both.
Proponents: Regina Tillman, Alameda; Steven Garner, Alameda; Frank
Skiles, Alameda Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda;
Wendy Horikoshi, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda Unified School
District; Reginald James, Alameda; Eve Bach, Alameda; Carl Halpern,
Alameda;Mary Green Parks, Alameda.
Opponents: Dominic Pasanisi, Alameda; Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Fern
Wallace, Alameda; Bernie Fitzgerald, Alameda; Melinda Samuelson,
Alameda; Steven Edrington, Alameda [submitted handout] ; Carol
Martino, Realty World Martino Associates; John Sullivan, San
Leandro; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Thomas S.
Cooke, Manager, Bonanza Apartments; Carmen Lasar, Alameda: and,
Monica Getten, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney provide an
analysis of existing State law which might overlap with the
proposed ordinance, particularly landlord and tenant relationships
stated that there is plenty of State law protecting individual
tenants in contracts with landlords; he is concerned that there is
not much protection for the community; there is significant impact
on the community and the schools when owners choose to wipe out a
large complex; the matter is not about rent control he has never
supported rent control, which has always been a failure; there has
never been a complaint about rent being too high, only complaints
that rent is too high for the services not being delivered.
Acting Mayor Gilmore requested information on how many properties
have 40 units or more and the total number of units in the ""West
End Atlantic Corridor Area"", and requested staff to provide
information on how the ordinance would work in the absence of rent
control.
(05-041) Ordinance No. 2934, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -PILOT) ;
Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise
Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance
and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10 (Exemptions) of
Section 18-4 - (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers
of
Chapter XVIII ( Sewer and Water) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Ordinance provides some hope to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,8,"close the gap in the budget shortfall; moved final passage of the
Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Daysog, stated that he was concerned
about the possibility of a charge on either cable or electric
bills; it is important to be upfront with the public regarding the
$750,000 and the possibility of recouping the money through rate
charges.
The Interim City Manager stated impacts would be determined through
the Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) budget processi stated that
there are always trade offs in the budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the Ordinance, which
is the more conservative approach given the different options
presented.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a good likelihood that
something would need to be massaged; AP&T should not go through a
disproportionate adjustment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
(05-042) Ordinance No. 2935, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit
Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda
Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . ""
Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.
]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-043 - ) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget review
process would take two months.
The Interim City Manager outlined the budget adoption process and
stated the mid-year budget review addresses expenditures and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,9,"revenues through the end of December and should be addressed at the
first or second meeting in February.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -6:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-026) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :
Management and Confidential Employees Association and Police
Association Non-Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council gave directions
to labor negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 6:55 P. M.
Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Chair Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.91 Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Chair Gilmore announced that the Commission obtained
briefing from staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P. M.
Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Chair Johnson - 1.
MINUTES
(05-003) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of December 7, 2004; the Special Joint City Council
and CIC Meeting of December 21, 2004; and the Special Joint City
Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting
of January 5, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ] Note: Commissioner
deHaan abstained from voting on the December 7 and 21, 2004
Minutes.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-004) Recommendation to approve a contract with Michael Stanton
Architecture for design review services for the proposed Historic
Alameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cinema Multiplex Project in
an amount not to exceed $92,500.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the contract is one step closer to
getting the theatre; moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent Chair Johnson - 1.
]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-01-19,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Commissioner Anthony Corica and
Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: Secretary Betsy Gammell. Also
present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 17, 2004 (December
meeting canceled).
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Discussion on Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal
Program.
The General Manager reported that the agenda item was the request of Chair
Swanson to clarify the Chuck Corica Golf Complex marshal Program. The
Complex currently has ten (10) Management Practices in place to explain various
policies. The Head Golf Professional contacted Bay Area golf courses to inquire
about the Marshal Programs and policies at their facilities to determine how they
compare to the program at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The General
Manager passed out the information packet containing a draft of the Management
Practice on the Volunteer Marshal Work Program and the comparison policies
from the other golf courses. The comparison shows that the marshal policies at
the Chuck Corica Golf Complex are comparable if not superior to those at other
courses. A marshal meeting was held in December to discuss the current policies.
Mike Winkenbach has been assigned to oversee the Marshal Program and has
been marshaling the golf courses on the weekends to ensure that everything is",GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-01-19,2,"going smoothly. Monday through Thursday the marshals are able to book a tee
time, while on the weekends and holidays they can play as business allows after
twilight. The questions were raised as how the number of marshals on our crew
compares with the other courses. The number of marshal's the Complex has is
determined by the season and there are currently twenty-seven (27). During
""peak season"" more marshals are brought on. The marshals keep track of one
groups finishing time per hour in a log book in the Pro Shop to record the pace of
play. The marshals continually pass by the shop so it is not an inconvenience to
do SO. The introduction of the cart marshal was due to carts being taken by
customers without paying. The cart marshals check the customer's receipts and
write the starting times on the carts, which help to keep track of the pace of play.
3-B
Update on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
The General Manager reported that back in November 2004 the design contract
approval for the project was pulled off the City Council Agenda. The General
Manager has met with Interim City Manager, Bill Norton, to discuss the project.
The General Manager explained the drop in revenue over the past few years and
the problems getting approval for the project. The Interim City Manager is
enthusiastic about the project and does understand the problems with the
declining revenues. They discussed possibly scaling down the project to lower
the cost. They are planning to go and look at the clubhouse at Poplar Creek in
San Mateo, which was a very successful project, and not as expensive as most.
3-C
Discussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range.
The General Manager reported that the Driving Range revenue has steadily
decreased since the opening of the Metropolitan in Oakland. The General
Manager has been considering placing a practice facility adjacent to the Driving
Range. The thought is to use the first and ninth holes on the Mif Albright Course
and redesign that course. The area would be lit up at night and a synthetic putting
green placed in the area. The General Manager also met with a fencing contractor
to get a bid on placing a windbreak behind the canopy section of the Driving
Range and possibly some propane heaters for additional warmth. The idea is to
keep the Driving Range open longer hours and run specials in the evening. The
Golf Commissioners mentioned that it would be beneficial to have plans for the
idea and visit the area to get a better prospective of the plans. Another thought
was to allow the electric carts on the Mif Albright Course.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Report on maintenance activities of the Golf Course.
The report covered in the General Manager's report.
4-B
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional",GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-01-19,3,"Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that calling the tournament groups
about the Friday tournament rate of $39 has been beneficial and the
golf707 rounds are continuing to sell well.
4-C
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting activities for the
month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the golf courses are very wet right
now. The Sand Channel Green Drainage System project done on #1 of the
Earl Fry Course seems to be working well. The wooden benches were
looked at and will be replaced. The Complex is putting together a number
of golf packages to help increase play. The staff is calling tournament
groups to encourage them to set up events on Fridays for a rate of $39.
The sale of annual passes is going very well. The cost of the passes are
$850 for Seniors, $1,000 for Residents and $1,300 for the Non Resident
which calculates to 10 months of monthly tickets. The Driving Range has
new debit card specials also, $120 for $100, $60 for $50 and $35 for $30.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
It was reported that a dedication ceremony at the Complex would be held
to honor J. D. Grady. Mr. Grady was a longtime golfer and the former
Marshal Coordinator. The ceremony will be on January 28, 2005.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
No report given.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.
The General Manager reported that the have been no current breaches in
security.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
Secretary Santare reported that the Courses are still wet.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.
Commissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)",GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-01-19,4,"courses was up 28% for the month of December 2004 as compared to
December 2003, with play up by 12%. This is in spite of the severity of
the rain days during the month. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue and
play were down 10% as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. Most Bay
Area courses have experienced similar or larger declines in play. All
ancillary services were down from last December except Pro Shop Sales,
cart rentals and lessons. The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month
of $175,371 for the month and a net profit of $211,573 for the first half of
fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $45,000 from the last fiscal year.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood stated that the report was previously discussed.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
None to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for November 2004 of
$10,247 and $9,830 for December 2004. The year-to-date total is $92,011
for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-01-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
January 24, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McCoy, McGaughey,
Absent/Excused: Chadow, McCoy
Guests: Anne Steiner
1.
MINUTES: The minutes of December 6, 2004 where approved with the following
corrections: 1) Oral Communications, Item #3 - change ""Commissioner Ed Cooney stated
that AC transit buses are not able to align with the bus stop location due to the existing
metered parking space."" to ""Commissioner Ed Cooney stated that AC transit buses are not
able to align with the bus stop location on Santa Clara Avenue fronting City Hall due to the
existing metered parking space."" and 2) Oral Communications, Item #5 - change
""Commissioner Steffens stated that a chair should be provided in the City Clerk's Office
front counter area for refuge if needed."" to ""Commissioner Elaine McCoy stated that a chair
should be provided in the City Clerk's Office front counter area for refuge if needed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. February agenda item - Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the
status of the Disaster Plan.
2. February agenda item - Commissioner Gina McGaughey would like a status on the Webster
Street Renaissance project. It was requested that temporary sidewalk relocations and barrier
locations during construction take into consideration the visually impaired. Secretary to
follow up.
3. Commissioner Angela Steffens asked if the City has a policy on sidewalk solicitation policy
as in one instance it resulted in accessibility problem.
4. A motion carried that Old Business, Item #1, Election of Vice-Chair be taken out of order.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Election of Vice-Chair: Commissioner James Gwynne was elected Vice-Chair.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 24, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Audible Signal Grant:
The secretary informed the Commission that the Public Works Department is applying for a
grant application for audible traffic signal equipment and requested the Commissions'
backing. A letter supporting the grant application was approved. Commissioner Gina
McGaughey expressed her concern that push buttons be located at the curb crosswalk, not
distant from the crossing, so as not to impede the visually impaired or wheelchair/walker
users. Guest Anne Steiner suggested that the grant application make reference to inter-model
transportation. Should the City obtain the grant, the Commission would like to review any
proposed locations and design.
2. Committee Bylaw Change:
A motion failed to change the current bylaw term limits for the Chair and Vice-Chair from
""one (1) year term or until successors are appointed"" to ""two (2) consecutive one (1) year
terms. It was mentioned that officers are elected, not appointed as stated in the bylaws.
Secretary will follow up.
3.
Policy Research, Writing and Implementation:
A motion carried to establish a sub-committee to address policy. Sub-committee members
are Commissioners Ed Cooney, Charles Bunker, James Gwynne, Steve Fort, and Gina
McGaughey. The Commission approved a letter from Chair Ed Cooney to Mayor Johnson
on the City's ability to procure accessibility assistance to disabled citizens attending City
meetings and hearings (i.e. Braille, speech/hearing impaired interpreters). Secretary
informed the Commission that the Public Works staff is meeting with other City staff to
establish a plan and would welcome any information from the Commissioners (i.e. Braille
transcriber, interpreter contacts).
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Alameda Journal Calendar:
Secretary informed the Commissioners that agenda's are provided to the Alameda Journal.
A
Commissioner stated that the City's CATV channel has Room 360 listed for meetings and
should be changed to Room 391. Secretary will follow up.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-01-24,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
January 24, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
3. Oak Street City Hall Entrance: Secretary informed the Committee that the kick plate door
openers at the Oak Street Alameda City Hall door are functioning. A Commissioner stated
that the toe kick plate only operates if pressed at a certain location. Secretary will follow up.
4. City Hall Bus Stop: Secretary informed the Commission that Public Works is continuing to
resolve the accessibility to the bus stop in front of City Hall (blockage by a metered parking
space). A Commissioner stated that the existing bench location might also hinder
accessibility.
5. Breakers at Bayport 64-unit development Secretary will provide status on the Breakers
at Bayport 64-unit development. Secretary has not seen any plans. Will report at February
meeting.
6. Lower Washington Park Parking Accessible Parking Stall: Secretary informed the
Commission that the addition of a disabled parking stall at lower Washington Park adjacent
to the dog park will need to go before the Transportation Technical Team (TTT), possible on
February agenda. Commissioner James Gwynne stated that the existing two disabled spaces
need to be restriped to conform to the latest ADA standards. Secretary is aware.
7. City Clerk's Office Reception Area Seating: The secretary investigated Commissioner
Stephen's observation of the need for a chair in the reception area of the City Clerk's office.
Due to space limitation in the reception area, at the secretary's request, the Public Works
Maintenance staff fabricated a sign ""seating available upon request"" which will be displayed
at the front counter. The Commission found this to be an acceptable solution and suggested
that similar signs be placed in other departments where permanent guest seating cannot be
provided.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 28th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005/0124min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Development Review Manager Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney
Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner II Allen Tai, Barbara
Hawkins, Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 10, 2005.
Ms. Kolhstrand advised that she left after Item 9, not Item 11, as indicated on page 18.
Vice President Cook advised that page 9, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""Vice
President Cook noted in San Francisco, the existing piers were left intact and new so that
new structures were proposed to could be built independent of the existing piers-it. She
noted that the cost of removing the old buildings were structures was high.""
Vice President Cook advised that page 10, paragraph 11, should be changed to read,
""Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed
project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office
building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary.""
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January
10, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that because of family time issues, he may not be able to
speak about Item 8-b and may submit a written comment. He noted that he was a strong
proponent of work/live. He believed that the current ordinance may be improved, but
noted that the risk of a ballot initiative was having no ordinance at all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests
approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to nine
parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are
zoned C-M-PD. Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District.
(Applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,3,"7-B.
DR04-0111/V04-0020, 836 Oak Street, Applicant: Richard Vaterlaus for
Michael Rich (AT). The proposal is a request for Major Design Review to
legalize the unauthorized raising of a single-family residence one foot to create
habitable space in the basement. The building height was increased from
approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum permitted height.
The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e) to allow a
rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"". The project site is located within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-04 to
approve a request for Major Design Review to legalize the unauthorized raising of a
single-family residence one foot to create habitable space in the basement. The building
height was increased from approximately 23'-0"" to 24'-0"", where 35'-0"" is the maximum
permitted height. The construction also requires a variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(e)
to allow a rear staircase to extend 7'-6"" into the required rear yard, where the maximum
encroachment permitted is 6'-0"".
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,4,"7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park,
740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design
Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of
an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence
at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building
of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is
required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above
ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Applicant is
requesting a continuance to the February 14, 2005 meeting.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of February
14, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda
Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant requests a second Study
Session before the Planning Board to review a proposal for the construction of a
two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, façade
changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor
Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an
R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report.
Mr. Chris Auxier, project manager, Alameda Multifamily Ventures, distributed additional
information that was not included in the first set of drawings. He noted that they had tried
to be responsive to the feedback received by the Board and the public.
Mr. Shaun Alexander, Axis Architecture, project architect, displayed a PowerPoint
presentation that detailed the project overview, improvement of the property's physical
appearance, the pedestrian experience, residential amenities, public safeties, on-site
parking, and transparency with the community. He noted that the existing site limitations
were considerable, and that while was not much room to expand the parking facilities,
they could create a more pleasant environment around the buildings for the residents. He
noted that the interior common hallways, bathrooms and kitchens would be redone, and
that the landscaping would be upgraded and transformed. The carports would be
eliminated except for certain sections along the East of the property, and the parking
would be restriped to meet current standards. A new clubhouse, and four garage buildings
would be constructed; trash enclosures would be upgraded.
Mr. Alexander noted that new lower fences would be installed around the ground floor
patios to provide greater transparency. Because of the proximity to the adjacent street,
some units would feature a more solid fence look. Additional landscaping would buffer
all the buildings, and a substantial number of the trees would be added. A large amount of
concrete would be removed in the walkways and plaza space that the applicants
considered to be unnecessary. Alternative designs addressing the height and style of the
tower element were presented; the size of the tower would be reduced, and the
architecture would be simplified. They considered the gable form to be most consistent
with Alameda's existing architecture features and Craftsman detail in town; however, a
hip roof design was also presented to address the Mediterranean style elements in
Alameda. Another roof form would be added to the tower to the west, previously shown
to the Board as a flat roof.
Mr. Alexander displayed the center part of the site, which they considered to be very
important to the project. A tot lot was proposed directly north of the clubhouse, and a
child's play area would be placed to the south of the clubhouse. A group picnic area
would be placed at the east side of the pool, with a play lawn and volleyball court
adjacent to that. Each quadrant of the property would have its own minipark, off the main
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,6,"spine of activity. The resident activities would take place on the lower floor of the
clubhouse for the tenants' convenience. The plans were changed to eliminate the office
area, and to include a coffee area. The 2nd level patio of the community center was
expanded after one set of stairs was eliminated and a new terrace is proposed as
a
transition spaces between the community center and swimming pool. He noted that the
goal of the landscape plan was to create a greener environment on the site, to beautify the
property with increased foliage, and to reduce concrete paving between the buildings.
Mr. Alexander noted that the carports would be removed, as well as some of the
perimeter fencing to open up the property. He noted that the fence along Appezzato
Parkway would be made more pleasant, with increased connections to the neighborhood.
Additional parking spaces, trees and security lighting would be placed in the parking lots.
He noted that they worked with Carol Beaver and Michael Smiley to better understand
the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan; they proposed to include two gates
along the Appezzato Parkway fence to allow access to the future greenbelt and other parts
of the community. He described the new location for the trash enclosure, which would
not block other activities on the site and would entail minimal disturbance to the
residents. He noted that approximately half of the carports on the east side would be
eliminated. The vaulted roofs on the remaining carports would be removed, which would
be replaced by a trellis element for a softer look and a smaller visual impact on the
adjacent neighborhood. He noted that the main feature of Quadrant 3 was the connection
to the adjacent neighborhood; the neighborhood plan called for a connection to
Woodstock Park. For that to occur, the City would need to gain control of 25 feet of the
existing Chipman Middle School property.
Mr. Alexander noted that the applicant was concerned about the impact of the Poggi
Street/Buena Vista Ave. curb bulb out proposed in the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Plan on the traffic flow from the site, and would like the City to take that
into account as the Plan is studied. He noted that the applicant's goal was to bring new
life to an older apartment complex, provide a more attractive design and added amenities
for the residents, to increase parking, to upgrade security systems, and to improve site
safety for the residents and the City. The project would be more pedestrian-friendly with
reduced perimeter fencing, more residential design character, increased landscaping, and
more responsive to the West Alameda Neighborhood Plan.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Carol Beaver, Community Development Manager, recalled the meeting with Sean
Alexander and Michael Smiley of BMS Design to discuss the proposed changes to the
renovation plan. She was pleased with their willingness to consider the suggested
changes. Because the Neighborhood Plan was a conceptual plan, she understood there
would be opportunities to discuss specific site plan changes.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,7,"President Cunningham believed that was a counterintuitive practice in a community
where pedestrian access was encouraged.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,8,"In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr.
Alexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative.
Mr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor,
followed by design.
In response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that
the site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where
approximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of
parking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact
spaces.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash
compactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a
roof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The
compactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue
with the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff
met with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a
study, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and
that placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the
trash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them.
With respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing
site must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by
removing the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato
Parkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris
Auxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the
physical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued.
In response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to
create a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents.
Vice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and
Buena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed
garages would impair those visual sightlines.
President Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed
garages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction.
Architectural Design Comments
President Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower.
He concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,9,"Mr. Alexander noted that they could reduce the scale of the entry somewhat, and would
be concerned about making it too short, when juxtaposed against the taller buildings.
Community Center Comments
In response to Mr. Piziali's question regarding the rest rooms, Mr. Alexander replied that
there were two bathrooms to serve the pool, another two on the ground floor, and another
two on the second floor.
President Cunningham noted that a speaker slip was received, and requested a vote to
reopen the public hearing.
M/S Lynch/Piziali to reopen the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,10,"AYES - 5 (McNamara, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Reginald James noted that he was a former resident of Harbor Island, and noted that
the location for the trash enclosure at Fifth and Appezzato Parkway would have to be
moved to accommodate the pathway through Fifth. He believed the northeast corner
would be a good place for the trash enclosure. He did not know whether the concept of
valet trash pickup would be workable. He believed that a recycling location would be a
positive feature on the site. He supported a reduced amount of fencing. He did not
support a high sound wall on Appezzato Parkway, and was not sure how a low wall
would work. He expressed concern about the proposed private walkway. He suggested
placing a walkway between Building 11 (rental office) and Building 12, which already
had a visual connection from Woodstock on Brush.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Mr. Alexander confirmed that the
ground floor restrooms would be available to residents. He added that the Code required
outdoor showers for by pool users, and they intended to provide that kind of shower.
Site Amenities
President Cunningham complimented the addition of amenities as requested by the Board
at the last meeting.
Mr. Alexander noted that the inclusion of amenities in each quadrant was at the
suggestion of Reggie James, which he supported.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Mr. Tai confirmed that as part of the
conditions of approval, a landscape maintenance agreement would be required. The
agreement would specifically require the applicants to maintain the landscaping; any
neglect would enable the City to improve the landscaping at the applicants' cost.
Mr. Piziali would like to see a condition that all the construction trucks would stay off
Buena Vista and Fifth Street (because of Longfellow School).
Mr. Tai noted that if the applicants needed a construction trailer, its approval would be
subject to a use permit. The operation and functions of the construction trailer would be
reviewed at that time.
President Cunningham noted that the Board would like an indication of the phasing as
well.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding satellite dishes, Mr.
Alexander noted that FCC requirements call for the building owner to place a satellite
dish on the roof for resident accessibility, or that the residents must be allowed to place
dishes on their balconies. They are currently working with a cable consultant (CSI) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,11,"negotiate contracts for them, and he added that their current contract was particular
difficult.
Miscellaneous Comments
Mr. Lynch complimented Axis Architecture on its design work, and inquired whether
they would have more design flexibility if they started from a clean site. Mr. Auxier
confirmed that would be the case, but that it was prohibited by Measure A.
Vice President Cook noted that this site was an important part in creating a community.
for the 21st century, and hoped that dialogue about sensible planning can continue in a
constructive way.
Mr. Auxier introduced Michael Lee, the on-site construction and project manager, and
noted that he would be based locally.
Mr. Lee noted that the Board's comments about density were well-taken, and noted that
recent projects he worked on have incorporated the higher density into the designs. He
noted that they have used four-story parking garages surrounded by four-story residential
buildings, as well as three-story buildings surrounding a courtyard. He noted that it was
possible to keep the parking garages out of sight, and that there was no need for off-street
parking. In addition, retail and commercial space could be incorporated as well.
Mr. Lynch believed the remodel should be just as beautiful as the new residences across
the street, and that high-quality design elements were very important in getting the
project right the first time.
Mr. Lee noted that because the foundations and frames were already in place, this project
would be a relatively simple one to manage.
The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be
scheduled for a future agenda.
President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,12,"8-B.
Work/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of
Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios.
(Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.)
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10
years, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex
issue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted
that any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He
believed the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded
to be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in
considering the work/live uses.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with
qualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that
artists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood,
which eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He
believed that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and
Alameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that
Measure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and
work/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so
much from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State
and local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe
there was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would
arise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the
basis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict.
Mr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily
housing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing
structures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had
changed. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A.
Ms. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to
Measure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be
brought directly to a judge to define it once and for all.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,13,"Ms. Harryman noted that the current lawsuit was not the first time the City had been sued
on work/live and how it applied to Measure A. She could not communicate the exact
status of the litigation, and noted that it would probably not be the last lawsuit. She
believed that the existence of the two lawsuits (Edward Murphy and Ms. [Kowicki])
would probably bring the issue before a judge. She believed that Ms. [Kowicki] could
build, because she had the approval of the City, but because there was pending litigation,
it would be at her own risk. She did not believe Mr. Murphy had requested a retraining
order, and believed the judge may be able to overturn the City's approval. She noted that
Mr. Murphy had sued the City on this issue before, and did was not sure whether there
had been a clear ruling one way or the other. She noted that previous cases had either
been dismissed, or the parties had come to an agreement.
President Cunningham inquired what the benefit would be of bringing the work/live issue
to the voters if there was existing case law that would prove the two ordinances were
working against each other.
Ms. Harryman noted that there were pros and cons to bringing an issue to the people
versus before a judge.
Mr. Lynch believed that if a judge invalidated an ordinance, they would provide some
instruction regarding the conflicts contained in the ordinance so that it may be rewritten.
Ms. Harryman noted that judges often rule on other grounds, such as procedural grounds
or standing.
Mr. Piziali believed the ordinance should be left as is, and it may be brought up on a
ballot initiative. He was not interested in changing it at this time.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed the Board was being asked to debate the validity of the
work/live ordinance, when the larger question was Measure A. She was unsure whether
people were ready to engage in debate on Measure A yet.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the ordinance limits a geographic area, addresses zoning within
that area, and then is limited to existing buildings, particularly historic buildings.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not want to see work/live as new construction; he
supported work/live as adaptive reuse, which was the current basis of the ordinance.
Mr. Lynch believed the voters of Alameda will recognize the common-sense purpose of
the ordinance.
Ms. Altschuler believed that the Board's consensus was that the current ordinance was
appropriate. She inquired whether the Board would be interested in addressing the
geographic limitation.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,14,"President Cunningham noted that he would like to see work/live branch out to Alameda
Point and Park Street. However, he did not want such a step to jeopardize the existence of
the ordinance.
Mr. Piziali believed the residents of Alameda would be able to see that work/live uses
were controlled, attractive and appropriate.
Vice President Cook believed this ordinance was a baby step toward a discussion of the
broader implications of Measure A. She believed this ordinance brought up very
important issues for historic preservation and adaptive reuse at the Base. She did not want
to see the work/live ordinance put at risk by addressing more complex and overarching
issues too soon.
Vice President Cook noted that Alameda's citizens had stopped public processes before
when it became apparent that it would be not be beneficial. She believed that Alamedans
would exercise the same common sense in this case.
President Cunningham noted that an additional speaker slip had been received.
M/S Lynch/Cook to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he was pleased by the Board's discussion, although
he did not disagree that work/live could be successfully extended throughout Alameda
Point. He understood the delicacy of this issue.
The public hearing was closed.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,15,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC.
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the next meeting would be hosted by the Planning
Board in Council Chambers, so that the Board may be brought up to speed and to televise
the meeting. The City Council has voted to disband the APAC at the end of the
community meeting, and had asked the APAC to pass on the information gathered over
its lifetime to the appropriate boards. She suggested that a series of meetings be held to
pass that information on, on a topic-by-topic basis. She suggested that the first meeting be
held before the first community hearing to discuss regulatory issues, in order to bring the
Board up to speed on that information.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been considerable discussion at the first
community meeting about re-examining Measure A as it relates to Alameda Point. She
noted that there was some communication at the second meeting, suggesting that the staff
should not consider a non-Measure A alternative. She noted that a possible scenario at the
Base was being considered that would include some discussion or possible changes to
Measure A for the Base. She noted that was a very controversial issue.
Mr. Cormack advised that Andrew Thomas would make that presentation to the Board,
either on February 14th or 28th, 2005; the 14th was preferable.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings since her last report.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that he had confirmed the continuing existence of the
Committee, although the meetings were on hold at this time, possibly due to a funding
issue.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired whether it would be possible to receive the Board packets earlier
than the Friday before the meeting. Mr. Cormack noted that the packet had been delayed
to receive late information on Harbor Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-01-24,16,"President Cunningham recalled that there had been a move to post the packet on the website.
Mr. Lynch noted that staff transition had been discussed during the previous meeting, and
requested that it be agendized for a future meeting, so that the City Manager be able to take
part in the discussion. He believed that a discussion within the next month would be most
beneficial.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Altschuler noted that the continued staffing levels affected the ability to distribute an
email packet, and that they were attempting to maintain the same work product with a smaller
staff. She noted that statutory requirements such as noticing were the first priority of the staff.
Ms. Altschuler advised that the support staff requested that she discuss the issue of Roberts
Rules of Order as they related to meeting minutes. She noted that the Planning Board minutes
were considerably more detailed than what is required, and added that the Council minutes
were shorter and did not provide as much information. In order to provide additional time for
support staff to perform other duties, she requested the Board's input regarding more limited
meeting minutes. She noted that the meeting was recorded on audio and videotape, and added
that lengthy minutes must be reviewed and amended by staff. In addition, there was a
tremendous amount of paper used in the distribution of the minutes.
President Cunningham believed that for study sessions, that a list of bullet points would be
sufficient. Routine items would still be well-served by briefer minutes.
Ms. Altschuler noted that more important or controversial items would still need detail
appropriate to their complexity.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported that suggestion.
Ms. Altschuler noted that if the condensed minutes were not useful, the extended minutes
could be reinstated.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Altschuler confirmed that Building Inspectors
generally dropped the packets off while on their rounds in the field.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane
Jetry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the February 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
January 24, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-27,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minute of the Regular Meeting Thursday, January 27, 2005
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL - President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:40pm.
Present were Vice President Chen, Members Wasko, Flores-Witte, Bonta, Hollinger Jackson.
Staff were Beaver and Brown.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The December 8, 2004, special meeting minutes were approved.
M/S Flores-Witte, Bonta, and unanimous with Hollinger Jackson abstaining.
The January 6, 2005 Special Meeting minutes were approved. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte and
unanimous with President Franz abstaining.
An introduction by Member Hollinger Jackson. She gave a brief description of her background
and work experience.
CITY COUNCIL REQUEST TO REVIEW SENTINEL FAIR HOUSING SURVEY AND
REPORT - Executive Director of Sentinel Fair Housing (SFH) Mona Breed, provided an
overview of her agency, and gave a presentation regarding the testing process, including training,
use of forms, questionnaires, etc. Sentinel Fair Housing is a private Fair Housing agency that
was started 20 years ago by the Urban League and civil rights leaders. Breed has been the
Director for the past 10 years. Sentinel was selected to monitor Denny's Restaurants under
consent decrees of the U.S. Court, and was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to train testers for a national discrimination study by the Urban Institute. Breed
stated that the standards and competencies of Sentinel are uncontested, and described the basic
characteristics of discrimination testing:
Testers: Testers are private citizens and members of various protected classes (race, religion,
sexual orientation, disabled, etc.) Testers come from a variety of places, for example, Sentinel
just trained 40 University of San Francisco law students as testers. Applicants are screened prior
to training, including a criminal background check and credit check; then Ms. Breed personally
reviews all applicants. Testers must be able to be recognized as the protected class they will
represent in the test, e.g. if testing for discrimination against people with disabilities, the tester
must have a visible disability. Testers must go through Sentinel's HUD-approved training
process prior to acceptance. Testers are never told what issue they are testing and the only time
they would ever learn more about a test case is if they are required to testify pursuant to a fair
housing lawsuit. Testers are paid a stipend of $35 per test, which usually takes from 1-1/2 to 3-
1/2 hours per test.
The Testing Process: When Sentinel receives a discrimination complaint, paired testers are sent
to find or disprove a discriminatory housing practice. Two people who are as similar as possible
except for the single variable being tested are sent out with various specific instructions
regarding their housing application. In response to a question, Breed indicated that testing is not
entrapment and that testing is deemed legal by the courts, indeed it is one of the only ways that
discrimination testing can be fairly done. She noted also that more often than not they find no
discrimination has occurred in reported incidents. Sentinel had participated in a statewide study
of discrimination in 2000-01 and found some instances of differential treatment in Alameda.
F:SSHRB\AGENDA & MINUTES\2005",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-27,2,"SSHRB
Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005
Page 2
However, since it was not complaint-based, they had no basis to conduct specific testing. . Later,
when they heard fears and concerns from Harbor Island Apartment (HIA) tenants seeking
housing in the wake of the HIA terminations, they felt it was important to follow up to see if
differential treatment was taking place.
All testers participate in a practice test before going out on a paired test. When a test is
conducted, the ""protected"" tester goes to tested unit first, followed by the ""unprotected"" tester.
The testers are not told why they are going or what they are testing; they do not know each other
nor do they ever see or communicate with each other. Following the rental application/interview
both testers fill out their respective forms and are interviewed separately by Sentinel staff to
determine if the protected tester got negative, discouraging information/feedback while the
unprotected tester got positive and encouraging feedback. If a test involves a different agent or
contact at the rental unit, the test is invalid and the responses are eliminated. Based on results of
the test, Sentinel asks the client if they would like to pursue further action. The client will then
file an administrative complaint with HUD Fair Housing and Employment Office (FHEO) and/or
file a lawsuit. Less then 1% of all complaints get to this stage.
A sample test was provided and Ms. Breed went over the sample, explaining the differences in
questions, availability of units, and mannerisms when dealing with each tester, and differences in
the terms and conditions of the lease. The sample demonstrated how a minority (protected)
tester had been asked many more questions than the majority (unprotected) tester being asked
only ""when did she want to move in?""
In the Alameda study, 25 complete tests and 25 complete analyses were conducted. Sentinel sent
educational letters to owners/agents of units where discriminatory practices and/or differential
treatment were found. The response from the rental property owners was good, and several large
rental agencies including Gallagher and Lindsay and Harbor Bay Realty sponsored fair housing
training for their own and other agents. About 50% of the individual rental property owners
responded directly to Sentinel re: the education letter.
In response to questions: Breed stated that:
The methodology is not exactly the same across the U.S. but HUD approves each and
every fair housing testing protocol;
Fair housing training in response to a complaint is voluntary, except when it is required
through a conciliation agreement or other order;
Many people came to the trainings because they really weren't sure if/what they had done
that was discriminatory;
It has only been since 1988 that it is illegal for a landlord to say they won't rent to
someone with children.
An owner of a single-family home renting a room to one tenant is exempt from state fair
housing law.
In 2004, Sentinel dealt with 450 households, provided education for 10 property
managers, and sponsored 12 education events.
HUD does a ""best practices"" conference every year and Sentinel has been nominated for
two awards.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-27,3,"SSHRB
Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005
Page 3
If more funding, Sentinel would expand training for property owners in the Section 8
Voucher Program to provide at least 3 hours of fair housing training.
Sentinel would follow up on a suggestion to ask local papers to publish fair housing
information and a referral number in the Rentals section of the local newspapers and
asking realtors to publish similar inform in their office handouts.
Once the study was publicized in the papers the responses from various property owners
increased.
The finding of differential treatment in Alameda (44% of the tests) is higher than the
national average of 26%. However, it should be looked at in the context of what was
happening, e.g. the HIA terminations.
The protected tester is always slightly more qualified that the unprotected applicant,
thereby making the differential treatment easier to spot. Board.
Mr. Richard Rudloff, a local owner of several Section 8 units in Alameda for 35 years addressed
the Board. He stated he has not read the rental study being discussed but wanted to address the
question ""what could the City Council do to assist landlords in providing fair housing? He stated
that landlords are required to have a business license and because Sentinel has great pamphlets,
he suggested sending appropriate mailings for landlord training if funding is available. He went
on to suggest a way to obtain funding would be to require a business license on all single-family
dwellings that are rented out. They are currently exempt from the ordinance. He stated that the
Housing Authority will give Section 8 termination notices to landlords for 30 days, yet give
Section 8 tenants 60 days. There are misperceptions about Section 8 tenants as renters. He
hasn't ever had a late check from a tenant, or no check from Housing Authority. Anything this
Board could do to assist the landlord situation would be appreciated. He hasn't ever attended a
workshop, but would for Section 8 specifically.
Under discussion, Wasko stated the methodology appears to be excellent and the criterion that is
used is the same as the national process that has been developed. Hollinger-Jackson stated that
the report was detailed, appeared to follow a solid method and the statistics appear to be reliable
Franz noted that while the results may be slightly skewed due to the extenuating circumstances
of HIA, there was a solid basis for Sentinel's concerns. M/S Wasko/Flores-Witte to report to the
City Council, with members from ATAH & AAWG (Franz & Chen) reviewing the report. The
report should state the Board's evaluation of the Sentinel study as noted above, and recommend
increased substantive training for landlords and tenants, funding for mailing to all landlords,
press and realtors, the possibility of Sentinel preparing a tape or DVD on Fair Housing practices
that can be accessed through the Library / Cable systems, working with the media to get a listing
in the rental classifieds regarding fair housing rights and sources for information and assistance,
and suggesting they look at adding the single-family rentals to the business licenses to increase
funding for fair housing activities. The motion was adopted 6/0. President Franz will present the
report to the City Council at an upcoming meeting.
PLANNING FOR JOINT SESSION - Reviewed last years agenda and Off-Agenda report.
Suggested staff poll (through the Clerk) for attendance at the regular April or May meeting. M/S
Flores-Witte, Wasko, 6/0.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-01-27,4,"SSHRB
Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005
Page 4
WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS
AAWG - Nothing to report, has not had a meeting.
FSWG - Member Wasko asked about a menu for distributing the needs survey, and is there a
timeline? She reported about the Festival of Families to partner with Southshore for a Spring
event in early May. And using this event to get survey's filled out could maybe work. The event
will have community performers (kids), and parent education. Southshore will donate raffle
certificates, maybe use those as fill out a survey & get a raffle ticket. They are exploring the
possibility of a shuttle bus during the hours of 1pm - 4pm from the West End. Volunteers will
be
available.
Friendship City - Vice President Chen reported there is still no contact with Sweden and Japan
regarding connecting those Sister City ties. We are expecting and inviting a group and delegation
in late February or mid-March. He is working on formalizing a response team to handle
administrative work and to also forming a Subcommittee who have ties to Wuxi, 30 persons to
handle the logistics and responses. A fundraiser dinner raised on Saturday, January 9th raised
approximately $4,000. This group has an opportunity to participate in a Chinese New Year
event on Bay Farm Island in mid-March. He asked everyone to think about Alameda type gifts
for visitors of China.
RECOMMENDATION TO RENAME FRIENDSHIP CITY WORKGROUP AND APPROVE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PENDING WORKGROUP ACTIVITIES - There are
substantial requirements for becoming a sister city and the Board would like to know what they
are. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte, 6/0.
BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - Member Wasko reported the vouchers for childcare
will decrease to poverty level due to budget constraints (federal). President Franz - The VITA
site at Chipman needs volunteers. Flores-Witte will volunteer on Feb. 5th, Feb 12th and Feb 19th
,
March 5th, and April 9th & April 12th. Beaver - The ACCYF had asked the Mayor for support
with Season Non-Violence on Feb 1st, and extended the invite to the Board to attend and speak
from past support.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none
ADJOURNED - President Franz adjourned the meeting at 10:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary of SSHRB
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\PACKETS/2005\JAN05\MINUTESJAN27
F:SSHRB\AGENDA & MINUTES\2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-01-31,1,"OF
CITY OF ALAMEDA
California
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:43 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Trustees: Beverly Johnson, Nancy Elzig, Robert Follrath, William
Soderlund and Karen Willis. Staff: Amy Ho, Supervising Accountant, Finance.
Absent: none.
3.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004 were reviewed. Robert
Follrath motioned to accept the minutes as presented, Nancy Elzig seconded; all
were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Robert Follrath asked to pull the consent calendar for discussion on an error he found
under 4-A a. The dollar amount shown on the agenda ($262,255.28) did not match the
dollar amount shown on the December 27, 2004 ""Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending
December 31, 2004"" memo from the Chief Financial Officer. After a brief discussion, it
was determined that the CFO's memo had the correct dollar amount of $264,255.28.
While reviewing the Pension Payroll memo, it was also noticed that under the
December-04 heading, the total figure had an extra digit ($268,1218.91) and should
have been $268,218.91. Amy Ho will correct the ""Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending
December 31, 2004"" memo, ask the CFO to sign off, and then redistribute.
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004:
a.
In the amount of $ 264,255.28 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-01-31,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005
Page 2
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004:
a.
In the amount of $ 261,681.79 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2004:
a.
In the amount of $ 264,960.47 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
Robert Follrath motioned to adopt the consent calendar with the corrections as
noted, William Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. On a motion by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig, the
Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and
Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31, 2004 was
accepted as presented; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.
5-B. In the absence of CFO Juelle-Ann Boyer, Member Willis spoke to the
issue of erecting new flagpoles at City Hall. She stated that during a
conversation with the Interim City Manager, he indicated that due to our
current budget shortfall, timing was not good to consider purchasing new
flagpoles. Member Follrath, being an active participant in varied
community groups, said that he would put out feelers, and maybe help to
raise the money for the new flagpoles, but would need a cost estimate as
a
starting point. Member Willis will follow-up with the Public Works
Director to obtain a more definitive figure. This item is to be continued at
the next Pension Board meeting.
5-C. Member Follrath motioned to accept, with sincere regrets, the memo from
the Human Resources Director notifying of deaths of 1079 Pensioners.
Member Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0
vote.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-01-31,3,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005
Page 3
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no communications from the board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
Secretary to the Pension Board
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006--7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-029) - Mayor Johnson encouraged the Alameda High School students
and Troup 73 Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local
government; stated the City has good job opportunities.
(06-030) Proclamation declaring February 3, 2006 as ""Wear Red for
Women"" Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation; stated the proclamation would
be forwarded to the American Heart Association.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *06-031) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on
January 3, 2006. Approved.
( *06-032) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,585,271.93.
( *06-033) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
(*06-034) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
the fifth amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and fourth
amendment to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement by and
between the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,2,"Authority, the Port of Oakland, and the City of Oakland for the
Cross Airport Roadway Project (Ron Cowan Parkway) Accepted.
( *06-035) - Recommendation to accept and authorize recording a Notice
of Completion for the Bayport Stormwater Pump Station System
Improvements. Accepted.
(*06-036) Recommendation to authorize execution of a lead-based
paint hazard reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program. Accepted.
(*06-037) Resolution No. 13920, ""Approving the Application for
California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) under the
California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and
Coastal Protection Act of 2002. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-038) Resolution No. 13921, ""Appointing Michael B. Cooper as a
member of the City Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and
(06-038A) Resolution No. 13922, ""Appointing Dora J. Dome as a
member of the City Social Services and Human Relations Board.
""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Dome.
(06-039) Resolution No. 13923, ""Commending Alameda Police
Lieutenant Bob Cranford for his contributions to the City of
Alameda. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the Resolution.
The Acting Police Chief accepted the Resolution on behalf of
Lieutenant Cranford and expressed Lieutenant Cranford's
appreciation for the Resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,3,"(06-040) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Bayport Alameda Community Building and
Park Project.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director presented drawings
outlining the schematics for the proposed park site.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the restrooms would be separate
from the community building.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the
restrooms would be separate for park access.
Councilmember deHaan stated the adjacent school property area has
asphalt; inquired whether the area would be accessible at all
times, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed trees are
appropriate for the climate, to which the Acting Recreation and
Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be adequate drainage.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated adequate drainage has been stressed throughout
the design process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether sprinkler systems would cover the
infield area.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the
specifications would address specific sprinkler systems for the
site.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the older parks have a lot of tree
root issues; inquired whether root guards were considered.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative stated the design team was very conscience of tree
type and placement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage of the
multi-purpose room, to which the Acting Recreation and Park
Director responded 1,700 square feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,4,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms
were comparable in size.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed
multi-purpose room would be larger than most.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for
the baseball and softball fields.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would
depend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could
be held at the same time for age groups under 12.
Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from
project revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit
participation, and tax increment.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great
success; the City and School District benefit when resources are
pulled together.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be
the first park built since Tilden Park in 1993.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II
(Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and
Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.
The Development Services Director provided a brief report.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business
districts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in
the past, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,5,"Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with having only
one neighborhood representative; he would prefer to have two at- -
large neighborhood representatives neighborhoods are impacted
business district representatives might not be Alameda residents.
Mayor Johnson stated that she understood the Commission's role to
be marketing, not daily management.
The Development Services Director stated the permitting process
would not change deposits are provided for police services.
Mayor Johnson stated that times were restricted when filming was
done on the bridge; police officers were present; pedestrians were
notified of detours; the Commission's role should not be
coordinating the activities.
The Development Services Director stated that the Business
Development Division Coordinator would work as the staff liaison to
coordinate various activities; the Commission would help with
inquiries and marketing; the State has developed a program to
educate neighborhoods and raise awareness.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated filming has been done on her street over
the last few years; the film production company sent someone out to
explain the filming process; stated that the experience was
positive.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his neighborhood had mixed reviews
with the filming processi the neighborhood needs to be involved
with handling location requests.
Mayor Johnson stated having someone familiar with the historical
areas of Alameda is important.
The Development Services Director suggested reducing the number of
members with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three,
adding a resident with knowledge of historic districts, and
changing the ""neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation
Society representative"" to ""neighborhood member""
Councilmember Matarrese suggested all members be Alameda residents,
except business representatives.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some film industry people work for
employers in town and should be able to be considered; the bulk of
the Commission should be Alameda residents.
Mayor Johnson stated that the majority of the Commission should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,6,"Alameda residents.
The Development Services Director stated that the initial terms
could be shortened to no longer than two years.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services
Director; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the
number of business representatives could be reduced; he would
prefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative.
The City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be
revised.
Mayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two
years.
The Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and
two years.
Councilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought
down to nine members.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
proposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working
knowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the
""neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society
representative"" to ""neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood
member with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the
majority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten
terms to one and two year staggered terms)
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.
The Development Services Director provided a brief report.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he
supports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the
community; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a
growing issue.
Jim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,7,"net services special consideration should be given to
organizations that provide education along with services; a
disaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income
families.
Robert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on
the public service needs employment, transportation, and child
care are needed in addition to improving access to affordable
housing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S
four focus areas guide in the decision making.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance
issues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the
final Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather
information about extraordinary maintenance.
Mr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the
focus information on proposed improvements is provided to
residents; resident input is requested.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding
was available.
The Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for
housing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted
and approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of
improvements needed over the next 20 years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in
developing criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance
of the organizations receiving the grants should align with the
SSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and
goals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing
should include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need
to be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the
proper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into
the measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is
expected.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback was available on
the Sentinel issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,8,"The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a
new scope of work and information would be provided to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to
receive more than the $1.3 million grant.
The Development Services Director responded next year's total
budget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds
from loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million;
program revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately
$200,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care
of the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services
Department's funding portion takes care of housing over and above
the Housing Authority.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental
rehabilitation.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority
has used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does
not plan to use the funding this year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out
with the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are
reviewed periodically.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net
provider participation is unbelievable.
Mayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,9,"(06-043) Brien Burroughs, Glass Eye Media, stated that he is
producing an independently financed television pilot at City Hall
on Thursday and Friday barriers sometimes come up when filming at
government sites; all his contacts in Alameda have been great ;
stated he appreciates the support.
(06-044) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated there is corruption in the
Planning Department a resolution was passed by the Council on June
21, , 2005 which required the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to his
home to conduct a specific soil test prior to receiving design
review; the testing was submitted; the design review was approved
and has been appealed to the Planning Board; he is unable to get a
fair hearing with the Planning Board; staff refuses to provide
accurate information; the City denies using the wrong section of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the
development; he received a $100 invoice to file a new form with the
State; he received a $1600 invoice, which includes over five hours
to discuss the project with City Attorney's office; the facts are
undisputable; urged members of the Council to appeal the decision
of the Planning Board.
Mayor
Johnson stated that Mr. Lynch should communicate his concerns
with the City Manager.
Mr. Lynch stated that he spoke with the Acting Assistant City
Manager on Thursday and has not received a reply.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that he spoke to Mr.
Lynch, the Planning Department staff, and City Attorney's office
last week; he still has one more person to contact; he will get
back to Mr. Lynch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-045
-
)
Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission. Continued.
(06-046) Councilmember deHaan stated streetscape funding was
discussed at the last Council meeting he hopes that electrical
provisions have been included to allow for embedded pedestrian
lights [ on Park Street] between Central Avenue and Santa Clara
Avenue when funding is available.
(
(06-047) Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of homes have been fire
damaged over a period of time; inquired whether remediation is
required within a certain amount of time; stated areas are an
eyesore and a nuisance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,10,"Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at
the corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down,
but nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are
needed to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain
amount of time.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on applicable
ordinances.
The City Manager stated that information would be provided to the
Council.
(06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory
was discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider
establishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City
can set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are
purchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as
natural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number
of single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought
back to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles
should follow.
(06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is
important ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to
indicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned
over the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no
longer usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs
should be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely
important.
The City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being
reviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided
to Council.
Councilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for
using hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established
vehicles should be replaced in a logical manner.
(06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use
policy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution
or ordinance; the current policy is not compliant.
The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting
the policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council
resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,11,"ADJOURNMENT
(06-051) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. in a moment of silence for City
Employee Matt Plumlee's family loss.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006- -6:05 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-025) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda.
Rosemary McNally stated that she was not a party to the lawsuit,
but had followed the Cineplex project since the Historical Advisory
Board meeting in 2005; cited the Indemnificatior Clause in the
Disposition and Development Agreement with the developer, Kyle
Connor questioned why the City is paying for Mr. Connor's defense
costs when the City says it does not have enough money for
services.
The City Attorney responded that the developer has his own
attorney; the City has a large investment risk in the project and
chose to retain its own counsel in order to best protect its own
interests in the project.
Ms. McNally thanked the Council for clarification and submitted
copy of her statement for the record.
(06-026) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m.
(06-027) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney. .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
Special Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,13,"and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council discussed the case and stated staff would
provide an Off-Agenda Report on the upcoming process; regarding
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators;
regarding City Attorney, the Council gave direction to labor
negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006 -7:29 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present :
ouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent : None.
Agenda Item
(06-028) Resolution No. 13919, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Repair
of the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike, along Shoreline Park, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requested funding was
for interim repair, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when full repair would be
completed and what the plan was for preventive maintenance.
The Public Works Director responded the schedule for the full
repair was being reviewed; larger ripraps would be added to
strengthen the armoring of the slope; the design process would take
approximately two to three months because a lot of surveying is
required; funding is the big issue; the estimate is approximately
$2 million for the riprap.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether information has been provided to the
public.
The Public Works Director responded the area has been barricaded,
and warning signs have been posted.
Mayor Johnson requested that additional signs be posted along
Shoreline Park to provide information on the seawall restoration
and to thank the public for their patience.
Councilmember deHaan stated the damage occurred because of high
tides ; inquired whether further deterioration was evident.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,15,"The Public Works Director stated the entire length of the seawall
has been inspected; the interim repair would take care of
significant deterioration; the intent is to beat the high tides
forecasted for the end of the month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether erosion occurred in other
areas.
The Public Works Director responded the $500,000 should cover all
areas that need repair.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether periodic inspections are conducted.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated future
periodic inspections are being considered.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Governor added Alameda
County to the disaster list; inquired whether funding would be
available for the repairs.
The Public Works Director responded that staff was working with the
County and Office of Emergency Services (OES) to secure Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the deterioration was
standard or the result of circumstances.
The Public Works Director responded that the current situation is
extremely accelerated; a resident raised the issue in March; staff
examined the area in April and determined that immediate attention
was not needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully budget issues would not
prevent performing a temporary fix if the City witnessed some
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that issues should be called to the Council's
attention if something similar arises.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Public Works Director for planting
trees in front of Alameda College on Appezzato Parkway.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,16,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-047 - ) Proclamation declaring January 30, 2005 through April 4,
2005 as A Season for Nonviolence in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Pat Dilks
of the Children's Learning Center representing the Youth
Collaborative.
Ms. Dilks thanked the Council for their support.
(05-048) - Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager submitted a timeline and provided an update on
the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the construction budget would be
submitted, to which the Project Manager responded that the
construction budget was set by the $17.4 million contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the spending schedule would be
provided, to which the Project Manager responded that a schedule
would be provided this month.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the steel prices were locked in
before the end of 2004, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated the rebar subcontractor withdrew because of
bankruptcy.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 05-049],
and the Resolution Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission [paragraph no. 05-054] were removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on January 18, 2005.
Mayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City
Council Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not
absent.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council
Meeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61.
(*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted.
(*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half
Moon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, ""Authorizing the Application to
CalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for
Improvements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach.
Adopted.
(05-054) Resolution No. 13813, ""Authorizing the Application to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I.""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of-
way for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,3,"involves the exercise of the right to purchase the entire Alameda
Belt Line property, not just the 22-acre site.
Mayor Johnson stated that the purchase of the right-of-way for the
linear park was separate from the down zoned area [Measure D,
2000].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the curb on Ralph Appezzato
Memorial Parkway was under the City's jurisdiction, to which the
Public Works Director responded the street from curb to curb is
within the public right-of-way
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether improvements have been made
to the area, to which the Public Works Director responded that
there were no improvements on the south side of Appezzato Memorial
Parkway because the City only owns the area to the curb; the
Alameda Belt Line property runs from the back of the curb to the
fence line.
 ouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-055) Resolution No. 13814, ""Approving Submittal of a Revised
Application, Incorporating a Flat Parking Lot and Budget
Adjustments, to the Office of Library Construction Under the
California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-056) - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300
square foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to
replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,
with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related
resolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the
C-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning
Districts. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. Applicant : Park Centre
Animal Hospital.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief overview of the project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether rezoning from R-5 to C-C would
make the existing property conform to the General Plan designation,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,4,"4
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,5,"receive notification live within 300 feet regardless of the Everett
Street or Central Avenue address.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether someone would be unaware that
Central Avenue was involved if they did not review the plans, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether use permits run with the
current proprietor or with the property, to which the Supervising
Planner responded that use permits run with the land; stated use
permits do not change the zoning.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the notice is valid, to which the
City Attorney responded that the notice complies with the
requirements of the Municipal Code and the current practices of the
Planning Department.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the dog walking
practices.
Mr. Busse stated that currently the dogs are walked on the existing
bank property as well as in the neighborhood.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dogs are boarded, to which
Mr. Busse responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is design latitude on
the Central Avenue side, to which Mr. Busse responded enhancements
have been made; additional latticework is being added.
Councilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with trees covering
the sign.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether landscaping was one foot
from the lot line and five feet from the edge of the sidewalk.
Mr. Busse responded that there would be a five foot two inch
landscape buffer from the existing sidewalk.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the project Design Review
is the only issue before the Council; good improvements have been
made.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the
notification.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project should be re-
noticed, and Design Review should be sent back to the Planning
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,6,"Board.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as
liking the design, especially the changes the architect has made
;
she is concerned about the noticing issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not
including the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have
caused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the
project delay.
Councilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design
does not fit the residential character of the neighborhood;
arguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the
existing structure; the project is a positive step.
Councilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the
Planning Board for proper notification.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went
on record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to
the Planning Board was to allow proper notification.
(05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to
rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett
Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community
Commercial; and
(05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that
Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not
introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital.
Opponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the
Planning Board for proper notification.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m.
*
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City
Manager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be
heard before the discussion regarding options for relocation
assistance [paragraph no. 05-059].
(05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an
ordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX,
Development Regulations.
Lars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that
PSBA supports establishment of the ordinance.
Mayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor
but would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade,
Regency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton,
Dog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting
the staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue
operating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(05-059) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance
legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,
demolition and condominium conversion in the ""West End Atlantic
Corridor Area"" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific
Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).
Proponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham,
Alameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association
(HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,8,"Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael
John Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre,
Alameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette
Lee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista
United Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold
Fong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda.
Neutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig
Miott, Alameda.
Opponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property
Owner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green,
Alameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO;
Merle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda
resident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda
resident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors;
Harry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former
Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management
Don Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and
Lindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda
Association of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO;
Hanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident
and RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda
resident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha
Erdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident
and RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke,
Bonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates;
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental
Housing Association of Northern Alameda County.
(05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese
moved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on
a project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and
Santa Monica; in both cases, rent control laws did not help the
people; he is concerned that someone would use the proposed
ordinance to file a lawsuit for reasons having little or nothing to
do with the Harbor Island Apartment situation; the emphasis of the
proposed ordinance is wrong by focusing on landlord/tenant
relations; involvement in landlord/tenant relations is done
informally via the Rent Review Advisory Committee; requested that
staff, landlords and residents work together to develop something
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,9,"other than an ordinance that speaks to short notice mass evictions
and voluntary relocation assistance.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to determine how local and State
statutes could be put to better use; stated the maintenance and
quality of life issues at the Harbor Island Apartments could have
been handled better.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has not met one person who
has defended the 15 Asset Management Group's action; requested
staff to review whether there is a hole in the condominium
conversion ordinance and whether there is an attempt to circumvent
the ordinance; the proposed ordinance does not address the impact
of not providing a reasonable, fair amount of public notice for
vacating the complex completely; the Alameda Unified School
District is trying to close a gap of over a million dollars ;
perhaps the 15 Asset Management Group should pay an impact fee; the
Harbor Island Apartment issue will not be resolved soon; encouraged
investment and improvement in the West End; stated process should
include social impacts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the goal should be preventing a Harbor
Island Apartment situation from happening again; the question is
how to go about it; the City needs to work to enforce current laws
the former residents suffered greatly; West End residents need to
know that they are just as important as residents in other sections
of the City; landlords have stated that the proposed ordinance will
not work from their standpoint i challenged the landlords to work
with the City and the residents and come up with a way of
preventing the situation from happening again; stated steps need to
be put in place to have it happen sooner rather than later.
Councilmember deHaan stated that redeveloping the West End will
cause displacement; a good social eye is needed for what is
occurring the City knew that something was going astray; a wedge
has been driven between the landlords and tenants; the size of the
Harbor Island Apartments makes it difficult to manage; the property
cannot afford to be kept out of the rental market; that he does not
believe the ordinance or moratorium are the answer.
Councilmember Daysog stated the concerns that people had regarding
mandatory relocation assistance could be the same concerns
regarding mandatory impacts; the City needs to be creative in
following through with a voluntary relocation program.
Mayor Johnson stated that she had no expectation that the Council
could create an ordinance tonight ; she does not think the drafted
ordinances are the answers; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,10,"Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work
together and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been
offended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of
quantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a
half, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the
complex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were
being decertified because standards were not being met; requested
the City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code
Enforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-
certification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to
react should there be another large complex that is spinning in the
same fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation.
Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not
been strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on
enforcement.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island
Apartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3
Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to
Alameda, whether State or local.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other
cities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities
have been effective.
Mayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a
policy utilizing existing ordinances.
Councilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft
voluntary relocation assistance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised
public
awarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord
representatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and
discuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants'
ideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in
developing ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again.
Mayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the
committee be brought back to Council at the next City Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that staff follow up on direction provided
tonight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,11,"Counci lember Matarrese clarified that the motion was to direct
staff to: 1) provide a compilation of indicators relating to crime,
Code Enforcement, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-certification
which would enable the Council to develop a policy on how to react,
and 2) provide a framework for a committee which would include
defining what happened at the Harbor Island Apartments and how to
prevent the situation from happening again.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog's voluntary relocation
assistance draft should be included.
Counci lmember Daysog stated the proposed committee could review his
suggestion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-061) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated the
City Attorney received a copy of the State law on rentals two years
agoi noted Committees, except those she has chaired, often do not
sunset on time; stated landlords would get together to respond to
Councilmember Gilmore's challenge [to come up with a something to
prevent a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again]
.
(05-062) Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda, thanked Councilmember
Daysog for returning property he left in the Chambers at a previous
meeting.
(05-063) Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that
he could provide Council with copies of the rental housing laws.
(05-064) Arch Woodliff, Alameda, noted that he chaired the
committee which dealt with rent in 1974 and first founded the Rent
Review Advisory Committee.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Social Service Human Relations Board. [Partial term expiring June
30, 2007]
Mayor Johnson nominated Dennis Hanna for appointment to the SSHRB.
(05-066) - ) Vice Mayor Gilmore request staff to provide information on
the cost for filing an appeal; stated Mr. Barni indicated his
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,12,"Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 -6:45 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
( 05-044) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Younger-Wunar, Inc. V. City of Alameda.
(05-045) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Younger-Wunar Inc. V.
City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions
were given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Gallagher & Burke, Inc.
V. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions
were given to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members
Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
JOINT ACTION:
(05-046CC/05-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly
Financial Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that the report
shows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the
Fiscal Year and recommended adjustments.
The Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view;
matters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8
million deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented
at the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated
revenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget
the estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and
appropriations.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired how much of
the projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which
the Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether
there would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that a budget
adjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of
$4.8 million.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious
problem.
  ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of
the staff recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,15,"Councilmember/Commissioner/BoardMember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION:
05-006CIC) Resolution #05-133, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First
Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS,
Inc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs) Adopted.
Lars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the
resolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic
Alameda theatre.
Duane Watson encouraged building the parking structure.
Debbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in
moving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the
Alameda theatre, and the new theatre complex.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre
project has been a long time coming.
Chair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the
theatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be
taken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,16,"Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,17,"MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05 5-01) - Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement
Corporation Meeting of February 3, 2004.
Board Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Board Members Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions : Board Member deHaan -
1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Alameda Public Improvement
Corporation
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.
2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of
California's Closed Military Bases.
Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy
and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first
phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a
presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the
Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let
them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a
draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal
counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.
Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board
on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the
actions that were underway relative to the historic district.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,2,"On
Saturday,
Jan
22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group
came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We
had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.
Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that
one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our
first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation
commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and
specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.
Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can
really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on
that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.
Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation
Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that
they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments
came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments
independent of those workshops.
Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what
they might have said.
Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5
million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on
Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent
@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.
Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud
replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a
couple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see
anything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up
in any extraordinary way in the near future.
Member DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this
budget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre
development period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC
There were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives
from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening
therefore there were no members available for an oral report.
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,3,"5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility
study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.
This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of
action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation
activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February
3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community
workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March
23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development
increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February
18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss
transportation with a BART liaison committee.
Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may
need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.
Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would
be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but
that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed
for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission
host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already
been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well
attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Leslie Little Development Services
Director, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Remove Item 1 from agenda per the City Attorney's office. (see below.)
MINUTES:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
Certificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential
structure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design
Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued
from 9-9-04)
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the City Attorney's office contacted the State Historic
Preservation Office for guidance regarding the listing of the property and procedure of
processing the Certificate of Approval. We were advised that it was inappropriate for the
Historical Advisory Board to list the site on the Historical Building Study List, or consider a
Certificate of Approval for demolition because the building was already demolished and no
longer meets any of the criteria for being considered as a historic resource. Thus, rather than
being a historical preservation issue for Historical Advisory Board consideration, the scope of
work permitted under the issued building permit is in question. Staff requests that the Board
remove this item from the agenda.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,2,"M/S (Miller, Lynch) to remove this item from the agenda. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.
2.
Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7
screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located
at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned
Development Districts.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, informed the Board that Staff would like direction
from the Board regarding the proposed rehabilitation and construction of the 2 story multiplex
and the 352 space parking structure. She expects the project should be ready for a Planning
Board public hearing in mid March.
Michael Stanton, consultant, gave a presentation which included a brief history of the theater
and showed the Board what is proposed. He informed the Board that the lobby and auditorium
of the Alameda Theater will be restored to look as it did in 1939 when it opened for the first
time. The second floor of the lobby, will also be restored. The balcony area is not included in
this first phase. The marquee will be restored as well.
In designing the new Cineplex, it is noted that, according to the guidelines from the Secretary of
Interior, new construction should be clearly differentiated from the existing historic building.
There will be retail on the street level corner of Central Ave. and Oak Street. There are four
theaters proposed on the second level and three theaters proposed for the ground floor.
The proposed 352-parking garage will not only serve the Theater, but all of Park St. It is
designed so that it can be easily expanded in the future.
Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Richard Rutter, AAPS, felt that the design should emphasize a vertical articulation, not
horizontal. The materials used should be high quality such as pressed brick or terra cotta. The
parking garage should not look like a parking garage. AAPS felt that the previous parking
garage proposal prepared for the Long's Drug Store site was headed in a better direction.
Although windows are probably not possible on the upper floors of the new theater at the
Oak/Central corner, it should not be treated as a blank wall. Some suggestions include surface
articulation (such as on the existing Alameda Theater), and false windows. The design should
not be too modernistic. He also showed the Board pictures of other projects including the
Livermore Theater which might be good prototypes for the new Alameda Theater annex. He
feels that the corner of Central and Oak St. should be set back from the corner as the Twin
Towers Church across the street is.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS stated that the corners should be rounded to mimic the original structure.
Chair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened the floor for Board
communication.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,3,"Leslie Little stated that the DDA would be ready for hearing sometime in March. The City
Council has taken action to allow staff to purchase the Video Maniac's parcel.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board a request for Certificate of Approval for the structural
alterations relating to the seismic strenghthening of the front façade, the new openings between
the theatre and the new Cineplex, and the new opening for the concession stand. Ms. Altschuler
also noted that the community would also have chance to speak at the Planning Board hearings.
The Board thanked Leslie Little and her team for a nice presentation and they all look forward
for this project to begin.
REPORTS:
3.
Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal
Code regulating Work Live Studios.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the City Council directed staff to agenize a review of the
Work/Live Ordinance by the Planning Board, the Historical Advisory Board and the Economic
Development Commission. The Council asks the Historical Advisory Board to review the
Ordinance in general, with specific focus on whether the ordinance protects historic buildings,
and whether the Ordinance should be changed to expand the geographic limitations on work/live
studios to include other portions of the City such as the Park Street or Webster Street
Commercial Districts, more of the Northern Waterfront area, or Alameda Point.
Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Dick Rutter, AAPS, feels that the Ordinance should state that the kitchens should not be located
near the work area. He feels that this Ordinance is a good tool in preserving Historical
Buildings, and that it should be extended to include the former Navy Base. He also stated that
Measure A is an issue that the community should be educated on.
Chair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Miller feels that the Work/Live Ordinance is not a threat to Measure A, and has
no problem expanding this to Alameda Point.
Chair McPherson stated that Board needs to ask themselves if there is anything that the
Work/Live Ordinance could do to threaten Historic Preservation. She does not feel that the
Board should recommend that the area be expanded to any commercial buildings on Park St. or
Webster St. Chair McPherson also feels that the current ordinance may have too many
limitations on developers. She would like to see this item on a future agenda so that Staff can
outline all of the current limitations for the Board.
Ms. Altschuler agreed that Staff can create a list or a table listing all of the limitations such as
zoning, density, parking and specific uses. Staff will try to have this ready for the April meeting.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,4,"Board member Lynch asked staff to find out how much the Work/Live permit would cost, how
the permit would be enforced and would the occupant be advised of any limitations.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the Work/Live permit fee has not yet been determined.
There would be an individual use permit required for each project, as well as a business license
for each use. A deed restriction would also be required. If an applicant is in violation of the
conditions of their use permit, it can be revoked by the Planning Board.
M/S to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. (Miller/Lynch) 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
4.
Consideration and possible recommendation to the City Council to revise the definition
of demolition in the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Altschuler began by informing the Board that it has become more difficult for Staff to
determine whether a project meets the Historic Preservation Ordinance's definition of demolition
which states that demolition occurs when 30% of the value of the building is removed. This
definition has been challenging to administer because the meaning of ""value of the building"" can
have many interpretations, thus there is no clear indication when a proposal includes a
demolition and when it does not. For example, if the value of the building is based upon
assessed value, two identical buildings could have a different assessed value (depending upon
when it was last sold or whether it has Proposition 13 protection), and a larger portion of a
building with a higher assessment could be removed before a demolition would occur. If value
was dependent upon the cost of the work or materials, then more of a well-maintained, well-
constructed property could be removed than a deteriorated one before the removal would meet
the definition of demolition.
Staff has reviewed the definition of demolition for a number of jurisdictions. Most have
language similar to that for the City of Davis which states:
""Demolition"" means for the purpose of this article, any act or failure to act that destroys,
removes, or relocates, in whole or in part a historical resource such that its historic character and
significance is materially altered.
This approach depends upon the discretion of staff rather than a qualitative method to determine
when demolition has taken plan. The current Alameda definition is a better attempt at providing
a more objective determination. However, even this definition is not sufficiently clear to allow
both staff and the property owner to know when a structure is proposed to be demolished
according to the Code. The Cities of San Jose and Los Gatos take a very objective approach. In
San Jose, demolition is defined as"" the removal of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls
of a building.' In Los Gatos the definition is the ""removal of more than twenty-five (25) percent
of a wall(s) facing a public street(s) or fifty (50) percent of all exterior walls.""
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,5,"Staff has prepared two Alternatives for the Board to consider. Ms. Altschuler informed the
Board that this would require a recommendation to City Council to change to the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
Allen Tai, Planner II, presented two different examples of projects for the Board to review and
determine which they feel should be considered a demolition under the current definition.
Chair McPherson wished to remind the community that this Board is not saying no to all
demolitions, but would like applications to come before the Board so they can have the chance to
look at it prior to demolition.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that she feels that as a result of 1025 Fair Oaks and 1104 Oak St; the
30% (of the value) rule is not fair to anyone involved. 30% of a home worth $800,000.00 is
$240,000.00 which could be a huge demolition. She is in favor of Alternative #1.
Rosemary McNally stated that she is leaning more towards more that 5% of the front of the
building. She also stated that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Francie Farinet. AAPS, is in favor of Alternative #2. She is not sure what the solution should
be.
Chuck Miller stated that it is obvious that there needs to be clear guidelines. He feels that the
front should be separate percentage from the rest of the house. In most houses the front façade is
only around 20% of the house. He also feels that the roof is very important architecturally and
should be taken seriously.
Chair McPherson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Board member Miller asked which alternative would be best for staff.
Ms. Altschuler stated that the purpose of either alternative is to have a better discussion with the
applicant regarding if a demolition permit is necessary.
Chair McPherson stated she is leaning towards Alternative #1 but would like staff to add
verbiage to include roof removal as part of the definition.
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,6,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch informed the Board that she received an e-mail from Elizabeth Johnson
regarding the Alameda Point Community Workshop that will be held on March 3, 2005, which is
the same time as the Regular HAB meeting. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this
meeting will be hosted by the Planning Board and that Staff will look for an available night to
hold a Special HAB meeting.
Chair McPherson stated that she spoke to Bill Norton, Interim City Manager, regarding specific
interests that the Historical Advisory Board might have. She would also like to staff to agenize
permit fee'e relating to Historic Preservation for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that her last official meeting as their Secretary would be
April 7, 2005. She also stated that we are currently in the process of interviewing for the Planner
III position and hopes that it will be filled prior to her leaving. Ms. Altschuler will be devoting
most of her remaining time to working on the Development Code revisions and completing the
Guide to Residential Design. Ms. Altschuler also thanked AAPS for helping with the graphics
for the Guide. She stated that Allen Tai would most likely be the ""Interim"" Secretary to this
Board until the Supervising Planner position is filled.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-02-09,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
February 9, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Leslie Krongold, President
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of February 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 12, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of December 2004. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures
(by fund) through January 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Main Library Project Update and Ground Breaking
Board member Butter asked about the budget for the Main Library project. She was
concerned about the negative $569,044 shown in the Revenue/Expenditures column. She
also said, and other Board members agreed, that this budget format is difficult to
understand. Library Director Hardie agreed that this budget is not easily understood, and
said she would speak with the Project Manager to see whether the format could be
improved. She also assured the Board that the project is not overspent.
On the subject of reports to the Board, members are disappointed that Mr. Haun is not
reporting directly to them. Library Director Hardie explained that the Library Board is
receiving exactly the same information as the City Council gets each month from Mr.
Haun. She said that this is the reporting format that the City has decided on, and
mentioned that the presentations are broadcast on City cable. Dr. Mitchell asked what
information is contained in the presentations, and Library Director Hardie replied that
Mr. Haun simply reviews the information in the Construction Report, which the Board
also receives. She said that she attends all of the Project Manager's presentations and
would be glad to take notes and report to the Board if anything of significance occurs.",LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-02-09,2,"Library Director Hardie handed out invitations to the groundbreaking ceremony. She
stated that the Library is spending a minimal amount of money on this ceremony. The
State Librarian and Wilma Chan have agreed to speak at the ceremony.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
The building team did not met this month.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation had their second dinner party with the
fundraising consultants. Their goal is to raise $500,000.
C
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that there will be a clearance book sale at the ""O"" Club on the
President's Day weekend.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Library Building Watch did not meet this month.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert asked if there would still be money to upgrade the branch libraries.
Library Director Hardie answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lambert handed out an
invitation for a library support event on Friday in San Francisco.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Belikove commented on the newspaper article regarding the Berkeley
Library's purchase of a $650,000 RFID system to track their books.
Board member Butter commented on Unique Management Services. She wonders if it is
very beneficial to the library. Library Director Hardie stated that it is teaching patrons
that they need to return their books. She feels that it is a very useful in having library
items returned in a timely manner along with their unpaid fines. UMS promises that their
invoices will always be less than the money we collect. If at anytime invoices exceed
revenues, the balance of invoices which exceed revenues will be waived by UMS.
Vice President Belikove commented on another article regarding banning gay books in
Alabama.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie reported on Day in the District to the Board. Vice President
Belikove, Marilyn Ashcraft and Marc Lambert also attended.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, February 10, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Suzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Fred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of December 9, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVESIJOHNSON
(approved)
""That the Minutes of December 9, 2004 be approved with the addition that the cell
tower container should be reduced in height."" (on page 2, paragraph 7)
In Favor (4) - Ingram, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
Absent (0) -
Abstention (1) - Kahuanui
Approve Minutes of January 13, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/KAHUANUI
(unanimously approved)
""That the Minutes of January 13, 2005 be approved.""
In Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,2,"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.
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -
(Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard provided the 2005 Fee Schedule and Surveys for the Recreation and Park
Commission's review.
Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and Alameda High School
representative stated that the groups he represents donate a lot of time and materials to
help keep the fields that they use in good condition. Charging a per player charge may
influence the Boards of the different organizations as far as how much they will be willing to
donate. He commented that what extent will the Boards be willing to invest grant monies,
if they are paying the per player charge. The Commission needs to keep their registration
fees in mind.
Nino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer representative, stated that Alameda Soccer has invested
over $350,000 to date. Conceptually the group understands what is driving the fee, but
feels that the Sports Advisory Committee needs more information and better research.
Questions raised were: What is the operating budget? What are the groups bringing in?
And, how does that offset the budget? A lot of the youth play multiple sports. Will they be
charged multiple times for the different sports they are playing? Conceptually the group
understands the fee and is not opposed to it, but want to make sure that there is equity
consideration. They groups would like to see more research done before the fee is
implemented.
Commissioner Reeves stated that between soccer groups represented by Mr. Borsoni and
baseball teams represented by Mr. Matthews that is approximately 98 percent use of the
fields. So assuming Mr. Reeves wanted to go out and play baseball with a group of friends,
he would not be able to because the fields would be in use by these groups. These groups
are the only ones using the fields and they need to be maintained. These fields are being
maintained for these organizations. The Commission is open to alternatives. Your groups
are using the fields and they need to be maintained. Fields are being maintained for their
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,3,"use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative.
Mr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see
some long-term planning.
Mr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has
significant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups
have supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing,
etc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play
charge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the
budget.
Phil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Borsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and
the concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance
that these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only.
Dave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr.
Borsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all
groups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the
maintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is
estimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the
groups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups
volunteering time and funds.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for
overnight camping in a Beltline Park.
Chair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with
volunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if
that was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in
other cities.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500
toward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissioner Oliver asked if the group would
be willing to provide volunteer help in addition to their donation. Mr. Johnson stated yes.
Chair Ingram suggested that this item be turned back over to the Sports Advisory
Committee to get a consensus on the per player fee.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he is concerned about meeting the budget and
suggested tabling this item for a month until alternatives can be reviewed.
M/S/C
REEVES/OLIVER
(approved)
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,4,"""That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. ""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(Approved)
That the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:
BASKETBALL
Adult
$610.00 Resident Team Fee
$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SOFTBALL
Adult
$620.00 Resident Team Fee
$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
FLAG FOOTBALL
Adult
$598.00 Resident Team Fee
$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee
SWIM LESSONS
$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident
($50 for two-week session)
$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident
($60 for two-week session)
SWIM TEAMS USE FEE
Hourly Rate:
$5/hr./youth & adult
(currently)
$11/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./adult
(beginning January 2006)
$12/hr./youth
(beginning January 2006)
$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)
TENNIS
Adult Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Junior Group Lessons
$ 11/hour
Private Lessons
$ 42/hour
YOUTH
Day Camp
$120/week - Hidden Cove
$135/week - Trails End
$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care
$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care
Preschool
$ 4/hour
YOUTH SPORTS
Fall, Winter, Spring
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,5,"- Football
$ 75/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
- Basketball
$ 65/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
- Soccer
$ 60/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City
Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
RSM Lillard reviewed the draft proposal that was included in the Commission packet.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the document was very well done and addressed
the items that the Commission had identified. Commissioner Ingram stated that the
document was good but added that he wanted to make sure that the finished product
included wording similar to #4 in the City of Seattle example regarding recovery of
associated costs. RSM Lillard agreed to incorporate the item and to bring the next revision
back to the Commission in April.
B.
Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -
(Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard informed the Commission that the City Clerk's Office had contacted staff with
regard to scheduling the Annual Joint Meeting with Council. It was originally proposed to
meet on a Wednesday evening in March, but the Council is unable to attend any of those
dates. The Clerk's office is now attempting to schedule a date in April.
C.
Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments
Including Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
RSM Lillard reviewed the draft copy of the Commission Goals and Objectives with the
Commission. After discussion the following items were included under Accomplishments
and Goals:
Accomplishments
Completion of the Marina Water Front Park
Renaming of the former Officers' Club in honor of former Vice-Mayor Albert H. Dewitt
Approval of the Public Art pieces for the Library Project
Inclusion of the Water Station in the Drainage Project at the Dog Park
Opened discussions for use of Alameda Point fields by local youth organizations
Continue growth towards increasing cost recovery through introduction of new
Programs
Goals
Note that SB2404 related to equality for girls and women's sports.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,6,"A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)
The Northern Waterfront Committee has been disbanded.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
3.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Chair Ingram stated that on Thursday, March 3rd, , at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall there will be an
Alameda Point Community Workshop. The presentation will focus on the four most
frequently raised issues in the previous two workshops: historic preservation,
transportation, Measure A, and financial feasibility.
4.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
RSM Lillard stated that in the Fall 2004 staff completed preliminary work on drainage for
the Dog Park. There is a second Phase which is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to
put in some extensive drainage. The project is in the design phase at this time. There is
$30,000 allocated for the drainage portion of the project.
Commissioner Johnson stated that there were some funds donated for agility equipment for
the Dog Park. RSM Lillard stated that the agility equipment is custom built and is pending
staff gathering information.
Harry Hartman expressed concern about having fresh water stations. RSM Lillard stated
that fresh water stations are included in the drainage project. It is hoped that the project
will be completed by the summer. Any communication that can be given to the Dog Park
users would be helpful.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-02-10,7,"9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, March 10, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.
7
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David
Valeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein,
Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it
on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized
for the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the
Board members to provide written comments sooner.
Mr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing
requirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments.
He noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,2,"invite communication and participation from the public.
Vice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting
materials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the
resolution and on the agenda.
Ms. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed
due to the discrepancy.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,4,"7-B.
UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of January 24, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on
the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the
March 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach
on the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did
not approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed
publicly.
Mr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was
speaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted
that since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired
whether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped
that American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the
softball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of
the public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual
impact.
Mr. Jason Peary, project manager, American Tower, noted that they would address the suggestions
made in the comments and that they would work with Mr. Arnerich and Mr. Ingram.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that he spoke with Mr. Ingram the previous week. He agreed that the building's
visual impact should be minimized.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the visual impact of the container.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,5,"Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various
technologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to
know why this site is critical to the applicant's operation.
Ms. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the
next hearing.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda
Theatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video
Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal
with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined
parking garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted
that the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had
three components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new
seven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352-
space parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design
elements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to
show the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components
working in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the
members of the development team.
Mr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the
proposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a
variety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles.
Ms. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history,
approach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and
layout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the
theater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades.
Mr. Stanton noted that this would be one of the most important buildings in town, and added that the
design guidelines included a clear differentiation between the historic portion of the building and the
new construction. He described the layout of the theater and the disabled access, as well as the
supporting functions of the project. He requested Board comment on five principle aspects of the
design guidelines as sent by staff:
1.
Bulk and massing;
2.
Architectural form and articulation;
3.
Lighting;
4.
Signage; and
5.
Materials and colors.
The design team believed that the massing should be oriented toward Oak and Center. They believed
that both facades were equally important in terms of design significance. While the ground level
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,7,"retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater
should be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to
read as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street.
The design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and
Articulation:
1.
The second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to
bring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street.
2.
The strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in
the new design;
3.
The design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter
the pedestrians in the street;
4.
The frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should
be left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street;
5.
All mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and
6.
The individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the
property line to improve the general massing of the theater.
The lighting recommendations were:
1.
The overall lighting should be subdued and indirect;
2.
The canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the
public sidewalk;
3.
Concealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section;
4.
Exterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and
5.
Lighting will be available in a vacant retail space.
The signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent
with the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels,
glass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be
available to the developers.
Mr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at
the next meeting. He noted that gates should not be necessary; there will be six levels, with the
greatest massing in the middle of the block.
President Cunningham advised that seven speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,8,"Page 8
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,9,"speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main
auditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to
accommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be
evoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for
the renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for
construction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of
acquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate.
President Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had
integrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable
original fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on
the exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of
the big box and emphasizing the vertical elements.
Vice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards
the library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become
available to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby
with a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage
exits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls.
Regarding public art, Ms. Little noted that the historic theater itself would be an art piece; she
described the ""phantom gallery"" program, in which community artists rotate displays of their artwork
in a single venue. Vice President Cook believed the north side of the building would be a good
location for a mural or similar art piece. Ms. Little noted that staff was concerned about a mural
because the project may be expanded and the mural would be blocked.
President Cunningham believed the blank wall should have some modulation.
Vice President Cook did not object to the horizontal nature of the new theater; she liked the idea of
the interior public space along Central Avenue being part of the street scene; she did not like the
large square edifice on the corner. Mr. Stanton suggested that the Board direct the developer's team
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,10,"to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.
President Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft
protection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers
Church, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden
opportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the
existing community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.
Mr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot
function without the historic theater.
Vice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she
suggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it ""shall project two feet over the sidewalk""; Mr.
Stanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that
the false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice
President Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of
the exterior materials.
President Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions
as they pertain to the project.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware
of the signage requirements in Alameda.
Mr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used
more often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket
queuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.
Mr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return
for another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;
No action was taken.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Board members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,11,"8-B.
Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt
an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the
Theater Overlay District designation.
Mr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff
report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the
zoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft
Resolution.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet.
Ms. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
February 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,12,"8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank
Mulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement
action on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling
unit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances
to legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include:
a. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is
required for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story.
b. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty
feet is required.
c.
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between
the main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required.
d. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation
between the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot
landscaped separation is required.
e.
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is
approximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum
of ten feet.
f. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation
between the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped
separation is required.
g. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where
a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units.
Mr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major
Design Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code
Enforcement.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was
surprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was
never a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage
was intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been
there. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial.
Mr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his
neighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a
workshop.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a
garage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,13,"President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they
conform to the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr.
Piziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized
that the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required
findings.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and
Major Design Review.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the
workshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly
encouraged.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Presentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop.
Mr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of
the issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop
to be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised
that the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated
having a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by
summer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial
feasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end
of March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the
Estuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's
General Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run.
Mr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints,
challenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues to be covered during the March 3
workshop, including the Officer's Club, Big Whites, BOQ, historic preservation, transportation
constraints.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-14,15,"M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.
AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use
discussion.
Mr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note:
Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02
p.m. to travel on City business. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-072) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to
designate the City of Alameda as an official ""Coast Guard City. ""
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef
and Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy
League. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast
Guard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral
Breckenridge.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
a correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *05-073) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 1, 2005. Approved.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular
meeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead
of p.m.
( *05-074) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,2,"(*05-075) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
( *05-076) Resolution No. 13815, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
(*05-077) Resolution No. 13816, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) .
Adopted.
(*05-078) Resolution No. 13817, ""Amending the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by
Establishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control
Clerk. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-079) Resolution No. 13818, ""Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a
Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Hanna with a Certificate of Appointment.
(05 -080 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five
to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created;
Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2-9.3
(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced.
Mayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase
because there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course,
including the new clubhouse; having two more members would help
with the workload; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea.
The Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large
operation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major
changes at the golf course that require financial overview in the
next few years.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was
lowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park
Commission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,3,"Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are
established by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make
changes boards established by Charter would be difficult to
change.
Councilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides
flexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard.
Mayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-081) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for
Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P. W.
10-02-13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the
Merged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the new
streetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but
are state-of-the-art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete
Alameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the
Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster
Street Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any
complaints.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire
sidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made
regarding Park Street.
The Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park
Street is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending
into the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street
sidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which
would be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,4,"money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin
earning interest to mitigate the reduction.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired
how the liability would be covered.
The Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,5,"the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover
any State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state
the bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the
State.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no
impact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to
deal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year.
Mayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was
very interesting and a good strategy.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue
and appropriations.
The Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget
adjustments.
Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.
The Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing
emergency medical coordination.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance
overview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS,
which is the medical authority responsible for administering
licenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and
quality assurance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS
budget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives
a copy of the budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which
the Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to
which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,6,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the
County reviews compliance with protocols and licensing.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to
determine why it is so expensive to be part of the system.
The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with
more detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in
mutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual
aid assistance from outside agencies.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to
enter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response
(AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and
Alameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided
and received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in
Oakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often
times it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR
takes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the
Advanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money
back from the County contract.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for
ambulance service is set by the County contract the City should
charge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher
than the cap set by the County the City should review the rates
charged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to
charge more to recover service costs from users.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum
charge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to
charge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not
pay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not
charged more and only charges a prevailing rate.
The Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased
permit fee could be charged for providing premium service since
there is such a high demand, the Interim City Manager stated there
is an expedited permit fee and some developers have paid for an
outside contract service that the City administers.
The Interim City Manager continued his review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,7,"Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors
would remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total
reduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions
in non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the
budget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on
the General Fund reserves for the fiscal year.
Mayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December;
inquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million.
The Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had
expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased
another $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes
(PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council,
resulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate
funds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager,
Chinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately
$256,000 impact.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional
Firefighters would have an impact on overtime.
The Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would
start the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in
salaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not
be a net benefit for the current fiscal year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in
future years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was
required to be set aside.
The Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside
for accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the
total accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10
million.
The Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5
million required in set aside and removing loans to other funds,
the amount remaining is $8.9 million; if action is not taken, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,8,"reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State
governments have deficits other cities are making staff
reductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per
month; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is
due to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in
the PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments
have not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be
raised significantly.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being
made without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has
been a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be
brought in line with economic realities; the City might face
equally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City
needs to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will
be integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow
the City to postpone dealing with the situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to
implement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next
four or five years; the City needs to be prepared.
Councilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were
needed; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent
overtime and short staffing issues.
The Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two
positions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but
he is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is
absolutely required.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in
police and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the
streets.
The Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced
in a department without recognizing that there will be an impact;
both the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort
to have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay
in processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill
following officer promotions, there will be an impact.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the
impacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters
would be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies
are projected in the Fire Department.
The Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,9,"9
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City
has to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service
levels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed,
information should be brought to Council before the situation is an
emergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its
services; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft
priorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library
services are intangibles that prevent the need for additional
police officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to
ensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole.
Acting Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity
of the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of
the issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the
best decision given the resources available; the City needs to
continue to get out the word because sooner or later the average
citizen will be impacted.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider
direction to review terminating the police boat water services;
stated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay
property taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as
well; that he would like to have options to help find an
alternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or
some other service levy that can be presented to the public; the
matter should be brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million
budget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time
expenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole
in the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA
budget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is
reviewing alternatives.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the
ARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development
Services Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA
budget as much as possible, as soon as possible; the current ARRA
budget cannot be sustained; one or two months into the next fiscal
year, keeping the operation going will be problematic.
Councilmember Daysog stated problems in the ARRA budget could seep
into to General Fund budget.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a review of
the ARRA budget shortly, to which the Interim City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,11,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-084) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop
would be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held
February 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around
the West End.
(05-085) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged
residents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda stated sales
tax revenues need to increase.
(05-086) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone
to attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event
February 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-087) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area
Governments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos
on the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend
the meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen
to the discussion.
(05-088 ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to
the League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been
involved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he
would be willing to be the City's representative.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a
future agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at
6:20 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmember/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor/Chair
Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-070CC/05-007CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation Name of cases Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor/Chair Johnson
announced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore
adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-071) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations:
Management and Confidential Employees Association, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non-
Sworn.
Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced
that the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to
Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner
Anthony Corica and Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: None. Also
present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 19, 2005
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program
(Action Item).
The item was tabled until the next regular meeting.
3-B
Update on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
The General Manager reported that he has met with Interim City Manager, Bill
Norton, to discuss the project. Back in November 2004 the approval of the
contract for design services for the project with the Dahlin Group was pulled off
the City Council Agenda. The possibility of purchasing the plans from the City of
San Mateo's Poplar Creek clubhouse have been discussed as a cost saving effort.
The building is smaller than originally desired for the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex, although it is very functional and aesthetically pleasing. It would still
be advisable to have the Dahlin Group oversee the Master Plan for the project.
The General Manager has contacted the City of San Mateo and they are willing to
discuss the purchase of the plans although no price has been determined and",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,2,"Dahlin Group who actually designed the clubhouse at Poplar Creek is still
interested in doing the Master Plan. Definite savings would be seen by
purchasing the plans although other factors exist. The sites are different and that
needs to be taken into consideration. Minor changes would be made to the plans
to give it originality and personalize it to the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, but to
change the plans too much would not take full advantage of purchasing the plans.
The purchase of the plans would also help with community support due to the fact
that the building is constructed and functioning removing the concern over how it
would look and function. The feasibility of the underground cart storage has been
removed from the plans due to the instability of the soil and the cost involved.
The General Manager has also been in contact with Bob Haun of the City of
Alameda's Development Services Department. Mr. Haun is currently overseeing
the new library project and the General Manager is hopeful that he could be
brought on to help with the clubhouse project. The General Manager at Poplar
Creek, Tim Heck has mentioned he is more than willing to meet with the Golf
Commissioners and answer any construction questions they may have.
3-C
Discussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range.
The General Manager reported that over the past month the Golf Commissioners
have gone out to the Driving Range and the Mif Albright Course to visualize the
potential plans for a new practice area. Commissioner Wood drew up a design
and gave it to the Golf Commission. He explained the plan is to use the first and
ninth holes on the Mif Albright Course and redesign that course. A new tee
would be placed east of the current 1st green and trees along the slough would be
removed to open up the area and the 2nd green would become the 1st green.
A
new tee would be placed on #5 and that hole would be cut in half, the hole is
currently 191 yards and represents the greatest hazard on the course. A new green
would be placed on #9 also and that hole would be shortened. The area would be
lit up at night by redirecting lights at the Driving Range and a synthetic putting
green placed in the area. The area would be able to be open at night, which is a
feature the competitors (Metropolitan and Monarch Bay) do not offer. Another
area being researched is to place heaters above at least ten (10) of the covered
stalls at the Driving Range. The General Manager has been in contact with a
vendor that is responsible for setting up radiant heating elements at Driving
Ranges throughout the Pacific Northwest. The cost of the project is
approximately $5,000. The concern was voiced that electric power was much
more expensive than natural gas and that should be considered. The desire is to
capture a nighttime clientele at the Driving Range and Practice Area. Another
idea being considered was possibly building a family fun center on the par 3
course, including a miniature golf course and batting cages. The City of Alameda
has no facility fulfilling these needs currently. Although through discussion, the
Golf Commissioners voiced opposition to the idea. The revenue from these
services could pay the debt service on the new clubhouse project. The current
trend with stand-alone driving ranges across the nation is to incorporate these
features into their facilities to increase revenues. The suggestion was made to
place trees behind the covered hitting stalls to block the wind. The General",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,3,"All of the tee areas have been aerated and top seeded and should be in good shape
for the spring. The tee renovations will be done in house by the Maintenance
Department.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the Pro Shop has been
redesigned to make it more inviting for the customers and it flows better.
The large double doors behind the counter will now be open for customers",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,4,"and there will be three ways to enter.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the Golf Complex is working to
improve customer service in all areas. The reorganization of the Pro Shop
and staff are being done to provide a friendlier atmosphere. Also reported
was that the Mayor has proposed an ordinance to increase the Golf
Commission from five (5) members to seven (7) members. The ordinance
was approved by the City Council at their meeting last night. The
approval still needs to go through another approval and then a 30-day
waiting period prior to the appointment of the new Golf Commissioners.
The meetings will need to be held in a larger area, possibly the City
Council Chambers. The Senior Golf Club has about 120 members and
held a General Meeting this month, which was well attended. The Golf
Complex is looking into additional advertising and is considering an ad in
the Japanese Yellow Pages and Golf Today magazine. Another
advertising avenue being sought is at SBC Park in San Francisco. The
advertising will be in a partnership with Poplar Creek Golf Course and
will be seen by 7 million people over the spring and summer. The cost for
the advertising is approximately $8,000 for the year.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that three groups are waiting to schedule tree
plantings. Also reported was that the local television station that televises
the City Council meetings has the Golf Commission meeting listed at 7:30
pm not 7:00 pm. The General Manager will see that it is corrected.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Chair Swanson stated that in reference to some of the long range plans
discussed that the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is an institution and we
need to maintain the character of it. Customers may need to pay a bit
more to secure that experience. Chair Swanson also reported that he has
met with the Mayor and Interim City Manager and discussed having
regular joint meetings between the City Council and Golf Commission to
discuss issues and exchange ideas and information.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that there was an incident on Sunday,
February 13, 2005. Between the hours of 5:30 am and 6:30 am an",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,5,"individual entered the maintenance yard on a bicycle and stole a pickup
truck and some tools. One of the maintenance works had left the keys in
the truck and since it was the weekend and a limited crew was working, no
one was in the yard. The vehicle stolen was a 1993 Ford pickup and a
police report was filed. The vehicle has not yet been found.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
Secretary Santare stated that he is please with the schedule of work to be
done on the tees.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.
Commissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)
courses was down 31% for the month of January 2005 as compared to
January 2004, with play also down by 31%. The large decrease in play is
in part due to the increase and severity of the rain days (14) during the
month. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is down 12% and revenue from
golf is down 3%, as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. Most Bay Area
courses have experienced similar or larger declines in play. All ancillary
services were slightly below from last January with the exception of the
sale of monthly and annual tickets. The Golf Complex showed a loss for
the month of $117,318 for the month and a net profit of $94,255 for the
first seven months of fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $195,000 from
the last fiscal year. The City of Alameda has included a charge for Return
on Investment (ROI), which goes into the General Fund.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood stated that the financial state of the Golf Complex
could very well delay the approval of the Clubhouse Project. The General
Manager stated that the Mayor, City Council and citizens really want to
see the project proceed. The project needs to be scaled down to fit into the
budget of the Golf Complex for the project to succeed. The additional
improvements bundled into the CIP could be done over time and not all at
once. The positive aspect is that the Golf Complex has been self sufficient
for many years and has a proven record of making money and paying its
own way.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-02-16,6,"None to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for January 2005 of $7,483.
The year-to-date total is $99,494 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
February 23, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
Jeff Knoth
Patianne Parker
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50)
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
Carol Beaver - Division Manager, Development Services
Andrew Thomas - Supervising Planner, Planning and Building
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the December minutes, which was seconded by
Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
3.AGENDA CHANGES
4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4A.
TMP Subcommittee Appointment: Grid System and Strategies for Implementation
Chair Knox White proposed that the existing subcommittee that developed the draft TMP
policies remain in place for the implementation portion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The
Commissioners supported this recommendation.
5.ORALCOMMUNICATIONS-NON-AGENDIZEDI - ITEMS
None.
6.OLD BUSINESS
1",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,2,"6A. Updated TMP Schedule
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and described staff's recommended revisions to the
previously approved TMP schedule. He noted that the bicycle plan update would be the first of
the modal plans to be undertaken, and suggested that the effort be coordinated with the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) effort to update the countywide bicycle plan.
He stated that CMA staff have indicated that the City's project recommendations for the
countywide plan would have to be submitted by the summer, so it would not be possible to
complete the City's plan update in time. Therefore, staff recommended that the bicycle plan
update proceed on two tracks: 1) identify projects to be recommended for inclusion in the
countywide plan, and 2) undertake the complete update of the plan. This would enable the
timely submittal of the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan, which would
help enhance Alameda's efforts to compete for grant funds.
Chair Knox White indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee of two commissioners to
oversee the development of the bicycle plan update. He also requested that staff prepare the new
TMP schedule in a revised format, so that all tasks would be in chronological order. Staff
Bergman responded that this would be done.
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the staff recommendation to revise the TMP
schedule, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote - 4.
6B. Task Force Recommended Draft TMP Policies
Staff Bergman stated that the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies had been prepared
by the TC subcommittee - consisting of Chair Knox White, Commissioner Schatmeier, and
Commissioner McFarland. The subcommittee received input from the TMP Task Force and City
staff. Staff comments were listed in the draft document, below the subcommittee's
recommended policies. Staff Bergman stated that the draft document is now being brought to the
full TC for additional input and approval of a final set of policies.
Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.
Chair Knox White asked that the final version of the draft policies be brought back to the
Transportation Commission after other boards and commissions have had a chance to comment,
prior to being forwarded to the Planning Board and the City Council.
The Commission reviewed the policies and staff comments. Staff was directed to make the
changes to the draft document as recommended by the Commission.
Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler recommended a modification to Policy C-3.2. Rather than making improvements
only to routes identified in the bicycle plan, the City should look to promote equitable access for
bicyclists on every street in Alameda. Mr. Spangler also recommended that the TMP process be
2",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,3,"enhanced by providing more opportunities for the public to voice its comments, rather than have
it be an agenda item at a single Transportation Commission meeting.
Chair Knox White stated that this issue would be addressed as part of the bicycle master plan.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the TMP policies as modified by the Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -
5.
7.NEW BUSINESS
7A. Alameda Point Land Use Impacts on Transportation
Staff Thomas gave a presentation on the anticipated transportation system impacts of the
proposed land uses at Alameda Point. He noted that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee
would be hosting two upcoming meetings: 1) on March 3, which would focus on land use issues,
and 2) March 23, which would be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and would focus
on transportation issues. Both meetings will be televised. Two additional workshops will be
scheduled before June.
Staff Thomas noted that if the conveyance process with Navy goes smoothly, that starting in the
summer of 2005, the City will enter an 18-month entitlement and environmental review process
for Phase lof the project.
Staff Thomas noted that the policies for Alameda Point were established in the mid-1990s in the
community reuse plan. The policies were incorporated into the General Plan in 2003, but in
accordance with the housing element and concerns about transportation through the tubes, a
greater proportion of the project now consists of housing. The revised development concept also
reflects the improvement in the residential housing market.
Staff Thomas cited two major policies driving the Alameda Point project: 1) reintegrating
Alameda Point into City; 2) the project would not rely on General Fund, so the development
needs to pay for itself. He noted that the costs of the development would be considerable, for
example, there is an estimated $300-350 million to upgrade or replace infrastructure. There will
also be significant environmental remediation required, due to soil and groundwater
contamination.
Staff Thomas summarized the preliminary development concept. Some of the major features of
the project are:
1.2 million square feet of adaptive reuse, not including civic buildings
662,000 square feet of new non-residential development
615 affordable housing units (out of a total of approximately 1900 total units
159 acres of open space
streets would be laid out as a grid system
3",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,4,"the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined
The transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of
the project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered:
shuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute
headways during peak hours
""eco-pass"": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be
able to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge
water taxi service to Oakland
queue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes
transit barge
Commissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit
network, rather than being stand-alone services.
Staff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of
Oakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include:
BART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda
Light rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly
available, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not
serve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco.
Aerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San
Francisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram
connects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be
difficult getting this option approved.
Staff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and
alignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best
candidates by June and study the feasibility of those options.
7B. Work/Live Regulations
Commissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation
for work/live development as opposed to purely residential
Staff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data.
Commissioner Parker stated that the work/live regulations have been in place for several years,
but no such projects have actually been implemented. She indicated her support for keeping the
regulations in place to enable the City to see the impacts of project implementation.
Chair Knox White stated that the regulations seem to support the City's transportation goals.
Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
4",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,5,"Jon Spangler expressed his support for the work/live regulations, and urged the TC to support
maintaining the current policy.
Public Comment Closed
7C. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study
Staff Bergman provided an overview of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, which was
funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy received separate funding for work on this project, and has been taking the lead on
the public outreach component. Staff Bergman noted that the Trail would consist almost entirely
of facilities identified in the General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed Trail
would be largely located within the corridor formerly served by the Alameda Belt Line railroad,
extending from Main Street to Tilden Way, and include the following features:
serve a variety of users by utilizing both on-road and off-road facilities
enhance access to key destinations, including planned development at Alameda Point,
former FISC (Fleet Industrial Supply Center) site, proposed development in the Northern
Waterfront area, and the renovated Bridgeside Center
design would permit the potential development of a rail corridor
land acquired and bike lanes constructed in conjunction with extension of Clement Avenue,
which the City hopes to develop as a continuous route from Tilden Way to Atlantic Avenue
Commissioner Parker asked if the proposed routes would undermine the ultimate goal of
shoreline route. Staff Bergman responded that the
Staff Bergman noted that the City has applied for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for funding for the first phase of the Trail, from Main Street to Webster Street.
Staff Bergman stated that Lucy Gigli of BikeAlameda had expressed concerns regarding the
proposed striping and lane widths on Clement Avenue. He distributed the letter from Ms. Gigli
to the Commissioners.
Mr. Spangler noted that there is an additional former railroad right-of-way east of Constitution
Way that connects to the former FISC site, which could potentially connect to the Cross Alameda
Trail.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commissioners e-mail comments to staff prior to the April
meeting, and the comments would be brought to the Commission at that time for approval.
7D. West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan
Carol Beaver of the City's Development Services Department introduced the West Alameda
Neighborhood Development Plan, which addresses the area bounded by Appezzato Memorial
Parkway, Main Street, Pacific/Marshall/Lincoln, and Webster Street. She noted that in February
2004, the City began discussions with neighborhood stakeholders regarding the types of
improvements they would like to see. The resulting concept plan addresses safety
5",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,6,"result, numerous recommendations of the Plan focused on establishing pedestrian connections
through the school property and the adjoining park. The completion of these improvements
would require coordination and the potential exchange of property between the City and the
school district. Other improvements recommended for the area near Chipman Middle School
include the realignment of the Pacific/Marshall intersection, and the re-design of the school's
drop-off area and parking lot.
Mr. Smiley noted that the feasibility of implementing a raised crosswalk across Pacific Avenue in
front of Chipman Middle School would depend on the traffic volumes utilizing this corridor to
access the planned development Alameda Point.
Commissioner Knoth noted that for pedestrians there are important connections between this
neighborhood and the proposed school in Bayport and to Encinal High School. He asked about
the possibility of an elevated pedestrian crossing over Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Staff
Hawkins responded that people tend not to use such facilities if they create a less direct route for
crossing the street.
Mr. Smiley noted that the Plan called for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the
northern boundary of the neighborhood (south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway) through
the establishment of a linear park. The City's Long-Range Transit Plan also identifies this route
as a potential transit corridor.
Chair Knox White noted that the illustrations in the Plan include marked crosswalks at several
locations where crossings are currently prohibited. He recommended that the City attempt to
make intersections as pedestrian-friendly as possible and look for opportunities to permit legal
crossings. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and recommended installation of new crosswalks
where possible.
6",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,7,"Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler stated that staff had insisted that two travel lanes would be required in each
direction along Pacific Avenue/Marshall Way/Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, by adding a median,
the existing wide curb lane would be eliminated, making this route more difficult for bicyclists to
use. He noted that an earlier version of the proposed design called for three lanes - one through
lane in each direction with a shared turn lane in the center - and bike lanes.
Public Comment Closed
Chair Knox White and Commissioner Knoth both indicated that they supported Mr. Spangler's
recommendation of one travel lane in each direction on Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific.
Commissioner Parker said that the configuration recommended by staff, with four through lanes,
is required to accommodate the anticipated traffic demand associated with the development at
Alameda Point.
Chair Knox White suggested that the three-lane configuration with striped bike lanes be
implemented until the actual traffic demand warranted the additional travel lanes. Commissioner
Krueger agreed, and stated that long-term needs should not limit near-term improvements. Staff
Hawkins stated that Public Works had determined that two travel lanes would be required in each
direction to accommodate the future traffic at Alameda Point, but that staff did not specifically
preclude the installation of bike lanes.
Commissioner Parker asked if the developer of the Harbor Island Apartments could be required
to relocate the sidewalk so that it would no longer be behind the parking area.
Staff Hawkins responded that the carports will be removed as part of the renovations. She noted
that since the existing buildings are only being modified, the City cannot compel the developer to
make such changes. She also noted that Poggi Street is privately owned, but there is a public
easement for the sidewalks.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus routes depicted in the Plan need to be updated. Mr.
Smiley agreed that any recent changes needed to be incorporated into the Plan, and stated that
transit improvements may also have to be modified if the locations of the major transit stops
have changed.
Commissioner Parker moved to continue the meeting. The motion was seconded
by
Commissioner Schatmeier. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
8.STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
March 23 Joint Meeting with APAC: Estuary Crossing Workshop, 6:30 Start Time
9.ADJOURNMENT
7",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,8,"The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0305\022305minutesfinal.do
8",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 24, 2005
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, February 24, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe (late)
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Cecilia Cervantes
Staff:
Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director
Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on January 18, 2005
On page 3, paragraph 1, CM Rosenberg asked that the following be added to the
last sentence, ""for the purpose of assessing communications.""
VC Lee suggested a stylistic change for future minutes. She would like to see
Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Member be abbreviated similar to that of staff
members' titles.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on January 18,
2005 be approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,2,"4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
Director Ota discussed that PAAC should prioritize issues that are most
important in the Annual Plan. C Huston asked when the Plan should be
presented to the City Council. Director Ota stated that it could be
presented during July 2005 (new fiscal year). C Huston wanted to clarify
that the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months
behind schedule. One issue that could be addressed would be to raise
the 1% or $150,000 cap. CM Wolfe stated that the cap is unfair to
smaller developers; since they pay one-percent and larger developers
only pay $150,000.
CM Rosenberg suggested that the Plan include short and long-term
goals, including the PAAC's communication with non-profits. C Huston
stated that she would like to move from draft-form of the Plan to a working
document; this would include having agendas that reflect the Committee's
top priorities. She went on to ask Staff to provide an easel and pad of
large paper for PAAC to write down ideas; Staff stated that could be
done.
Director Ota explained that there is a discrepancy in the definition of the
Public Art Allocation requirement for renovation projects. The building
official is interpreting it technically and the two departments are not in
agreement. RS Russi stated that the phrase in question is ""50% of the
replacement cost of the building"" (30-65.3c). In doing research with the
City Attorney's office and looking at other cities' ordinances, it appears
that either an added definition or simpler, more direct language should be
incorporated. Staff will come back to PAAC with samples once they are
agreed upon by Building and Recreation Departments and the City
Attorney's Office.
- Mission Statement
PAAC members discussed specific wording for Alameda Public Art
Program's mission statement. VC Lee stated that the mission statement
should include a short, punchy sentence with objectives. Staff will work to
compile all suggestions and e-mail them to VC Lee and CM Rosenberg
for further review.
- List of Public Art Projects
Director Ota stated that Staff would be meeting with Library Art
Committee to discuss the Artist Agreement with Masayuki Nagase. In
addition to the library, there are seven (7) upcoming projects that will be
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,3,"subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in
process or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center,
Harbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding
Street Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park
Recreation Building.
CM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing
and proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get
a map.
B.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion
Item)
In regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are
common criteria for their acceptance between cities.
Criteria include:
- Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance
- Procedures for establishing the title and ownership
- Provisions for dispensation for the work
C.
Consideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art
Allocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item)
Pat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda
Civic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her
interest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local
non-profits.
C Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the
City for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the
art based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She
went on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and
the Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the
allotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces.
CM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the
money in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a
competition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained
that RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on
going operating costs.
Director Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could
be placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art
allocation towards on site art. Secondly, developers can choose to place
their allocation in the in-lieu fund, where the City decides how to allocate
the money.
Ms. Faris inquired as to whether there is a plan for non-profits and
developers to be in contact. Director Ota stated that a list of non-profits
could be included in the developer's packet. CM Wolfe stated that the list
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,4,"should have a disclaimer that the ARPD and PAAC do not necessarily
endorse any of the organizations.
C Huston stated that the PAAC had previously asked that the Alameda
Art Center create a ""Wish List."" This would include expenses that they
want the in-lieu funds to cover.
C Huston stated that the guidelines stress that the developer place public
art that is exceptional in nature and not part of an existing structure. CM
Wolfe added that it also needs to be accessible to the public. Director
Ota stated that the requirements are in place to create public art
opportunities.
Ms. Colburn expressed her frustration and asked why the money needs
to be spent on something new, and not on an existing organization. She
stated that local non-profits are viable community assets and are
struggling to make ends meet. She asked if there were any plans to
rewrite the ordinance to benefit local non-profits. C Huston stated that
PAAC would not be the ones to rewrite the Ordinance. CM Rosenberg
stated that PAAC would be evaluating communication with non-profits in
the future.
C Huston stated that there would be a Call for Entries when in-lieu funds
become available. Ms. Faris expressed her desire to compete for any
funds that become available in the future.
6.
New Business
A.
Discussion and Review of Public Art Documents and Forms -
(Discussion Item)
- RFP/RFQ
RS Russi explained that he researched documents from different cities;
some documents were very detailed and others were not. The sample
documents included in the agenda packet are very generic, and can be
modified for each unique project.
CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include wording from the Guidelines,
as well as, a concept statement. CM Rosenberg stated that there should
be a section for each of the three areas in the Ordinance: on site projects,
on site cultural programs, and on site art spaces or cultural facilities.
Director Ota stated that Alameda modeled its Ordinance after the cities of
Pasadena and Long Beach. Staff should look at their wording for more
examples. VC Lee asked that Staff bring samples to the next meeting.
CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include lighting under the Lighting
Plan; CM Rosenberg added that plaques could also be addressed under
the same section.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-02-24,5,"B.
Summer Activity Guide Articles by PAAC Members - (Discussion
Item)
RS Russi stated that the staff is in the process of compiling information
for the Summer Activity Guide. The staff wants PAAC to submit a piece
about their work by March 10th or earlier. Director Ota stated that the
Cultural Arts section would have fewer pages in this edition. C Huston
asked VC Lee to help her formulate the article.
7.
Oral Communications, General
C Huston stated that a list of future tasks and priorities should be developed. RS
Russi stated that Staff would flesh out and reorganize the Annual Plan.
Director Ota thanked PAAC and ARPD staff for their hard work and diligence
over the past year. PAAC thanked Director Ota for her commitment to the Public
Art Program.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
None.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes
February 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-02-24,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting Thursday, February 24th, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:43pm.
Present were Vice-President Chen, Members Wasko, Bonta, and Hanna. Absent were Members
Hollinger Jackson and Flores-Witte and staff were Beaver and Brown.
New member Dennis Hanna gave a brief introduction and his background.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January 27, 2005 meeting minutes were approved.
M/S Chen, Wasko and unanimous with Hanna abstaining being new.
RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE ALAMEDA SERVICE COLLABORATIVE
MEETING IN MARCH -
President Franz reported that the ASC meeting would provide an opportunity to inform CBO's
about the survey being developed by the Assessment and Awareness workgroup. A motion and
second (Wasko/Bonta) to co-sponsor the Alameda Services Collaborative luncheon was approved
6/0.
RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE FESTIVAL OF FAMILIES IN MAY - Member
Wasko reported that in the Childcare Workgroup previously sponsored a successful Child Care Fair
and the Family Services Workgroup feels a larger venue is appropriate for the event this year.
Southshore Center has agreed to host the event on Saturday, May 7th from 1:00pm - 4:00pm.
Southshore Center sponsors the ""Earning for Learnings"" program to benefit Alameda schools. All
purchases at Southshore can be credited to a local school, and the winning school will receive their
check at the Festival of Families. There will be a big effort to get CBO's to this event. Southshore
will be handling all of the marketing and staging for the performances. There will be a charge for
organizations, agencies and non-profits for a table at the event, and they are asking for donations in
the community. The needs assessment survey participants will possibly win prizes or gift
certificates. Southshore will provide an empty storefront for surveys to be filled out with the help of
volunteers. They already have commitments from Wilma Chan and Alice Lai-Bitker's offices. The
Board's sponsorship of the event is non-monetary. A motion to Co-Sponsor the Festival of Families
event in May (Bonta/Chen) was adopted6/0.
RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR CHINESE NEW YEAR EVENT IN MARCH AND
APPROVING SISTER CITY BUDGET ITEMS - Vice-President Chen provided information on
the upcoming Harbor Bay Intercultural Committee's Lunar New Year event which will be held at
the Harbor Bay Shopping Center on March 5. Sponsorship is $200 for non-profits and public
agencies. The Workgroup has raised almost $5,000 to promote Sister City activities and this would
be a good opportunity for publicizing the Sister City project and recruiting new members. The table
would be staffed by Workgroup members. A motion to participate in the Lunar New Year event at a
cost of $200 (Franz/Wasko) was approved 6/0.
WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup:",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-02-24,2,"Minutes of the SSHRB, February 24, 2005
Page 2
Franz explained that the Workgroup priority is to rework the Needs Assessment and make it a living
document. The Family Services Workgroup is participating and would like the survey to be
available for the Festival of Families event in May. With approximately 30,000 households in
Alameda the surveys could be a useful tool for identifying service issues. We could also find out
what other CBO's do to gather information. The survey might be posted online so it could be
tallied as you go, instead of having to re-enter the data. The Workgroup is exploring the use of
focus groups to gather and distribute the information. Franz invited SSHRB members who haven't
yet joined a Workgroup to participate in this process.
Family Services Workgroup: Reported under Item 4.
Sister City Workgroup:
Vice-President Chen reported that the Workgroup is very busy. A delegation from the Hunan
providence will be visiting Alameda on March 2nd. Council Member Matarrese and Mayor Johnson
have agreed to be in attendance. The Workgroup is working to establish a ""rapid response"" process
for welcome traveling delegations. Two groups from Wuxi are scheduled to arrive in the next
couple months. President Franz motioned to re-open 3-C and asked the Board to reallocate another
$300 ($500 total) to purchase items for visitors with funding coming from Workgroup fundraising
activities. A motion allowing staff to identify and purchase small souvenir items up to $300 for
visiting delegations (Bonta/Wasko) was approved 6/0.
BOARD AND STAFF COMMUNICATION, NON-AGENDA
Staff distributed an email invitation from the Alameda County Human Relations Commission to
participate in a meeting regarding the formation of a Countywide anti-hate effort. Member Hanna
agreed to go and report back at the March Board meeting.
President Franz reported that five separate CBO's are working together for fund raising on the
Mayor's Race this year, and asked that the Board consider honoring this collaboration as an
example of diverse community groups working together to benefit residents.
A request was made to update the SSHRB brochure and for staff to check into prices and any City
policy in place for business cards for Board members.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none
ADJOURNMENT - President Franz adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary of the Board
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\packets\2005\Feb05\Minutes-Reg.doc
F:SSHRB\Agenda packets 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, and McNamara.
Board member Piziali was absent.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services,
Eric Fonstein, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005,
as presented.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not
wish to speak.
President Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14,
2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the
March 14, 2005, meeting.
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,3,"7-B.
Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt
an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the
Theater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve
a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District
and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,4,"7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The
Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-
1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a
permitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take
action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:
1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a ""Boutique Theater"" defined
as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for
the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater"" is
sufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code
section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit ""Theaters with live
performances that are in combination with other permitted uses."" If the Planning
Board determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" is consistent with what is allowed
by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at
a future meeting; or
2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add ""Boutique Theater""
as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. ""Boutique Theater
would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live
performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater."" If the Planning Board determines that a ""Boutique
Theater"" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning
amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would
need to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the
amendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April
11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California
Environmental Quality act (CEQA)}
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April
11, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines
to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac
site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of
February 14, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal
with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined
parking garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this
study session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton
could not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer.
President Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
requested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members.
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He
noted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding
the interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he
requested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect
should be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines.
Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that
he was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording
in the draft guideline would lead the designer to a design very similar to the elevations in the packet.
He noted that those elevations were labeled for reference only, and should be eliminated from the
packet; the reference design was not compatible with the guidelines and featured a large blank walls.
He believed the addition to the theater should remain secondary to the existing theater; the art deco
architecture were the primary elements on the short block, and any contemporary design would
complicate and detract from the main element of the original theater.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,22,"Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the
applicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in
that area.
Mr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the ""satisfaction to the Chief of Police
and the Planning and Building Director,"" and there would be sufficient flexibility to require
compliance on these recommendations.
Mr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project.
Ms. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area
maintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance
should be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the
success of the project and the surrounding area.
President Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool,
and believed that was central to the development.
Mr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area
maintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The
applicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the
right to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming
pool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good
change, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near
Fifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the
project sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the
complex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair.
Mr. Tai advised that he had spoken with the Code Compliance Division earlier in the day; they
advised that a complaint had been filed on February 18, 2005. The complaint was vague, and it was
not logged and registered as a specific complaint. Technically, there were no outstanding violations.
Mr. David Blackwell, representing the applicant, wished to give credit to City staff for their tireless
work on this application, as well as the Planning Board. He had discussed the conditions of approval
with staff, and believed that they were now in accordance. He emphasized that the interior
improvements had nothing to do with the application before the Board at this time. He requested that
Condition 25 (Public Art fee) be removed, and added that Mr. McFann estimated it would come to
approximately $6,000. He believed that this project did not fall within 30-65 because it was not a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,23,"new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center.
He spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 (""hold harmless""), and understood that it
meant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the
approval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to
any other issues not related to this approval.
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design
Review and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community
building, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other
improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site.
AYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,24,"8-D.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side
yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-
in-kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures.
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,25,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of
March 14, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
Planning Board Minutes
Page 25
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,26,"These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 26
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,6,"Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a
major feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with
respect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a
mural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in
the structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with
detailed presentations.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it
were bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community
opinion was overwhelmingly against the ""big box"" look. He supported some reference to the old
building in the new design, and did not see that in this design.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it
was beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to
be restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand
Lake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed,
and did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed
concern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection
at the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support
the idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated
decorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon
signage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at
all attractive, and believed that there were other good examples of contemporary architecture in
Alameda.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that he had submitted a 12-page letter to the Board. He thanked staff for making the two-foot
projection an option, and expressed concern that the guidelines as written could lead to a building
that would resemble the building shown during preliminary studies. He believed that the guidelines
were too specific in some cases. He detailed the redlined text changes to the guidelines from
Attachment A of his letter, and displayed the examples on the overhead projector. He would like to
see the parking garage broken up to appear as if they were individual buildings, as in Walnut Creek;
the guidelines discouraged this approach for the theater. He suggested the addition of text stating that
""the actual design will require approval of the City of Alameda pursuant to the City's design review
procedure, and shall include approval by the Planning Board and Historic Advisory Board.""
Mr. Buckley suggested that the reference to contemporary design be edited, which suggested only
two design approaches; he believed the architect should have more flexibility in drawing elements
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,7,"from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than
contemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual
balance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The
three-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not
believe the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should
be a continuous façade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box
signs or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to
accommodate any large crowds.
Mr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to
better use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City.
He believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an
economically viable project.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building,
not the historic building.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied
that approximately 1,100 seats would be installed.
Vice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development
deal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building.
Ms. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and
added that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended
to become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the
process.
Mr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the
allocation of public dollars was within his purview as a Board member; the elected leadership of the
City Council made that determination. He noted that some ideas will not be incorporated, given the
economics of the deal; he noted that the comments presented would be difficult to digest at one time.
He suggested that this brainstorming process would have worked well on the department level, to be
culminated with a session before the Planning Board.
Ms. Mariani agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment regarding the amount of information to distill.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior design, Ms. Little replied that it
would be presented during the design review.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,8,"Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end.
President Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that
would be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner,
as well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater.
Vice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature
of the old architecture evident on existing theater.
Ms. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr.
Buckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the
surrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood.
Referring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up,
particularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek.
Ms. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building
becoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents
so revisions could be easily noted.
President Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public:
1.
A large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the
two-foot projection was included;
2.
The rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important
element of the existing architecture;
3.
Internally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be
avoided;
4.
The design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would
relate in the retail area;
5.
Some language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big
wall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's
aversion to a large blank wall; and
6.
Provisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be
included, as suggested by Ms. McNally.
President Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with
respect to eliminating the elevations.
Ms. Little noted that Mr. Buckley's comments and photographs were appreciated.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,9,"M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14,
2005.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,10,"8-B.
R04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV).
Public hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new
5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which
would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located
at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23
space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project
also requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a
parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The
lot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501
Central Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning
District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board:
1.
A recommendation on a conformance rezoning;
2.
A decision on a Use Permit;
3.
A decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and
4.
A decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed.
Ms. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to
the Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the
public notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the
original clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central
Avenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing,
and all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and
emphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site.
The conformance rezoning was separate from any expansion intended for the veterinary clinic;
rezonings do not run with a use, and are legislative actions that affects all future uses.
President Cunningham advised that numerous speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Kohlstrand and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- O
The public hearing was opened.
Dr. Mary Applegate, DVM, applicant, summarized the background of her business and the
application. She emphasized that the clinic was not open 24 hours a day, and noted that a new facility
was essential to maintain their services and level of care. She stated that they made every effort to
design a beautiful and functional building, and added that they employed approximately 15 Alameda
residents.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,11,"Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is
his wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on
the overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from
the property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan
that featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to
contact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any
misunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor)
agreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned
about the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the
neighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was
inflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood
was completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated
the hours of operation.
Mr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces
have been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street
parking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few
hours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to
stay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had
medical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy,
which includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog
on public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while
walking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, not more waste. He strongly
disagreed with the allegation that they posed a public nuisance, and stated that in 13 years, the
practice has been under their management; they received no complaints about noise, smell, or other
aspects of their business practices. The Better Business Bureau report states that no complaints about
their business practices had been filed; no police reports had been filed complaining about their
business operation; the Building Department shows no legitimate complaints about their business
operation.
Dr. Cathy Wydner, DVM, co-owner, described the proposed project and noted that the original
building was not designed as a veterinary hospital. She noted that the dramatic changes in veterinary
medicine necessitate changes in hospital design; 95% of their 3,000 clients live in Alameda, and all
their staff lives in the City as well. She stated that the density was fairly low for the block, and that
the condo across the street had a far higher density; parking was more than what was required. She
noted that the outdoor fenced area will contain most of the dog walking, resulting in a lower
neighborhood impact from walking the dogs.
Mr. Brandon Stanford, noted that he owned a hair salon at 1422 Everett, and leased space at 1414
Everett. He spoke in support of this application, and had never been disturbed by the applicants or
the use in 15 years. Many of his customers had looked at the plans and supported them as well.
Mr. Lawrence Henderson, spoke in support of this project, and believed it would be beneficial for the
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,12,"Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing
the applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and
rescinded his stated opposition to the project.
Mr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building
displayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him
for failing to provide ""quiet enjoyment"" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired
whether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant.
Mr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the
author of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and
read his written statement into the record:
""I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out
approximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to
inform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that
can negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how
they feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the
Planning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and
explained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and
Everett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are
within the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of
this boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost
25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this
project. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised
in the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the
residential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to
have an impact on the parking in the neighborhood, no matter what you say.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,13,"When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see
the light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual
plot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit;
that's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be
okay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use
Permit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must
conduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the
residential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial
zone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they
say it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility
that was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21
dogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every
day. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I
view this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my
house and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick
up after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a
healthy hazard.""
Ms. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that
most of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she
did. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet
enjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well
as the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but
did not believe this was the appropriate location for this use.
Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this application, and noted
that it was difficult to balance business needs with the needs of a neighborhood, especially in the
Park Street area. He believed the applicant needed to expand in order to properly serve their
customers.
Mr. John Barni, 1023 Auburn Court, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he built the
condominium next door to the project site and recalled the background of this use. He noted that the
sidewalk corners reeked of urine, and recently discovered that the clinic boarded dogs. He requested
that the rezoning of the lot as CC be denied, and was concerned that it would allow many uses that
he did not believe were appropriate to the neighborhood. He believed that it should be zoned
Professional Offices instead.
Mr. Justin Louw, 908-A San Antonio Street, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he could
see the staff walking the dogs from his apartment window. He has also seen the staff pick up after
their dogs and other peoples' dogs as well. He believed the odor came from the ivy on the corner,
because the foliage made it difficult to pick up the dog waste. He noted that the hospital had taken
good care of his dog when it was hit by a car.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,14,"Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the
hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may
not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current
renting space on that site.
Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a
business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant.
Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern
about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood,
and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of
the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with.
Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local
residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would
allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion
was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be
walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no
boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he
believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to
see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the
use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the
business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many
more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private property, which was impossible to clean up. He
stressed that he harbored no ill will toward the applicants, and added that his two cats had received
excellent care at the clinic for the last five years. He understood that he lived in a transitional
neighborhood, but asked that the Planning Board ensured that the residential voice was heard. He
expressed concern about the noise impacts from the use. He noted that the applicants had
misinterpreted his concerns incorrectly following their meeting.
Ms. Monica Peña, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this application, and believed it would
negatively impact her quiet enjoyment of her property. She expressed concern that the dogs being
walked in her neighborhood would pose a safety threat to her children.
Mr. John Gruntfest noted that he did not live in the subject neighborhood, and spoke in support of
this application. He noted that all residents had to make compromises. He noted that he was the CFO
of San Francisco Veterinary Specialists, and been in the veterinary business for 20 years; there were
no communicable diseases between animals and people through urine or feces. He had visited the
neighborhood, and believed that the business was very orderly and well-kept; the improved facility
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,15,"was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a
commercial area with surrounding homes.
Dr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital,
16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the
applicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians:
""Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my
scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of
animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources,
the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the
principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual
improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.""
Dr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added
that keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would
never consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest
so would be utterly against their oath.
Ms. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken
her pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset
to Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett
and Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion
would also provide a valuable service to the community.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this
application, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that
the rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its intent for
commercial zoning in that area. He added that had been overlooked in the past, and that the rezoning
would correct the oversight. He believed this would be an appropriate use, and that the expansion
was an improvement. He emphasized that this design and application met the needs of neighborhood,
and it would be welcomed on Park Street without reservation. He did not believe that any dog under
the care of the hospital staff had urinated on private property; he suggested that the residents call the
Police Department if they see someone trespassing on their property.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani wished to disclose that she received calls from Mr. Matthews and Mr. Barni; she also
owns three dogs.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the nature of any boarding services provided,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,16,"Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use.
Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need
medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not
available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated
that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their
business was not a kennel.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it
was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash
one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may
take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the
building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue.
The property line is 4'2"" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the
closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas.
Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the
design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that
the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the
driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that
the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so
close to a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely
due to their business model.
Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and
suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal.
Mr. Busse advised that all the mature trees along the boundary between the property and the
condominiums would be retained; the street trees on Central Avenue will remain as well. He stated
that 24-inch box Chinese elms and Sweet Bay trees, as well as 36-inch box Maidenhair trees were
among the trees being proposed.
Ms. McNamara believed it was important to be more sensitive to the residential design in the
immediate neighborhood.
Ms. Altschuler noted that this was a very contemporary building, and that the reference to Craftsman
style was with respect to the building materials. The condominium immediately adjacent was also a
very modern building, as was the former Central Market across the street. She noted that the Board
may recommend the rezoning without approving any other parts of the application.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,17,"M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the
approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank
building and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning
District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General
Plan.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0
President Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly.
He understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the
issues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital
should be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood.
Ms. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and
suggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be
reached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be
difficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog
unless some identifying garb were to be worn.
Mr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and
acknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction
requiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area;
it would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that
would identify them as patients of the facility.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential
uses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must
accommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not
believe the design should be a residential design. She would like responsiveness towards the
neighbors regarding the treatment along Central Avenue, although the existing setback was adequate.
President Cunningham advised that he liked the building design, and believed that the scale of the
design was appropriate for the neighborhood. The parking was supported on-site, and the zoning was
now in conformance with the General Plan. He appreciated the sensitivities of the neighbors.
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Use Permit
to construct a new 5,300 square foot veterinary clinic and 23 space parking lot on a lot currently
developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished at 2501 Central Avenue.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,18,"a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to
serve the vet clinic use.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Dr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it
got dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that
the sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood.
M/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to
require that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be
acceptable.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design
Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently
developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue.
The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as
a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or
Everett Street.
AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,19,"8-C.
PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily
Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development
approval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-
car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the
Harbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4
PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations.
Since the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of
the conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of
Condition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, ""The applicants shall comply with AMC
Subsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and
pay for all integrated waste collection..
Mr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that ""the applicants shall comply with Section
21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... ""
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions.
Mr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing
Advocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the
mass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect
to the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the
schools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new
students. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties.
Ms. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and
the Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated that the mass evictions were dehumanizing for the
400 families impacted by them. She did not believe the human impact was being adequately
addressed by the proposed renovation plan, particularly regarding the disabled population. She
disagreed with the lighting plan, and noted that the visually impaired would not have adequate visual
clarity with the 25-foot lighting plan. She believed the standards of visual accessibility should be in
compliance with the ADA standards. She noted that the planned development did not address
handicapped accessibility for the elevators; no phones were included in the elevator cars for
assistance. She stated that the fire suppression equipment should be adequate for the entire complex.
She expressed concern about the parking plan, and did not believe it addressed the needs of the
disabled tenants; even when they requested parking spaces close to their units, they were not
assigned. She noted that the drinking water was often brown, and inquired whether it was
contaminated.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,20,"Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she
had lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and
stated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for
activities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design
accommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments.
Ms. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a
number of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were
superficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several
units had not been repaired following fires.
President Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following
Board meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no
action were taken under the time limits of State law.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the
site, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in
her apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a
half-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more
thoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire
sprinklers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to
this project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to
grapple with, and added that this project was exempt from ADA compliance and upgrades because it
was built and occupied prior to 1991. The new clubhouse must be in compliance.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding Code violations, Mr. Tai confirmed
that there were no outstanding Code violations registered for this property.
Mr. Alexander noted that there was a condition in the approval related to sewer testing; the major
problems addressed by the speakers had been addressed, and most of the mains had been repaired.
They were working with the Public Works Department to video the remainder of the lines, and to
make repairs as necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,21,"In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a
property falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised
that would be a violation of the Housing Code.
Mr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical
problems.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the
statements that the buildings were up to Code.
Mr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted
that they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to
all Alameda and State codes.
Mr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in
Alameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to
possible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he
believed was a gross oversight by the City.
Vice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's
comments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to
create more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted
that the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier
sessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had
been made since December 2004.
Ms. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that
page 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that ""The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an
effort to try and improve public safety in the facility."" She did not believe that wording held the
applicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronger language should be used to
ensure compliance.
Mr. Auxier noted that he spoke to Officer Hisher, and did not object to the letter; the flexible
wording was meant to allow further discussion by the Police Department and the applicant. He noted
that they had not yet found a solution to the trash enclosures.
Mr. Tai advised that staff and the applicants had been in ongoing coordination with the Police
Department with respect to the Police Department's specific recommendations, such as size of
addressing, and location of ""No Trespassing"" signs.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-02-28,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
February 28, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McGaughey,
Absent/Excused: McCoy, Steffens
Guests: Anne Steiner
1. MINUTES: The minutes of January 24, 2004 where approved with the following
corrections: 1) Attendance - change Commissioner McCoy from present to absent, add
Commissioner Steffens as present, and 2) Oral Communications, Item #1 - change
""Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the status of the Disaster
Plan"" to ""
Disaster Registry.""
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Toby Berger shared an article that appeared in the Oakland Tribune that Mark
Breimhorst had been named the executive director of the World Institute on Disability
(WID). WID is an Oakland based nonprofit research and public policy center promoting the
civil rights and full societal inclusion of people with disabilities. She suggested the
commission might want to have Mr. Breimhorst make a presentation.
2. Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission on the proposed school parcel tax per
an article in the Alameda Journal. Currently there is a senior citizen exclusion on the
existing parcel tax and would like that there be an exclusion for disabled persons.
3.
Commissioner Jody Moore informed the commission that the month of February is Autism
Awareness Month and that next year the commission or City could recognize this with some
kind of activity. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that the commission promotes the month
of October as Disability Awareness Month and that this year 's activities could include
autism.
4. Commissioner Gina McGaughey will provide the commission with written copies of
Disability Rights Advocates open door pamphlet.
5. Secretary received a note from Mayor Beverly Johnson requesting that a commissioner
volunteer to serve on the Alameda County Commission on Aging. Commissioner Adrienne
Longley-Cook volunteered.
6. Secretary informed the commission that there will be a groundbreaking ceremony for the
New Library and that two temporary disabled parking spaces will be provided.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-02-28,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 28,
2005 Minutes
Page 2 of 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Bus Shelter (Buena Vista Avenue fronting Marina Cove):
Chair Ed Cooney and secretary Ed Sommerauer briefed the commission on the new bus
shelter at Buena Vista Avenue in front of the Marina Cove development (between Paru
Street and Ohlone Street). The location was acceptable.
2. Disaster Registry Program:
Commissioner Charles Bunker briefed the new members about the disaster registry program.
Currently there are 16 disabled citizens registered in the program. Additional participants
will be sought through advertising (i.e. Meals on Wheels, AP&T Flash newsletter, etc.).
3. Webster Street Renaissance Construction Status:
Commissioners Gina McGaughey and Charles Bunker briefed the commission on their
meeting with the City construction inspector and contractor in maintaining sidewalk
accessibility for the visually impaired and wheelchair/walker users along Webster Street and
the side streets during construction of the Webster Street Renaissance project.
Commissioner Alysa Chadow stated that a guide dog is trained to walk perpendicular across
the street and that any sidewalk detouring which is parallel to and within the street pavement
area creates confusion to the dog. Guest Anne Steiner informed the commission that the
City of Berkeley has guidelines for pedestrian detouring. Secretary informed the
commission that pedestrian accessibility is required at all times during construction and it is
the contractors' responsibility to maintain access to the approval of the City. Secretary will
contact Berkeley.
4. Solicitation Policy:
In response to Commissioner Angela Steffens' question at the January meeting ""Does the
City have a solicitation policy on distribution of flyers within public sidewalk areas"", the
secretary informed the commission that City's Municipal Code Sections 6-2-2 and 6-2-3
prohibits distribution of handbills and advertising material unless the recipient is asked and
willing to accept the handbill.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Policy research, writing and implementation:
3.
Chair Ed Cooney briefed the commission on the sub-committee's progress in developing
policy consideration for procedures and resources on providing alternate auxiliary aids for
the visually impaired and/or hearing impaired. The commission viewed limiting aids to the",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-02-28,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
February 28,
2005 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
visually impaired and/or hearing impaired as to narrow and that the language should be
broadened to cover all areas of disability. A motion carried to disband the sub-committee
and create a new sub-committee consisting of commissioners Toby Berger, Adrienne
Longley-Cook, Gina McGauhey and Alysa Chadow. Secretary asked the commissioners if
they could assist in updating the City's contact resource list. Commissioner Gina McGauhey
volunteered.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 28th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0228min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005- -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-091) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving
Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096] would be addressed at
a
later date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,
excluding the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no.
05-096].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *05-092) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and
the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005.
Approved.
( *05-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,454.99.
(*05-094) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the third calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
(
*05-095) Recommendatior to authorize the Mayor, City Manager
and/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination
of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
1",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,2,"federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. Accepted.
(05-096) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for
a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Not heard.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-097) - Resolution No. 13820, ""Commending Recreation and Park
Director Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the Resolution and presented it to Suzanne Ota;
stated that Ms. Ota has done an outstanding job.
The Interim City Manager presented Ms. Ota with flowers.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she started her service to the City
working with the Recreation and Park Department she always
appreciated Ms. Ota's enthusiasm, energy and ""can do"" spirit.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Ms. Ota brings so much joy to so
many parts of the community.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City would miss Ms. Ota; as
a citizen as well as a Councilmember, he appreciates the great job
that Ms. Ota has done.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Ms. Ota should feel very
comfortable in her accomplishments.
(05-098) Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05-0001/R 05-0001
Zoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay
District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater
Overlay Districti and
(05-098A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection
30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-
Theater Combining District) ; and Repealing Subsection 30-6.23(2) (b)
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include
the Theater Combining District. Continued to March 15, 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
2",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,3,"(05-099) Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies
to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in
the City of Alameda.
The Interim City Manager outlined the suggested structure and
mission of the Task Force; stated the Task Force would meet on a
regular basis and report back to the Council within 90 days.
Carol Martino, Alameda, stated that she would like to serve on the
Task Force.
Steven Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that the
matter should not overly politicized to ensure progress is made and
there is a balanced committee.
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association, volunteered to serve on
the Task Force.
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenants Association, stated that new
laws are necessary to protect tenants; suggested that the committee
have two Harbor Island Tenant Association representatives and two
ar-large tenants.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the nominations would be made.
Mayor Johnson responded that she would like to receive input from
Council; that Council should submit names for potential Task Force
members.
Councilmember Daysog stated there should be a specific period of
time for application submittals.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Task Force would be an informal
committee, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
(05-100) Ordinance NO. 2936, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to
Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created
Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership Appointment ; Removal) and 2-9.3
(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission) Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
3",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,4,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-101) Martin White stated that the Development Services
Department provided moderate income housing for the Bayport housing
development at 110% of the median income but cut off at 80% of the
median income; redevelopment law does not allow for cut offs;
stated he met with the Director of Development Services about the
matter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide Council with a report on
the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that moderate income, by definition, is
80% to 110% of median.
(05-102) - Hallemariam Alema, Alameda, stated that he won the
lottery for moderate income housing in the Bayport housing
development; he has an income of $64,000 and has been disqualified.
Mr. Alema's wife stated that the Development Services Director is
unable to provide reasons for the disqualification.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the couple won the lottery; the
range for moderate income is 110%; $64,000 is below the range and
is the reason for disqualification.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-103) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has volunteered to
serve as the City's representative and Vice Mayor Gilmore has
volunteered to serve as the alternate.
louncilmember Matarrese moved that Councilmember Daysog serve as
the City's S representative for the League of California Cities East
Bay Division and that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the alternate.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the East Bay Division meeting he
attended two weeks ago was very nice.
(05-104) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looks forward to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
4",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,5,"providing Council with a report on the AC Transit Council Liaison
Committee Meeting held last Thursday.
(05-105) - Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan
wanted the matter of increasing the number of members on the
Recreation and Parks Commission brought back to Council.
Councilmember deHaan responded that the Commission could address
the matter.
(05-106) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased that trash
containers are being changed at bus stops and throughout the
business districts; inquired what was the reason for the change and
who provides the maintenance; that he is concerned that the
surfaces could be graffitied.
The Interim City Manager responded that City staff maintains the
containers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether maintenance is part of the
garbage contract, to which the Interim City Manager responded the
garbage contractor empties the containers.
(05-107) Mayor Johnson requested that the theatre design
guidelines and schedule update be brought back to Council at the
next City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
5",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,6,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05 5-089 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1429
Oak Street; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and County of
Alameda; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,7,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05-008) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1435
Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074-0427-005-01) ;
Negotiating parties : John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community
Improvement Commission Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
( 05-090 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of cases : Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and
177448]
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005--7:27P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-009) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council,
CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of
February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC
Meeting of February 15, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Chair Johnson abstained from voting on the
January 18 Minutes. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(05-010) Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax
increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green
Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the
cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive
Director to execute a standard grant agreement.
Chair Johnson stated that Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) requested that she convey that PSBA is in full
support of the staff recommendation.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , urged
support of the staff recommendation; stated that additional areas
would be cleaned; noted there will be a Farmer's Market every
Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. starting June 8, 2005.
Chair Johnson congratulated WABA for the success of the streetscape
project.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,10,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
5-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of
Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy
and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well
received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have
been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable
for transfer and phasing.
Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into
two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus
on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The
second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the
Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come
back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is
expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department
continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,2,"stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than
two much, too fast.
Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but
for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various
transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional
outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number
of different options.
Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about
transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are
currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that
kind of transportation solution.
Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.
The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge
system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the
ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.
Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have
to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be
focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and
time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there
were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.
Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs
estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate
using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for
existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.
Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work
very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base
development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over
to Fruitvale BART.
Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port
of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and
BART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,
then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated
system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done
between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get
started now.
Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One
was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to
golf carts.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,3,"Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that
some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the
foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at
short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A.
Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for
Building 167.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-
president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's
Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's
Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at
the last ARRA board meeting.
Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's
Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,
with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market
value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market
value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.
When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the
leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent
per square foot.
Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for
taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help
explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four
boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes
out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based
upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,
the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to
profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the
ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.
Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.
Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke
on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.
Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the
contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the
appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.
Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward
to having his business here for at least another 10 years.
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,4,"Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million
shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the
$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the
shortfall about $36M.
Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )
argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable
(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that
Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as
inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.
He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that
the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term
from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to
require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with
economic reality and fair market value.
Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance
and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease
renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney
raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board
directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further
explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the
Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal
was to establish the fair market value.
Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair
advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter
proposals to the Nelson's lease.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;
Abstentions-0
4-B.
Recommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with
Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.
No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;
Noes-0; Abstentions -0.
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,5,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and
Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working
very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops
of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from
March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on
OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record
of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School
- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with
that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general
radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the
Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what
happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of
these activities is something the public should be very interested in.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
6:30 p.m.
2.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed
everyone to the workshop.
3.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook,
Rebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA
Design Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull,
Melissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic
Planning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew
Ridgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell
Resources.
4.
PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR
ALAMEDA POINT
Mr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and
public comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the
community discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City
website. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed
soon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development
alternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development
and environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the
information on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours
provided by the City.
Mr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
5.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
A community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed
upgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed
the Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth.
Mr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda.
A community member thanked staff for the additional options, and inquired whether the
non-Measure A-compliant option would be affected by the groundwater contamination.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was
being presented.
Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there
was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important
part of the economic analysis.
A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that
increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the
effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He
inquired about the $22 million deficit.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar
open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed.
Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and
explained the expenditures needed to service the project.
A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non-
Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods,
establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She
would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be
economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning
principles, and was disappointed in the design.
A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if
Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs.
Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes
the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of
revenue to offset the costs.
A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and
property sales, and how the money was made up.
Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible
for putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners.
A community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether
there would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and
suggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events.
Mr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly.
The transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density
in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly
architecture.
Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which
was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the
blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood.
The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of
the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling
would be used.
A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that
turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired
about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask
displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible
in that area if there was groundwater contamination.
A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and
suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up.
Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and
described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for
podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never
reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish
remover, gasoline.
A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas
replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue.
A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being
moved.
Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between
agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife.
A community member noted that he was a real estate consultant, and noted that a
relatively good job had been done in this project. He noted that the lagoon was a
significant amenity. He believed that plan was biased toward single-family housing, and
noted that high-rise residences had been built successfully in San Diego. He believed the
commercial land sale figures were optimistic. He expressed concern about the
transportation linkages. He proposed that the lagoon and the golf course be linked.
A community member noted that the main advantage of Measure A was the greater
diversity of housing, including middle-level housing.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create
community activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan.
Mr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail
center could not be supported.
Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be
raised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how
115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand
from the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail.
Mr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise
the level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that
would create a visual barrier to the water.
Mr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load.
Mr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to
cannibalize other retail areas in Alameda.
A community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and
youth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan.
Mr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including
the O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the
financial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became
more solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail.
A community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process,
and inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would
handicap the option.
Mr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they
were working with the first version of the financial details.
A community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken
the tour, which she believed was very illuminating. She believed that the air traffic
control tower should be retained on the site. She believed it was emblematic of the
purpose of the Naval Air Station and should be added. She noted that there were
discussions to extend the live/work boundaries to Alameda Point, which would give more
flexibility to the reuse of the site.
Tim Royal, Pastor, All Nations Fellowship, would like the character of Alameda to carry
on to Alameda Point. He noted a lack of churches on Alameda Point.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and
pointed them out on the site plan.
A community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities.
He expressed concern about the phrase ""less clean housing,"" and took offense to the
concept and the language.
Mr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense,
and described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that
they did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup
process may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential
reuse.
Mr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that
demolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that
lead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of
the soil.
A community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land.
Mr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the
master plan developer was instrumental in that determination.
Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable
housing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's
responsibility.
Mr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the
project. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost.
A community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost
of traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario
would lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on
the price ranges for the market-rate units.
Mr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis
was used.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a potential investor in the
Brownfields project.
Reverend Pamela Kerst, Twin Towers United Methodist Church, apologized for her
earlier flippant remarks regarding the churches on Alameda Point. She inquired how
economic diversity was measured for moderate- and low-income public employees, and
how they fit into Measure A and affordable housing. She inquired whether the minimum
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about
Mr. Adams' definition of ""eco-friendly."" She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about
landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly.
Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the
next workshop.
Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards
that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this
piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented
development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on
transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building
materials and energy use were still being developed.
Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the
affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting.
Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of
building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost.
Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and
whether the supporting studies would be available online.
Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that
requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the
project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each
unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures.
A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions
would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school
district was not included.
Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of
Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls is specific areas, and there
may be no residential planned for other areas. There may also be prohibition against
digging below a certain depth. He added that the need for another school will be
analyzed, and that millions of dollars of school impact fees were included.
A community member inquired whether the income from the affordable housing was
included in the assumptions.
A community member whether it would be possible for individuals to buy lots. Mr.
Adams replied that it was managed by a master developer because of the very large
infrastructure cost, approximating $100 million; it was not the kind of project that would
lend itself to individual lot sales.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
A community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer
of the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of
the project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had
served on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several
historic buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over.
Mr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on
project economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to
Alameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the
conveyance transfer.
A community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall
cost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was.
A community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that
the Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes.
Ms. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on
the site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together,
which increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily
housing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport
and Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes.
Mr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities.
A community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a
small unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the
name be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted
that the in-law terminology would be changed to ""secondary unit.'
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED.
President Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land
use, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He suggested that use of
a ""laundry list"" to identify what will be provided. He believed it was important to
understand the fiscal impacts of the existing structures on the final picture. He believed
that social and ecological responsibility was important, and that a sustainable ordinance
should be examined if the community wished to engage in sustainable design.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that a Measure A-compliant option should be examined, and
that the density and patterns of development on the Island as a whole should be examined
as well. She believed that mixed use and the mix of patterns on the blocks should be
looked at, and that the density should be served by transit. She supported the non-
Measure A-compliant option, and examining how the transportation network fit in.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-03,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Ms. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both
call for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She
believed that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them.
She believed the open space should be usable.
Mr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page
contained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to
remain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process.
Mr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone,
mail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the
website. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings.
6.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 3_Spec.dod
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 3, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-03-09,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
March 9, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Absent:
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Schoenrock SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of March 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of February 9, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of January 2005. Accepted.
D.
Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures (by
fund) through February 2005. Accepted.
E.
Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Main Library Project Update
Library Director Hardie stated that the contractor is ready to start construction of the new
Main Library on March 15th Equipment and trailers are being moved onto the site
starting tomorrow.
Board member Belikove thanked the Library Director for all her hard work to get to this
point.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Donor Recognition
Board member Butter stated that the art sub-team met prior to the Library Board meeting.
A draft policy on donor recognition is being drawn up for the Library Board to review.
The Board will then make a recommendation to the City Council for approval.
The team felt that it is time to move forward on the medallions that are being placed on
the exterior of the new main library.",LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-03-09,2,"B.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
Library Director Hardie stated that the Library Building Team will meet on April 7th.
C.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Board member Belikove reported that the solicitation letter that was sent out was not as
profitable as the one sent out the previous year. A sub-committee was formed to decide
how to handle donations that come in. No events have been planned yet.
D
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that the Friends book sale at the ""O"" Club raised over $9,000. Ms.
Skeen thanked the Library Director for helping the Friends reserve the ""O"" Club. The
next book sale will be in June. On March 19th the Junior Friends will have a storytime
at
the Bay Farm Branch Library. On April 26th the Friends will sponsor author Pam Chun
at the Interim Main Library.
E.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Leslie Krongold reported that the next newsletter will go out this month. There will be a
Library Logo meeting on March 10th She feels that the team is coming close to a final
logo.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library Director Hardie responded to 12 input/feedback forms regarding: patron
complaint about being harassed by another patron with pornographic images at the
computer station; patron concern about the library purchasing a book that only one
person has requested; please purchase the following DVD's Requiem for a Dream, Last
Exit to Brooklyn, Belle Époque, Bettlejuice, Harry Potter, Mystery Science Theater 3000,
Friends, Horatio Hornblower Series, Final Analysis, The Art & Skill of Public Speaking,
and A Cinderella Story. Please purchase books on travel; and, please remove the Travel
Holiday sticker from the magazine section since we no longer subscribe to it.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Butter commented that several libraries have purchased access to the
Overdrive audio book collection. She asked if the Alameda Library would also purchase
it. Library Director Hardie stated that we expect to participate beginning next fiscal year.
Board member Butter asked how we were able to have additional funds put into the
Library's budget. Library Director Hardie stated that there had been a clerical error early
on in the budget process and that it had been corrected.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Schoenrock MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, March 10, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioner Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Fred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Oliver
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of February 10, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVESIKAHUANUI
(approved)
In Favor (3) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2) - Johnson, Oliver
""That Minutes of February 10, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting be
approved.'
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.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,2,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Presentation of Cross Alameda Trail Project - (Discussion Item)
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist for Public Works Department, gave a presentation on
the Cross Alameda Trail Project. In December 2003, the Association of Bay Area
Governments awarded the City of Alameda a grant of $53,000 to conduct a feasibility study
for the Cross Alameda Trail. The proposed trail extends from the intersection of Appezzato
Memorial Parkway to Tilden Way a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. Mr. Bergman
presented a detailed summary of the project and answered questions from the
Commission. Mr. Bergman explained that the Public Works Department is soliciting input
from a variety of City boards and commissions and any comments they may have could be
directed to him at the Public Works Department.
Chair Ingram thanked Mr. Bergman for his informative presentation.
B.
Presentation on West End Improvement Project - (Discussion Item)
Carol Beaver, Community Development Division Manager, and Michael Smiley, BMS
Design Group, provided to the Recreation and Park Commission a presentation on the
West End Improvement Project.
The West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Project was funded by the City Council as
part of the FY 2003-04 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan in July
2003. The boundaries of Census Tract 4276 define the neighborhood, which was selected
based on census data indicating the greatest number of low-income households in the City,
observations of blighting physical conditions, and continuing efforts to improve the physical
and social environment in the area through various community partnerships and the Harbor
Island Task Force.
Pending acceptance of the Plan by the City Council at its April 19, 2005 meeting, the Plan
will provide a conceptual frame work for public improvements in the neighborhood over the
next five or more years. Some of the improvements will need to be refined to meet
technical requirement and changing conditions over time.
Approximately $400,000 in CDBG Funds is available to implement the first phase of
improvemetns, which will be established following the Plan acceptance Process.
Copies of the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Concept Plan draft will be
available beginning February 23, 2005 for review at the City Clerk's Office, Chipman Middle
School, Woodstock Elmentary School, Longfellow Elementary School, the West End
Branch Library and the City of Alameda's Development Service Department at 950 West
Mall Square, 2nd Floor, Alameda, 94501.
Commissioner Reeves asked if the sign builders in this town who put up signs on
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,3,"everything that does not move could be told to not do this. Mr. Smiley stated that would be
a good idea. Commissioner Reeves stated that too many signs will ruin the effect. Mr.
Smiley stated that the Committee did not get into those types of details. This conceptual
plan is a broad plan.
Commissioner Reeves asked if utilities would be put underground. Mr. Smiley stated
underground utilities are very expensive. The Committee has not specifically
recommended that the utility lines should be underground.
Mr. Smiley gave a Power Point presentation on the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Plan.
A major component of the Improvement Plan is providing better access from the walkway
between Woodstock Park and Chipman School. This will give greater access to the area
for the Fire Department and the public.
Commissioner Reeves stated that if the Committee is looking for land for more parking they
will not get much support from this Commission. We are looking for more parkland and not
giving it away for parking.
Ms. Beaver stated that there was a perception within the neighborhool that this is a way to
reconfigure the parkland that provides an amenity to the users of the park by providing
them access. There was a sense that this was not actually trading off parkland for parking
but was having parkland that was different. That would access to and kind of opening up
the park for better use and accesibility to the neighborhood. It enhances use and provides
better access to the park.
Ms. Beaver stated that the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Conceptual Plan
can be used as a guide for west end improvements and nothing is set in concrete.
Chair Ingram stated that the City should not use the bus shelter that is located near Morton
Street on Buena Vista. It is located right in front of someones home and in the middle of
the sidewalk.
At the corner of Atlantic and Webster, in the dead spot, there is a used car lot. Have there
been any conversations been held with the person who owns that car lot. Ms. Beaver
stated that their focus was not on Webster St. when doing the plan. Mr. Smiley stated that
the car lot has been on peoples minds for a long time. But nothing has been done to date.
Vice Chair Kahuanui stated that with the renovations going on in the area it would be great
to work the plan.
Ms. Beaver stated that there are many ways to accomplish accessing the area.
If the Recreation and Park Commission have any additional comments they can contact
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,4,"Ms. Beaver in Development Services.
C.
Revised Site Plan for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park
(American Tower Corporation) - (Discussion Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager from Community Development, gave a presentation
regarding the revised plan for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park.
Mr. Knopf reviewed the revised plan for placement of a cell tower in Washington Park. He
stated that the new plans call for the tower to be relocated to the southeastern corner of the
field (down the left field line) and for the structure housing the equipment to also be moved
down the foul line. Mr. Knopf informed the Commission that the item will come back to
them for final approval after it appears on the Planning Board Agenda.
D.
Consideration of Proposal for Placement of a Cell Tower at Mastick Senior
Center - (Discussion Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager from Community Development, provided a
presentation regarding a request by Sprint Telecommunications to place a cell tower in the
parking lot at Mastick Senior Center. The 45' pole and equipment shelter will be located in
the western corner of the existing parking lot. The parking lot will be reconfigured to limit
the impact on spaces available. Sprint will provide (at their cost) an additional light on the
tower to improve the overall lighting of the parking lot. In addition, sprint will pay a yet to be
determined lease fee to the Senior Center. Ms. Krause informed the Commission that the
Mastick Advisory Board has already reviewed and approved the plan.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City
Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion/Action Item)
Acting Director Lillard provided a review of the proposed draft of the Long-Term Park Use
Policy as requested by Council. He informed the Commission that the changes and
clarifications they had requested at last month's meeting have now been included.
M/S/C
REEVESIKAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the Long-Term Park Use Policy be approved.""
In Favor (3): Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2): Johnson, Oliver
B.
Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments
Including Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
Acting Director Lillard informed the Commission that all the additions they had requested at
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,5,"the previous meeting were now included in the document. The Commission discussed and
reviewed the goals and objectives.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments be
approved.""
Approved (3):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2):
Johnson, Oliver
C.
Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation
regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion/Action Item)
Acting Director Lillard informed the Commission that as they had requested at the previous
meeting, staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and begun drafting a policy to
develop a per player fee. A draft has been developed and, once finalized at a future
meeting, will be brought before the Commission for approval.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
No report at this time.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-03-10,6,"3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Acting Director Lillard stated that the Alameda Point Multi-Use Field is now open for play.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, April 14, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III,
Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action
1.
CA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to
removal a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24"" diameter and large low-angled trunks that
extend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an
existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family
residence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Allen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He
informed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items.
The first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge
of the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family
dwelling.
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,2,"Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate
a new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal
of the existing front façade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is
brought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942.
Staff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit
and that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing
building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as
stated in the draft Resolution.
Vice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment.
Ivan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the
fence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the
recommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to
eliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also
informed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and
to preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the
rear of the new building.
Vice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick.
She also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also
feels that this structure should not be referred to as a ""craftsman"" style because there are no
""craftsman"" style elements on the existing or proposed structure.
Vice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed
new house.
Mr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate
any problems.
Mr. Tai stated that lifting and moving the house is considered necessary to comply with setback
standards. If the house were completely demolished then several variances would be required.
Mr. Miller asked if the neighbors were ok with this project.
Mr. Tai stated that there were no comments as of yet.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the Resolution states that the applicant
must replace the removed tree with two new trees. She is concerned that the lot cannot support
two 15 gallon Oak trees. Would it be possible for the Board to require the applicant plant one
Oak tree and another type of tree?
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,3,"Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is
that most likely only one will survive.
Ms. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many
years ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be
replaced.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live
Oak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an
existing 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding
Alameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District
and would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Justice
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, and
McNamara.
Board members Lynch, Mariani and Piziali were absent.
Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III David Valeska, Leslie Little, Development
Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005.
Mr. Cormack advised that staff distributed revised pages of the minutes to the Board; page 3, Item 7-
A reflected the change of number of parcels from nine to 16 parcels. Pages 19 and 20 contained
corrected wording for the motions to more accurately reflect the Board's intentions.
M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005,
as presented.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Mr. Sam Caponio, 1316 Hanson Street, expressed concern about the limited ingress and egress from
the Island and the state of the infrastructure. He noted that the traffic congestion had been serious for
some time, and would like to see the issue of Island access and infrastructure be agendized for Board
discussion.
President Cunningham noted that there would be a Transportation Commission public hearing on
March 23, 2005.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of
Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are
located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January
24, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the
motion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of
the City.
Mr. Cormack advised that the item was readvertised for this meeting.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to rescind the prior action taken by the Planning Board at the
meeting of February 28, 2005, and to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines
to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac
site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community
Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of
February 28, 2005.)
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with
the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking
garage/theater analysis.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the
discussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time.
Ms. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this
item, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.
President Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be
taken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005.
Ms. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and
Board comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word ""contemporary"" to be
removed from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of
the Interior's standards, including the word ""contemporary."" Item C-3 specified a general vertical
emphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element.
Item C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has
engaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included
studying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route
would be accommodated along the street. Bike racks would be included in the parking garage.
Mr. Michael Stanton, project architect, provided an update on the parking structure.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Carl Minns, 1820 Hibbard Street, would like to see a more pragmatic approach for a theater,
with no more than three screens. He would like to see an emphasis on the restoration and
preservation of the existing theater.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he was not speaking for the AAPS at this time,
and noted that Oak Street was very narrow. He believed that Oak Street was overloaded with
pedestrians and bicycle traffic, and that the traffic on Oak Street would become more congested. He
suggested that the City pick up an underdeveloped strip of land from Video Maniacs to Santa Clara in
order to widen the public right-of-way on the street.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they submitted comments to
the Board and summarized the significant issues. He did not want the design to be too modernistic.
Regarding his discussion with Cynthia Eliason regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, Ms.
Eliason raised the question whether the Cineplex and the parking garage were actually subject to
those standards; she would check with the City Attorney regarding that question. He suggested that
all references to those standards be deleted. He suggested that the reference to the 20-inch projection
continue to be deleted in the document. AAPS believed the upper-level lobby was a potentially
intrusive element that would upstage and block views of the historic theater. He suggested that the
sidewalk be at least 12 feet wide. He noted that Attachment 3 addressed a parking garage in Stanton,
Virginia, and would be a good model for the subject garage.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He would like
Oak Street to be changed into a pedestrian mall by removing the parking; this would be necessary for
bike safety. He supported lockable bike lockers in the garage,
Ms. McNamara left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the
Secretary of Interior's standards applied to the Cineplex, but not the garage. She believed the
projections on Central Street did not comply with those standards. She believed the rosette design
element was very important. She believed the glazed lobby would obscure the pedestrian's view of
the historic portion of the building.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham did not believe it would be negative to have a contemporary piece of
architecture in the City, if it was included in the HBS guidelines.
Vice President Cook did not object to a contemporary design, or the inclusion of the word in the
guidelines. She believed that a very vertical design detracted from the verticality of the theater.
President Cunningham suggested that the inclusion of a vertical emphasis be optional, rather than
mandatory. He would like to see a design developed, and then discuss the rationale behind it to make
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
progress on the project.
Vice President Cook agreed, and would like the architecture team to solve the issues of the
projections. She agreed with Ms. Krase that the rosette was very important. She would like more
information on the view impact of the projection. She did not favor design by committee, which
would result in a hodge-podge design.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8-B.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with
respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard
requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-in-
kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.)
Mr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the
Development Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He
noted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service
Committee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being
important and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the
Mayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council
had not yet seen the Board's previous recommendations on Phase II.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
advised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had
submitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off-street parking
requirements for single-family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the
first 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently
prohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing
required one- to five-foot-wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences,
buildings and streets; many existing driveways do not have such landscaping at this time because it is
difficult to maintain. Those landscaping provisions make it difficult to provide off-street parking, and
additional areas often must be paved. AAPS reviewed the proposals and found them to be acceptable.
Ms. Marilyn Schumacher, 1829 Clinton Avenue, Customer Service Improvement Committee, noted
that she was a real estate broker. She noted that many people who wished to make additions to their
property were unable to meet the requirement for an additional parking space. AAPS suggested that
the first 20 feet of the driveway be allowed to be used as parking; the current ordinance dated from
the 1950s and was no longer practical for current-day Alameda. She displayed several examples of
parking scenarios on the overhead screen. She supported an effective parking ordinance that allows
people to improve their homes.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, 1504 Park Street, supported the work performed by the Customer Service
Committee and had written a letter to the Planning Board to bring the issue to the Board's attention.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of
destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who
had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance
company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the
structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item.
President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback.
Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this
proposal was to still require the 7'-0"" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr.
Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that.
Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the
Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He
believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace
foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service
Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the
problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could
improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous
Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority
given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its
citizens.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time
frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that
this item would have to be advertised for public hearing. Ms. Altschuler confirmed that this item was
included in Phase II and could be acted on by the Planning Board.
Regarding projections and encroachments, Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about requiring the
second story additions to be set back two feet; she was also concerned about the resulting aesthetics
of that setback. She noted that some earlier second story additions had been unattractive, but that
many more recent additions were more sensitive and responsive to the original character of the house.
She was uncomfortable supporting that particular text amendment, requiring that all houses have the
second story two-foot setback. President Cunningham advised that of a house had an existing seven-
foot setback, the wall could go straight up. A general discussion of the setback requirements as they
relate to the (k) & (1) findings ensued.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which
required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story
could also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was
nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1).
Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a
problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow
setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line.
Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story
would impact the neighbors.
Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a
second-story setback that matched the first-story setback.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that
shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions
were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not
require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be
included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues
brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that
trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board.
The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in-
Kind.
Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction
requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking.
President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the
City's parking pressures and minimize the amount of hardscape on a lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised required parking may not be developed in a front yard, and believed the Board
supported parking in a driveway that led to the rear of the lot.
President Cunningham suggested that new construction not be allowed to utilize this parking scheme.
Ms. Altschuler advised that tandem parking was currently allowed to serve one unit, but the parking
space must be developed in accordance with the ordinance with respect to landscaping and setbacks.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,9,"is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one-foot strip was sufficient.
M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of
Replacement-in-Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the
Planning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8-B.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-14,10,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali was not in attendance to present this report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the March 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 14_Minutes.DO
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 14, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-110) - Mayor Johnson presented the Resolution Commending Captain
Rich McWilliams [paragraph no. 05-112] prior to the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-111) Proclamation declaring March 2005 as Red Cross Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Jim Franz,
American Red Cross.
Mr. Franz stated that the Red Cross has a wonderful partnership
with the City; noted that Mayor Johnson accepted the Good Neighbor
Award for the City's support of the Red Cross a couple of months
ago.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-112) Resolution No. 13821, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Captain Rich McWilliams for His Contributions to the
City of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Captain Rich
McWilliams.
Captain McWilliams thanked the Council for the kind words; stated
that it has been a pleasure to work for the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to adopt Zoning
Regular Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,2,"Ordinance Text Amendment ZA03-0003 [paragraph no. [05-115 ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*05-113 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting held on March 1, 2005.
Approved.
(*05-114) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,660,114.93.
(05-115) Recommendation to adopt Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment,
ZA03-0003, - Citywide Guide to Residential Design.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that the guidelines are a good
tool for the public and staff to utilize; urged adoption.
Elizabeth Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ,
stated that the guidelines are long overdue; urged adoption.
Kevin Frederick, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines.
Janelle Spatz, AAPS, stated that AAPS supports and encourages
adoption of the guidelines.
Ross Dileo, Alameda, urged endorsement of the guidelines.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines.
Denise Brady, AAPS, stated that the guidelines have been in the
works for a very long time; urged adoption.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese thanked staff for
developing the guidelines; stated the guidelines are very
comprehensive and provide some good guidance; noted that the window
section of the guidelines prohibits use of aluminum windows stated
Regular Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,3,"certain materials should not be prohibited as technology and
materials progress; the focus should be on the design and
appearance criteria, not the material.
The Supervising Planner stated that a new fiberglass window has
been manufactured which is superior to the wood clad windows in
many ways; the guidelines are intended to be a living document and
can be amended; staff is recommending adoption of the guidelines
for a year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the community for the time,
energy, and effort given to the guidelines stated that the
guideline pictures are useful for understanding what is and is not
permitted.
The Supervising Planner thanked AAPS for all of their input.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff was working on the guidelines when
she was on the Planning Board years ago; stated a voice vote,
rather than ordinance, is a good process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*05-116) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor, City Manager
and/or Designee to send letters opposing the proposed suspension of
mandated cost reimbursements. Accepted.
(*05-117) Resolution No. 13822, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Decision to Readopt ZA04-0002 to the Webster Street Design
Guidelines, Known Henceforth as the Webster Street Design Manual. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan commended the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) for taking the lead; urged the Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) to adopt a similar guideline.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-118) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04-
0014 to permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be
used as a dwelling unit. The site is located at 1608 Santa Clara
Avenue within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
Applicant/Appellant Michele and Frank Mulligan; and
(05-118A) - Resolution No. 13823, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04-0014 to
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,4,"permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be used as
a dwelling unit. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief oral report.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board made a
recommendatior to Council, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that the Planning staff denied the variances.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of Appeal) : Frank Mulligan, Appellant
(submitted handout) i Jeff Kassow, Alameda: Walter DeCalle, Alameda;
Christina Locklear, Alameda.
Opponent (Not in favor of Appeal) : Leo Beaulieu, Alameda.
After Mr. Mulligan's comments, Councilmember deHaan inquired how
Mr. Mulligan obtained the referenced photo album, to which Mr.
Mulligan responded that the trustee provided him with the album.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit provided to
Council is the one on file with the Planning Department, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
""SFD"" notation on the permit is for the use of the lot.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was anything at the
location before the structure was built.
Mr. Mulligan responded that he did not know; stated there may have
been a garage, but no driveway.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any records that
indicate that there was a previous garage, to which the Supervising
Planner responded there was a permit for demolition of a garage
dated April 1984; a second permit for a new garage was issued in
June of 1984 and finaled in October 1984.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City issued plumbing
and mechanical permits which would be necessary for a kitchen and a
bathroom, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that a dwelling unit could not have been built
on a zero property line in 1984; inquired whether building a
dwelling unit with a garage permit would have been legal in 1984,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative; the
permit would lack the rear and side set back and separation between
Regular Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,5,"dwelling unit requirements.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board was concerned that the
structure did not meet building codes; inquired what would happen
if Council denied the variances.
The Supervising Planner responded that the property owner would
need to re-institute the garage use that was approved in 1984,
extend the driveway to the garage, remove the French doors, install
a garage door, and remove the kitchen and bathroom.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a garage could have a residential
unit, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the structure does not comply with the
set backs for a dwelling unit; noted that garages are allowed to
sit on two property lines; stated placing a dwelling unit on two
property lines would never have been approved in 1984; that she has
seen countless situations where people apply for a permit, the
inspector finals the permit, and then plumbing and electrical are
installed after the fact; she has a great deal of sympathy for the
property owners, but approval of the appeal would send a message
that the permitting process does not need to be followed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the appraisal form was in
error, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she has not
seen the appraisal form.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there might be safety factors
involved because plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits were
not obtained; that he has sympathy for the property owners ; the
real estate agent and appraiser are at fault.
Mayor Johnson stated that she also has sympathy for the property
owners; Council would be very arbitrary to approve the construction
after the fact.
Councilmembel deHaan inquired whether the structure could stay in
place as a legal garage.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; there may be
some openings that are too close to the property lines and may need
to be closed; some of the plumbing may need to come out.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the external type plumbing would
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,6,"have been permitted in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that she did not know.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished the rules were
otherwise; it is difficult to make things right for the property
owners.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05 -119 - ) Public Hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ZA05- -
0001 and Rezoning R05-0001 to create a Theater Overlay District and
rezone certain properties to the Theater Overlay District; and
(05-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection
30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-
Theater Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater
Combining District.
The Management Analyst provided a brief report.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce,
submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of Zoning
Text Amendment ZA05-0001 and Rezoning R05-0001.
Proponent (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponent (Not in favor or ordinance) : Gary McAffe, Alameda.
After Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
proposed ordinance would have an impact on the Central Cinema, to
which the Management Analyst responded in the negative; stated the
proposed ordinance pertains to multi-screen cinemas.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,7,"(05-120) Public Hearing to consider a Citywide Zoning Text
Amendment ZA04-0001 to review and revise Alameda Municipal Code
Section 30-6, Sign Regulations, clarifying current regulations and
establishing internal consistency with various Alameda Municipal
Code sections with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to
Window Signs and
(05-120A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief report.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a medical office not in a
commercial area is allowed to have a temporary sign, to which the
Supervising Planner responded A-frame and I-frame signs are not
permitted anywhere in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed ordinance was
for all retail areas, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Sherri
Stieg, WABA.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City does not have the resources
to walk down each business district street to enforce the
ordinance; the City is counting on and expecting PSBA and WABA to
help clean up the signage in town.
Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the retailers are going to
have a rude awakening; enforcement of the proposed ordinance needs
to be implemented fairly.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed ordinance is
primarily for signs facing outward and not inside signs, to which
the Supervising Planner responded that signs which are part of the
interior décor would not be considered to be a sign.
Councilmember deHaan stated that tonight is monumental; thanked
staff for all of their work.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Regular Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,8,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-121) - Recommendation to approve the Theatre Design Guidelines
and presentation of conceptual parking structure designs.
The Development Services Director provided a brief summary.
Mayor Johnson inquired how wide the sidewalks are on Central
Avenue, to which the Development Services Director responded 14
feet i stated sidewalks on Oak Street are 8 feet.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design guidelines provide a sense of
what the community would like to see when the architects come back
with actual plans.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the timeline.
The Development Services Director responded the design guidelines
could be attached to the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) ; the DDA should be finalized within the next couple of days
for public display and a hearing in April; noted that the public
hearing notice for a DDA is extensive and lengthy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired the impact of not including the
guidelines in the DDA.
The Development Services Director responded having the guidelines
as part of the DDA gives it more importance.
The City Attorney stated that the DDA does not have to have any
attachments.
Mayor Johnson stated if the guidelines are not adopted tonight,
they would not be attached to the DDA or the DDA would be delayed.
The Development Services Director stated Council could adopt the
guidelines separately.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to have the guidelines
attached; that she is prepared to go forward with the approval of
the design guidelines.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the scope of the architect's
desires should not be limited; inquired whether there would be two
or three different design concepts.
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,9,"The Development Services Director responded that the developer
would start with conceptual plans, submit an application to the
Planning Department, and the design review process would begin; she
is not expecting multiple concepts to be submitted.
Mayor Johnson noted that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce,
submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of the
Theatre Design Guidelines.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that it appears there will be a
traffic impact on Oak Street; suggested considering making Oak
Street be increased to 60 feet wide.
Nick Petrulakis, Alameda, urged moving forward with the guidelines.
Scott Brady, Alameda, stated that he was concerned that the
guidelines are overly specific in terms of architectural design
elements.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, stated that the preliminary review is a
good idea; outlined AAPS's suggested changes to the guidelines.
Chuck Millar, Alameda, stated that he was concerned with the
proposed contemporary design.
Mayor Johnson requested the Development Services Director to
respond to the design issue.
The Development Services Director stated the design was done by an
environmental group to study the mass and make a judgment about
whether or not it fits within the contexts and is consistent with
the Secretary of Interior standards; stated there has been a lot of
community concern because of the image the environmental planner
created to do basic evaluation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a review by the State was
required to determine impacts on surrounding historical areas.
The Development Services Director responded a review would not be
needed if Federal funding were not used.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Historical Advisory Board and other
interested groups should have input.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, submitted a handout ; stated that she
welcomes the rehabilitation of the historic theatre with
reservations. ; she is concerned with the projected overhangs.
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,10,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the projected overhangs would
overwhelm the historic theatre, to which Ms. Krase responded in the
affirmative.
Kevin Frederick, Alameda, stated that no consideration, thought, or
respect has been given to Alameda; noted the proposed design is
bizarre.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there have been any designs from the
architect, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether designs were presented at last
night's Planning Board meeting, to which the Development Services
Director responded the developer had his architect work on some of
the concepts to clarify questions.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the community is reacting to the mass
of the structure; noted overhangs would block the views down the
street.
Debbie George, Alameda, stated the theatre is positive for Alameda;
urged moving forward.
Al
Wright, Alameda, stated that he was extremely happy to have a
theatre in Alameda soon.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the public has had ample opportunity to
provide input; urged the process not be delayed and adoption of the
guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to take out the
word ""contemporary"" from the guidelines he does not see the need
to give that type of general guidance; without the Cineplex, the
theatre would rot in place; stated nothing is lost by taking out
the word ""contemporary.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; inquired
whether omitting the word ""contemporary"" has any negative impact,
to which the Development Services Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is ample time to massage the
design once the true design is presented; that he can accept the
design guidelines.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is the strongest advocate of
the theatre; inquired whether the retail spaces would be part of
Regular Meeting
10
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,11,"the developer's operation.
The Development Services Director responded that there are two
projects: 1) the potential historic restoration project conducted
by the City, and 2) the multiplex and retail stores, which would be
constructed and owned by the developer; the developer would own and
lease the retail spaces.
Councilmember deHaan stated the mass must remain for the theatre;
inquired whether there would be the ability to design without the
protrusions by removing retail square footage.
The Acting City Manager responded that staff would need to review
the matter and return to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe that there is
any need for signage other than the renovated marquee  noted that
vertical accent latitude should be left to the architect.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the community and staff have taken
their best shot at the design guidelines; design guidelines are not
going to be perfect, especially in the abstract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation with
removing the word ""contemporary"" from the Theatre Design
Guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he sees the
design guidelines as a platform that allows more discussions
involving members of the Historical Advisory Board; the guidelines
do not lock the City into bad design; there is a major challenge
ahead in trying to have an economically viable theatre which
minimizes the projection problem at the same time.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has been working on the
theatre project for years and has been very supportive; thanked
staff for all of their work.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that the Transportation Commission
review traffic issues on Oak Street and provide Council with
recommendations as soon as possible.
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,12,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-122) Mina Talebzadeh, Alameda, requested the City to recognize
Spring Equinox as a day of peace and harmony.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Talebzadeh to provide language for a
proclamation
Gina Mariani was not present but wanted to be on record in support
of Ms. Talebzadeh's request.
(05-123) Michael J. McGhee, Volunteer Veterans Advocate, submitted
a letter; stated that the City currently offers services for
veterans but there is no office or City official assigned to
coordinate the services urged the City to appoint a committee to
investigate veterans' services, to clarify the City's jurisdiction
over veteran programs, and create a City office of Veterans Affairs
for benefits.
(05-124) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he and Audrey Lord
Hausman, co-founder of Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, will be
training at a conference in April; stated that it is wonderful to
see the Alameda Police Department enforcing pedestrian rights and
safety.
(05-125) Al Wright, Alameda, stated that on several occasions the
American flag has been improperly displayed in front of City
buildings flags flown at the Police Department are not consistent
with City Hall; stated that he objects to the American flag being
flown at half mast to honor local citizens; stated that all flags
on City property should be in compliance with when the President of
the United States directs the flag to be flown at half mast ;
requested that Council direct staff to issue appropriate directives
to all departments.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-126) Councilmember Daysog stated that the Chipman Middle School
Drum and Flag Corps requested a City flag for display in parades.
(05-127) Councilmember Daysog stated there is a professor at the
University of California, Berkeley who is moving forward with an
initiative regarding urban casinos; requested staff to analyze the
initiative and provide a recommendation as to whether Council
should support the initiative.
(05-128) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Transportation
Commission and Public Works Department provide the Council with
Regular Meeting
12
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,13,"information on transportation remediation efforts at Bayport.
Councilmember Daysog noted data indicates that transportation
solutions have to be citywide.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
13
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 6:35 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-011) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case Community Improvement Commission V. Rite Aid Corporation,
Thrifty, Payless, Inc.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing
from Legal Counsel and instruction was given.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-108) Conference with Real Property Negotiator - Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained briefing and
instructions were given to Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(
5-109CC/*05-012CIC) Recommendation to approve a form of
Assignment and Assumption Agreement between University Avenue
Housing and Alameda Point Collaborative. Approved.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:34 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-129) Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the
performance of the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-130) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed recruitment
of the new City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Anthony Corica and
Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: Vice Chair Tony Santare. Also
present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 16, 2005
Item added in 3-C, line 23.
Although through discussion, the Golf Commissioners voiced opposition
to the idea.
The Commission approved the addition and the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program
(Action Item).
The General Manager passed out the revised Draft Management Practice
for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program to the Golf Commissioners.
The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify
procedures regarding Golf Complex volunteer marshal work hours,
schedules, activities and benefit package. It is required that the Chuck
Corica golf professional staff establishes peak and non peak seasonal work
schedules and activities for the volunteer marshal force. Marshals will
help the golf professional staff monitor and enforce the policies of the golf
course such as, pace of play, checking for customer receipts and golf cart
etiquette. Marshals will work in the capacity as volunteers and services",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,2,"will be used for the best interest of the golf patrons and staff of the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. The schedule will be posted prior to each season;
November through March and April through October. The seasonal
schedule is subject to review annually. The number of marshals on staff
will vary depending on the needs of the business. Staffing will include a
cart attendant, a tee marshal for each course, and at least one (1) roving
marshal for each course. Volunteer marshals shall work six (6) hours each
week November through March. Volunteer marshals shall work eight (8)
hours each week April through October. Volunteer marshals shall sign the
Marshal Shift Log Book at the start and end of each scheduled shift.
Volunteer marshals shall make every attempt to arrive on time for their
scheduled shift. It is the responsibility of the marshal to find a suitable
replacement when on leave. The work activities will include monitoring
the pace of play: Monday through Friday tee times before 9:00am, the
round should be 4 hours or less, after 9:00am 4.5 hours or less. On
Saturday, Sunday and Holidays tee times before 8:00am, the round should
be 4 hours or less, 8:00am - 11:00am, 4.5 hours or less, and after 11:00am
5 hours or less. The marshal's are to record one (1) finishing time each
hour in the pace-of-play logbook and enforce CCGC golf course and
USGA rules book policies regarding safe play and etiquette. Volunteer
marshals shall receive the following Golf Complex benefits, playing
privileges, including cart usage, Monday through Friday anytime. On
Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays after 12:00pm and/or as business permits.
Playing privileges, including cart usage, will be allowed Saturday,
Sunday, and Holidays with a paid group. Mif Albright course and Driving
Range privileges anytime as business permits (Limit 1 bucket per day).
Employee food discounts during scheduled work shifts. (Approval of
L&H). A Pro shop discount of 20% on non-sale soft goods. Special
Orders cost plus 5% with prior management approval. The suggestion
was made to have a contract with the volunteers stating what is expected
of them and the benefits they are to receive. The Golf Commission
approved the revised Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer
Marshal Program unanimously.
3-B
Update on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
The General Manager reported that he met with Acting City Manager, Bill Norton
yesterday to discuss the project. The General Manager brought the layouts that
Commissioner Wood prepared showing the Poplar Creek clubhouse design placed
over the footprint of the current clubhouse at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The layout shows what the design would look like and how it would function at
the Complex. No definite price has been determined to purchase the Poplar Creek
clubhouse plans from the City of San Mateo. The General Manager also spoke
with the City of Alameda's Finance Director to discuss financing for the project
and a potential timeline. A local accountant, John Ritchie, will be updating the
golf complex financials and developing a business plan for the new clubhouse",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,3,"showing what the Complex can afford for debt service. There has not yet been a
project manager assigned to the clubhouse project. Commissioner Wood
displayed the layouts of the clubhouse that he prepared. The footprint for the
Complex was taken from the aerial photo and a technical drawing of the Poplar
Creek buildings were placed over the photo. Commissioner Wood then explained
what the different areas of the buildings represent and how they would fit at the
Complex. The design is two buildings separated by a breezeway. One building
houses the Pro Shop and offices, the other has the restaurant and banquet facility.
The banquet facility holds 169 patrons. The room can be divided into two rooms
holding 106 and 53 patrons respectively. The banquet facility has a separate
entrance. The total of both buildings is 11,800 square feet. Three different
schemes were presented changing the placement of the buildings. In discussions
with the General Manager and staff at Poplar Creek it was discovered that some
areas of the design could be better. They stated that the bar area should be
separated from the dining area, more storage is needed and the banquet facility
should be larger. The purpose of buying the plans for an existing building is to
save money on design services. The design services cost can run up to $600,000
and the purchasing of the plans would be far less than that, but if you make
considerable changes to the plans it is not practical. Any changes to the plans
come at a cost. The fact that the buildings have already been constructed makes it
easier to estimate the cost then a design that is just on paper.
3-C
Discussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range.
The General Manager reported that over the past few months the Golf
Commissioners have gone out to the Driving Range and the Mif Albright Course
to visualize the potential plans for a new practice area. Commissioner Wood
drew up a design and gave it to the Golf Commission last month. The plan is to
use the first and ninth greens on the Mif Albright Course and redesign that course.
A new tee would be placed east of the current 1st green, trees along the slough
would be removed to open up the area and the 2nd green would become the 1st
green. A new tee would be placed on #5 and that hole would be cut in half, the
hole is currently 191 yards and represents the greatest hazard on the course. A
new green would be placed on #9 also and that hole would be shortened. The
area would be lit up at night by redirecting lights at the Driving Range and a
synthetic putting green placed in the area. The area would be able to be open at
night, which is a feature the competitors (Metropolitan and Monarch Bay) do not
offer. The Acting City Manager has instructed the Golf Complex to move ahead
with the plans and build the practice area.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that he is currently interviewing",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,4,"potential new employees and volunteer marshals. A customer service
program is being developed to help staff and enhance customer relations.
New promotions for the summer are being set up, including a twilight
league during the weekdays. New parts are on order for the back- up
range ball picker and staff is looking into purchasing a new unit. The
question was raised concerning the area golf courses and the deals they are
offering. The General Manager stated that we are developing our own
specials to compete. Additional advertising is being done for the summer,
also.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the staff at the Golf Complex is
working on advertising and promotion programs for the upcoming season.
The building of the practice area will enable the Driving Range to stay
open later and increase revenues. New benches have been ordered for the
golf courses. The benches are made of ironwood, which is very durable
for outdoor use.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony would be held next month for
Bob Beretta, a former Men's Club and Commuter's Committee member.
Also noted, the benches on the Mif Albright Course are in need of
replacement and the fallen tree and leaning fence on the 8th tee of that
course need attention. Mrs. Arnerich also mentioned that a group of
people are interested in donating a bench for the Complex. The concern is
that the bench be consistent with the new benches recently purchased.
Also, the Complex would not take responsibility for any vandalism that
may occur to the bench. The issue will be discussed at a later meeting.
5.
COMMISSIONERSI REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Chair Swanson reported that he has asked the General Manager to look
into the cost of adding grass to the hitting stalls at the Driving Range.
Since the opening of the Metropolitan's grass driving range the revenue
totals have decreased. The Superintendent has spoken to the
Metropolitan's superintendent about the maintenance problems with the
grass range.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,5,"Commissioner Gammell reported that there was an incident on the 6th hole
of the Jack Clark Course where an errant golf ball struck a parked car.
The golfer was located and accepted responsibility for the incident. On
the Mif Albright Course there is also rusty old equipment near the 8th tee
that needs to be removed. The General Manager stated the material
belongs to the Recreation and Parks and he will request removal.
Improvements are planned for the Driving Range building including
carpet cleaning, painting and replacement of the outside counter. It was
mentioned that a new blind is needed for the counter window.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
The General Manager reported that the top priority Capital Improvement
Project (CIP) is currently the Clubhouse Project. An additional CIP, the
Storm Water Runoff Project has allocated $50,000 from the Public Works
Department to develop a plan to improve the lakes and sloughs at the
Complex. All of the other CIP's are currently deferred.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.
Commissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)
courses was down 13% for the month of February 2005 as compared to
February 2004, with play down by 12%. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play
is down 12% and revenue from golf is down 4%, as compared to fiscal
year 2003-2004. Most Bay Area courses have experienced similar or
larger declines in play. All ancillary services were slightly below their
revenue from last February with the exception of the sale of monthly and
annual tickets. The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month of $10,910
for the month and a net profit of $83,345 for the first eight months of
fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $205,506 from the last fiscal year.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
The report was previously discussed.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
None to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-03-16,6,"None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for February 2005 of $7,560.
The year-to-date total is $107,054 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-22,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 22, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-131) Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 22, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-22,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 22, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider
:
(05-132) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to
Recruiter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 22, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-03-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 23, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 9:40 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
Jeff Knoth
Patianne Parker
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Robert McFarland
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No action was taken.
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5A.
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (continued from February 23, 2005 meeting)
Chair Knox White noted that the proposed bike lanes on Clement Avenue are only five feet wide,
yet the connecting bike lanes on Atlantic Avenue are six feet wide. He stated that the proposed
travel lanes on Clement Avenue are 12 to14 feet wide. Chair Knox White noted that Caltrans
requires lanes to be less than 12 feet wide on highways, and stated that the travel lanes on
Clement Avenue could be narrower, even with the presence of a truck route. He recommended
that the bike lanes be widened to six or seven feet in width along this corridor.
Chair Knox White recommended that the proposed off-street paths include separate bicycle and
pedestrian facilities since sufficient space appeared to be available. This should help avoid
conflicts, as trail users would not have to compete for space as they currently do along the path
adjacent to Shoreline Drive.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
1
Page 1 of 2",TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-03-23,2,"Commissioner Krueger also recommended that wider bike lanes be used along Clement Avenue.
He noted that at times he bikes and rides along Atlantic Avenue, which has 12-foot travel lanes
and six-foot bike lanes, and believes that this configuration works well. Commissioner Krueger
noted that this section of Atlantic Avenue is a designated truck route, similar to the proposed
Clement Avenue extension. He expressed concern that wider travel lanes would encourage
speeding by motor vehicles.
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study,
including the recommendations from the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 7.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0405\minutes032305-final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
2
Page 2 of 2",TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
MARCH 24, 2005
DATE:
Thursday, March 24, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM)
Cecilia Cervantes, and Peter Wolfe (late)
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) K.C. Rosenberg
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on February 24, 2005
On page 2, section 5A, C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being
developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule.
M/S/C
Lee/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on February 24,
2005 be approved.'
Approved (3) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes
Abstain (1) - Wolfe
Absent (1) - Rosenberg
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,2,"5.
Old Business
A.
Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action
Item)
PAAC reviewed and revised draft of Public Art Annual Plan. Staff will
make revisions and CAS Bailey will e-mail PAAC members latest draft.
C Huston stated that PAAC would probably need to create
subcommittees to draft responses to developers, including input from
other members. RS Russi stated that PAAC could tell the applicant that
the item will be voted on during the next month's meeting.
CM Wolfe asked AD Lillard how far ahead other Committees and
Commissions plan. AD Lillard stated that the average is a year ahead.
RS Russi asked PAAC to clarify ""fact-checking"" art consultants. C
Huston stated that some of the consultants on the list are simply not art
consultants. Someone needs to call all of the listed consultants and verify
that they really are art consultants.
- Continued Development of Mission Statement - (Discussion Item)
CM Cervantes suggested that a subcommittee work on finalizing the
Mission Statement. C Huston asked if CM Cervantes would like to work
on it with another member. CM Cervantes stated that she would work on
it with anyone. CM Wolfe stated that he would help in finalizing the final
draft.
B.
Discussion and review of Public Art Documents and Forms -
(Discussion Item)
- RFP/RFQ
PAAC members made revisions to the document. Staff will make
revisions and return draft for further review.
CM Cervantes suggested that the Request For Proposals be divided into
two (2) sections: 1) the City provides the information and 2) the applicant
submits the information. C Huston suggested the following: 1) City and
Project Information, and 2) Applicant's Information.
C Huston stated that it would not be inappropriate to ask an artist for a
price list of past works along with his/her resume.
C.
Library Update - (Discussion Item)
RS Russi shared that Staff met with Susan Hardie, Friends of the Library,
and the Library Foundation. The Friends and the Foundation decided to
retain the services of art consultant Regina Almaguer, throughout the
remainder of the project. Thus far, money has only been raised for the
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,3,"medallions. RS Russi stated that the City created an Artist Agreement,
between the City and the artist.
6.
New Business
A.
Update on Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - (Discussion Item)
CM Wolfe explained that he met with representatives from ARPD and
Development Services. During the meeting, an issue of whether or not
the Public Art Ordinance affected sewer or other infrastructure projects
was addressed. It is understood by AD Lillard that the intent of the Public
Art Ordinance was to have building projects (structures) trigger the 1%
Ordinance.
CM Wolfe stated that there might be contingency funds for Public Art from
the Webster Street Streetscape, but not from the Park Street project.
CM Wolfe expressed a desire to look into infrastructure costs being
subject to the 1% Ordinance. When Alameda Point redevelopment
begins, streets and sewers will be the first items worked on. This will be
an extensive project, where developers will then buy pieces of property.
CM Wolfe does not want to have an ambiguous term create a lost
opportunity for obtaining Public Art funds. RS Russi stated that this would
involve amending the Ordinance. C Huston added that this issue should
be added to the list of strategic goals.
CM Wolfe also addressed the Alameda Theater and Garage Project.
These projects have been in the planning stages long before the Public
Art Ordinance was in effect. Therefore, Public Art monies were not
factored in. He stated that the theater is historical and the 1% could be
used to renovate it to historical standards. Regarding the Garage, the 1%
could be incorporated into its architecture. CM Wolfe added that the
theater is going to have many large, blank walls where murals or other art
could be featured.
B.
Draft of Alameda Public Art Program Map - (Discussion Item)
RS Russi stated that the map includes color-coded symbols to show
existing and proposed sites for Public Art. He went on to state that it
would be too difficult to shrink the map and feature it in a publication
(Activity Guide). However, a proposed project could be featured in each
publication.
C Huston expressed an interest in placing local non-profits on the map.
RS Russi suggested that PAAC define their relationship with non-profits
before placing them on the map. C Huston also suggested that libraries
be featured. For the in-lieu fund, C Huston would like to see which
geographic areas are being forgotten or have needs.
VC Lee suggested using transparency sheets to provide layering options
for the map.
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-03-24,4,"CM Wolfe asked if Alameda Recreation & Parks has an archive of
materials submitted for Public Art projects. CAS Bailey stated that there
is a file of all artist submittals from the New Main Library Project.
7.
Oral Communications, General
C Huston expressed a desire to see the following items on April's agenda:
- Finalize Annual Plan
- Finalize Mission Statement
- Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
- See item 6A.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
March 24, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-03-24.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-03-28,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
March 28, 2005
Present: Berger, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McGaughey,
Absent/Excused: McCoy, Steffens, Bunker
Guests: Michele Bevel
1.
MINUTES: The minutes of February 28, 2005 where approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The Secretary listed the locations for the pedestrian lighting grants. They are; Park Street
at
Webb Avenue, Park Street at Central Avenue; Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue, Park Street
at mid-block between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue, Park Street at San Antonio
Avenue, Webster Street at Taylor Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue at Chestnut Street, Otis
Drive at Sandcreek Way, Pacific Avenue at 4th Street and Fernside Boulevard at San Jose
Avenue.
2. Members expressed concerns about the following items; signs in the City Hall elevator
should also be in Braille, the handicap door post to City Hall at Oak Street is not functioning
properly, the sign to Alameda on the Ron Cowen Parkway is missing and should be reset
where it can't be damaged.
3. There was general consensus that commission members should be given identification
badges.
4. Commissioner Chadow reported that Adobe Illustrator could produce plans with raised lines.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Chairman Edwin Cooney presented a letter he received from the Interim City Manager
responding to his concerns about providing Braille and interpreter assistance at City
meetings.
2. Commissioner Longley-Cook presented a list of real time captioning service providers and
onsite interpreting service providers that are used by the City of San Francisco.
3. Commissioner Longley-Cook presented a letter from Pedestrian Friendly Alameda
expressing concern about the proposed State Senate Bill, No. 810.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-03-28.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-03-28,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
March 28, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Bridgeside Shopping Center:
The Secretary described the planned development for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
2. Southshore Shopping Center;
The secretary described the status of the construction of the shopping center and plans for
future development.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Policy research, writing and implementation:
3.
Commissioner Toby Berger presented to the commission the sub-committee's proposed
recommendations for ADA policies for providing effective communications and reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities. The commission will consider adoption of the
recommendations at the next scheduled meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, April 25th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0328min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,1,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:01 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Mariani, and Piziali.
Board members Lynch, Kohlstrand, and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005.
Ms. Altschuler advised that there was not a quorum to approve these minutes, and suggested
continuing this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-b.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-b from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
President Cunningham advised that speaker slips had been received for Item 7-a.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,2,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
7-A.
Use Permit UP05-0003 1510 Encinal Avenue Applicant: Tali Risse/ Fuzzy Caterpillar
Preschool (AT). The applicants request Use Permit approval to operate a daycare center with
capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with hours of operation between 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The site was previously occupied by the Peter Pan Preschool between 1974-
2002 and is located at 1510 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-a from the Consent Calendar and place it on the
Regular Agenda.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Mr. Tai presented the staff report. In order to reduce congestion related to pickup and dropoff, staff
recommended a condition of approval which would required the applicants to coordinate with the
Public Works Department to devise a schedule for dropoff and pickup. There would be a six-month
monitoring period by staff.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Faris, 1417 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he had been a neighbor of the subject site for
nine years, and expressed concern about the larger scale of the proposed project and its effect on
parking in the neighborhood.
Ms. Sharon Barnhart, 1413 San Antonio, noted that she lived directly behind the school and wished
to ensure there would be no construction changes in the area. She requested that the same
summertime hours were kept, as well as a two-hour quiet time as was practiced by the Peter Pan Day
Care. She noted that the caregivers were the noisiest element of the Peter Pan use.
Mr. Arie Cohen, applicant, introduced Ms. Tali Cohen and Ms. Julie Cohen, the directors of the
school. He noted that Code allowed a maximum of 45 children, but they did not expect to have more
than 40 children on-site; they intended to keep a smaller child-to-teacher ratio than required. They
planned to implement a two-hour quiet time, and keep the operational hours at 7 a.m.-6 p.m. In
response to Mr. Piziali's question, he assured the Board that the teachers would not yell at the
children. He emphasized that they wished to be good neighbors, and in response to Vice President
Cook's question, would be willing to restrict the number of children to 40; they would not suffer any
economic impact from that restriction.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,3,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve a Use
Permit to operate a daycare center with capacity for forty-five students and eight employees with
hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with the following modifications:
1.
The enrollment would be restricted to 40 children; and
2.
A
two-hour quiet time would be implemented daily.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,4,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-B.
Interim Use Permit UP05-0001: Antiques Fair (Auto Show and Auto Parts Fair),
Gerald Goldman, 2001 Ferry Point (near Seaplane Lagoon site), Alameda Point (DB).
The applicant requests an Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at
Alameda Point, for autos manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with
substantially the same size, scale, access, parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques
Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per month plus setup and teardown times. This use
would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-site parking spaces, over 40 acres near
former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point neighbors. The site is located in the
M-2-G (General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District).
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gerald Goldman, applicant, noted that the Antiques Fair had become nationally renowned, and
had brought significant business and sales tax revenue to the City. He noted that this proposed event
was a clone of the very large Pasadena Swap Meet.
Mr. Piziali noted that he supported the Antiques Fair, and wished to support this item as well; he
would like to include the following language: ""Beer may only be sold subject to approval of the
Alameda Police Department, and subject to issuance of the required ABC licenses."" Mr. Goldman
agreed with that request, and noted that while they were not committed to selling beer, they wanted
to allow for it if so desired.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about amplified sound. Mr. Goldman noted that they did not have a
public address system at the Antiques Fair, and the staff members communicated by two-way radio.
Two police officers would be on-site.
In response to Mr. Piziali's question about overnight parking on-site, Ms. Altschuler replied that the
vehicles would be parked on the taxiway.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding parking fees, Mr. Goldman agreed to get City
approval.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding hours of approval, Mr. Goldman
confirmed that the earliest time for vendor set-up would be 4 a.m., rather than 2 a. .m. He noted that
they would follow the guidelines for the Antiques Fair. He did not believe that semi trucks would ever
use the site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,5,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve an
Interim Use Permit to allow vintage auto and motorcycle sales at Alameda Point, for autos
manufactured in 1975 or earlier, parts and memorabilia with substantially the same size, scale, access,
parking and conditions/requirements as the Antiques Fair. Operation would occur one Sunday per
month plus setup and teardown times. This use would include approximately 2,000 booths, 7,000 on-
site parking spaces, over 40 acres near former Navy hangers, Bladium and other Alameda Point
neighbors. The language regarding a start time of 4 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. would be changed in the
conditions of approval.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,6,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-C. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of February 14, 2005. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of
April 25, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of April 25, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,7,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
7-D.
TM04-0005 SRM Associates 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway (JA/MG). Applicant requests
approval of Parcel Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels. The
parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of March 14,
2005.)
M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 05- to approve Parcel
Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels in to sixteen parcels, including the following
modification:
""Prior to the recordation of the final map, SRM Associates, the applicant, will provide written
evidence to City staff that they have received the approval of Parcel Map 8574 from the
declarant and Harbor Bay Architectural Review Committee.""
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,8,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant Requests a Design
Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments
and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community
Commercial, Zoning District.
Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report, and noted that the Board would be asked to approve the
Preliminary Design Review on April 11, 2005.
Ms. Jennifer Ott, Development Services, noted that the design was the culmination of a great deal of
work and feedback from the Planning Director, AAPS, PSBA, and the public at large. She noted that
the Planning Board's and HAB's comments would be incorporated into their final design presentation
on April 11, 2005. She noted that there were two alternatives for the façade, featuring either shallow
vine pockets or window casings. She displayed the boards and neighboring buildings on the overhead
screen.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Ott replied that this was a City project.
Mr. Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Associates, described the design and signage, and displayed
the design and materials boards. He noted that the movie posters would be changed on a regular
basis.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, inquired whether the rush to restore the theater and build
the parking structure had given short shrift to consideration of the historical aspects. She noted that
an independent historical consultant had been hired by the City to work with this project, and had not
been aware of that position before. She believed that Alameda artists would be willing and able to
contribute to the mural choices.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, inquired about the historic review and the required
mitigating measures for the project.
Mr. Robb Ratto, PSBA, spoke in support of this application and was excited about the overall
concept. He noted that staff would make a presentation to the PSBA Board on April 6, 2005. He
noted that many business owners on Park Street had waited for many years for a downtown parking
garage, and believed that it would be a high-quality structure.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,9,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Mr. Richard Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, believed the current Oak Street façade
seemed jumbled and heavy, particularly in the distribution of materials, the handling of the openings,
and the parapet design. He believed the paneled spandrels above and below the openings appeared to
be visually heavy, and suggested that larger openings be used, with dropped spandrels. He suggested
that the stairwells be glazed in order to enhance security and to bring in natural light. AAPS agreed
with City staffthat buff-colored brick, rather than red brick, could be very effective on this building.
Ms. Mary Jacak, PSBA member, 1330 Caroline Street, noted that she was pleased by the progress on
the parking garage, and added that the architect had worked with significant constraints to great
effect. She would like the garage to look more like a building to accentuate the vertical elements,
similar to the sketch that was presented; she believed the horizontal elements should be minimized.
She preferred the buff-colored brick. She was reluctant to use stairwells, particularly in parking
garages, and liked the idea of a glazed stairwell for enhanced security. She was unsure of the purpose
of the curved element on top of the stairway.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, believed that the design was an eyesore and somewhat
jumbled. He did not like the exterior color, and did not believe the landscaping would be easy to
maintain. He inquired whether the garage would be a pay garage, or if flocal businesses would provide
validation. He preferred AAPS's design to the current design.
Jay Justice, 3027 Linda Vista, spoke in support of this application and complimented the design. He
noted that it reminded him of the parking structure near the Fruitvale BART station. He encouraged
the City to ensure that the garage has sufficient spaces for non-compact cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the parking structure fell under the
historical review, Ms. Altschuler replied that the Cineplex and the parking garage were separate
buildings, and that the historic theater required a certificate of approval from the HAB for structural
alterations. The HAB would examine the parking structure and would hold a public hearing. The
project would be reviewed to ensure its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards.
Ms. Ott noted that the garage would be a pay garage with validation during the daytime, and will
offer free parking during the evenings.
Ms. Doreen Soto, Development Services, advised that the garage payment hours would mirror the
meters and public parking lots; it will be free after 5 p.m. Parking will be free on Sunday. She noted
that parking patrons will be able to pay with parking tokens, their cell phone, and credit cards, and
that they wished to make the process easy.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,10,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
In response to Vice President Cook's inquiry, Mr. Stanton described the exit paths of the garage.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future of the parking garage if the
Cineplex could not be built, Ms. Soto replied that it would proceed regardless of the Cineplex's
future. It had always been the City's intention to build a downtown parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the landscaping maintenance, Ms. Ott
replied that the City would maintain the landscaping because this is a public project.
Ms. Ott replied to Mr. Frederick's question regarding the exit through the cinema to the sidewalk,
and stated that was an emergency exit not open to the public.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern that the feedback from the HAB would not leave enough time to
make substantive changes, if needed.
Ms. Soto noted that it was the City's goal to have the final design approved on April 11, in order to
include it in the RFP package for the contractor.
Mr. Stanton noted that when the design comes back to the Planning Board on April 11, he could
include the package that would go to the contractors in the meeting package.
President Cunningham noted that the Board had been very concerned about the parking structure's
appearance, and would not like to compromise the finer details by fast-tracking the process.
Ms. Altschuler noted that a member of the Planning Board may be part of the oversight team if so
desired.
President Cunningham noted that he would be willing to serve in that capacity.
Ms. Altschuler noted that the comments from the HAB will be provided to the Board on April 11.
Vice President Cook requested the HAB's comments before the weekend of April 9 in order to
review them. Ms. Altschuler noted that she would make every effort to do so, and invited the Board
members to attend the HAB meeting on Thursday, April 7, 7-10 p.m. She added that the meeting
would not be televised.
Ms. Mariani supported the idea of a glazed elevator, for safety and aesthetic purposes. She also
favored the use of movie posters as described by Mr. Ratto.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,11,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Vice President Cook liked the glazing suggestion for safety purposes. She believed the base of the
structure appeared somewhat weak, and would like to see more solidity. Regarding the use of vines
versus movie posters, she noted that use of posters did give ownership of that space to the Cineplex
operator. However, she did not support the idea of broadcasting Hollywood's message to the City's
youth, especially since a high school and church were located across the street from the movie
posters. She would like the lower doors to look more like a door than a solid mass. She liked the
proposed illuminated signage, as well as the understated nature of the remainder of the signage. She
did not object to the varying parapet, and believed it broke up the massing. She did not believe the
building design appeared to be jumbled; she also liked the arch.
Mr. Piziali noted that he preferred to trellis to the display cases, which could be susceptible to graffiti.
He believed the marquee would appear messy and cluttered. He liked the idea of widening the
sidewalk, adding a bike lane and trees, and pulling the parking off the street. He was pleased with Mr.
Stanton's building design.
President Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated, it should be a strong
statement. He strongly supported the glazed stairwells, and supported increasing the capacity of the
structure. He suggested increased the height of the shear wall in the parapet area. He was troubled by
the size of the punch windows, and understood the intent of breaking up the massing with the
concrete. He concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments regarding the artwork, and believed some
artwork should be on the wall; he suggested continuing the verticality of the wall. He supported the
use of landscaping versus posters if its maintenance could be guaranteed; otherwise, movie posters
would be acceptable. He believed the shear wall should be accentuated as a solid area, with open
pieces between the shear wall and the stairwell.
Mr. Stanton noted that they had a full design development package for the garage that was not yet
fleshed out. He anticipated that there would be enough rigor in the package by April 11.
Ms. Mariani volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
Ms. Ott suggested that the subcommittee meet after the HAB meeting of April 7, 2005.
President Cunningham volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
Mr. Stanton requested President Cunningham's comments about Vice President Cook's preference
for a lighter palette. President Cunningham would support a lighter palette, given the proximity of the
library and Twin Towers church.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,12,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
2005.
AYES - 4 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the APAC cohosted a well-attended meeting with the
Transportation Commission on March 23, 2005. The purpose was to address transportation issues,
focusing on the most likely transportation and parking improvements, particularly the shuttles, and
Eco-Pass. A range of transit improvements were examined, including new shuttles to be paid for by
the project, an aerial tram to Jack London Square and bus expediting procedures through the Tube.
Connections to the 12th Street BART station were more important to the participants than to the
Fruitvale BART station; crosstown connections were also very important. The connection between
land use, density and transportation was also discussed.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that newspaper reports stated that new buildings and clubhouses were
being looked at, but added that there was no new information from the Committee.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that her committee was collaborating with the APAC, and was
incorporating the issues of downtown Oakland and Jack London Square as well. Four alternatives for
new on-ramps and off-ramps to I-880 were being considered. Traffic between Alameda and Oakland
was discussed, as well as one-way streets and delivery truck parking congestion. Creative financing
for various projects were discussed, and one member suggested a toll into Alameda, although that
was considered to be an unlikely option. The next meeting will be held in April.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-03-28,13,"PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
President Cunningham noted that this was Ms. Altschuler's last official meeting, although she would
attend the next meeting to follow up on the parking structure item. He thanked Ms. Altschuler for her
hard work over the years.
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
March 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-03-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - APRIL 5, 2005 - - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 9:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05 -136 - ) Proclamation declaring April 3-9, 2005 as the Week of the
Young Child.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Peter
Stensrud, Woodstock Child Development Center.
Mr. Stensrud stated that after school programs are essential;
thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-137) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been comments regarding noise
issues. that a suggestion was made to hand out flyers to property
owners in the area.
The Project Manager stated that he will talk with the property
owners and tenants beginning next week; noted the noisiest part of
the project is now; stated that he plans to post a weekly update at
the Times Star building directory.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested advising the public on how to
utilize the web camera for updates.
The Project Manager stated the web camera is accessible from the
City and Library websites.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,2,"Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-138 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting,
and the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 15, 2005; and
Special City Council Meetings held on March 22, 2005. Approved.
(*05-139) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,165,275.22.
(*05-140) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
( *05-141) Recommendation to approve two-month Contract extension
for William C. Norton for City Manager services. Accepted; and
( *05-141A) Resolution No. 13824, ""Requesting that the Public
Employee Retirement System Board Waive the 960-Hour Rule for
William C. Norton. "" Adopted.
(*05-142) Resolution No. 13825, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Police
Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit and the City of Alameda for the
Period Commencing December 28, 2003 and Ending December 24, 2006. ""
Adopted.
(*05-143) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing
Execution of Lease Between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the
County of Alameda (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1429 Oak
Street. Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-144) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Rezoning, R04-0002, to rezone 1/2 acre from R-5
to C-C; Variance, V04-0018, for a second driveway when one driveway
is permitted by the Alameda Municipal Code; Use Permit, UP04-0013,
for expansion of the vet clinic, and Design Review, DR04-0101, to
allow a 5,300 square foot new commercial building (veterinary
hospital) to replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial
buildings, with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces. The property
is located at 1410 Everett Street, 2501 Central Avenue and 2507
Central Avenue, in the C-C Community Commercial and R-5 General
Residential Zoning Districts. Applicant Mary Applegate and Cathy
Wydner. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. ; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,3,"(05-144A) Resolution No. 13826, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Recommendation to Approve Rezoning R04-002, Variance V04-018, Use
Permit UP04-013 - and Major Design Review, DR04-101, for Construction
of a Veterinary Clinic, with an amendment to include that the
Applicant has a dog walking policy and that kenneling is limited to
clients. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation on the
project.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : John Barni, Jr., Appellant
(provided diagram) ; Monica Pena, Alameda; Heather Beales, Alameda;
and Joe Meylor, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Lawrence Henderson, Alameda;
Susan Corlett, Alameda: Helen Mohr Thomas, Alameda; Diane Schaffer,
Oakland; Cathy Wydner, Applicant; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal
Hospital Geni Manchester; Mary Applegate, Applicant; Nancy
Matthews, Alameda (submitted letter) ; and Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA)
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
Hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Public Works Department
reviewed the current site plan and verified that the plan met
vehicle standards for safety and setbacks.
The Supervising Planner responded that there are hundreds of
instances where buildings are up to the edge of the sidewalk in the
commercial districts; stated that she would assume there were no
restrictions since the Public Works Department reviewed the plan
and did not raise the issue.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Engineering Department
would have commented if the site distance were a problem.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the commercial area was
willing to have dogs walk in the area, to which Mr. Ratto, PSBA,
responded absolutely.
Councilmember deHaan stated dog walking in neighborhoods has always
been a problem; that he feels more comfortable with the concessions
[made by Applicant regarding dog walking] that have been made
tonight ; that he is very satisfied with the architectural design
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,4,"changes ; that he can live with the client only boarding concession;
that he did not hear dogs barking at the site; noted that the site
is a very professional and confined operation; a lot of dogs have
to stay in kennels for a period of time and are picked up later in
the day; that in mind, he feels comfortable with moving forward
with the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Applicant has been very
accommodating.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding
the Planning Board's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired how the recommended
concessions [regarding kenneling and dog walking would be
reflected in the motion.
The Supervising Planner stated the conditions of approval do not
include the Applicant's agreement that only patients be kenneled on
site, not general kenneling; as to walking in the neighborhood, a
condition could be crafted that encourages use of streets other
than Regent Street and the south side of Central Avenue, which
might be difficult to enforce.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the approval could reflect that the
Applicant has an adopted dog walking policy, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the dog walking policy could be
incorporated.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether including the policy was acceptable
to the Applicant, to which the Applicant responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to incorporate reference
to the Applicant's dog walking policy as well as the kenneling of
client animals only.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-145) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0113, and Planned
Development, PD04-0004, for the construction of a new 6,000 square
foot community center and four detached sixteen-car garages,
exterior modifications to existing apartment buildings, and other
site modifications at the 615 unit Harbor Island Apartments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,5,"Complex. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue within the
R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development Zoning
District. Applicant: Chris Auxier for Alameda Multi Family Ventures
LLC. Appellant: Lorraine Lilley; and
(05-145A) - Resolution No. 13827, ""Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR04-0113
and Planned Development PD04-0004 to Construct a 6,000 Square Foot
Community Center and Four Detached Garages, Exterior Modifications
to Existing Buildings, and Other Site Modifications at the 615 Unit
Harbor Island Apartment Complex Located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue,
Located in an R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development
Zoning District. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation on the
project.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether asbestos abatement is part
of the permitting process.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island
Tenant Association; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Lynette Lee, Oakland; Delores Wills Guyton, Harbor
Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc Ecology ( submitted
handout ) ; Reginald James, Alameda; and Michael Yoshi ( submitted
handout) .
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Mark R. Hartney, Alameda Multi
Family Ventures.
Following Ms. Henderson's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired what
type of engineering review must be done to ensure the building is
structurally safe.
The Supervising Planner responded that all of the plans would be
reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that work must conform with the 2001
California Building Code (CBC) ; noted that he is unaware of any
part of the existing building that is not structurally sound;
stated that the Building Department would have notified the
property owners if the building was not structurally sound.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether that is how the process works.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,6,"The Supervising Planner responded that plans reviewed by the
Building Department would be checked against the Alameda Building
Code; stated any new construction has to be done according to the
2001 CBC ; that any rehabilitation to the existing buildings needs
to be done to Code, but not necessarily the 2001 CBC .
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be any work done that
would trigger a requirement for all buildings to be brought up to
code, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she was not
qualified to answer the question; stated the Building Official
would need to respond.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any safety issues would be
addressed by the Building Official before the buildings were
reoccupied and whether a Certificate of Occupancy would need to be
issued.
The Supervising Planner responded that the Building Code requires
that only safe buildings be occupied.
The Project Architect stated that he was not aware that the
Building Department identified any structural problems.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the balconies would be checked.
The Project Architect responded that a Structural Engineer would
make sure that the existing balconies are structurally sound.
Mr. Hartney stated that the Community Center and any additional
work on the old building needs to be built to 2001 CBC ; noted that
the Planning Department would check the safety of every building
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
The Acting City Manager stated that the exterior work is primarily
cosmetic; noted that nothing was being done that would structurally
change the balconies; stated that he would ensure that the Building
Official check the balconies and that the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) trigger would be reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that the 2001 CBC has a provision that
excludes any upgrades from complying with the ADA for residential
buildings built and occupied before 1991; noted that any new work
done to the Community Center needs to conform with the current
standards.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the building would implement
fire safety measures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,7,"The Acting City Manager responded that the Fire Marshall determined
that there were some Fire Code problems and notified the property
owner; stated a report from the Fire Marshall indicated the
problems were repaired with the exception of the fire alarm system
and elevator.
The Project Architect stated that agreements have been developed
with the Building, Planning and Fire Departments regarding the
level of upgrades that need to be satisfied.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
Hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Department was under a
deadline for the project.
The Supervising Planner responded that there is a statutory
deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act; stated that once a
project has been deemed complete, action needs to be taken within
[60 days].
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the approval for the
Community Center was via the Permit Streamlining process and
whether there are other aspects of the overall project that would
be subject to the Permit Streamlining process.
The Supervising Planner responded that all discretionary permits
are subject to the Permit Streamlining process which includes the
Design Review and the Planned Development amendment for the
Community Center and the new garage buildings.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are issues other than
what is being addressed tonight that are subject to the Permit
Streamlining process.
The Supervising Planner responded that the structural issues are
not part of the Permit Streamlining processi stated the structural
and plumbing issues are not under the Planning Board's purview.
Mayor Johnson stated the Building Code Appeals Board reviews
building code deviations.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Building Code Appeals Board
addresses instances where a building permit is not issued because
of a technical requirement when the applicant believes that an
alternate method for construction would be appropriate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,8,"Councilmember Daysog stated that it appears that acceptance of the
Community Center design green lights thee project and that
structural issues would be dealt with administratively
Mayor Johnson inquired whether structural findings could be brought
back.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an off
agenda report would be provided.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the tenant status, to which
the Acting City Manager responded there are four tenants remaining
on leases or have approval from the property owners to stay for two
or three months.
Mr. Hartney stated that there is a 60-day timeframe for the Permit
Streamlining Act; that the deadline was in February the Planning
Board requested another study session and an extension, which was
granted; stated that three tenants would be remaining as of
tomorrow at noon; noted that the remaining tenants are under long-
term leases.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the cosmetic work would trigger
a requirement to upgrade the electrical or plumbing, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that she would provide Council
information on the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Community Center was
considered an amenity to the project and whether the City has any
way of regulating the size or square footage of a building that can
be deemed a Community Center.
The Supervising Planner responded that there is no regulation;
stated that the Fifteen Group wanted to provide an opportunity for
some amenities but the building would not be a sufficient size to
hold tenant meetings.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the prior use of two units as
office space was an expansion of use and whether there is an issue
with Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
staff would provide Council information on the matter.
Mr. Hartney stated that the plans show that the building was
permitted for 615 units; noted that it is not a change of use if
the owner chooses to take two units off the market to use for its
own purpose, and then put the units back on the market.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would still be 615 units
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,9,"if the two office space units return to rented units, to which Mr.
Hartney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the intent to upgrade the
electrical and plumbing.
The Project Architect responded that drawings for improvements need
to be submitted for a building permit; stated the drawings would be
reviewed to ensure conformance with the conditions of approval and
agreements that were negotiated through the Design Review processi
noted that interior upgrade permits have already been submitted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the elevators, to which the Project
Architect responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a review on the process of safety
issues prior to occupancy and clarification on lead and asbestos
abatement. inquired how the sewer issues are connected with the
process of upgrading the exteriors of the buildings and whether
sprinklers would be required in the building.
The Acting City Manager responded lead and asbestos abatement and
sewer problems are not addressed as part of the exterior review but
would take place in the ministerial part of the building permits
noted a qualified contractor would need to perform the lead and
asbestos abatement work; stated that the sewer issue would probably
not be triggered but should be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the sewer work would be
required to be done, to which the Acting City Manager stated that
the sewer work should be reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that the sewer work is a condition of
approval i noted that some of the work has already been done and
presented to the Public Works Department.
The Acting City Manager stated that there are parts of the project
which would require sprinklers.
The Project Architect stated that public hallways and common areas
would be protected with a fire sprinkler system and the fire alarm
system would be upgraded; stated that reports from the Applicants
are required as part of the demolition permitting process; noted
testing has been done for lead in the water and the reports have
come back clean.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have a commitment
to look at the transportation mode.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,10,"The Project Architect stated that parking has been a concern since
the beginning; noted that eliminating the carports has maximized
the amount of parking on the site; stated that he cannot guarantee
that there will not be an overflow.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the Judge made a decision and the
redevelopment project must go forward.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Daysog stated that
information has been requested on issues raised.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution denying the
Appeal.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, and
Mayor Johnson -5. Noes Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember
Matarrese - 2.
(05-146) - Ordinance No. 2937, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2
(Combining Districts) i Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 ( T-Theater
Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater
Combining District. Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05 - 147 ) Ordinance No. 2938, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-148) Michael McGhee, Alameda, stated that he wants to develop
a resource guide of veterans' services available in Alameda; the
Housing Authority should refer veterans seeking housing to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,11,"Operation Dignity; that he welcomes help from the City Council or
private businesses.
(05-149) Deborah James, Alameda, stated that Redding Property
Management Group is trying to evict tenants without going through
due process.
(05-150) Reginald James, Alameda, stated that there are
reoccurring fires from a malfunctioning dryer at the Esperanza
Community Center; noted problems should be addressed.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-151) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
Association of Bay Area Governments representative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the
Association of Bay Area Governments representative and
Councilmember deHaan serve as the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-152) Mayor Johnson read the names of the members of the newly
formed Task Force: Vice Mayor Gilmore, an Alameda Unified School
District Board Member, Acting City Manager Bill Norton or designee,
Lorraine Lilley, Tom Matthews, Kendra Holloway, Steve Edrington,
Hadi Monsef and Carol Martino.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what was the timeframe for
providing findings, to which the Acting City Manager responded 60
days.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the goal of the Task Force,
to which the Acting City Manager responded preventing future mass
evictions and creating more affordable housing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the focus would be centric
to the surrounding Harbor Island Apartments or to a broader area.
The Acting City Manager responded there is more opportunity in the
West End but possibilities should not be limited.
Mayor Johnson noted that information is not coordinated enough ;
staff in different departments reviewed building code violations
and fire code violations in the Harbor Island Apartments staff
should review the issue of coordinating that information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,12,"(05-153)
Councilmember Daysog requested that staff respond to a
resident' inquiry regarding the rules of operating a roving coffee
shop.
Mayor Johnson stated the resident wants to operate a coffee truck
in the City parking lot by the Dog Park; the resident indicated
that East Bay Regional Park representative Doug Siden supports the
idea.
(05-154) ouncilmember deHaan stated that the Cineplex and parking
structure designs are dove tailing together; requested the designs
be presented at the same time and an overall design provided.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 5, 2005- -5:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-133) Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Title: City
Attorney.
(05-134) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations :
Police Association Non-Sworn (PANS) International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA) .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council provided direction; and
regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council obtained a
briefing from Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 5, 2005 - - - 5:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-135CC/05-013CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation: Name of cases : Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission obtained briefing from Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Cit Council and
Community Improvement Commission
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,15,"APRIL 5, 2005 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION MINUTES PLACEHOLDER
The April 5, 2005 CIC Minutes have not been approved by the
Commission.",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5-B
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding
Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept
Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda
Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team
was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of
the four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point
Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,
the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early
June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined
with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).
The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and
the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.
Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as
Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective
presentations.
1
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,2,"Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of
the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be
presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base
transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street
network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will
conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.
Land Use Slide Presentation
Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward
a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex
properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area
west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that
refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on
the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the
targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most
importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new
neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to
deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity
that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment
and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.
Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district
area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands
under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as
the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and
Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or
providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because
of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory
agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.
The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the
major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic
functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.
Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated
that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues
that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of
neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood
character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next
workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and
then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to
actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent
is to bring it to the ARRA board in July.
Transportation Presentation
2
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,3,"Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation
presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the
ARRA Secretary)
Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and
discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use
strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.
The
presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.
There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the
development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to
minimize the impact on the tube.
The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO
passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda
Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point
as well.
The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share
programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes
the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.
The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light
rail option (Cybertran).
In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next
steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)
take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more
detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.
Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda
would be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that
category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would
be very low on the list to compute for regional funding
Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very
informative ""if somewhat sobering."" Member Gilmore called several speakers:
first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating
that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find
partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of
Alameda.
Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he
anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.
3
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,4,"Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work
and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).
Emphasized continued dialogue with community.
Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC
for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the
summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the
duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding ""the Wall"" and
commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly
transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,
that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had
concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the
realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.
Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.
Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for
the City of Alameda.
Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great
detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution
that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and
that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail
connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of
the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an ""across
island"" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they
go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this
evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in
citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time
discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by
APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'
input.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible
outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several
4
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,5,"meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and
to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to
illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City
Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of
the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-04-07,1,"ORATED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005
1.
Meeting called to order at 5:07 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members NakMin Oddie, Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, Roberto Rocha, and
Executive Secretary Karen Willis. Member William J. Smith arrived at 5:12 p.m., during which time the
Board had moved past the Consent Calendar acceptance, and was on to item 6 on the agenda.
ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT: Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, and Marsha Merrick, Executive
Assistant, Human Resources.
3.
MINUTES:
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2005, were reviewed; Member Oddie
made a motion to accept, seconded by Member Rich, and carried by a 3-0 vote. Member Rocha abstained,
as he was not present at the January 2005 meeting. Member Rocha, however, thanked the board for
adjourning that meeting in memory of his mother, who had passed away closely preceding the January
2005 meeting.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rocha made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented,
seconded by Member Rich, and carried by a 4-0 vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2005:
4-A
ELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Assistant Engineer
01/03/05
Buyer
01/13/05
Combined Building Inspector
03/10/05
Development Manager
01/18/05
Financial Analyst
01/26/05
Office Assistant
01/11/05
Planner III
01/20/05
Reconstruction Specialist Il (Promotional)
03/03/05
Senior Construction Inspector
01/18/05
Street Light Maintenance Technician
03/05/05
System Dispatcher
03/24/05
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-04-07,2,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board
Thursday, April 7, 2005
4-B
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Code Compliance Officer
08/26/03
Distribution Engineer
09/03/03
Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer
09/21/04
Maintenance Worker Il
09/02/04
Police Lieutenant (Promotional)
07/09/03
Police Sergeant (Promotional)
09/15/04
Program Specialist Il (Clean Water Program)
09/30/03
Public Works Supervisor
08/17/04
Senior Electrical Engineer
08/19/04
Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician
09/29/03
4-C
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Administrative Services Coordinator
07/07/04
Administrative Technician I (Promotional)
08/04/04
Business Development Manager
07/12/04
Construction Inspector
03/11/03
Development Manager - Housing
03/13/03
Management Analyst (Base Reuse and Redevelopment)
08/27/04
Management Analyst (Community Programs)
09/30/04
Management Analyst (Small Business Assistance)
09/17/04
Program Specialist Il (Community Programs)
07/22/04
Senior Clerk
09/03/03
Senior Utility Analyst
09/09/04
Supervising Librarian
07/09/04
4-D
LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
Deputy City Attorney I
Police Officer - Recruit
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
The Activity Report for the period of December 1, 2004 - February 28, 2005 was reviewed.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
None
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, was in attendance to respond to questions
regarding the Civil Service Board's role in making recommendations to the City Council for
changes in Civil Service System policies. She began by describing what is contained in the
City Charter, and how there is a ""bright line"" that separates the Boards responsibilities, from
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-04-07,3,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Board
Thursday, April 7, 2005
those of the City Manager and his staff.
The Board is charged with the making of policy and procedure. The City Manager and his
staff have authority over the implementation and operations of these policies and
procedures. Assistant City Attorney Highsmith spent some time breaking this down for the
members, and responding to the questions posed surrounding limitations of authority. The
Board and staff give their thanks to Ms. Highsmith for her direction.
While Assistant City Attorney Highsmith was present, a question came up on the proper
procedure for agendizing items for future meetings. Ms. Highsmith advised that Executive
Secretary Willis was their liaison in this matter, and she would be the one to set the agenda,
including items of interest to the Board members. Member Smith stated his preference to
make his requests through Chair Robles-Wong, who would then work through Ms. Willis,
and it was agreed that this was a perfectly acceptable alternative.
In light of this, two requests were made to agendize items for the upcoming July 2005
meeting. Chair Robles-Wong requested that a discussion be held regarding Rule of the List
and adjusting the language in the Civil Service Rules. Member Rich requested to see EEO-
4 gender and ethnicity data to further a discussion initiated by Member Smith regarding
workforce diversity and its impact on community relations. Member Rich also suggested
that the City's anti-discrimination policy might be amended to include a commitment to
recruitment outreach as a good faith effort to promote workforce diversity. Accordingly,
Member Robles-Wong requested that the anti-discrimination policy be agendized for the
next meeting.
Revised language under Civil Service Rules, Article VII. Section 1 Establishment of Lists, to
add National Guard members to our definition of veterans for preference point purposes,
was presented to the Board for their approval. Member Rocha made a motion to accept,
Member Smith seconded, and the item was carried by a 5-0 vote. Staff will move forward
with a formal revision and re-distribution of the Rules.
9.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Robles-Wong asked for a motion to adjourn, which was provided by Member Smith,
Member Rocha seconded, and carried by a 5-0 vote. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -APRIL 7, 2005- - -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-155) - Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Secretary Altschuler
called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Boardmembers Lynch, Miller & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Vice-Chair Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Recording Secretary Debbie
Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue the minutes of the Special meeting of March 10, 2005 due to
lack of quorum. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff requested that Item 4 be heard 1st prior to items 1, 7 2, & 3.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to hear Item 4 first. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Secretary Altschuler informed the Board of the Historical Preservation Conference in
Riverside.
ACTIONITEMS (Discussion/Action)
4. Transportation Master Plan Policies - Review and comment on the draft TMP policies,
and recommend a set of final draft policies to the City Council for approval.
Barry Bergman, Public Works Department, stated that in 2004, the City Council approved
the development of a citywide Transportation Master Plan
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,2,"The TMP will consist of six individual plans: 1) multimodal circulation, 2) motor vehicle, 3)
transit, 4) bicycle, 5) pedestrian, and 6) transportation system management/ transportation
demand management.
A subcommittee was established to oversee the development of circulation policies for the
TMP These polices were to address all transportation modes on a general level, while
policies for the mode-specific plans (e.g. the bicycle plan and transit plan) will include more
detail.
Staff would like the Board to review the Draft Policies and give comments, and recommend a
set of final draft policies to the City Council for approval.
The Draft Policies were not included in the packet. Staff will forward a copy of this
document to the Board and they can submit their comments via e-mail.
1. Adoption of Resolution Commending Judith Altschuler, Secretary for the Historical
Advisory Board, for her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary, read the Resolution and presented it to Ms.
Altschuler.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to public comment.
Scott Brady, former president of HAB, would like to thank Judith for all of her time and
effort she has put in over the time of his tenure on the Board. Mr. Brady feels they got a lot
of things accomplished in terms of advancing preservation here in Alameda. And Judith did
a lot of the behind the scenes work. We have very good amendments to our Preservation
Ordinance largely due to her efforts.
Rosemary McNally, would like to encourage the Board to pass this resolution.
Board member Tilos closed the floor to public comment and opcned Board discussion.
Board member Tilos would also like to thank Judith for her work on this Board. She has
been very helpful.
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to approve the Resolution as presented. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 2; Motion carries.
Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board and the members of the community.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,3,"2. Review of the Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan
(as part of new development proposals on the site) was required as a Condition of Approval
by the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01-08, which approved the removal
of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001, The site is located within an R-4 Neighborhood
Residential District.
Ms. Altschuler gave a brief history of the project. In 1988, the previous owner damaged an
Oak tree through extensive trimming. The owners were required to preserve the tree despite
it being severely pruned. In 2001 the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the
Board approved a new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a
proposed residential development, with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on
the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and
approval by the Board when new construction is proposed on the site. The Board's approval
was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's decision was upheld upon
the Council's finding that there was no merit to the appeal.
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board
in 2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new
trees. The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
Board member Tilos opened the floor for public comment.
Patrick Lynch, 305 Spruce St., spoke in opposition of this project. He has several issues with
this application. He stated that the Board should be aware that the conditions contained in
CA-01-08 have not been complied with and his requests to the City for enforcement have
been ignored. In 2002 a grading permit was issued for the development project at the site
without requiring replacement trees. He is concerned with the recent changes to Alameda's
Historical Preservation Ordinance that allows Oak Trees with a trunk diameters less than 10""
to be removed without a Certificate of Approval. The proposed replacement trees will not
likely have trunk diameters of this size for 10 to 20 years, and could be removed at the end of
the period required for the landscape maintenance agreement. He therefore requests that the
replacement trees have a diameter greater that 10"" at 4,5 ft. above the ground. He also
disagrees with staff's decision that this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA
guidelines. The tree removal together with the proposed single-family home project may
cumulatively cause additional and substantial adverse change in the condition of the
remaining oak trees.
Ms. Altschuler addressed Mr. Lynch's concerns as followed:
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,4,"1. Mr. Lynch's concern with the issuance of the grading permit does not fall under the
prevue of the Historical Advisory Board.
2. To resolve Mr. Lynch's concern regarding the size of the trunk diameters of the
replacement trees, the Board can extend the landscaping maintenance agreement to five years
and require the replacement tree to be larger than 10"" diameter.
3. His issue with staff's decision that this project is exempt from CEQA guidelines do not
fall under the prevue of this Board and should be addressed during the design review process.
4. According to city records, the Certificate of Approval CA01-08 was valid on the day the
tree was removed. The Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees
be planted on the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for
review and approval when new construction is proposed. The current owners have submitted
a proposal to construct a single-family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the
planning of two new Oak trees has been prepared in conformance with Resolution HAB-01-
08. The plans for the new construction are currently under review by Design Review staff.
Conditions of approval for the Design Review will require protection of the existing trees per
the arborist and landscape architect's recommendations, as well as the recordation of a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement to ensure maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
Staff understands that Mr. Lynch has enjoyed living next to a vacant lot, but the owner is
entitled to develop his lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the decision before this Board tonight is to approve the
location of the replacement trees as stated in the Landscaping Maintenance plan.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board member Miller is in favor of extending the Landscaping Plan to 5 years. He is also in
favor of requiring the replacement trees to be bigger than a 10"" diameter.
The Certified Arborist, Chris Bowen was present. He suggested that the replacement trees be
24"" box, which would be close to 8 ft tall when planted. He feels this would improve the
property value.
M/S to approve the Landscaping Maintenance Plan with the following revisions: (1) Change
the replacement trees from two 10-gallon trees to two 24"" box trees. (2) Extend the
Landscape Maintenance Agreement from 3 to 5 years.
REPORTS
3. Consideration and comments on design of proposed 352 space parking structure to be
constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre and construction of a new
Cineplex. The parking structure would be built at 1416 Oak Street within the CC,
Community Commercial District. (continued from 2-3-05mtg.)
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,5,"Jennifer Ott, DSD, informed the Board that this project consists of three parts: the
rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre; the construction of a seven screen, two story Cineplex
with retail at the ground floor; and the construction of a 352 space, 60+ foot high parking
structure. Tonight staff would like the Board to provide comments on the parking structure
and Cineplex.
CINEPLEX:
The Henry Architects Inc, design team gave a presentation on the proposed Cineplex and
proposed parking structure. The presentation included various pictures of the proposed
Cineplex from different views of Central Ave. to address the concern that the Cineplex
would block the view of the Twin Towers Church. Mr. Henry concluded that in order to see
both towers of the church, over half of the upper levels of the new Cineplex would need to be
eliminated.
Another concern Mr. Henry spoke of is the 20 ft. overhang element on Central Ave and Oak
St. Mr. Henry stated that in order to provide a viable Cineplex it is critical to have the
proposed overhang. Without this overhang auditorium #7 would suffer greatly, losing 28
seats and reducing the screen size significantly. This will have a severe impact on the quality
of the presentation and reduce the ability to compete effectively with Jack London Square.
In addition to the severe economic impacts, deletion of the overhang. would be detrimental to
the architecture. The overhang provides a clear separation of stories and materials thus
reducing uninterrupted wall would create.
The last concern Mr. Henry addressed was the corner element. Mr. Henry stated that this
design included a great deal of surface articulation to eliminate the box like effect. Vertical
recesses continuing the line of the columns from the ground level have been added to the
upper sections at the auditoriums along with the horizontal elements to reduce the tallness of
the building. They have also rounded the corner ""tower"" on Oak St. and Central Ave. to
match the curved corners of the historic theater and the Starbuck building on Park St. This
will also reduce the box like effect shown in previous plans and adds more set back to the
corner for better visibility of the church.
Lastly Mr. Henry briefly went over the three different ideas for the color of the proposed
Cineplex.
Boardmember Lynch stated she was not in favor of the proposed sign on the new Cineplex.
Mr. Henry responded by stating he had no problems eliminating the proposed sign.
Boardmember Tilos opened the floor to public comment.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,6,"Ann Rutter stated she likes the new proposed design. She would like to see the Oak St.
elevation. She feels this project has been forced on the community. She would like to see
more handicap parking spaces closer to the elevators for easier wheelchair access.
David Baker, 939 Taylor Ave., feels that the new proposal is not compatible with the
historical qualities of Alameda. He stated that the art deco is missing.
Richard Knight, 1372 Versailles Ave., feels that the primary goal of this project is for the
Historic Alameda Theatre to be back in operation. He is concerned with what would happen
if this Cineplex went out of business in the future.
John Sargent, 3105 El Paseo, stated he was concerned when he saw the proposed design in
the Alameda Sun. He feels that the parking lot should be located on the corner of Oak St.
and Santa Clara Ave. The parking garage should include more art deco style and not look so
much like a parking garage. He stated that housing should be included on the upper two
stories of the parking garage.
Scott Brady, AAPS, feels that in general the design is good. He feels that the vertical
elements should be stressed more. The proposed design has impressions of columns, but
does not read very strong. This is a very good start.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., stated that the proposed design still feels to ""boxie""
looking. He stated that he feels that Oak St. is too narrow to support such a huge Theatre and
Parking Garage. He does not currently go to movie theaters. He would prefer to rent a
movie or download from computer. These days modern technology may prevent huge Multi-
plex Theatres to be successful.
Doreen Soto, DSD, responded to some of the comments made tonight as follows:
1. Currently Long's Drugs is not willing to participate in this project. The City has to move
forward with this project.
2. The City has hired the best economist to work on this project. He has determined that
based on the population and demographics, this project will succeed. The parking
structure will attract more business to Park St.
3. The proposed Cineplex is not an addition to the Historic Theatre. She feels the new
Cineplex will compliment the Historic Theatre.
Board member Lynch requested that the Board hold a special meeting to submit comments
on the proposed Cineplex, as she would like more time to review the items submitted tonight.
The Board agreed and instructed Staff to schedule a Special meeting to hear comments on the
Cineplex only. Staff will forward a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to the Board. The
Board will only submit comments on the Parking Structure tonight.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,7,"PARKING STRUCTURE:
Mr. Michael Stanton, architect, gave a brief summary of what was presented to the Planning
Board on March 28, 2005. Mr. Stanton informed the HAB of the comments they received
from the Planning Board. The Planning Board preferred the lighter color brick, simplify the
lines (on top) of Cineplex behind Longs, more lighting on the disabled bike access of parking
garage, stair tower should either be all open or have the same openings as the parking garage,
eliminate the on-street parking on Oak St. to extend the sidewalk and add street trees.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Public comment.
Don Cunningham, Twin Towers Church, is in favor of the lighting and the color. He stated
that Twin Towers was built long before automobiles were in use. Not in favor of losing the
on-street parking on Oak St. He is concerned with the travel pattern.
Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Ave., stated that for safety reasons the on-street parking should
be eliminated. All construction should fit in to the surrounding area. He would like to know
what the HAB's role in this project is?
In response to Mr. Millar question, Ms. Altschuler stated, there are three items that require
approval from the HAB. First, Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations relating
to the seismic strengthening of the front façade, second, the new openings between the
theatre and the new Cineplex, and third, the new opening for the concession stand.
The Planning Board will give final design approval for the Cineplex and Parking Garage.
Staff is just asking for comments from the HAB.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., is not in favor of the exterior design He feels it is out of
place with surrounding buildings.
Don Sargent, is not in favor of façade. He feels the open banks can be treated architecturally.
He feels that it might be necessary to take away the on-street parking on the opposite side of
the street as well.
Richard Knight is not in favor of design. He feels there are no historical elements. Is not
compatible with surrounding area.
Ann Rutter commended Michael Stanton for his work on this project. She would like to see
free parking on Sundays. She is in favor of the lighting design, but would like to see more
art deco.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,8,"Scott Brady, AAPS, feels the Oak St. façade looks to jumbled. The lower level does not tie
in with the upper levels. Stair tower should have more glazing. Arches should be increased.
He is in favor of the buff colored brick. More attention should be placed on the blank wall
facing Long's
Rob Ratto, PSBA, is in favor of project. He likes the idea of a mural on the blank wall facing
Long's He likes the new proposed design for the Cineplex. The loss of on-street parking
spaces will make it more pedestrian friendly. There will be metered parking spaces in the
parking garage. Five-hour time limit Monday - Saturday, 9 am - 5 pm, free on Sundays. He
stated that this project has limited funds. There will have to be some compromises. It is hard
to hide the fact that this is a parking garage.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to extend the meeting to 10:30 pm. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2: Motion carries.
Boardmember Tilos closed floor for public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Miller is in favor of the poster boxes because he feels that there will be a
maintenance issue with the planting of vines. He is in favor of the glazing on the tower, and
is not in favor of the canopy.
Boardmember Lynch does not feel this design is compatible but understands this project
needs to move forward. She is in favor of the buff color and prefers the posters to the vines.
She likes the idea of free parking on Sundays and is in favor of the mural.
Boardmember Tilos stated that the columns above the main entrance do not blend together.
He is in favor of the design for the Cineplex.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue only the Cineplex portion of this item for comments to a
Special Meeting. (date to be announced.) 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2: Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch stated that representatives from Alameda Point will be meeting with
AAPS on April 19, 2005 to address the Historic Preservation concerns. Boardmember Lynch
would like to be a representative for the Historical Advisory Board if a committee is formed.
Staff took note of this request.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,9,"STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler introduced Doug Garrison, Planner III. There will also be another new
planner starting on Monday, April 11, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to adjourn meeting at 10:38 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jerry Cormack,
Interim Planning & Building Director
G:PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\4-7-05 MINUTES_HAB.doc
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-08,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FRIDAY - - APRIL 8, 2005 - 3:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-156) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 8, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
Mariani, and Piziali.
Also present were Interim Planning & Building Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton,
Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that page 7, last paragraph, stated that she supported that the non-Measure A
option be evaluated, not the non-Measure A option itself at this point.
M/S Kohstrand/Cook to approve the minutes for the Special meeting of March 3, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)
b. Minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005 (continued from the meeting of March 28,
2005.)
M/S Cook/Kohstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali)
c.
Minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 11, paragraph 3, should be changed from, ""President
Cunningham believed that if the parapet were to be articulated and supported increasing the capacity
opacity of the structure.""
President Cunningham advised that the resolutions on page 3 and page 5 need to have a resolution
number attached.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2005, as
corrected.
AYES - 4; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 3 (Lynch, Kohlstrand, Mariani)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
7-A.
Resolution and Commendation for Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler.
President Cunningham read the following resolution into the record:
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler accepted the position of Assistant Planner for the City of Alameda on
June 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Planner III for the City of Alameda on December
10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler was promoted to Supervising Planner for the City of Alameda on
February 24, 2002; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in the planning process of numerous projects including
the renovation of the Historic Alameda City Hall, construction and renovation of St. Joseph's High
School gym and campus, the construction of the Lucent Campus, the construction of California
Heritage Bay and Bayport and the completion of Harbor Bay Isle Village V; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has most recently assisted the Library Building Team in the planning
process of the construction of our New Alameda Library, and in the planning process of the
renovation of our Historic Alameda Theatre and new Cineplex and parking garage, and the planning
process for the development of the Breakers at Bayport.
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted in creating the new City-wide Guide to Residential
Design and numerous development code amendments; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has assisted staff in a countless number of daily projects with her
knowledge of the Zoning Ordinance and Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has been Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board since 1992 and
has been instrumental in revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in implementing the Historic
Building Study List, and the overall historic preservation of Alameda homes, monuments and
landmarks; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler has, during her tenure, provided clear and consistent information to
the City Council, Planning Board, Historical Advisory Board, staff and the citizens of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Judith Altschuler will officially retire from her position as Supervising Planner for the
City of Alameda on May 12, 2005.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,3,"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda extends
their thanks for her ""Dedication to Excellence and Commitment to Service"" to the City of Alameda
on behalf of the City, staff and the citizens of Alameda.
President Cunningham noted that Ms. Altschuler's knowledge and expertise will be missed.
Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board for making her tenure so memorable and wonderful, and
complimented them on their hard work and commitment to the City. As a citizen of Alameda, she was
glad that she was leaving the City in such good hands. She thanked staff for its terrific work, and will
miss them.
Mr. Piziali thanked Ms. Altschuler for her clarity in Planning Board and City Council meetings, and
would miss her greatly.
Ms. McNamara thanked Ms. Altschuler for her expertise and patience.
Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Altschuler on her clarity and talent for explaining difficult
issues, as well as her patience through changing Boards. She complimented Ms. Altschuler on her
excellent staff reports, and hoped they would be a model for future staff members.
Mr. Lynch and Ms. Mariani thanked Ms. Altschuler for her excellent service.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,4,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
Major Design Review, DR04-0106, and Variance, V05-0001 - Corey Verka - 2825 Van
Buren Street (DB) The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval to add habitable
floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell to the basement, and alter the rear deck.
Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming westerly side yard setback of 3-feet,
where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to
AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy
reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required because the
proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand the
use of a nonconforming third story. The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family
Residential Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-12 to approve a
Major Design Review approval to add habitable floor area in the basement, enclose the rear stairwell
to the basement, and alter the rear deck. Because the enclosed stairwell extends a nonconforming
westerly side yard setback of 3-feet, where a minimum 7-foot side yard setback is required, a finding
must be made pursuant to AMC 30-5.7 (k) & (1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view
blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. A Variance is also required
because the proposed expansion of habitable floor area into the basement would structurally expand
the use of a nonconforming third story.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,5,"8-B
ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (JC). The
Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C-
1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a
permitted use or as a use regulated by use permit. The Planning Board will review and take
action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater:
1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a ""Boutique Theater"" defined as ""A
theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of
motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater"" is sufficiently similar to what is
allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by use
permit ""Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses."" If
the Planning Board determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" is consistent with what is allowed
by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a use permit at a future
meeting; or
2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add ""Boutique Theater"" as a use
regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. ""Boutique Theater would be defined as ""A
theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of
motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater."" If the Planning Board
determines that a ""Boutique Theater"" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district,
the zoning amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would
need to return to the Planning Board for a use permit following adoption of the amendment
by Council. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005. Applicant and staff are
requesting a continuance to the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,6,"8-C.
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO) Applicant Requests a Design
Review for a 352 space, 6 level parking structure, open Public Hearing, provide comments
and continue item to the meeting of April 11, 2005. The site is within the C-C Community
Commercial, Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of March 28, 2005. Applicant
requests continuance to the meeting of April 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 23, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9-A.
Major Design Review, DR04-0093 Wei Liang for 2019 Buena Vista Avenue: Appellant:
Mercedes Milana of 2019 Buena Vista Avenue (DB). Mercedes Milana is appealing staff's
conditional approval of this Major Design Review which permits the structural expansion of a
single family residence by converting the basement into habitable space. This residential
expansion would provide a total of approximately 3,226-square feet of floor area. The
appellant is requesting that the Major Design Review application be denied because of
potential detriments to the neighborhood including, but not limited to an increased demand for
on-street parking resulting from the increase in residents at the property. The site is located
within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton summarized the staff report, and noted that the basis of appeal was issues associated
with the number of people who may live in the residence due to this approval, as well as ongoing
enforcement actions. Staff recommended that the project be approved conditionally, and that
additional conditions be required, including:
1.
A
deed restriction stating that the building is a single-family residence until otherwise
approved by the City;
2.
The internal stairwell connecting the basement with the main floor must be opened as
much as possible to the floor above;
3.
The installation of the proposed wet bar should be disallowed; and
4.
Additional stairway access into the basement area from the side of the house will be
disallowed.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Tonya Parker, 2023 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that there had been
numerous family members and others living in the building. She expressed concern that they are
placing pressure on parking and the schools, and that more families would be added. She believed the
applicants' actions were detracting from the nature of the neighborhood.
Mr. Kirk Ling, 2012 Buena Vista, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that the applicant had
added units numerous times, and he had seen people crawling out of windows in the morning. He was
very concerned the deed restriction would be disregarded, and that the schools were being pressured
by nonresidents of Alameda. He believed this building would turn into an apartment building.
Ms. Mercedes Milana, 2027 Buena Vista Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not
believe this dwelling space was appropriate for so many people, and recalled the past history of this
building's occupants. She expressed concern that the additional space would double the number of
residents from 13 to 26, and noted that parking shortages would become worse. She understood that
this was an R-4 zone, but believed that the situation was excessive. She noted that people in similar
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,8,"buildings cemented over their lawn and parked there following the amnesty. She believed this would
significantly impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Chau, project engineer, understood the neighbors' concerns about parking and has been working
with staff. He was not aware of the history of the neighboring buildings, but knew that their family
was growing and must be accommodated. He did not believe the number of 26 residents was justified.
President Cunningham noted the neighbors would like a guarantee regarding the number of people on
an individual property, and suggested that they work together to craft an answer to limit the number
of people who could live within the residence.
Mr. Chau noted that the garage was no longer there, and that they needed storage space. Mr. Piziali
noted that in Alameda, the garage was meant to park cars, not for storage.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Chau stated that they had three cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the number of people living in a home as a
family, Ms. Harryman noted that the number of people in a dwelling unit cannot be limited. Deed
restrictions may be imposed and stairwells reviewed for integrated internal access so that the building
may retain its single-family nature.
Mr. Piziali believed that this house was overbuilt for the neighborhood.
Mr. Brighton noted that the resolution contained a typographical error, and that the design review
would be valid for one year.
Mr. Lynch believed the applicant should start this process over again, and that the applicant should
consider the City guidelines; the new application should be submitted according to those City
guidelines in the Code. He believed there was significant inconsistency in the history of this
application.
Ms. Harryman noted that the Board members should look at this application as it is, notwithstanding
past Code enforcement actions, and that they may make a determination based on significant adverse
impacts.
Mr. Piziali could not support this application because of the lack of a garage, and believed it would
impact the neighborhood negatively.
Ms. McNamara noted that she could not make the findings, and that this neighborhood was
significantly impacted by the large amount of traffic and parking congestion.
Ms. McNamara did not believe that this address was solely responsible for the street's parking
suggestion.
Ms. Mariani noted that was not the assumption.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,9,"Mr. Piziali noted that the type of window material should be specified in the plans. Mr. Brighton
replied that people were able to install any kind of window consistent with the style of architecture,
but aluminum windows were prohibited under the Design Guidelines.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether a garage existed on the property, Mr. Chau stated
that it was extended with permits and approvals. He did not know whether the garage was being used
for parking. The owner stated that it was used for parking and minor storage. He recommended that
the garage be removed.
Mr. Lynch believed the addition square footage being sought should incorporate the parking for the
residents to the extent possible. He strongly suggested that the applicants discuss this issue with staff,
incorporate those discussions into a document to submit to the Planning Board for approval or denial.
Mr. Piziali believed the driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb
cut would be legal. He requested further information on the driveway. ""Mr. Piziali wished to clarify
that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two cars there. He
wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.'
Vice President Cook commended staff on the work it did under the current conditions, and would like
it reflected in the plans that it would be a single-family home. She believed the interior staircase
should be decidedly open and not easy to close up.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-13 to uphold the appeal and deny
the Major Design Review and remand it to staff.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,10,"Transportation Commission appropriately said that sound walls were not a good idea. He noted that
objective A-7 can contain Public Works' staff frecommendation and still maintain the original wording.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook believed that pedestrian uses had been shortchanged, and did not agree with
privatizing streets.
President Cunningham believed that the grid of streets should be broken up with variations in design,
including the use of cul de sacs.
Ms. Hawkins noted that the next step would be to examine the grid network.
Mr. Lynch noted that he liked cul de sacs because they were safe places for children to play, and that
they were a physical place in an urban setting that allows for that safe area. He noted that the cul de
sacs were needed in Alameda, but that they should not be too long.
Mr. Cormack inquired whether bicycle and pedestrian linkages would be favored by the Board at the
end of cul de sacs.
Regarding A-1, Vice President Cook believed that truck routes affect the neighborhood, and agreed
with Mr. Spangler.
Ms. Kohlstrand wished to make it clear that all modes of transportation should be accommodated.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,11,"Mr. Lynch believed the planning should engage agencies as they affect circulation. A working group
would be a good solution.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that providing directions with respect to bridge crossings, etc. would be a
positive addition to this document.
Mr. John Knox White noted that this was a general policy, and that the next step would provide more
detail.
Ms. Mariani believed that issues with Oakland should be addressed in subcommittees.
Mr. Piziali noted that he did not like speed bumps, lumps or humps, and requested clarification from
staff. Ms. Hawkins provided the distinctions. Mr. Piziali believed they had a negative impact on
emergency response vehicles, and impacted response times.
Mr. Lynch believed the traffic calming measures providing greater safety for children.
Regarding A-5, President Cunningham believed the policies of the ADA were the standard to base
transportation policies upon. Mr. Knox White noted that because it was federal law, it would take
precedence; pre-ADA crossings were called out in the document.
Regarding livability, President Cunningham noted that parking relative to parcels was an important
issue, and would like the Transportation Commission's opinion.
Mr. Knox White noted that they planned to examine concerns about on-street programs, especially
the costs.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Knox White described various traffic calming tools,
including bulbouts and increasing the curve of a street.
Mr. Lynch believed a legend should be included to identify the responsible parties for comments, and
added that he was appalled at the Housing Authority's comments. He found it highly disrespectful to
the community of Alameda, to suggest the idea of increasing the speed limit on the streets, with more
vehicles, while trying to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Knox White noted that the
comment was made by City staff. Mr. Lynch noted that it was an unprofessional suggestion. Ms.
Kohlstrand noted that was a standard approach for traffic engineers.
President Cunningham noted that the residents had spoken loud and clear regarding their opposition
to sound walls.
Vice President Cook believed the General Plan should specifically state that there should be no sound
walls in Alameda.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported shared parking in the Mixed Commercial areas.
Vice President Cook noted that the LOS was affected when high-occupancy vehicles were given
priority over low-occupancy vehicles; the single car drivers would be made so uncomfortable that
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,12,"they would take transit. She believed that bicycles should be more completely addressed as a mode of
transportation.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that Objective D-3, which reads, ""Impacts to traffic operations, including all
modes of transportation did not sound right, and that an expression of multimodal
accommodations should be included.
Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired
whether it would be eliminated. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was in the current General Plan. Ms.
Kohlstrand believed that other solutions besides light rail should be examined. ""Ms. Kohlstrand
wished to clarify that she was referring to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the
Beltway, not whether the light rail line itself would be eliminated.""
""President Cunningham made note that he would like the Transportation Commission to identify
any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies with less of a financial
impact to the City.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had nothing new to report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing to report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Cormack advised that the staff report on the West End Retail Implementation Strategy was
provided for information only.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-11,13,"Mr. Cormack advised that at the last City Council meetings, Harbor Island and the veterinarian clinic
were approved; the Planning Board was supported on both items.
Vice President Cook inquired about the 100,000 square foot store planned. Mr. Piziali noted that kind
of store would only be built at total build-out.
Mr. Cormack advised that it would be a food store, at build-out only.
Mr. Lynch did not see a discussion on how land use decisions impact the general fund, and believed it
would be short-sighted not to do SO.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the April 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-04-13,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
April 13, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Ruth Belikove, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of April 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of March 9, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Annual Library Services Report for 2004. Accepted with revised second page.
D.
*Library Services Report for the month of February 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures (by
fund) through February 2005. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Donor Recognition and Named Gifts.
President Krongold made a MOTION to accept the Resolution as stated. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of the Alameda Free Library that the
Board hereby approves the ""Donor Recognition and Named Gifts"" policy, and
recommends its adoption by the City Council of Alameda.
Board member Butter handed out a revised policy and the Board discussed the changes
that were made. Ms. Butter stated that the changes simply reflected wording changes to
make it more precise in their meaning. The Board wants to encourage donations but also
ensure the appropriateness of the gift. With the Library Foundation, the Board will
develop guidelines as to how the recognition of the gift will be given.
President Krongold MOVED acceptance of the amendment. Board member Butter
SECONDED the motion.",LibraryBoard/2005-04-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-04-13,2,"Board member Mitchell MOVED to approve the Resolution as modified. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
B.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
In the absence of Mr. Haritgan, Board member Butter stated that the Library Building
Team received a report from Project Manager Bob Haun. The Team had many questions
regarding the budget. The team also discussed LEED certification for the new main
library project. Street closures will be starting next week and the Team is anxious to
notify citizens before the closures.
C.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
In the absence of Vice President Belikove, Library Director Hardie stated that the
Foundation's capital campaign will not being until fall of this year.
D.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that the Friends of the Library will fund the Teen Summer Reading
Program this year. The next booksale will be the last weekend in June at the ""O"" Club at
Alameda Point.
E.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that Library Building Watch is not currently meeting. The
newsletter will go out the following week with news about author events at the library,
street closures from construction of the new facility and the new library logo.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library Director Hardie responded to 13 input/feedback forms regarding: Please
purchase more Learn to Speak Italian CD's; purchase the Book of Joe; will you be
expanding the DVD collection; the ""Hold"" service the library provides is wonderful;
the
turnstiles do not work effectively with strollers; why aren't new books coming in faster
like they use to; when is the next Harry Potter book coming out; what is WIFI; please
move another ""catalog only"" computer downstairs; can you list DVD's and video titles
in a separate category on the library database; and, please bring back a pay phone for
emergency use.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert reminded the Board members that Legislative Day in Sacramento is one
week from today.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Mitchell referred to an article in Library Hotline and asked if the Library
had an emergency plan in place.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie reported that April 29th is Meet Your Public Officials Day. She
noted that the installation of the Library's new software system has been installed and is
going well; however, not all of the capabilities of the system are working yet.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-04-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF APRIL 14, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, April 14, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of March 10, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
In Favor (3) -
Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Abstentions (2) - Johnson, Oliver
""That ""Action"" be removed from items C & D on page 4 and that Minutes of March
10, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting be approved with the above
corrections.""
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.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,2,"A.
Discussion of Transportation Master Plan Policies - (Discussion Item)
Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer, presented the Transportation
Master Plan Policies to the Recreation and Park Commission. The policy portion of the
completed Transportation Master Plan will be recommended as the transportation element
of the future General Plan update.
In March and April, the document is being presented to each of the Boards and
Commissions represented on the Task Force (with the exception of the Planning Board) to
solicit comments and approval.
Chair Ingram asked if a chain link fence or wrought iron fence is considered a sound wall.
Ms. Hawkins stated no.
Chair Ingram asked Ms. Hawkins for an explanation of a Traffic Calming Toolbox. Ms.
Hawkins stated that a Tool Box is a list of ways to calm traffic.
Commissioner Reeves asked if ""one way"" streets were ever considered on some of the
smaller streets (e.g., Walnut, Chestnut, etc.). Ms. Hawkins stated that part of the
Transportation Master Plan is to look at the grid map and see which streets should be main
thorough fares, etc. The issue of one way streets will be looked at.
Chair Ingram stated that he agreed with objective B-2.5, maintaining the speed limit of 25
mph on all streets in Alameda in order to avoid creating barriers between neighborhoods.
Exempt current roadways with speed limits above 25 mph: Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway, Main Street, Constitution Way, Tilden Way, Doolittle Drive, Island Drive, North
Loop Road, South Sloop Road, and Harbor Bay Parkway.
Chair Ingram also stated that he agreed with objective B-5.1, consider a fully-funded on-
street and off-street parking permit to support access and transportation objectives. Mr.
Ingram asked if the program would be like San Francisco where you purchase a permit
through the City and then you can park on the street if you have a permit. Ms. Hawkins
stated that permits need to be structured for the City and they are investigating the issue.
B.
Presentation of Facility Photos/Inventory - (Information Only)
Item is tabled until the May Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
C.
ARPD Office Relocation to 2226 Santa Clara Avenue - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard stated that the lease for 1327 Oak Street came to an end on December 31,
2004. The School District has extended the lease for six months which will end in June.
The ARPD administrative office will be relocating to 2226 Santa Clara Avenue (old County
Mental Health Building). Renovation of the new building has begun and it is anticipated
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,3,"that we will be moving in the weekend of May 20, 2005.
D.
Update on Leydecker Park Playground Project - (Oral Report/Discussion Item)
AD Lillard reviewed the selection of the playground equipment with the Recreation and
Park Commission. Playgrounds by Design, Inc. was selected to provide the equipment
with installation to be completed by Community Playgrounds, Inc.
The playground will be moved from its existing location (next to Library) to where the
volleyball court is now located. The volleyball court will be removed. The playground is
being relocated due to softballs being hit/played into the play area during softball games.
Moving to the new area will be safer for children.
A Neighborhood Meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Leydecker Recreation Center.
Commissioner Reeves stated that if it is safer and in a place where it is more visible and of
the same quality as the other newer playgrounds then it will be great.
Chair Ingram asked if earth tones will be used for the colors. AD Lillard stated that the
sample is in earth tones, but that may change at the Neighborhood meeting.
Vice Chair Kahuanui asked what will happen to the old play area. AD Lillard stated that the
area will probably be resodded and left open. Playing in the old area is discouraged
because we do not want the kids to get hurt.
AD Lillard stated that the playground should be completed in time to use it during most of
the summer.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revised Site Plan for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park
(American Tower Corporation) - (Discussion/Action Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, and Jason Peery, American Tower representative,
presented the revised site plan for the wireless telecommunication facility at Washington
Park. At the last meeting there were three major issues of concern. They were:
-
Reducing size of area to be occupied.
-
Reducing the obtrusiveness of the equipment enclosure.
-
Making the antennae's blend in and change size of the pole.
American Tower has revised the plans from the ground up to address the issues.
-
Equipment area was moved down the third base line. Fence will be moved in to
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,4,"create more space for the building.
-
Air conditioning units were placed on the side of building to reduce height.
-
New fence will be installed.
-
Selection of building and the pole colors will be determined by the Recreation
and Park Acting Director and approved by the Planning Board.
-
Landscaping will be done with climbing vines (not on the field side) between the
building and the fence.
-
Interior area (between new fence and third base of the ball field) will have sod
replaced.
-
Enclosed fenced-in area that was shown on the drawing a month ago is now
gone.
AD Lillard asked Mr. Knopf if he could negotiate to have American Tower take care of the
landscaping of the vines that will be planted by the building. Mr. Knopf stated that he will
ask.
Chair Ingram asked if staff had looked into the tree antennae's. Mr. Knopf stated that it
was felt that installing a pole would fit in with the current look of the park. The antennae's
will be hidden inside the light pole and the pole can be painted any color desired.
Chair Ingram asked what would be the girth of the pole. Mr. Peery stated that it will be
approximately three feet. It will be similar to what is out there now.
Lil Arnerich, Alameda resident, stated that for the record in the Lease Agreement it states
that the particular pole and building could become obsolete. American Tower should be
responsible for the removal of building and the pole should it be abandoned. This is also in
the Lease Agreement.
Mr. Arnerich also stated that the construction will be happening during the summer which is
a very busy time, both during the day and night. Construction hours should be regulated.
There will be people in the picnic areas and on the tennis courts. Mr. Arnerich showed the
Commission and Mr. Peery where gates are located that will let the large crane in to install
the pole.
Regarding the eight foot fence, Mr. Arnerich suggests theatrical scenery (trees, shrubs,
etc.) be used to hide the building. He will forward pictures of other areas where this has
been used to the American Tower representative.
Mr. Arnerich asked Mr. Peery to sod between the new fence and third base of the ball field.
He would like picnic tables and benches installed to be used by the families that frequently
use the area.
Chair Ingram asked what four carriers are being looked at to use the tower. Mr. Knopf
stated that Cingular (AT&T and Cingular merged), Sprint (Sprint and Nextel merged), T-
Mobil, Metro PCS are now significant carriers. Mr. Arnerich stated that many times one
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,5,"firm will take over for another firm and they will say that they are not responsible for their
actions. Mr. Knopf stated that typically where there are terminations of the contracts the
City is vulnerable. But, where there are contracts in place they are liable for lease
payments during that time and removal of equipment.
Chair Ingram asked if the air conditioning units that are being installed on the side of the
building were going to be the same size as the ones that were being proposed for the roof.
Mr. Peery stated they are 2.6 feet tall. Chair Ingram asked if the container will be 18 feet
wide instead of 15 feet wide. Mr. Peery stated that with the air conditioners being installed
on the side it will be a lot thinner.
Commissioner Reeves asked how noisy the air conditioners would be. Mr. Peery stated
that they will not be any noisier then a typical air conditioning unit. The City can specify
quiet air conditioning units.
Chair Ingram asked what was the length of the lease? AD Lillard stated that American
Tower is into two years of the contract on a ten year lease. The lease was for ten years
and American Tower is just building the tower now.
Chair Ingram stated that he assumes this project will now go before the Planning Board. It
states that the colors will be picked by the Recreation and Park Department and Mr. Ingram
would like the Planning Board to approve the colors since they are the usual Board to pick
the color. AD Lillard stated that the Recreation and Park Department will pick the color and
it will go before the Planning Board. The Planning Board will have the final decision.
M/S/C
REEVESIJOHNSON (Approved)
""That the revised site plan for wireless telecommunication facility at Washington
Park be approved with the following stipulations:
-
Equipment area be moved down the third base line. Fence will be moved in
to create more space for the building.
-
Air conditioning units were placed on the side to reduce height of the
building.
-
New fence will be installed.
-
Selection of building and the pole colors will be determined by the
Recreation and Park Acting Director and approved by the Planning Board.
-
Landscaping will be done with climbing vines (not on the field side)
between the building and the fence.
-
Interior area (between new fence and third base of the ball field) will have
sod replaced.
Enclosed fenced-in area that was shown on the drawing a month ago is
now gone.
Approved (4) - Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,6,"Opposed (1) - Ingram
B.
Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation
regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard stated that the various sports seasons have begun and staff was unable to get
commitments from the coaches prior to this Commission Meeting. The Committee is
meeting Tuesday, April 21, 2005, to go over the draft participant per play charge. When
that is complete it will be brought back to the Recreation & Park Commission.
Chair Ingram asked if AD Lillard has a sense of what the Committee would be
recommending. AD Lillard stated that he felt they would propose to the Commission that
they (sports groups) will propose that the groups have the option of paying the fee or work
off the debt.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he is curious as to what the Recreation and Park
Department would like.
Vice Chair Kahuanui stated that if the Commission does not want to impose the usage fee
to help offset maintenance costs for the existing maintenance that goes on just by them
using the field. AD Lillard stated that the best option is to collect a fee. This is fine for large
organizations, but for the smaller groups or groups just starting up they may have to say
that they will work with volunteer labor. Most groups have been good about doing both.
Soccer has been real good and has made donations.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he would rather the Commission dictate to them what
the Commission wants rather than accept what the group has to offer.
Vice Chair Kahuanui stated that potentially what could happen is that some areas will be
well taken care of (e.g., Lincoln as opposed to Woodstock) and other areas will not. AD
Lillard suggested that when the group presents the policy to work the debt off then the
Commission could add the stipulation that it would be up to the discretion of the Recreation
and Park Director and/or the Park Manager to select where the work needs to be done.
Vice Chair Kahuanui also stated that staff will have to monitor what is being done. AD
Lillard stated that staff does a lot of monitoring now. It would be much easier and
convenient for staff to have the groups pay the money. Although this would not be feasible
for all of the groups which will be a complaint the Commission will receive from the groups.
Commissioner Reeves stated that we only have so many resources. None of us
(Commission) like the idea that we have to charge the organizations. We need to get the
various groups onboard and hope they understand that we have limited resources.
Chair Ingram stated that he was hoping that the Joint Council and Recreation and Park
Commission Meeting would be held soon so that the Commission could let the Council
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,7,"know that some of these groups may be coming to them because of this issue. AD Lillard
stated that the City Clerk is working on setting a new date for the Joint Meeting.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
AD Lillard stated that five new trees were installed at Franklin Park along with picnic
benches. This was provided by the Friends of Franklin Park.
As a result of recent budget constraints athletic fields will be mowed once a week, but the
berms, borders, etc. will be mowed every other week.
See attached Activity Report for additional information.
B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
No report at this time.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
7
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-04-14,8,"10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
-
Housing Authority Request to include additional parking by Using Part of Neptune
Park.
-
Discussion about $1 Million Designated for Open Space.
-
Follow Up on Ballena Bay.
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, May 12, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT
8
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-04-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - APRIL 19, 2005 - - 7:30 PM
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-160) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Commending
Alameda Police Department Sergeant Jon Westmoreland would be
presented after Special Orders of the Day.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-161) Proclamation declaring April 23, 2005 as Earth Day Alameda
2005.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Paul Groff,
Allegra Printing.
Mr. Groff thanked the Council for the Proclamation.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-162) Resolution No. 13828, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Sergeant Jon Westmoreland for His Contributions to the
City of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Sergeant Jon
Westmoreland.
Sergeant Westmoreland thanked the Council and stated that he was
honored to have served the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement for the
acquisition of real property [paragraph no. 05-166], the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,2,"recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to use $201,000
in Measure B ferry reserves [paragraph no. 05-169], and the
Resolution Approving the Application for Land and Water
Conservation Fund [paragraph no. 05-174] were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( 05-163) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on April 5, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting held on
April 7, 2005 and April 8, 2005. Approved.
(*05-164) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,826,558.48
( *05-165) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Community
Playgrounds, Inc. in the amount of $98,930 for Leydecker Park
Playground Renovation Project. Accepted.
(05-166) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager or
designee to enter into an agreement for the acquisition of real
property from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for $110,800
plus closing costs.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the impacts of
drawing $110,800 from the Recreation and Park Commission's existing
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understood that the $110,800
was coming from the Open Space Fund.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Open Space Fund was a result of the
property sold at the Harbor Bay Business Park; Council directed
that the sale proceeds be placed in a separate Open Space account.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the money was also being used
for the Estuary Park Project.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated
purchasing the full amount of land [for Estuary Park] shown in the
General Plan could cost up to $5 million; there will be discussions
with the developer and the Bay Conservation and Development
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,3,"Commission (BCDC) regarding requirements for a pathway
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether having an approximate
$300,000 delta will limit the capabilities of carrying on with the
project.
The Acting City Manager responded there would be limitations in
getting a larger share of the land; discussions with the developer
and grant approval would determine how much land the City could
obtain; staff must recommend proceeding because the project is
shown in the General Plan.
Councilmember deHann moved approval of the recommendation to
authorize the Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an
agreement for the acquisition of real property from the East Bay
Municipal Utility District for $110,800 plus closing costs
[paragraph no. 05-166] and Adoption of Resolution Approving the
Application for Land and Water Conservation Fund Estuary Park
Project [paragraph no. 05-174].
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the grant was the
same one the City previously applied for and did not receive and
whether the chances for approval were better.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the current grant
was from the Land and Water Conservation Act; the previous grant
was under the Roberti-z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation
Program; the State prefers to fund developments rather than
acquisitions.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to advise Council on whatever efforts
are needed to succeed.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that it is
important to acquire the last strip of property before the Bay Farm
Bridge because the property completes the Bay Trail and precludes
building another house at one of the choke points of the City; the
development of Estuary Park should move forward with whatever money
is left; when the opportunity comes up with the developer, money
can be found.
The Acting City Manager stated there are ways to work with the
developer to maximize the amount of land the City can obtain; the
matter would be discussed with the developer in the next week or
two.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,4,"Accepted.
(05-169) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
use $201,000 in Measure B ferry reserves for ferry boat repairs.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be more ferry boat repair
issues with the Harbor Bay Ferry than the Alameda/Oakland Ferry
Service; if so, requested a review of ferry boat operators'
maintenance schedules.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry costs need to
be reviewed; an Off Agenda Report notes that the Peralta was sent
back up to Washington for super structure modifications the
Peralta is a young ship; there were flaws in the materials used;
requested the review address the Peralta.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-170) - Resolution No. 13829, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing
Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
( (*05-171) Resolution No. 13830, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing
Thereof - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . ""
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,5,"Adopted.
(*05-172) Resolution No. 13831, ""Approving Tentative Map, TM04-
0004, for a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park.""
Adopted.
(*05-173) Resolution No. 13832, ""Approving the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Report ""Taming Natural Disasters"" as the
City of Alameda's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopted.
(05-174) Resolution No. 13833, ""Approving the Application for Land
and Water Conservation Fund Estuary Park Project. Adopted.
Refer to comments and motion under the recommendation to authorize
the Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement for
the acquisition of real property [paragraph no. 05-166].
(*05-175) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential) Zoning
District to C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, for that
Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street.
Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-176) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt FY
2005-06 through FY 2009-10 Consolidated Plan, adopt FY 2005-06
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, amend FY
2004-05 CDBG Action Plan, and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and
modifications and
(05-176A) Recommendation regarding CDBG public service
recommendations
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Speaker: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,6,"(05-177) - Ordinance No. 2939, ""Approving and Authorizing Execution
of Lease between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the County of
Alameda (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1429 Oak Street. ""
Finally passed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the County Health Center is moving into
the former Children's Library site; there is now a home for the
Recreation and Park Department and the County Health Center
thanked the Acting City Manager for finding a very good solution to
a potentially difficult problem.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the County's opportunity
provides the City with the benefit of improvements and maintaining
a building that is a City asset; the move is a fine solution and
keeps the County services central to the bus line and the center of
town.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Acting City Manager stated that the Public
Works Department put in partitions and did a lot of the work in a
short period of time; the County will have a ribbon cutting
ceremony either later this week or next week; the cost of the
materials was paid for by the County; a City building has been
fixed up with a combination of City forces and County funds;
everyone came out a winner.
Mayor Johnson stated that the building was not occupied for at
least eight years and was in fairly blighted conditions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates the Acting City
Manager's win-win solutions.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-178) - Discussion of the Harbor Bay ferry system.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he received many e-mails regarding
the Harbor Bay ferry; noted that the City was able to get a one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,7,"year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the
ferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel
out of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall
meeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving
ferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of
communicating with riders be developed by the Transportation
Commission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
suggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the
city cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the
Bay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable:
stated that informing commuters that everything will be done to
keep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains
credibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town
Hall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect
information for presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the
ferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated
that the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a
long-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate
the
ferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully
until then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the
ferries and then a public workshop.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are
important; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find
other means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once
habits have changed.
Councilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town
Hall meting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of
25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and
parking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking
spaces were increased and ridership improved.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has never seen the parking lot full;
noted that more riders are needed; stated that ridership went down
significantly after the dock closure.
The Acting City Manager stated that staff worked very hard and came
up with a solution that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,8,"staff and Grant Allocation Committee endorsed; more work needs to
be done to refine the information; there are plans to have a Town
Hall meeting next week or the following week; then staff will
provide a status report to Council; a better job can be done on
marketing the ferry.
Mayor Johnson stated that when the ferry problem became apparent,
the Acting City Manager immediately took action and set up meetings
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; thanked the Acting
City Manager for the efforts taken to negotiate one more year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that e-mails be sent to concerned
citizens [regarding the Town Hall meeting] in addition to the
normal noticing procedures.
(05-179) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment
to the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ray Gaul, Jane Sullwold, and Bill Schmitz
to the Gold Commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was extremely impressed with
the applicants' depth; he would hope that the individuals look at
other commissions and boards.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan.
(05-180) - Consideration of the Mayor's nomination for appointment
to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board.
Continued.
(05-181) Selection of alternate to serve on the Alameda County
Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan has indicated an
interest to serve as the alternate.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that Councilmember deHaan serve on the
Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-182) Councilmember Daysog noted that today is the City of
Alameda's 151st birthday.
(05-183 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested a report on the Lincoln
School drop off area situation; there is concern with the next
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,9,"generation of remediation intruding into the existing field area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the School District staff is
presenting a plan to the School Board on April 26.
The Acting City Manager stated that the meeting may be sooner than
April 26 and that he would verify the date.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the plan intrudes into the field
area, to which the Acting City Manager responded that the plan goes
partially into the field area and basketball paved area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the plan would effect putting in a
full size regulation soccer field, to which the Acting City Manager
responded the matter would be addressed at the meeting and City
staff would bring back information.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has informed a couple of School Board
members and the Superintendent that she is concerned about taking
away field space; noted that the basketball courts are not just
used by the school.
(05-184) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the window display
ordinance came back to Council, to which the Acting City Manager
responded that there is 30-day implementation period to allow
people time to adjust before enforcement.
(05-185) Mayor Johnson requested that increasing the size of the
Recreation and Park Commission be placed on the next agenda.
(05-186) Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director is working on a
more aggressive policy to buy in Alameda; noted that the check
registers indicate how much the City spends outside of Alameda and
are very disturbing stated that sales tax revenue is being given
to other cities a purchasing position might be needed to
coordinate better prices and ensure that purchasing is done in
Alameda as much as possible.
(05-187) - Mayor Johnson stated the Council should consider a
Business Recruiter position in the next budget.
Councilmember deHaan stated that every Economic Development
Commission study indicated a Business Recruiter as a top priority;
noted that buying in Alameda is important.
(05-188 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated important projects are
coming forward; requested staff reports reference applicable plans,
such as the General Plan, Economic Development Strategic Plan, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,10,"Downtown Vision Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, etc; staff reports
should have a section that reviews basic conformance to the policy
documents that have been adopted for non-conformance there should
be an explanation of the pros and cons; noted the plans may need to
be updated; projects such as the Theatre, Bridgeside Shopping
Center and the Base need to check conformances to existing plans.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 19, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:56 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
MINUTES
(05-157CC/05-016CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005.
Approved.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05-158CC/05-017CIC) Recommendation to approve the Annual Operating
and Capital Budget for the Bayport Project.
The Acting City Manager stated the budget scenario is considerably
better based upon the profit participation section that allows
participation in some of the developer's profit.
The Development Services Director gave a brief report on the
project.
ouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether bond issuance is
not required because revenue generated would cover public
improvements and still provide an $800,000 profit.
The Development Services Director responded that one bond was
issued early in the project; the project's bottom line does not
require using any other bonds to finish the project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether bond capacity is freed up for
other potential uses in the future.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
the existing agreement does not just contemplate the current phase
the obligations of the projects are linked; any project proceeds
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,12,"that flow from Phase I tax increments are obligated to Phase II
unless negotiated differently.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Phase II has been negotiated,
to which the Development Services Director responded Phase II has a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) .
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the DDA provisions could be
renegotiated, to which the Development Services Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the bottom
line of the next phase is more favorable.
The Development Services Director responded that a developer
advance is not required; available funds would be required to be
put into the infrastructure in a different pattern.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Research
and Development Park and Business Park look more favorable, to
which the Development Services Director responded that she could
not respond; there are other issues related to the economics.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the profits
rolling into the next project allow for a more favorable situation,
to which the Development Services Director responded possibly.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the price of
homes is the principal factor for the current situation, to which
the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the break-even point was
$650,000.
The Redevelopment Manager noted the average sale price of the homes
was $725,000.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that news is good overall;
profit participation was initially questionable.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation
Counci lmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), stated that the APC
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,13,"was originally granted 39 units to meet housing needs for the
homeless: APC entered into an agreement with the City to replace
the original units in east housing near the corner of Atlantic
Avenue and Fifth Street the City told APC that there are no funds
to build the 39 units; the City is contemplating financing a 39- -
unit project through other funds instead; the City specifically
designated project revenues from the Catellus Project as the
primary source for the 39 units, including $2 million from the sale
of land; that designation of funds is not shown in the accounting
presented tonight; without the agreement with APC to relocate
units, the Bayport Project would not have happened; the use of the
Catellus funds could go a long way toward making units more
affordable and serve the homeless.
buncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested an Off Agenda Report
in response to Mr. Biggs' comments.
(05-159CC/05-018CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager/Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004-122-042).
(05-018A/CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
(05-159A/CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Continued to May 3, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,14,"APRIL 19, 2005 JOINT HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY MINUTES PLACEHOLDER
The April 19, 2005 Joint HABOC/APFA Meeting Minutes have
not been approved.",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-04-20,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Revised 5/24/05
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell and Commissioner
Anthony Corica. Absent: Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were
General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 16, 2005
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of Management Practice for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex GUEST
Customer Service Program (Action Item).
The General Manager reported that over the years the customer service at
the Golf Complex has faltered. Management has been working on
a
program to properly train employees and volunteer marshals in proper
customer service skills. The GUEST program was developed at a bank
that Assistant Golf Professional Jeff Leong previously worked at and
management decided to implement and train employees using the formula.
The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify
procedures regarding the Golf Complex GUEST Customer Service
Program. It is required that Golf Complex Management establishes a customer
service standard that employees and volunteer marshals can use to provide our
customers the highest quality golf experience. The Head Golf Professional
passed out the Draft Management Practice for the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex GUEST Customer Service Program and outlined the program.
G - is for greeting the customer. Employees and volunteer marshals will
greet all customers with a friendly smile and a hello. U - is for using the
customer's name. E - is for making eye contact with the customer. S - is",GolfCommission/2005-04-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-04-20,2,"for sales. Employees and volunteer marshals will promote all ancillary
goods, services, and special promotions available. T - is for THANK
YOU. Employees and volunteer marshals will let the customers know that
we appreciate their business. Employees and volunteer marshals will be
energetic and enthusiastic at all times. Employee name badges must be
worn at all times. Personal cell phones should be turned ""off"" during
scheduled work shifts. Personal phone calls should be limited to
employee breaks, except for emergencies. Golf pro shop, Range pro shop,
and volunteer marshals will wear light colored khaki pants and/or shorts,
appropriate golf shirts and wind shirts or jackets, preferably of light
colors. Carts and Range crew will be allowed to wear blue jeans and/or
shorts and ""plain"" tee shirts and jackets. Clothing should be clean and
wrinkle free. No hats, except for those provided to the volunteer marshals.
No open toed shoes, tennis shoes are okay. All employees and volunteers
shall abide by all City house rules and regulations. The suggestion was
made to have pictures of the General Manager and the Golf Commission
in the Pro Shop with their names so that customers can identify them.
Also suggested was to have the same employee work on Thursdays when
the Ladies club plays to make it more personable. The Golf Commission
approved the Management Practice for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
GUEST Customer Service Program unanimously.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that he is currently interviewing
potential new employees and volunteer marshals. During the interview he
is paying special attention to the customer service skills portrayed by the
potential employees and volunteers.
The
new
web
site,
www.golfinalameda.com is up and running and looks good. Many new
promotions are in effect currently, they are Kid's play free with paid adult
green fee Monday through Thursday anytime Friday through Sunday and
Holidays after 1:00pm. The $25.00 Late Twilight special includes green
fee and cart. The special is available everyday April through October after
4:00pm November through March after 2:00pm. The Early Bird Special is
$47.00 Fridays only and includes green fee, cart fee, range balls, and
breakfast or lunch at Legends & Heroes. The Friday special is $39.00
Fridays only and includes green fee, cart fee, and range balls. The Silver
Club Senior Package is $42.00 for tournament groups only and is available
Monday through Thursday, excluding Holidays. The package includes
green fee, cart fee, range balls, and breakfast or lunch at Legends &
Heroes. The package is $31.00 without carts. The ""Win Giants Tickets""
promotion allows customers to enter a drawing to win a pair of Giants
baseball tickets with each full price cart rental. Also, discounted range",GolfCommission/2005-04-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-04-20,3,"balls are available every day before 9:00am and after 7:00pm Monday
through Friday, excluding Holidays.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the staff at the Golf Complex is
working on advertising and promotion programs for the upcoming season.
The building of the practice area will enable the Driving Range to stay
open later and increase revenues. New benches have been ordered for the
golf courses. The benches are made of ironwood, which is very durable
for outdoor use.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony was last weekend for Bob
Beretta, a former Men's Club and Commuter's Committee member. Two
trees were planted near the #9 green on the Jack Clark Course.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Chair Swanson questioned whether it was in the Complex's best interest to
leave the golf courses open when they are in such bad condition due to the
wet weather. The General Manager stated that the courses are closed only
when the conditions become dangerous for the customer. The fact is that
some customers want to play no matter what the conditions are. To avoid
customer dissatisfaction the golf course starters need to inform the
customer exactly what conditions they can expect. Over the wet season
there were a few complaints about the conditions and refunds were given.
Chair Swanson also suggested that the Complex look into blocking the
first hour of tee times for walk ins, allowing customers without a tee time
the ability to play golf at the last minute. The General Manager will look
into the logistics of implementing the program.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past
month. The new benches on the Mif Albright Course look great and are a
nice addition and the repairs to the Driving Range building have begun.
The General Manager stated that full club repair would be available at the
range by Shawn Shelby. Ken Jones has been hired at the Driving Range
to help with hiring range personnel and promoting golf lessons.",GolfCommission/2005-04-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-04-20,4,"5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that the two major Capital Improvement
Projects (CIPs) are currently the Clubhouse project and the Urban Runoff
project. Also reported that the golf courses are in good shape with the
exception of some dead areas of grass. The weeds have been removed
around the water on #14 of the Earl Fry Course and it looks very nice.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.
Commissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)
courses was down 51% for the month of March 2005 as compared to
March 2004, with play down by 49%. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is
down 16% and revenue from golf is down 10%, as compared to fiscal year
2003-2004. The high number of rain days for the month and fiscal year is
a contributing factor. All ancillary services were significantly below their
revenue from last March. The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month
of $316,042 for the month and a loss of $232,697 for the first nine months
of fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $500,000 from the last fiscal year.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
The General Manager reviewed that Commissioner Wood has taken the
footprint of the Poplar Creek Golf Course and placed it on the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex footprint and the design fits very well. The City of
Alameda is currently negotiating with the City of San Mateo on a price for
the plans. The General Manager also stated that he is working on getting a
Project Manager from the Public Works Department as soon as possible.
The General Manager met with the Chief Financial Officer for the City of
Alameda, Juelle Ann Boyer and Emily Wagner recently. Ms. Wagner is a
financial advisor who has put together a number of financing packages for
municipal golf courses. The meeting entailed discussions regarding the
declining revenue at the Complex. Also scheduled to work on the project
is local CPA John Richey who will be putting together projections to see
how much debt the Complex can afford. The plan is to present the
package to the Golf Commission in a few months and then forward it on to
City Council for approval. The suggestion was made to have another joint
work session with City Council prior to the approval recommendation.
The question was raised concerning the removal of the Fire Training
Tower at the entrance of the Golf Complex. The General Manager stated
the removal of the building is already being discussed with the Acting City
Manager.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.",GolfCommission/2005-04-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-04-20,5,"None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
Dave May, the Alameda Golf Club (AGC) liaison stated that he had a
letter from the club to the Golf Commission that he read (see attached).
Chair Swanson thanked the AGC board and members for the letter and
stated that the Golf Commission will respond to the questions in a letter.
The suggestion was made that the AGC board and members attend the
Golf Commission meetings and receive and read the monthly minutes.
Also mentioned was the fact that the AGC has members on a waiting list
and it would benefit the Complex if all potential members were allowed in
the club to increase play in tournaments. The membership would invite
more customers to call the Chuck Corica Golf Complex their home course.
The club allows 500 members and has 110 people currently on the waiting
list. The perception is that residents of Alameda cannot join the club in a
timely manner, yet there are members from out of town in the club.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for March 2005 of $6,438.
The year-to-date total is $113,492 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The General Manager announced that Jerry Berrow, employee and
founder of Junior Golf Resources is currently in a local convalescent home
recovering from surgery, our thoughts and prayers go out to him. Also the
Alameda Elks Lodge will be celebrating its 100th year in 2006 and will be
hosting a golf tournament at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex as part of the
festivities.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-04-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -APRIL 21, 2005- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-189) - ) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that direction was given to the
recruiter and no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-21.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
April 25, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
McGaughey, Steffens,
Absent/Excused: McCoy, Moore
Guests: Jackie Krause (Mastick Senior Center Senior Services Manager), Barbara Hawkins
(Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department), Anne Steiner
MINUTES: The minutes of March 28, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioner Adrienne Langley-Cook informed the commission that Crosstown
Coffee House would have an art, crafts and flower sale to benefit the Community
Center on April 30th
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Paratransit:
Ms. Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager Mastick Senior Center, discussed the proposed
Measure B Paratransit funding application program for fiscal year 2005/2006 to the
commission. Hi-lights of the program will include subsidized taxi services for ADA
registered applicants who do not always have effective access to East Bay Paratransit
Services at certain times of the day or from certain out of reach locations when East Bay
Paratransit is not available. The City will also offer taxi service for those needing immediate
transportation services to medical appointments during the 21-day certification period.
Jackie distributed an Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA)
""Accessible Transit Services in Alameda County' booklet to the commissioners. She also
distributed Paratransit applications and that assistance in completing the applications is
available at Mastic Senior Center. In a call to questions regarding improvements to the
program, Commissioner Gina McGaughey stated that route scheduling could be better
coordinated between multiple pickups. Jackie suggested that she could arrange for a
representative from Paratransit to meet with the commission, but that any meeting would
have to be during the day, not evening. Vice-Chair James Gwynne informed the commission
that there will be a mobility exposition November 18-20 in Santa Clara and asked Jackie if
arrangements could be made for a Paratransit service to the expedition. Jackie stated that
that is a possibility but would need to know the time and number of people planning to
attend.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 25, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Transportation Master Plan Policies:
Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, discussed the
Transportation Master Plan Policies document with the commission as they relate to the
disabled community. The commission moved approval of the document with the following
modifications: a):
2. Policy research, writing and implementation:
Chair Ed Cooney recommended that the sub-committee's proposed recommendations for
ADA policies for providing effective communications and reasonable accommodations for
persons with disabilities be adopted. The commission moved adoption of the
recommendations with minor modifications. a) Change I.b. ""
vision, mobility and
language impairments"" to "" vision, mobility, language and cognitive impairments."" b)
Change II. a. "" language and mobility impairments.' To
mobility, language and
cognitive impairments."" c) Change Procedures, 1st sentence "" this communications and
access policy.' to "" this Communications and Access Policy (CAP)"" and d) Procedures, c.,
change "" w/c accessibility ""to ""wheelchair accessibility
""
2. Bus Shelters:
Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commissioners that she and the
secretary had inspected the recently installed bus shelters and compiled a list of shelters that
needed the benches slightly relocated to the right or left to better facilitate wheelchair users.
The list was provided to Public Works.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The City's CATV channel scrolling has the wrong meeting time listed for the commission.
Secretary to follow up.
2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the commission on upcoming Alameda
Collaborative events: a) Alameda Walk in conjunction with Recreation and Parks Dept and
Pedestrian Friendly Alameda on May 7th and b) Festival of Families at South Shore Center
May 7th
3. Commissioner Charles Bunker stated that ACI's trash receptacle is blocking the handicap",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-04-25,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
April 25, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ramp at McKay Avenue and Central Avenue. Secretary to follow up.
4. Commissioner Alysa Chadow informed the commission that Adobe Illustrator software has
the capability for Braille conversion for embossing printers.
5.
Commissioner Toby Burger informed the commission that the Alameda Journal is not listing
the commission meeting dates in the calendar. Secretary to follow up.
6. Chair Edwin Cooney stated that U.S. mailboxes are being removed throughout the City
making it difficult for the disabled and would like to agendize for discussion at the May
commissioner's meeting.
7. The commission would like that meeting agendas and minutes be provided in Braille.
Secretary to follow up.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, May 23rd in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0425min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-04-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-04-25,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Member William Soderlund at 4:32 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Nancy Elzig, William Soderlund and Karen
Willis. Staff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer and Marsha Merrick,
Executive Assistant, Human Resources. Absent: Chair Beverly Johnson and
trustee Robert Follrath.
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 2005 were
reviewed. Member Elzig motioned to accept the minutes as presented, member
Willis seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 264,971.06 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 256,786.23 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,388.78 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 262,438.70 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-04-25,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, April 25, 2005
Page 2
Member Willis motioned to adopt the consent calendar as presented, Member
Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A. On a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by Member Willis, the Chief
Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and Fire
Pension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2005 was accepted as
presented; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5-B. Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, spoke about the preliminary
Actuarial Valuation Report for the Police and Fire Retirement System
(Plan 1079 and Plan 1082). Reiterating that these were merely highlights
of the preliminary report, Ms. Boyer indicated that the finalized report
would go to City Council for their information and to each Pension Board
member as well.
5-C. Cost estimate research results from Public Works for purchasing/erecting
new flagpoles at City Hall were distributed to members present. Absent
members will be sent copies of the results, and this item will be continued
on the July 2005 Pension Board agenda.
5-D.
Member Willis motioned to accept, with regrets, the memo from Human
Resources notifying of the death of 1079 Pensioner, Patrick McDermott.
Member Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no communications from the board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Board member Cook was absent.
Also in attendance were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Building Official Gregory J.
McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Executive Assistant
Latisha Jackson, Bruce Knopf Development Services, Barbara Hawkins Public Works.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 12, Item 9 read, ""Ms. Kohlstrand understood that the Beltway was
being preserved for the light rail line, and inquired whether it would be eliminated."" She wished to
clarify that she referred to the policy regarding the light rail preservation of the beltway, not whether
the light rail line itself would be eliminated.
Mr. Piziali noted that page 9, third paragraph from the bottom read, ""Mr. Piziali believed the
driveway should be narrowed in the front, and did not believe a single curb cut would be legal. He
wished to clarify that the pavement of the driveway was very wide, and that they were parking two
cars there. He wanted to see the driveway brought back to Code with respect to the project.
President Cunningham advised that in Item 9-B, he made note that he would like the Transportation
Commission to identify any areas that would qualify for funding of grants to help implement policies
with less of a financial impact to the City.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 11, 2005, as
corrected.
AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Cook, Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,2,"7-A.
Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK) A request for endorsement of the
Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and
revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor. (Staff requests a
continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5; (Cook, Mariani) NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,3,"7-B
DR05-0028 - City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (JA/JO). Applicant requests acceptance
of preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and
Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street
site within the C-C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned
Development Zoning Districts. {(Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.) (Staff
requests a continuance to the meeting of May 9, 2005.)}
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item to the meeting of May 9, 2005.
AYES - 5(Cook, Mariani); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,4,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
Recommendation of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (BB). A request
for review and recommendation of alignment for the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.
The Cross Alameda Trail would enhance access to destination points along the northern
portion of Alameda's main island by providing improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities and
would also serve as a recreational facility.
Ms. Barbara Hawkins summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in
favor of this item, and commended the Public Works staff for their efforts in finding a logistical
solution for a difficult trail. He noted that it would provide an east-west transportation link for
pedestrians and bicyclists; it will provide better links to BART; it will provide the possibility of a bus-
rapid transit or ultralight rail right-of-way. The eventual development of Alameda Point would make
those items necessary. He noted that it would be easier to address the section between Main Street
and Webster Street, which he believed would have a great effect on the Webster/Atlantic intersection,
if grant money could be obtained.
Ms. Debra Arbuckle, 9th Street, spoke in favor of this item, and noted that the neighborhood had been
working on this issue for approximately nine years. She supported the use of alternative
transportation, such as electric bikes, and noted that this issue needed a lot of community support.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Hawkins explained the difference between
commuter alignment and recreational alignments #1 and #2. She noted that in the past, Bike Alameda
has proposed a bicycle boulevard down Pacific, which would enhance bicycle opportunities by
creating less of a desired route for vehicles.
Mr. Lynch did not believe that a bike rider considered a Class 1, 2 or 3, but that they moved to avoid
traffic upon perception of that traffic. As bike paths are being created, he suggested that other traffic
calming techniques be considered that are not currently in place, and that may mean additional
inconvenience in terms of travel time for vehicles.
Ms. Hawkins advised that the Transportation Master Plan will feature a grid system for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,5,"Ms. McNamara did not believe the costs of removing the rails were included in the estimates. Ms.
Hawkins detailed the costs contained in the estimate.
President Cunningham inquired about the aspirations of the trail, and whether the text allowed for
modifications or improvements. Ms. Hawkins replied that it was a corridor that would connect
residential with commercial, and that surrounding businesses may wish to contribute to it because of
their proximity to the trail.
President Cunningham inquired whether the bike path would be adopted in a landscape strip, and
whether that would be a general policy. He referenced the section by Starbucks. Ms. Hawkins replied
that was the most difficult section in the whole alignment. In trying to accommodate that option,
along with the pedestrians, the landscaping was sacrificed. If that area is not used for the bus rapid
transit corridor, it would not be sacrificed. She noted that would not be a typical policy.
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
The public hearing was reopened.
Ms. Arbuckle indicated the train museum in Sacramento was given most of the rails from the tracks;
one set of rails was retained along the south side.
Mr. Spangler noted that the Marina waterfront access on the Estuary was very important to many
people. He noted that the concerns were: toxic pollution from industrial uses, such as shipyards, the
ownership issues, and the security for all the boat owners, particularly those who reside on
liveaboards. He noted that Pacific was a Class 1 route, which was signed, and with no extra line or
striping on the pavement; stop signs were placed on every block to maintain pedestrian safety and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,6,"lower traffic speeds. He noted that those stop signs were obstructions for bicycle commuters, and a
bicycle boulevard would allow straight-through, non-stop bike traffic. He believed that would
enhance safety.
The public hearing was closed.
M/S Piziali/ McNamara and unanimous that the Board's comments be passed to the City Council.
AYES - 6 (Cook); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,7,"8-B.
UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central
Avenue (DB). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall
painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole
along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground
equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground
equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4. 1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure
and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from
the meeting of March 28, 2005.)
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, Development Services, summarized the staff report,
wished to correct two errors in the staff report. He noted that the height of the proposed monopole
was the same height as existing poles that hold up nets at the field and light standards. The Recreation
& Park Commission reviewed this proposal on April 14, 2005, and recommended its approval in a 5-1
vote. Staff recommended that Section 4(b) of the resolution be modified to specify installation of two
picnic tables and barbecues on a 15 X 40 foot decomposed granite pad in the area that was previously
proposed for the equipment shelter. Item 4(c) should be modified to state that the approved color the
equipment shelter is Sherwin Williams Oak Moss SW6180. Item 4(e) should be modified to specify
the species of landscaping to be Escalonia five-gallon, two feet on center.
President Cunningham acknowledged the presence of Mr. Lil Arnerich in the audience.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jay Ingram, Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in opposition to this item and noted
that the vote was and 4-1 because there were only five members. He added that he was the one ""no""
vote. He noted that early discussions were held to consider sinking the pole building five feet into the
ground, which was not followed up on, presumably because of the cost. He was given the impression
that fake trees could be used as towers, but the pictures were never provided. He expressed concern
that the paint of the maintenance shed would match the fluting on the side; no pictures had been
provided. He requested that American Tower be required to pay for the pulling of the electricity and
any damage to the sprinkler systems when the pole is put up. Recreation and Parks supported the idea
of a silver pole, and noted that it should be hidden in the body of the pole. He noted that the largest
cell towers would be placed in the City's showpiece park. He noted that if the cell industry changes
while the ten-year agreement was still in force, that the lease agreement requires American Tower to
remove the container and pole, and that the park is left the way it was. He expressed concern that the
baseball players would be displaced by this use during before or after game time, and hoped that
American Tower would pay for any associated costs as well.
Mr. Lil Arnerich reviewed the features of the field on the overhead display, and noted that the
previous site for the building would have been out of balance and proportion for the park. He noted
that in conjunction with the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission, the pole was moved
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,8,"further to the left field line, which would be located farther from the main activities in the park. He
had reservations about the Park Department's statement that grass area would die out due to lack of
sunlight, and would examine that possibility further. He believed that three or four picnic tables and
barbecue pits would be warranted because the area was used heavily in the summer; he did not believe
that two picnic tables would be sufficient. He suggested that when the permit is resubmitted because a
particular group cannot fulfill it obligation, the whole contract should be looked at in its entirety. He
believed the Planning Board should be cognizant of the facts when entering into leases, and believed
that a ten-year contract with five-year renewals would be sufficient. He noted that if cell phone
technology did not require poles in the future, the poles would be removed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara shared Mr. Ingram's concerns about the girth of the pole, whether it would be a tree
or a pole, maintenance issues, as well as the height of the tower. She inquired about the exit strategy
when technology advancement made this hardware obsolete; the towers would then become an
eyesore.
With respect to obsolescence, Mr. Knopf noted that the lease provided that the lessee is responsible
for removing all of the above-grade improvements at their own cost within 45 days of termination of
the lease, and that it should be restored to its previous condition. He noted that the question of
diameter was discussed at the Recreation and Park Commission; poles of this size were generally
between 3 - 4.5 feet wide at the base, and that they taper to 2 feet at the top. The applicant had not
been able to discuss specific design for this pole because construction drawings had not yet been
done.
President Cunningham inquired about the price for maintaining the screening, and believed it would
be unfair for the City to bear that cost. Mr. Knopf noted that climbing vines were initially discussed;
Recreation and Parks staff was concerned about fast-growing vines and the need for maintenance. A
slow-growing species of plant was selected that would require minimum maintenance. American
Tower would be obligated to maintain the facility.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the technology should be examined in the future, because it affected the
line-of-sight and other technical considerations. He suggested that the carrier submit an annual report
addressing the condition of the pole, and to ensure the pole is painted.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the height and visibility of the pole. Mr. Knopf replied that
the photo simulation was shot down the fence line, and noted that the poles were located at the end of
that line. He added that cell sites were low-power sites that must be located every half-mile or so to
provide adequate coverage, and that they were line-of-sight repeaters; they are placed as low as
possible to the ground. Regarding cost, he believed the City got the best deal possible with American
Tower. He described the business mission and leasing policies of American Tower. He noted that this
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
April 25,2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,9,"was a good location in the heavily used Washington Park because it was not used at all. While this
monopole was larger than the pole approved several years ago, it was a better design in that all of the
antennas were hidden inside the pole.
Ms. Mariani noted that the City had been in a legally binding contract with American Tower since
1991.
Mr. Piziali suggested that the additional picnic tables be added if possible.
Mr. Dale Wright, Acting Director, Recreation and Parks, deferred to Mr. Arnerich's experience, and
was confident that they could work out three or four tables and barbecue pits. He noted that it was
the intent to paint the building to match.
M/S Mariani/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No.PB-05-14 to approve a renewal of
expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole
communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond
left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of
up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC
Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open
Space Zoning District.
To include the items in the email dated 4/25/05, with the following amendments:
a.
Painting both buildings; and
b.
Additional picnic tables would be added at the selection of the Acting Director of
Recreation and Parks;
AYES - 5 (Cook absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,10,"8-C.
ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) Phase II of proposed
revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance
with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard
requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement-in-
kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures.
Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report.
Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story.
Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet.
President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in
the future.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the
perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors.
Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments
into yards.
Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than
someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the
second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side
yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long
as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction.
Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and
maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a
disincentive to those goals.
Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing
an extensive rebuild from the existing foundation.
Mr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the
Code. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He
inquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,11,"like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed
that was a major issue.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard.
President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix.
Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts.
President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public.
Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform.
Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks
was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go
back two feet.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to
retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any
projects that needed a variation for all districts.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead
screen and summarized that part of the staff report.
Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem
parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem.
Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the
regulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He
expressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he
believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the
front lawn.
Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the
street.
Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident
wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood
Mr. Piziali's point of view.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,12,"Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with
construction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in
their driveway, even in the front 20 feet.
A discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more
uniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as
Zone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in
Alameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights
to be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She
opposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner.
Mr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit
should be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that
Measure A was implemented to eliminate ""Crackerjack"" apartment houses, which still exist on the
Island; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be
allowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive
parking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per
residence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should
restrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on
narrow streets like Sherman.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he
had no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that
was an economic issue. For the documents before the Board, he understood but would not support
SK-5 or SK-4; he would support SK-2. He supported the idea of being flexible based upon zoning.
He believed SK-2 would apply to very few lots in Alameda, and that it need not be restricted if they
were in conformity in every other sense, constituting a unique benefit to that parcel. He did not
suggest opening upon tandem, triple or quadruple parking for all of Alameda.
Mr. Piziali stated that he wanted to leave the requirements as is, with two car tandem parking, no
parking in the front, and a 20-yard setback.
President Cunningham would rather see more green space in the back than tell a resident to balloon
their driveway out in the back and cover up more green space. He noted that if a resident is prepared
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
April 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,13,"to accept the three-car tandem parking, it is a personal choice.
Ms. Mariani suggested continuing this item to a later meeting.
Mr. Lynch agreed that the uniqueness of the neighborhoods and zones should be retained, and
emphasized that the wording of the text would have a significant impact.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous not to revise the current Code regulations pertaining to 20 foot
setbacks.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/McNamara to retain the language pertaining to two-car tandem parking.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Lynch); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-04-25,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised he had nothing new to report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the May 9, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\April 25 Minutes.doc
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
April 25, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 27, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:45 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Patianne Parker
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
Jennifer Ott - Development Manager, Development Services
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Krueger asked that Chair Knox White's comments regarding the Cross Alameda
Trail Feasibility Study be amended to state that ""Caltrans allows lanes to be less than 12 feet
wide on highways."" He also requested that the minutes be amended to state that ""at times he
bikes and drives along Atlantic Avenue..
""
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the minutes, with the changes as requested.
Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,2,"6A.
Recommendations from other City Boards and Commissions on Draft TMP
JKW: The Planning Board asked to have a visioning statement inserted before the first paragraph
to define ""multimodal"" as including autos, transit, bicycles, walking, and needs for people with
disabilities.
Circulation Goal: The Commission on Disability Issues asked to add ""barrier free"" to the last
safe and efficient transportation systems.
A1.1 concern by the Planning Board that bikes and pedestrians were not specifically
included, definition above takes care of that.
A-1.4 Add on all streets and in all sections of the City.
A-1.5 Housing Commission transit indemnities is an implementation goal covered under
the transit plan.
A-1.6 Commission on Disability Issues covered in the introduction
A-1.8 The EDC had a comment on including smooth cross island flow in the city.
Thought it was incorporated in Did add into this, ""without unduly disrupting the quality of life
for residents"".
A1.11 Planning Board was split, some wanted to minimize, others support cul de sacs
A-2.5 Multi modal cross estuary travel added in ""bike, pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy
vehicle only crossings"" are types of projects we should be looking at.
A-2.6 included Planning Board's recommendation
A-5.3 EDC had suggested to fixed route AC Transit system to enhance mobility for those
without access to personal transportation. Prefer the word provide, enhance sounds like it's
an option.
A6.6 Planning Board suggested in adding this policy. Require monitoring programs to
ensure TSM (JKW added ""and TDM"") measures mitigate impacts.
Objective A-7 Add the underlying section of enhancing the viability of non-automotive
transportation modes.
Used Planning Board language
A-7.4 Planning had a comment on the fact that they felt identifying rights of way doesn't
mean results are not always the way you hope it to come out but need to try.
B-1.1 PB and Rec and Parks Commission supported. Left as written
B-2.5 Left as written
B-3.1 Planning Board supported the language as written, left as written
B-4.2 CDI Recommendation including people with disabilities.
B-5.1 The Parks Department indicated the permit program should be designed so that they
would not impact on adjacent neighbors and homeowners use their garages for parking
instead of storage.
B-5.2 Included the Planning Board's recommendation of shared parking in mixed used areas.
1.2 Stays the same
2.2 did not include disability to better serve pedistrian needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Not a citywide circulation goal. To be dwelt with on construction projects.
C2.5 The Planning Board added in to promote land use that would encourage alternate
modes of transportation and enable agencies to procure grant funding.
C3 The Planning Board recommended more bike related polices so added two more.
C3.2 and C3.3
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,3,"C3.4 Bike Lanes on Park Street (Remove Parking)
C2 Development of Pedestrian Plan
C3 Development of Bike Plan
C6.2 Walking, bicycling and automobiles. Add in people with disabilities on this list
D's No other comments
After D5 removed, no longer in transportation.
Jon Spangler's comments:
A1.8 Instead of the current wording use; encourage traffic within, to and thru Alameda to use the
appropriate streets in the system in providing clear and effective traffic control measures to
ensure smooth flow.
A2.3 Increase in Vehicle occupancy levels
A7 Drop the word Modes
B5.2 Chair Knox White used shared parking strategies
C2.4 & C3.1 City of Alameda Plan
C6.2 Pursue strategies thru reduce or eliminate conflics, increase accessibility, and faster multi
model compatibility
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Ratto's Comments:
A1.4 Do not believe it should be changed
A1.11 Planning Board's comments were concerned with trying to prohibit traffic going thru.
Add physical interrupt the grid system, don't think anything wrong with it Adding on the main
island. So just add the work physically.
B4.1 Could incorporate the suggestion from C2.5 by just putting encouraged development
patterns and land uses that encourage the use of alternate modes and reduce the rate of growth in
regional wide vehicle miles traveled.
B5.1 Neighborhoods chronic problems add something about new developments.
Staff Hawkins recommended the comments from the different boards that appear to be
implementation recommendations should be included as an appendix in back. In this way, even
if they are not appropriate for the policies portion of the TMP, their comments will still be taken
into account and included at a later time.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Comment on the Proposed Civic Center Parking Garage and Oak
Street Streetscape Designs
Staff Ott of the Development Services Department reviewed the proposed parking garage project.
She stated that the proposed garage would be located on Oak Street between Santa Clara Avenue
and Central Avenue. The current design includes six levels and 352 spaces. She noted that the
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,4,"project would be implemented through a design-build contract, so the internal circulation may
change. The exterior design is scheduled to be taken to the Planning Board in June for approval.
Staff Ott described several mitigation measures that were developed to address pedestrian safety
at the garage entrance/exit. These include textured paving, a speed bump, lights and sound to be
emitted as vehicles exit, and concave mirrors. The sidewalk would be widened by six feet on
Oak Street in front of the project to help direct pedestrians away from the building and provide
improved visibility for drivers exiting the garage. Six parking spaces total to be removed, and
landscaping will be included. She noted that PSBA unanimously approved this design.
Staff Ott noted that eight bicycle lockers (accommodating 16 bicycles) and 24 bicycle racks
would be included on the first floor of the garage. Also, there will be lighting in front of the
pedestrian-only entrance so pedestrians won't feel drawn to the vehicular entrance.
Staff Ott stated that there was an initial study on parking and traffic impacts, which illustrated
that there is going to be an insufficient supply of parking given the anticipated demand
associated with the theater project as planned.
The only required traffic mitigations determined to be directly associated with the project are
signal timing adjustments, although there are other mitigations for required to reach a ""less than
significant impact"" determination for 2020 as well as for the cumulative impacts of all
development, including Alameda Point.
Commissioner Krueger asked if access to the bicycle parking area is to be provided through the
vehicular entrance as well as the side entrance. Staff Ott indicated that bicyclists would be able
to use either entrance.
Chair Knox White noted that in the negative declaration that impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists
were not addressed. He asked if they were addressed somewhere else. Staff Ott replied that the
Community Improvement Commission (CIC) had expressed concerns about these issues, and
that these concerns were addressed internally, working with the Public Works Department.
Chair Knox White stated that after accounting for the landscaping, if the sidewalk along Oak
Street would actually be narrower after the proposed widening. Staff Ott indicated that the
sidewalk would be wider than what is currently there.
Commissioner McFarland asked if the intention is to have both bicyclists and pedestrians utilize
the widened sidewalk area. Staff Ott responded that this was not the intention, but that the
removal of the on-street parking should help to enhance safety for bicyclists along the block.
She noted that the proposal would not preclude Class II bike lanes along Oak Street in the future.
Commissioner Krueger stated that this assumes that a 10' lane width would be sufficient for
motor vehicle traffic. He asked if there are other scenarios that would require wider traffic lanes.
Staff Hawkins responded that the only reason would be if Oak Street were to be designated a
truck route. She noted that if volume were the issue, an additional lane would be necessary,
wider lanes would not be helpful.
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,5,"Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler asked what security would be provided for the bicycle parking, and whether this
area is covered. He also requested that signage be added at the vehicular entrance to make it
clear that bicycles can use this entrance. Mr. Spangler stated that the building should be
designed so that it may be converted to retail space if needed in the future. He also stated that
the Class II bike lanes on Oak Street are important, and indicated that he supported widening
Oak Street in the future for safety purposes, but not to add more lanes.
Mr. Spangler expressed his support for the views of Bike Alameda, and stated that the project
should be designed to give bicyclists equivalent access to Park Street as motor vehicles. He
indicated his support for the removal of diagonal parking on Central Avenue.
Treya Weintraub expressed her support for restoring the bike lane on Central Avenue between
Walnut Street and Oak Street and removing the angled parking.
Lucy Gigli, the president of Bike Alameda, asked the Commission to address the project in terms
of bicycle safety, noting that with 350 parking spaces that many more vehicles will be present at
this location. She stated that improvements at this location are especially important, due to the
proximity to Park Street, the main library, and City Hall. Bike Alameda recommends several
mitigations:
Ms. Gigli stated that currently bicyclists on Central Avenue are routed onto sidewalk and
are redirected into the street in the Park Street district, where there is significant traffic.
She recommended restoring the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and
Oak Street
She requested that shared roadway stencils and signs be installed along Oak Street from
Lincoln Avenue to Encinal Avenue in place of the potential future bike lanes; this will
help to alert both bicyclists and drivers to one another.
Ms. Gigli asked for assurance that bike lanes will not be precluded on Oak Street and that
10' travel lanes will be acceptable
Ms. Gigli requested that these improvements be implemented as part of the garage
project.
Andy Cutright stated that one reason he and his family decided to move to Alameda was because
of the bike lanes, and that the community and economy will be enhanced by maintaining safe
access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. He stated that bike lanes are preferable to
signage only, but that signs are preferable to no bicycle designation.
Cheri Galan stated that she prefers to use her bike rather than a car, and that she feels unsafe
when riding with her children on streets without bike lanes. She stated that it is important to
have a north-south bicycle facility near Park Street, Grand Avenue is too far away, and that it is
important to address issue now, not in planning off in the future.
Rochelle Reed stated that she lives on south end of Oak Street and works on Blanding, that she
commutes by bike, but doesn't use Oak Street. She expressed concerns that Oak Street currently
feels unsafe to bike, and the parking garage will make it less safe.
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,6,"Carl Babcock stated that he also lives on Oak Street and tries to ride his bike for local errands,
but that it is difficult to get to many shops safely. He requested that the bike lane be restored on
Central Avenue and, if possible, create a bike lane on Oak Street.
Public comment closed
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they could respond to the bicyclists' concerns. Staff Ott
stated that the project would include shared roadway stencils (sharrows) and signs on Oak Street
from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. She also noted that widening the sidewalk would
increase bike safety in front of the garage. She said that the removal of diagonal parking on
Central Avenue is not currently included in the project. She anticipates this will be discussed as
part of the TMP.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the garage will have bicycle parking, and asked if it
is
appropriate to include project elements to help bicyclists reach the facility safely. Staff Ott
agreed that safe bicycle access is important, but noted that the project is attempting to meet many
objectives with a limited project budget. She stated that the bike lane issues on Central Avenue
should not be linked to the garage, and expressed concern that stakeholder groups not in
attendance may be opposed to removing the diagonal parking on Central Avenue.
Commissioner McFarland asked if the library or garage would be completed first. Staff Ott
responded that the garage is scheduled to be completed first.
Commissioner McFarland asked if there was a cost estimate for restriping Central Avenue. Staff
Ott responded that staff is looking into this.
Commissioner Ratto stated that the funding sources for the project is an important issue, and that
to fund funding for striping Central Avenue would require taking money from another element of
the project. He said that he and PSBA support restoring parallel parking on Central Avenue,
since the 350-space parking garage should meet parking needs. He said that if there are other
organizations that oppose removing the diagonal parking, which would bring the General Plan
into compliance, they should state their case to Council. Commissioner Ratto stated that
bicyclists should not be diverted onto the sidewalk on that block. He also stated that he doesn't
believe the restriping should be considered as a mitigation for the parking structure, but other
funding should be available.
Commissioner Krueger asked how the mitigation measures would be funded. Staff Ott
responded that only the signal timing adjustments would be funded through the project
Commissioner Krueger asked if it would be possible to find other funding for the signal timing
as well as the bike lanes, since they both seem related to the project. Staff Ott said they are
concerned that the project bid will come in higher than the funding that's available
Commissioner Ratto stated that it is up to the City Council to determine the funding decisions,
and that members of the community can bring these issues to the Council.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,7,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked where would revenues from the garage go to. He asked if fees
could be adjusted to raise funds. Staff Ott responded that part of the funding is from a HUD
Section 108 loan, which will be repaid in part with meter revenues.
Schatmeier asked if the garage would be used for commuters, patrons of
businesses, or both. Staff Ott indicate that both would be using the facility, and that they are
considering monthly permit parking spaces, possibly with smart cards.
Commissioner Parker asked if the garage will be set up to accommodate vanpooling. Staff Ott
said she would look into that and respond.
Commissioner Parker stated that mitigation is generally done project by project, not on a
cumulative basis, and that mitigation needs to be done in context. She stated that the project
shouldn't necessarily pay for all mitigations, but funding should be looked at for other related
measures.
Chair Knox White noted that the packet says the stenciling will be on Oak Street from Central
Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, but that Staff Ott had indicated Encinal Avenue in her presentation.
Staff Ott noted that Bike Alameda prefers Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, and that may be
possible.
Chair Knox White stated that he believes the Central Avenue bike lanes should be considered as a
mitigation for the garage project. He noted that other mitigations are as far away as Santa Clara
Avenue/Broadway, and that the bike lanes are close enough to the garage that it should be linked.
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the following: 1) Bicyclists and citizens deserve
signage and stencils on Oak Street from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, 2) the bike lane on
Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street should be restored, 3) the diagonal
parking on Central Avenue should be removed, 4) funding be found to implement these
mitigations as the project progresses, and 5) signage should be included at the entrance to the
parking structure indicating that bicycle parking is available. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
7B.
Recommendations for Countywide Bike Plan
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency is beginning its bicycle plan update process before the City of Alameda has
had the chance to update its plan. Following discussions with CMA staff, project
recommendations for the countywide plan were developed with input from the Transportation
Commission's Bicycle Plan Subcommittee and members of the public. Recommendations from
the full TC will in turn be forwarded to the City Council, which will forward its
recommendations to the CMA.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend the following projects for inclusion in the
Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan:
1) Feasibility study and capital costs of estuary crossing from Alameda's west end to
Oakland
2) Segments of the Bay Trail in Alameda County, including those in the City of Alameda
3) The following route through central Alameda: Along Main Street from the Main Street
ferry terminal to Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside
Boulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the bike bridge, the bike bridge itself, and
along Doolittle Drive from the bike bridge to the city's border with Oakland.
4) Along Island Drive from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney Road
from Island Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -
6.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-04-28,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, April 28th, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - President Franz called the meeting to order at 8:12pm.
Present: Bonta, Franz, Hanna, and Wasko. Absent: Chen, Flores-Witte and Hollinger-Jackson. Staff:
Beaver and Brown.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting were continued to the May
26, 2005 meeting.
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR - This item was taken out of order
at the request of President Franz. Given the lateness of the hour and the heavy workload of the Board
in May, it was suggested that the joint meeting be held in June or July 2005. M/S by Wasko/Hanna
was unanimous, 4/0/3.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2004 AND GOALS 2005 - This item was continued to the May 26, 2005
meeting.
WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup: President Franz reported that the AAWG and Family Services
workgroups have collaborated on and completed the survey form. The survey will be piloted at the
Festival of Families event at Southshore on May 7. Volunteers will be on hand to help administer the
surveys and it is hoped that more than 100 responses will be collected.
Family Services Workgroup: Member Wasko reported on the upcoming Festival of Families. There
are currently 39 agencies and organizations interested in tables. Paden and Franklin Schools will
perform plays, and the Adult School will entertain with a band and choir. Southshore has been great to
work with and they have distributed 12,000 flyers for the event. She reported that a few people of
prominence have RSVP'd. She stated that there have been arrangements with the Boy Scouts for chair
set-up, the Workgroup is handling details of transportation, there will be an art display and a balloon
artist, and the SSHRB will have a table at the Festival. Now that the survey is completed, the
workgroup will prepare a list of FAQ's for people who are helping to administer the survey.
Sister City Workgroup: President Franz reported on the Wuxi dinner at Aroma for the Chinese
delegation on May 16, 2005 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. There will be a VIP reception at City Hall prior to
the community dinner for the Council to meet the members of the delegation and the Chinese
Ambassador Representative from the S.F. Consulate. The Work Group will meet again during the first
week of May.
BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None
ADJOURNMENT President Franz adjourned the meeting at 8:50p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver
CB:sb
Secretary, Social Service Human Relations Board
G:SSHRB\Packets\2005\April\Minutes-REG0428.d0c
F:SSHRB\2005\Agenda Packets",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2005
GO.
DATE:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members
(CM) Cecilia Cervantes (late), and K.C. Rosenberg
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Peter Wolfe
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005
M/S/C
Lee/Huston
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March
24, 2005 be approved.' ""
Approved (2) - Huston, Lee
Abstain (1) - Rosenberg
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Wolfe
(Minimum of three votes needed for approval; minutes will be placed on
the meeting agenda for May 26, 2005.)
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,2,"4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A.
Finalize Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)
C Huston and VC Lee organized the Annual Plan prior to the
meeting. The work done by the PAAC during 2004-2005 would be
submitted as an Annual Report. One major component was the
collection of public art information and program guidelines from
other cities, which culminated in the drafting and completion of
Alameda's Guidelines. The Annual Plan would include work to be
done during the 2005-2006 period. This will include creating a
Public Art Program Mission Statement, and developing documents
used for Call for Entries and Request for Qualifications/Proposals
PAAC reviewed and finalized the Annual Report and Plan.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That the Annual Report of 2004-2005 and the Annual Plan of
2005-2006 be approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Wolfe
AD Lillard stated that the first opportunity to present the Report and
Plan to the City Council would come in late June.
B.
Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)
Discussion tabled on Mission Statement until PAAC meeting on
May 26, 2005.
C.
Finalize Public Art Documents - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi stated that a finalized RFQ/RFP would be required, since
Sue Russell and the Webster Street Project are moving forward.
VC Lee asked if she could review an e-mail from CM Wolfe,
regarding the Webster Street Project. CM Wolfe brought up issues
regarding the timeline, budget, and RFQ. In addition, CM Wolfe
inquired as to where the art piece would be located. The site, as
described, is unclear and needs some verbal or visual delineation.
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,3,"C Huston stated that we should send a cover letter and RFQ to art
publications and organizations. The organizations can then
publicize it to their membership base. CM Rosenberg suggested
two organizations, Pro Arts and San Francisco Arts Commission; C
Huston suggested Art in America (AIA), Oakland Art Gallery, and
other professional artist gathering spots.
PAAC discussed the items that should be requested in the RFQ. C
Huston suggested that an artist submit only five (5) slides, ten (10)
to twenty (20) for the RFP. The slides should be 35 mm in plastic
or cardboard covers, no stick on labels; CD's and DVD's will also
be accepted. The RFQ can also request the artist's resume, which
includes education, exhibits, collections, and a list of where they
have shown; a slide scrip will also be requested. CM Rosenberg
suggested that a cover letter, letter of interest, and artist statement
also be included. The artist would also be given the option to
include additional support materials. C Huston expressed her
approval of this procedure, because an artist is being chosen, not a
project.
RS Russi stated that Development Services Department and the
Webster Street Subcommittee would fill-in the blanks on the RFQ.
VC Lee stated that California artists are eligible for this project.
C Huston stated that she would like to be on a subcommittee for
the fact checking of art consultants. She inquired as to how soon
the information is needed. VC Lee stated that it would be needed
immediately, since CM Wolfe would like to see the piece completed
and installed by December 1st.
C Huston inquired as to when the RFQ for the Webster Street
Project would be needed. RS Russi stated that Sue Russell wants
it to go out by the end of May.
C Huston and CM Rosenberg volunteered to look over an existing
list of artists and consultants and to add any appropriate art
organizations and publications.
C Huston clarified that Development Services would provide the
descriptions for the RFQ; the PAAC would provide the format for
the RFQ/RFP, a mailing list of organizations and publications, and if
needed, assistance in reviewing the artist submittals. RS Russi
added that he would be sending the documents to Sue Russell and
would work with her to develop them.
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,4,"6.
New Business
A.
Appoint Subcommittee for the Theater and Garage
Development Project - (Discussion/Action Item)
RS Russi explained that the goal is to have the Theater and
Garage Project completed during early 2007. The restoration of the
historical theater will take longer than the new complex
components, but all will be opened at the same time. Dorene Soto
is the Development Services Lead Person on this project.
CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg expressed interest in being on
the Sub-Committee. CM Cervantes stated that College of Alameda
students might be involved with the oral history of the theater
space.
M/S/C
Huston/Lee
(approved)
""That CM Cervantes and CM Rosenberg be appointed to the
Theater and Garage Project Sub-Committee.'
Approve (4) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Wolfe
B.
Set Priorities and Develop Strategic Plan - (Discussion Item)
C Huston suggested that priorities should include Mission
Statement, RFQ/RFP, and Artist Directory.
RS Russi stated that many projects would be coming up soon. He
suggested that the PAAC set a meeting schedule soon, in order to
expedite meeting with project managers. C Huston stated that the
schedule could be made through September, for regular meetings;
the PAAC could assign dates for special meetings, so project
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-04-28,5,"managers can be given a specific date and time to meet with
PAAC.
7.
Oral Communications, General
RS Russi stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center Project is
moving along. However, there have been no overtures for the Public
Art projects. He went on to explain that AD Lillard, CAS Bailey, and
himself went to visit Bay Ship & Yacht and spoke with Crispin Kraft.
This company services ships (including government ships),
propellers, and shafts. It is the largest employer in Alameda. For the
past few years, the Corps of Engineers have been dredging the
estuary and reducing Bay Ship & Yacht's dock space.
Consequently, Bay Ship & Yacht has been forced to make changes
and improvements to their property. Their business is required to
have a certain amount of dock and pier space, in order to be a
soluble business. They have been in contact with the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), who set the
stipulations and restrictions for the space 100 ft. from the waterfront
(eg., the trail that runs up to Bay Ship & Yacht). Cris Kraft wants to
revamp the trail area and landscape a small plaza with nautical
artwork (near the ferry dock). AD Lillard stated that Bay Ship &
Yacht is creating the plaza to meet the requirements of BCDC, and
want credit toward the Public Art requirement.
RS Russi stated that South Shore Center would go over the
$150,000 cap for Public Art. Tad Savinar wants a copy of RFP,
since he is looking for local artists (California artists are eligible).
Tad is still planning to attend a PAAC meeting.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
See Section 5C.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
5
Minutes
April 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-04-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 9:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-196) Mayor Johnson addressed the Resolutions Appointing
Members of the Golf Commission [paragraph no. 05-207, 05-207A, 05-
207B] after Special Orders of the Day
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-197) Proclamation declaring May as ""Older Americans Month. ""
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Don Oransky,
President, Mastick Advisory Board.
Mr. Oransky thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-198) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Vice Mayor Gilmore commended the Project Manager and staff for
keeping the project running smoothly by putting out many fires
daily.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so adopted or enacted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *05-199 - ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April
19, 2005 ; and the Special City Council Meeting held on April 21,
2005. Approved.
(*05-200) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,201,788.60
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,2,"(*05-201) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.
(*05-202) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending March 31, 2005. Accepted.
(*05-203) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending March 31, 2005 and approve third quarter
budget adjustments. Accepted.
(*05-204) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4
Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06 for May 17, 2005. Accepted.
(*05-205) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement, Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching Phase 5,
Fiscal Year 2004-05, No. P.W. 08-04-08. Accepted.
( *05-206) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Alameda
County to continue participation in the Alameda HOME Consortium and
authorize the Acting City Manager to negotiate and execute
necessary documents. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
05-207) - Resolution No. 13836, ""Appointing Ray A. Gaul as a Member
of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
(05-207A) Resolution No. 13837, ""Appointing Bill T. Schmitz as a
Member of the Golf Commission. "" Adopted.
(05-207B) Resolution No. 13838, ""Appointing Jane Sullwold as a
Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to the Golf Commission members.
(05-208 ) Ordinance No. 2940, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District to
C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, for that Property
Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,3,"Counci lmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - -5.
(05-209) Recommendation to accept the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Concept Plan.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager gave a Power
Point presentation on the Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated the Plan would make important changes to the
area; requested staff to review ways to accelerate the Plan; stated
that a member of the Housing Task Force Committee recommended that
the Committee review the Plan, provide input, and delay the vote.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the quality of life at the West
End is important because of the high population density; the Boys'
and Girls' Club brings positive steps to the area; funding sources
are important; he is always concerned with transportation issues;
the Transportation Commission needs to be engaged; requested to see
more detail on the sources of estimates for varied activities;
stated that he has no problem with delaying the acceptance of the
Plan; inquired whether the Plan could be delayed.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded there
has been an extensive public comment process the draft plan was
presented at a community meeting in February; Board and Commission
input has been requested; there is no problem in delaying the
acceptance; acceptance of the conceptual Plan is requested;
different components would be brought back to Council at various
times.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the short-term, simple
projects could be accomplished quickly.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated there is funding available for planting
additional trees on an infill basis, and installation of trash
receptacles at the Webster Street and Poggi Street corridor.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the trash receptacles would be
selected by Public works.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
BMS Design would select the trash receptacles; BMS Deign is
familiar with materials and installations throughout the City;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,4,"the Plan was not broader.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded the
census tract has the highest concentration of minorities and low
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,5,"income. the priority was to work with residents to bring more
services into the neighborhood using Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds; residents voiced concern about not being able
to walk freely through the neighborhood because of the Harbor
Island Apartment and Chipman Middle School the area to the south
is not a low to moderate income neighborhood.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Plan could be used as a tool to
identify City resources that could be used to improve
neighborhoods; the sidewalks are in horrible condition; the paving
on Santa Clara Avenue is odd.
Mayor Johnson stated the name of the Plan can be changed to be more
specific; there are sidewalk, street, tree, and lighting issues
everywhere in the Cityi there is nothing more odd than the paving
on Gibbons Drive; increased sidewalk maintenance funding and more
aggressive repair schedules need to be reviewed; CDBG funds could
not be used if the Plan was expanded and could result in a thirty-
year Plan instead of a ten-year Plan; that she does not have a
problem with delaying acceptance until the Housing Task Force
Committee report is received; suggested direction be provided to
rename the Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated expanding the scope cannot be done with
the existing funding; the West End could be reviewed further at a
later date; that he is uncertain what the impact would be in
deferring acceptance until after the Housing Task Force Committee
review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are projects that are ready to
move forward; stated the Plan could be accepted with direction to
bring the matter back to Council after receiving the Housing Task
Force Committee report.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
tree, trash can, and bus shelter locations could begin to be
determined; staff could synchronize with the Housing Task Force
Committee and report back to Council. the Plan provides a vision of
the future and encourages residents to participate and not allow
development which might become an impediment to the implementation
of the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review ways to accelerate the
Plan.
The Acting City Manager stated that Council could accept the Plan
with the caveat that the Plan be brought back to Council; the Plan
is dynamic; there needs to be equality in the Public Works
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,6,"infrastructure and repairs; Public Works would provide an
infrastructure report at the next City Council Meeting; Council
would receive a model showing the performance of the budget over a
period of ten years in late July or early August reports will
outline what needs to be done to correct problems i funding
recommendations can be discussed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be on the Council if
not for the support of residents south of Pacific Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue; many people needed to sell their homes with the
Base closure; the neighborhood faces a lot of development Council
would be missing an opportunity if there is no coordination with
activities occurring north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Plan,
modifying the title to reflect the Plan's intent to target the most
needy census tract in the City and requiring that the Plan return
to Council coinciding with the Task Force report to revise concepts
in the Plan if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is $500,000 in resources
that can go towards activities right away; going forward and
accepting the Plan is prudent; the elements within the first and
third year are very straightforward.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she is very concerned
with the infrastructure everywhere in Alameda; the sidewalks and
streets are not in the same condition as a few years agoi Council
needs to address the issues and set priorities on the
infrastructure deficit.
Councilmember Daysog stated re-designating the name is important;
he is fine with remaining north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln
Avenue if the Plan is not opened up to Harbor Island Task Force.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-210) Wilbur Richards, Alameda, complimented the Council on the
quality of City services.
(05-211) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the President is
proposing to put oil refineries on closed military bases, which
should not occur in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,7,"(05-212 - ) Rob Siltanen, Alameda, submitted a letter requesting that
the Alameda Point vision include sensible traffic solutions, middle
class housing, and a small town Alameda feel.
(05-213) - Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee,
stated that Saturday, June 4, is National Trails Day there will be
a trail walk between Main Street and Webster Street.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-214) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember
deHaan attended the Association of Bay Area Government conference
regarding casinos last week; there appears to be a one size fits
all negotiation strategy there is no recognition of the obvious
differences between urban and rural casinos; the Governor' S
negotiator promised that the Governor would take a hard look at
Indian tribes looking to have land restored; the negotiator was not
aware of anything pertaining to the Koi proposal on Swan Way;
stated tribal lobbying efforts have not made it all the way up the
ladder.
(
05-215 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a special
June election for a Measure A parcel tax; the tax would allow the
School District to extend the current parcel tax; requested that
Council give direction to place the matter on the next City Council
meeting agenda; stated there is a gap in School District funding a
County Financial Advisor would be required if the School District
slips into financial disarray; the City does not need a County
person advising how money is spent.
(05-216) ouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the
reservation shopping battle has just begun; some cities want to
move forward with casinos because of economic woes.
(05-217) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review costs and
funding sources to centralize City administration particularly the
Public Works and Development Services Departments.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would support the idea.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he assumed that the matter
would be addressed with the budget and the ten-year outlook.
(05-218 ) Mayor Johnson requested that the Recreation Commission
matter [expansion of Commission size] be placed on the next City
Council Meeting agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,8,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MAY 3, 2005- -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-190) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney
(05-191) - Worker's Compensation Claim; Claimant : James MacKey
Agency Claimed Against City of Alameda.
(05-192) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney's
performance; regarding Worker's Compensation Claim, the Council
gave instructions to Legal Counsel: and regarding Conference with
Labor Negotiators, the Council gave instructions to Labor
Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:05 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.91 Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing
from staff and Legal Counsel and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M. .
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-193CC/05-020CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 19, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05-194CC/05-021CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager/Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004-122-042) ;
(05-194A/CC) Resolution No. 13834, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Adopted; and
(05-021A/CIC) Resolution No. 05-134, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. "" Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,12,"The Development Services Director provided a brief update on the
project.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired about the traffic
remediation requirements.
The Development Services Director responded there was one major
traffic improvement to upgrade a signal at Santa Clara Avenue and
Oak Street; there are struggles with traffic improvements at the
intersection; modifications need to be made to all of the equipment
at the intersection because the equipment is old; the estimate to
do the work is about $100,000; the design plan will provide a nice
public environment to half the block of Oak Street by extending the
public sidewalk from eight feet to fourteen feet and providing
garage and theatre outside lighting to accommodate people, cars and
bicycles entering and exiting the garage.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether determining the
scope is an on-going process, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society; Susan Decker, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) i Pauline Kelly; Barbara Marchand, Alameda Civic
Light Opera; Cathy Leong, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Mike
Corbett, Harsch Investments and Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponents: Gary McAfee, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda;
Joan Steber, Alameda; John McNulty, Alameda John F. Ruake; Zach
Kaplan, Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda (submitted handout) .
Expressed concern with bike safety on Central Avenue between Oak
and Walnut Streets: Robert Van de Walle, Alameda; Andy Cutright,
Alameda; Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Mark Haskett; and Jillian
Saxty, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the Council should
follow through with the commitment to reconfigure the parking [ on
Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets) to the original
parallel state at the former historic Alameda High School.
The Acting City Manager stated that the need for diagonal parking
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,13,"was created because of the new gymnasium, City Hall moving into the
east wing of the high school, and the Library moving into the
middle wing of the high school; parking was increased from 32
spaces to 58 spaces; Council approved an ordinance modification for
diagonal parking; the Recreation and Park Department is the only
part of City Hall remaining in the east wing and will be moving out
within a month; the Library is projected to move out within 17 or
18 months. much of the parking demand will be eliminated; the
parking garage construction provides an opportunity to move back to
parallel parking; a parking plan would need to be brought back to
Council for approval.
Vice layor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she has great sympathy
for bicyclists; a large segment of the youth population will either
ride bikes or take the bus to the theatre.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the dollar value of
parking spaces is understood now.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the parking structure would solve a
lot of the parking problems.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the project is good
for all of Alameda, especially the youth.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the theatre project is
important for the whole City; dollars would be kept in town; the
historic theatre will rot if the project does not move forward.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution Approving and
Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement
Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program [paragraph no. 05-
194CC].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development
Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation
Measures for the Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Program [paragraph no. 05-021CC].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,14,"voice vote - 5.
Mayor/Chair Johnson directed staff to bring the Central Avenue bike
lane issue back to Council.
(05-022CIC) Resolution No. 05-135, ""Approving and Authorizing
Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park Street and Otis
Drive Intersection. Adopted; and
(05-195CC) Resolution No. 13835, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Public Improvements Construction Agreement Between
the City and Harsch Investment Corporation. Adopted.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is critical
to Alameda's economic engine.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
type of funding would be used.
The Development Services Director responded that staff recommends
using Community Improvement Commission funds for the project; the
primary benefit finding is required because the intersection is
just outside the formal boundaries of a redevelopment project area;
the improvements are tied to the form and function of the rest of
the redevelopment project area; Redevelopment Law has a provision
that recognizes that there are projects that may be outside the
boundaries which are a primary benefit to the function of the rest
of the project area.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other funding
sources were considered.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
discussion about using some sales tax dollars from the new South
Shore Shopping Center development.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the two-third, one-
third cost sharing was derived.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula was a
result of negotiations with the developer ; there was a dispute over
the assignment of the impact of the intersection; the developer
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,15,"felt that he should not be responsible for making all the
improvements to the intersection; traffic modeling shows that there
are other background projects not yet developed, but approved,
which would also impact the intersection; the negotiation used the
actual number of trips coming off the project and the impact on the
intersection.
Councilmember/Commission deHaan stated that there might be further
requirements for further entitlements; inquired what the affect
would be on the traffic remediation.
The Development Services Director responded that the entitlements
received for the project anticipate 112,000 square feet of new
retail square footage at the South Shore Shopping Center and would
likely increase; circulation issues related to the gas station
would need to be examined independently additional improvements
can always be made; a need for further improvements is anticipated
by 2020.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he was concerned that
the same [ redevelopment funds are being used for many issues.
inquired whether there is a detailed breakdown of where
redevelopment funding stands.
The Development Services Director responded that there are
sufficient funds; anticipated improvements can be made with
existing tax increments and not bonds.
The Acting City Manager stated that at the next meeting staff would
provide a Community Improvement Commission multi-year budget to
show how much money remains.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is very
important the rationale and logic fits into the true meaning of
redevelopment that he defends the approach of taking redevelopment
funds for the Library project; his motion to adopt the resolutions
stands.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the investment is
necessary if the money means that the City would have stores such
as Borders or Chicos.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City needs to be frugal with
redevelopment money but also needs to use the money wisely; moving
forward with projects that help continue the redevelopment and
revitalization of Alameda business areas is an appropriate use of
funds.
.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,16,"Counci lmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is comfortable
with delaying other major retail developments to allow South Shore
Shopping Center to mature; he supports and looks forward to the
renewed Center, but has concerns with funding.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park
Street and Otis Drive Intersection [paragraph no. 05-022CIC].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Public Improvements Construction
Agreement Between the City and Harsch Investment Corporation
[paragraph no. 05-195CC].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-023CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $44,275 to provide additional pre-planning
services for the proposed Alameda Theatre Project.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY -MAY 4, 2005- - - 4:00 P.M.
(05-219) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend a Public Utilities Board meeting.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-04,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 4, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-220) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council gave direction to the
recruiter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - MAY 7, 2005 - - - 9:30 A.M.
(05-221) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend an Alameda Point Community Workshop.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Kohlstrand was absent.
Also present were Building Official Gregory J. McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005, as
presented.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that staff requested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Endorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK). A request for endorsement of
the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and
revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to endorse the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan
analyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street
Corridor.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,3,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0041 - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Acceptance of preliminary design for the Cineplex
generally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. This site
is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and
Community Commercial - Planned Development) Districts.
This item was presented after Item 8-B.
Ms. Ott presented the staff report, and noted that the DDA (Development Disposition Agreement)
was approved by the City Council on May 3, 2005.
Mr. Kyle Connors, Alameda Entertainment Associates, developer, presented an overview of the site
plan, and noted that the project architect was very experienced in theater design.
Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, presented the project in detail on the overhead
display.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the project architect did a good job in fitting
a lot of function into a small space, which he also believed was part of the problem. He believed there
was too much energy in the site, and suggested that one theater be dropped from the project. He
suggested that the corner adjacent to the rosette be curved to mirror the historic theater's curve. He
noted that the lines did not flow from one theater to the other.
Mr. Kevin Frederick did not like the design of this theater, and did not like the fact that no major
changes had been considered by the Board since the inception of this project. He did not agree with
the inclusion of the retail spaces, and did not believe they blended with the overall layout of the
theater.
Ms. Debbie George disagreed with Mr. Frederick's stated belief that the Planning Board did not listen
to proposed changes and noted that PSBA's comments and input had been incorporated into the
project. She complimented the architect in meeting the challenge of maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, noted that there had been many improvements
since the beginning of the project, but did not like the 20-inch overhang. She would like to remove
the 26 seats and the four-foot screen, but realized that the project needed to move forward. She liked
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,4,"the bow window, and believed the signage should be on the front to identify the building.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, commended the architect for taking the economic issues
into account with this project, and for placing the retail space in the area. He liked the inclusion of the
public's comments into this design. He believed the 20-inch overhang on the Central Avenue side
would be softened by the canopies; on the Oak Street side, the plan for the extension of the sidewalk
was unanimously approved by the PSBA Board of Directors. Regarding the number of screens, the
DDA was already in effect between Movietex and the City. He liked the design, and realized it would
be tweaked somewhat.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they would have preferred a
less modernistic design, but would address the other concerns such as the integration of different
building masses and design elements. He noted that he would submit comments regarding the design
elements. He recommended that the vertical columns be made more consistent from the street level to
the top to reinforce the established rhythm, and to tie in with the vertical elements of the established
theater.
Mr. Dick Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara #204, noted that he had been against the 20-inch
projection, but agreed that they should be consistent. He believed that fine-tuning could be done, and
that the 20-inch depth on the two sides of the corner should be reduced.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 3520 Chester Street, noted that she was an architectural historian, and
expressed concern about compliance with the Secretary of State standards regarding additions to
historic properties. She believed the historic color scheme and finishes should be identified now in
order to guide the choices of the colors and finishes on the Cineplex, so it will be compatible with the
old theater. She expressed concern that the Planning Board and the HAB may not be able to make an
informed decision about whether the project may meet the Secretary's standards until the City has
requested the architectural resources group to identify the original exterior colors and finishes of the
historic theater. She supported the extension of the pilasters up the front of the Cineplex to suggest
the pilasters on the old theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar, believed there was a missed opportunity in that he had not seen any members of
the general public without any commercial interest in the theater say that they loved the design. He
hoped the actual theater would look better than the design. It bothered him that the design was not
site-specific, with the exception of the massing.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he was a citizen
with no vested interest in the project. He believed the seven theaters were necessary to make the
project financially feasible. He believed the 20-inch overhang was a positive aspect by modulating the
façade of the building.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,5,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Ott confirmed that there would not be any
painting on the exterior of the historic theater.
Mr. Piziali wished to emphasize that this was a separate project on a separate parcel from the historic
theater, and was not a historic addition.
Ms. Mariani noted that she did not have a problem with the canopies or the extension any more, and
believed it would all blend in together. She would like to see more vertical elements. She believed it
was a good project and would like to move forward.
Ms. McNamara asked what elements resulting from the subcommittee meetings were included in the
design.
President Cunningham noted that there had been an effort to erode the strong horizontal and vertical
lines at the corner. The articulation of the corner was also addressed by adding a dome. He
commended the project architect on his work given the budget. The 20-inch setback had been
discussed in the subcommittee, which added more shadow; without the setback, the sheer wall would
have detracted from the project.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not comfortable with the additional vertical elements. She
agreed with Ms. Krase's comments about the color scheme. She agreed that the columns were busy.
She noted that the original concept of the project included retail space on the ground floor to enliven
the street. Although she did not favor the ball on top, she appreciated the improvements in the corner
elements. She liked the increase in size of the Oak Street sidewalk. She requested that the architects
do whatever they can to step the new building down with respect to the old theater to soften the
connection.
President Cunningham expressed concern about the dark glazing on the upper level, and understood
the concerns about the heat gain. He encouraged the use of low-e double-pane glass instead.
Mr. Connors noted that they chose the bronze glass to avoid the reflection inherent in the low-e glass.
Mr. Piziali suggested the use of dark anodized aluminum glass.
A discussion of the dome element ensued.
M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to accept the preliminary design for the Cineplex generally at
the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications
would be included:
1.
The dome would be eliminated;
2.
The aluminum storefront would have dark anodized frames glazing;
3.
The angles on the right-hand side of the building would be softened;
4.
The original exterior color would be researched by staff,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,6,"5.
There would be no uplight wash on the exterior wall; and
6.
Possible improvements where the buildings meet would be considered.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,7,"8-B.
City of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (CE/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary
Design for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue,
generally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C-
C-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning
Districts.
This item was heard before Item 8-A.
Ms. Ott presented the staff report
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding change in the width of Oak Street, and
providing more space for bicycles, Ms. Ott replied that was brought up during the Transportation
Commission meeting. It was important that the possibility be maintained for Class II bike lanes to be
included; the current plan was to place stenciling on the ground identifying it as a shared bike lane.
Public Works agreed with this plan.
Ms. Ott introduced Michael Stanton, project architect. Mr. Stanton summarized the proposal,
displayed the site plan on the overhead screen, addressed the modified items since the last
presentation, and presented the concepts for the exterior lighting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he wrote a brief letter to the
Board, and distributed a handout to the Board. He commented on the displayed elevation, and
suggested carrying the molding above the open bays along the tops of the solid brick walls to provide
more continuity to the top. He believed that would relieve the undifferentiated wall masses of the
shear walls. He suggested adding a belt course or sill course that ran along the base of the openings to
break up the massing into a three-part vertical composition: the base, the shaft and the top, with more
focus to the top as the culmination of the design. He suggested enlarging the movie poster boxes to a
storefront size. He suggested that artwork or posters for special Park Street events could be displayed
in those boxes as well. He suggested that the arch pattern be extended to the stairwell to maintain
continuity with the other openings. He suggested that the spandrels between the opening be lightened
by using a different material such as delicate or ribbed metal. He suggested that the brick on the
bottom level be a slightly lighter buff color.
Ms. Debbie George, treasurer of Park Street Business Association (PSBA), and representing a 30-
year business property owner on Park Street, spoke in support of this application. She had waited for
many years for this addition to the district.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application. He noted that their
Board of Directors supported this design as presented by staff. He believed the public has had
sufficient opportunity to comment on this design, and noted that some of their ideas had been
incorporated. He believed it was time for this project to go forward, and noted that the additions to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,8,"the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project.
Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the
parking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most
minimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was
mechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be
oppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage
should be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to
see a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building
on the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such
structures.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure
was extremely unattractive and uninspired.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's
never had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly
because he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed
with Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the
morning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the
visual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed
between the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he
suggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs
that specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted
that this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first
choice. He urged the Board to take Mr. Buckley's and Mr. Woods' comments into account.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding parking, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the sixth
floor would contain parking on the whole floor. He displayed the façade and stated that the rationale
behind the vinyl art wall was that it was a property line wall that required significant four-hour
construction. The Building Official believed that penetrations would be inconsistent with safety
standards for the City, particularly with a relatively high hazard occupancy like a garage. Given the
limited budget for the project, they tried to invest in the best quality materials and desirable on the
permanent Oak Street façade. It was hoped that the Long's site will eventually be redeveloped in a
way more consistent with downtown Alameda; a corner parking lot on a major intersection was not
the standard pattern of Alameda's commercial districts. He noted that vines had been considered, but
the north facing façade and height of the building made that impractical. A reciprocal easement with
Long's for trees had been explored, but did not pan out. He noted that any art may stay on the façade
for up to three years, but that the form and medium was in the preliminary stage.
Ms. Ott described the Public Art Ordinance, and noted that they were making a good faith effort to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,9,"include public art in the project. She noted that it would not contain advertisements.
Ms. McNamara supported public art in this project.
In response to Ms. McNamara's request, Mr. Stanton described the shear wall and entrances in detail.
He stated the garage was mechanically ventilated, because of the lack of adequate opening to the
outdoors prevented natural ventilation. He noted that the mechanical ventilation would activate only
when the carbon monoxide sensors detected a buildup; this would be safe and energy efficient.
Mr. Lynch believed the extra costs should be borne by the project. At his request, Mr. Stanton
described the different colors and materials of the façade, and how it would relate to long-term
maintenance of light colors at the base, moving up the structure. He noted that the sample board
represented the original color choices. He preferred a honed finish, which discouraged some forms of
graffiti and abuse. He believed a darker, warmer red at the base of the building would be appropriate,
and would like further Board feedback.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that the garage would not be costed out
until after the final design approval.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether cars would be visible from the outside, Mr.
Stanton replied that the cars should not be visible from the street. He noted that the lighting would be
visible, but anticipated that the lighting fixtures would be as inconspicuous as possible. He added that
he would create the view angles from across the street, but did not believe they would be visible.
Vice President Cook believed the time had come to have a parking garage in Alameda, and added that
the parking availability had become more limited. She was not happy that an appropriate solution
could not be worked out with Long's She noted that with planning, nothing was ever perfect and
believed that it was time to move forward. She believed the architect had been responsive to the
severe constraints of the site. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments, although she did not believe
they were all feasible. She liked the idea of arching the area in the tower to match the other arches, as
well as having a darker shade at the base to create grounding. She appreciated what the architect did
with the doors closest to City Hall. She believed the poster size insets were too small, but did not
believe they should be storefront-sized; the poster casing should be framed, perhaps similar to the
treatment around the doors. She appreciated the architect's responsiveness on the stair tower.
Mr. Stanton agreed with Vice President Cook's assessment that the posters did indeed look ""dinky,""
and would be happy to bring an alternative back to the Board.
Mr. Piziali agreed that the posters should not be larger, but that they should be framed.
President Cunningham noted that there was an additional speaker due to the reverse order of the
items.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,10,"M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
Ms. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, did not believe tearing down the design at this
point would be very constructive. She believed the project would move forward, and would like to
give Mr. Stanton some ideas to work with. She supported the underground vault, and was concerned
about the inexpensive materials on the large exterior wall. She liked the color palette and the darker
base. She believed the lighting as represented on the drawing looked inaccurate, particular with
respect to the upthrow from the fixtures. She hoped the lighting fixtures would be integral throughout
the design, and that they would not be removed because of cost concerns. She noted that there was
not much design on the façade, and the lighting should be very important. She expressed concern
about property and personal security inside the garage, and was disappointed that there would not be
a security kiosk in the garage. She believed the handicapped spaces could be closer to the elevators.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like see the Cineplex in relation to the parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Ott replied that a shading study had not been
performed on this structure. Mr. Stanton noted that this placement of the parking garage was ideal
with respect to minimal shading impact. There may be some morning shade onto the Oak Street right-
of-way, but for the most part, the rising sun would be screened by the historic cinema.
Mr. Piziali liked the lighting, and believed they would wash on the building façade more than
indicated on the drawing. He supported this project, and believed it would be beneficial for Park
Street. He noted that the design could be tweaked forever, and that it may never get built.
President Cunningham fully supported this project, and believed it would be good for Alameda. He
agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment. His biggest concern was the control of the design/build process,
and the budget concerns.
Ms. Ott advised that with respect to the design/build team, the Board's specifications would be
included in the contract. If the bids exceeded the anticipated budget, and no funding sources could be
found or moved around, she advised that it was very likely that a floor of the parking garage would be
removed.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the performance of the construction management
work, Ms. Ott replied that staff was in the process of completing an internal draft of an RFP for those
services. She anticipated it would be released in the next few weeks. Mr. Lynch noted that parking
garage construction was a specialty field, and that this bifurcated process would force a firm to figure
out how to bid on the project. He suggested that staff consider that possibility before sending the
RFP.
President Cunningham agreed that the arches on the stair tower should be left as is, and would like to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,11,"retain the ability to detail the brick around the posters. He supported the darker base.
In response to Vice President Cook concern about pedestrian safety if a pay booth were to be used,
Ms. Ott noted that there would be no pay booth, and there would be two stations at the two exits.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution to provide acceptance of
preliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, near the corner of Oak Street and Central
Avenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications would be included:
1.
The darker base as recommended by the architect;
2.
No additional arches on the tower building;
3.
Framing or detailing around the posters; and
4.
Where possible, a change in the brick courses to add interest to the large facades.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess before Item 8-A.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-09,12,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook noted that there was much to discuss, and would like to agendize the item to
give a complete report.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that another meeting
would be held in two weeks.
Vice President Cook requested that the current staffing situation in the Planning & Building
Department be agendized for discussion.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. McFann, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the May 23, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 9, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 10, 2005 - 6:30 P.M.
(05-222) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend a Town Hall Meeting on the Harbor Bay Ferry service.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-05-11,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
May 11, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Karen Butter, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jordona Elderts, Literacy Coordinator
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice President Belikove MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of May 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of April 13, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of March 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures (by
fund) through March 05. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Adult Literacy Program (J.Elderts)
Library Director Hardie introduced Jordona Elderts, Administrative Services Coordinator
for the Alameda Literacy Program, and Ms. Elderts presented an overview of the
program. Literacy is located in the Veteran's Building on Central Avenue and is
celebrating 20 years of learning. The main focus of the program is to help adults with
low reading and writing skills. Students must be able to speak and understand English. A
computer lab has been established with reading software, typing instruction and Internet
instruction. Most students come to the program with specific goals, such as how to write
a check, read the newspaper or instructional manuals for work. Ms. Elderts handed out a
copy of Roles and Goals created by the State to measure achievement of the students.
B.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
The Building Team did not meet this month. Library Director Hardie stated that the
Building Team will be meeting quarterly unless something unexpected comes up.
A report to the Board will be scheduled only when the LBT has met.",LibraryBoard/2005-05-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-05-11,2,"C.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove reported that the Foundation received the library construction
report and donor recognition program information. She noted that 4 members of the
Foundation will be termed out this year. The Foundation had a meeting on the proper
way to solicit donations from citizens and corporations.
D.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Board member Schoenrock stated that Molly Skeen was on vacation this week. Mr.
Schoenrock reported that the next book sale will be at the ""O"" Club and will be the last
weekend of June.
E.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that Library Building Watch no longer meets. Ms. Krongold
stated that the newsletter will be going out next week. There are currently 294 people on
the mailing list for the newsletter.
F.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library Director Hardie read 2 input/feedback forms regarding: Please purchase The
Electric Grandma, and a patron complaint that new books are not being processed in a
timely manner anymore.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Mitchell noted several articles from Library Hotline magazine that
included topics on library tutors, new rules of conduct for libraries, leaving stranded
children at the library, self check machines and how certain libraries are dealing with the
financial crisis.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie informed the Board that a new Library Logo has been approved.
New cards should be at all libraries by June. The Donor Policy will be going to the City
Council on June 7th.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Board member
Schoenrock SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-05-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-223)
Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,2,"Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice] another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,3,"outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
work in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,4,"The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,5,"review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;
if
issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,6,"to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: ""advising and/or representing the City Council.
""
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of ""as directed by the Council"" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within ""additional
matters"" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded ""additional matters"" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -
1. ]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,7,"Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word ""you"" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second ""you"" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ""you"" in the sentence ""provide legal
services for additional matters that you request... refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference
with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,8,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF May 12, 2005
1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501
(510)747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, May 12, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of April 14, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
In Favor (3) -
Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves
Absent (2) -
Johnson, Oliver (came in late)
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.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Justine Highsmith offering to donate new stock photography for use in
the City's photo bank.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,2,"5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Presentation of Facility Photos/Inventory - (Information Only Item)
Justine Highsmith, Senior at Clayton Valley High School, as a senior she needed to do a
community project for school and she chose Alameda because she thinks it's a charming
City. She worked with the Recreation and Park Department and took pictures of its various
facilities. Ms. Highsmith took approximately 1,000 photos and narrowed it down to 300
pictures that were put on a CD and presented to the Commission.
Ms. Highsmith provided a Power Point presentation of the photos to the Recreation and
Park Commission.
B.
Proposed Recommendation to Provide Additional Parking (Neptune Park) for
Independence Plaza Residents - (Discussion/Action Item)
Mike Pucci, Housing Authority Executive Director, requested additional parking for
Independence Plaza residents by using part of Neptune Park. The area that will be used
will have little impact on Neptune Park. Neptune is not a well used park. It is a gateway to
the City and any parking built there will have minimal impact on the visibility of the parking
lot. There will be berms around the parking lot with extra landscaping to hide the cars.
The Federal Government placed a deed restriction on Neptune Park when it was
transferred to the City. The deed restriction limits the use of the land to parkland, but the
governemnt will lift the restriction if additional parkland of equal value is put in its place.
The Board of Commissioners (who are City Council) recommend that the deed restriction
transfer to the EBMUD property adjacent to Towata Park. The funds would come from the
Open Space fund.
AD Lillard stated that the EBMUD property, in its current condition, is not actual usable park
space.
Mr. Pucci stated that it is being proposed that the deed restriction be place on the Parrot
Mini-Park. The Housing Authority would continue to maintain the park.
Commissioner Reeves asked if the parking would be strictly for Housing Authority and
Housing Authority employees. Mr. Pucci stated that it would be only for residents in
buildings 707 and 711.
Chair Ingram asked if the original funding for the project was going to be paid for by
refinancing Parrot and Eagle Village but that plan did not go through because of what
Council did. Mr. Pucci stated we were going to pay for EBMUD property through
refinancing of Parrot and Eagle Village, but the parking lot itself will be paid through
reserves from Independence Plaza.
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,3,"Chair Ingram asked if the refinance funds will be used for the parking lot. Mr. Pucci stated
no. Plans for the proceeds will be spent on Parrot and Eagle Village and other complexes.
Housing Authority reserve funds will be used for the parking lot.
Commissioner Reeves stated that what the deed restriction means is that they will never be
able to tear down the play area and put in more housing which is a benefit to the City.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/OLIVER
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission recommend to City Council the
following:
1.
Request the National Parks Service to release the deed restriction on
approximately 10,500 square feet of Neptune Park in exchange for an
equivalent sized parcel at the Bay-Eagle Community Garden to meet the
needs of Independence Plaza residents; and
2.
Authorize the Recreation and Parks Acting Director to enter into lease
agreements with the Housing Authority for exchange of these two parcels
for an annual rent of $1 to be paid and received.""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves,
C.
Increasing the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from Five
to Seven Members - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that recently the Golf Commission was expanded from five to seven
members by the City Council. In the next few years there will be a lot of new development
with Bayport Park, etc. and the thought is that it would be good to have a larger cross
section, additional input, and help with the future development.
The request is to increase the Recreation and Park Commission from five to seven
members. Most neighboring commissions (San Leandro, etc.) and most City Commission's
already have seven members with the recent exception of the Golf and Recreation and
Park Commission's.
Further discussion was held by Commissioner's.
M/S/C
KAHUANUI/REEVES
(approved)
""That the Recreation and Park Commission be increased from five to seven
members.""
Approved (4):
Ingram, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
Opposed (1):
Johnson
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,4,"D.
Proposed Reorganization of the Public Art Advisory Committee -
(Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that due to the current budget situation and shortages of staff that may
occur in the next couple of months, staff/City will be reviewing who the PAAC reports to.
PAAC may become a stand alone Commission that reports directly to Council to streamline
the process and help the Department's involved. This will be a very difficult year with
regard to budget. It may be more efficient to have PAAC report directly to Council and it
will also eliminate bureacratic slow downs.
M/S/C
OLIVER/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That Recreation and Park Commission accept the proposed reorganization of the Public
Art Advisory Committee.""
Approved (4):
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver
Opposed (1):
Reeves
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation
regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard stated that staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and have come to
an agreement for a Field Use Fee. The plan will be formally presented at the June
Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
The suggested agreement is that there will be a minimum field charge of $500 per season,
with a cost of $3 per child after the minimum. There is still the option, at ARPD's discretion,
for the groups to work off the fee. Groups will have to verify the cost and value to the City
for any work performed. If the groups do not complete their assessment before the end of
the season they will not get permits for the next year until the debt is cleared. ARPD will
place the dollar value on any of the work that is done by the groups.
Commissioner Reeves stated that he will not be at the next Commission Meeting (June),
but wanted to make it clear that he does not want the private/special interest groups
dictating to the Commission that they want to do projects and the Commission has to
accept them and they are worth a specific amount of money set by the groups.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
See attached Activity Report.
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,5,"B.
Recreation Division
See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No new information to report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Chair Ingram stated that APAC had their 5th out of 6 meetings scheduled for public input
regarding Alameda Point. The meeting was well attended (approximately 70 people in
attendance). There is one more evening public meeting on Wednesday, June 8, at Mastick
Senior Center.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No new information to report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
AD Lillard stated that a community meeting was held regarding the Leydecker Park
Playground renovation.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Chair Ingram stated that American Tower went before the Planning Board regarding their
request for a tower at Upper Washington Park. American Tower will install a couple of
picnic tables and benches down the third baseline toward home plate since that area is
hard to irrigate.
Chair Ingram asked if the Joint Meeting between the Council and Recreation and Park
Commission is still being planned. AD Lillard stated yes, the City Clerk is still trying to
schedule a meeting this month (May).
Chair Ingram asked if the City was in on the Boys and Girls Club building their new facility
at Woodstock School. AD Lillard stated that he had not heard anything.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-05-12,6,"10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
AD Lillard stated that the following would be on the next agenda:
-
Bayport Park and Community Building Plans.
-
A request to place a mobile coffee dispensing business at Lower Washington
Park.
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, June 9, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 17, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-227)
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Declaring
Support for Measure A [paragraph no. 05-228] would be addressed
first; and next, the Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City [paragraph no. 05-
229] would be addressed along with the welcome and presentation
honoring Friendship City delegation [paragraph no. 05-229A].
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-228) Resolution No. 13939, ""Declaring Support for Measure A,
Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure. Adopted.
Michael McMahon, School Board President, stated voters approved a
$109 parcel tax in 2001, which gave the schools an additional $1. 8
million; the Board is requesting that the Council adopt a
resolution supporting expansion of the tax for the next seven
years.
Amy Costa, District Director for Senator Don Perata, stated Senator
Perata could not be present due to budget negotiations; conveyed
Senator Perata's support for Measure A; State funding has been
volatile; Measure A would provide funding stability to the school
district.
Richard Heaps, Alameda Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council
President and 2001 Measure A Oversight Committee Member, stated
Measure A has the support of the PTA Council; the Oversight
Committee has seen the results of reduced class sizes and other
programs supported by the 2001 Measure A funding, and would like to
see the funding continue and expand.
Ron Mooney, Alamedans for Better Schools Co-Chair, urged adoption
of the resolution; thanked the Councilmembers for their individual
support; stated school funding is set by the State; the Measure
provides funding that the District uses to support critically
important programs noted an argument was not filed against the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,2,"Measure.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the schools have an impact on the
whole City; the funding will keep programs in place and forestall
any possibility of outside control, which would consist of the
County or State telling Alameda how to run its school district.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated kids are owed a good, quality education;
the City cannot count on the State to provide funding.
Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution is of vital interest to
the City.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the quality of
education is one of the most important things in the City.
Mayor Johnson stated schools would face cuts if the Measure does
not pass Senator Perata is trying to equalize State funding of
education; school facilities in other communities are higher
quality; the Alameda Unified School District has done an excellent
job with the amount of funding it receives; she was impressed with
the teacher and students when she visited a second grade class at
Miller School.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-229) Welcome and presentation honoring Friendship City
delegation from Wuxi, China; and
(05-229A) Resolution No. 13940, ""Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing
the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the
Formulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations. Adopted.
Jim Franz and Stuart Chan of the Social Service Human Relations
Board introduced interpreter Tu Zhongliang, Deputy Director, Wuxi
Municipal Foreign Affairs Office, who introduced the Wuxi
delegation: Wang Zhuping, Vice Chairman, Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC) ; Zhou Yonggeng, Secretary General
CPPCC; Bian He, Deputy Secretary General CPPCC; and Jiang Guoliang,
Director of Study, Culture and History CPPCC.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,3,"Mayor Johnson introduced the Friends of Wuxi Committee : Nancy Li,
Chair; Hans Wong, Vice-Chair; and Otto Huang, Honorary Chair.
Mayor Johnson read the resolution, which the translator also read
in Chinese.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson and Wang Zhuping signed the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) .
Mr. Zhuping stated he is happy to sign the MOU to establish sister
City relations with Alameda and hopes relationships will develop
further.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire community is proud to be moving
forward with the Sister City relationship, particularly residents
of Chinese heritage and ancestry.
The delegation presented gifts to the City.
Mayor Johnson presented a pewter plate with the City seal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize
installation of an All-Way Stop Control [paragraph no. 5-235 ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( * 05-230 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 3, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting held on
May 4, 2005. Approved.
( * 05-231) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,161,657.93.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,25,"(05-247) Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment
challenges.
Mayor Johnson stated that she considers infrastructure the part of
the City's budget deficit; the maintenance of infrastructure has
declined in the last several years; although money was saved, it
creates a bigger deficit that must be dealt with in the future; the
Council needs to decide whether to continue to allow the
infrastructure to continue declining or to deal with the deficit
and prevent it from growing.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the
City's infrastructure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Works Director had
information on the percent of streets and sidewalks not in good
condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he
included said information for streets.
Mayor Johnson stated the information was needed for sidewalks;
sidewalks are in bad condition; sidewalks should be made a priority
in addition to streets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the annual funding shortfall
is $2 million.
The Public Work Director responded in the affirmative; stated
currently $4 million is funded and $6.6 million should be funded;
the $2.7 million shortfall does not take into consideration the $33
million deficit; under-funding each year continues to add to the
deficit.
Mayor Johnson stated the economic result of under-funding would be
more than $2.7 million; not completing maintenance causes greater
damage.
The Public Works Director concurred; stated there is an optimum
point when resurfacing should be completed to be cost effective.
many streets are beyond the cost effective point, which results in
more costly repair, such as a repair which would have cost $1 three
years prior would now cost $4.
Mayor Johnson requested pie charts showing the condition of
infrastructure other than streets, such as sidewalks and sewers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether only spending $750,000 on street
resurfacing during the next fiscal year would add to the deficit,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,26,"to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined.
The Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction
in staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and,
as a result, were combined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole
and sidewalk repair.
The Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is
responsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are
responsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete
replacement.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's
duties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes
the backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget
shortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City
failing to have a plan, timeline and priorities.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved
over, rather than installing manufactured turf.
(05-248) - ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million
undesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course
if the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and
streets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000;
there needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on
how to proceed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something
has to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks
and streets.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made ;
spending money upfront will save money later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,27,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether residents are required to pay
for sidewalk repair, to which the Public Works Director responded
the City only repairs sidewalks damaged by street trees.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about sewers, the Public
Works Director responded the City's sewers are doing fairly well
because there is a dedicated funding source; dedicated funding
sources or fees would allow the City to keep up with on-going
maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Measure B funds were used for
the pothole crew, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding Measure B
funds being a fixed amount, the Public Works Director stated the
amount varies because it is based on sales tax.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pothole crew defers the
need for maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
resurfacing is still often needed.
Councilmember Daysog stated little changes can change people's
perception; people think negatively of their surroundings if
streets and sidewalks are not maintained; people might have
confidence the City is on the right track if improvements cannot be
fully funded but common areas are improved.
Mayor Johnson stated not dealing with the problem creates a bigger
deficit; the Council needs to review the issue; a long-term plan is
needed to get infrastructure back in shape.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the sewer system is in good shape
because it has a dedicated funding source; a similar option for
streets, sidewalks, and median strips should be presented to the
public; other funding sources will not solve the problem.
The Acting City Manager stated the presentation was the first step
to identify the problem; the next step is to find ways to fund
improvements; having something similar to the sewer fund would be
good.
Mayor Johnson stated the City must be able to assure the public
that a thorough review was completed and there is not any money
available in the budget before raising fees; the deficit is huge.
Councilmember deHaan stated the most important thing is to set up a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,28,"steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time
would not work; a plan should be established.
Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should
be considered.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember
Daysog.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should
be spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in
the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there
needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same
situation in 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the
current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure
maintenance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the
budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify
resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would
enlist other business associations to partner with the City to
ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked
Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the
Theatre project.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going
forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05-
233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff
to consider Chevrolet.
The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be
a Ford or equivalent.
(05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was
going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on
the matter.
(05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the
budget discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,29,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,30,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:10 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-225) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance V. City of
Alameda.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,31,"TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:25 P.I M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers / Commissioners / Board
Members Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-226CC/05-024CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. Approved.
(05-025CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $40,000 for design review services for the
proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. Accepted.
( 05-026CIC) Recommendation to receive and file revised Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation recommendations. Received and
filed.
AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-027CIC)
Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to an
Acquisition Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission
acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low income housing
at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located within the Alameda Point
Improvement Project.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,32,"Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-028CIC) Resolution No. 05-136, ""Resolution of Necessity to
Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes
Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for
Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et
seq. (APN 071-0203-014 and APN 071-0203-015; 2315-2323 Central
Avenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre/Cineplex and Parking
Structure. Adopted.
Lester Cabral, Tenant, stated that a lot of information has just
been received; that he opposes the resolution until the tenants are
notified about what is going on; that he understands an eviction
notice might be forthcoming.
Chair Johnson requested staff to meet with Mr. Cabral to answer his
questions.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's question about the property
Mr. Cabral is concerned about, Mr. Cabral responded Hair Shapers at
2321 Central Avenue.
Lars Hansson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board
President, stated the PSBA Board supports the staff recommendation
and urges adoption of the resolution; the resolution will
springboard negotiations with the owner to allow reaching a fair
market value within a short period of time.
Duane Watson, PSBA Board Vice President, urged moving forward with
the project.
Robb Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, stated the project is
important for PSBA and all of Alameda; the restoration of the
historic theatre was identified as the number one priority in the
downtown vision process; urged support of the staff recommendation
stated Video Maniacs has been successfully relocated with the
assistance of Development Services.
Daniel A. Muller, Attorney for Cocores Development Company
submitted a letter; stated the letter submitted includes five
categories of objections to the Resolution of Necessity and right
to take the property; the offer of $1.5 million recently submitted
is less than half of the value that a qualified, MAI [Masters of
the Appraisal Institute] appraiser provided 11/2 years agoi said
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,33,"appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores
and came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is
using is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up
with $3. 7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a
year old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised
value is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed
the adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules
specify that the City will give preference to property owners
within the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed
Cocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the
$25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been
shelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in
partnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner
participation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the
justification for the public use of the project is remediation of
blight the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded
and not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence
that the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles
indicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies
and committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and
project; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to
going forward with the project; requested adoption of the
resolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to
re-engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City
staff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even
offered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1
million over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue
if the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to
take challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but
could be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered
into with a developer; although the DDA is carefully worded that
the Commission is not committing itself to condemnation, the mere
fact that a DDA has been executed with a developer suggests there
is no longer a discussion with the owner; urged delaying action to
resume good faith negotiations and avoid spending resources on
unnecessary litigation; finally, there are fatal, fundamental
problems with the mitigated negative declaration; deferral of some
of the mitigation measures are impermissible under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) i CalTrans raised problems, such as
traffic impacts and impacts to certain intersections, that were not
addressed; the City must comply with CEQA prior to adoption of the
Resolution of Necessity; failure to comply with CEQA can create
right to take challenges.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the Commission could adopt the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,34,"resolution and give direction to staff to continue negotiations, to
which Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
The Development Services Director stated staff would continue to
talk to the owner about acquiring the property; staff has attempted
to talk to the owner and has not had success.
Chair Johnson stated it appears the owner is now willing to talk
and the City should enter into discussions if the owner is willing.
The Development Services Director stated the City has been working
on the project for many years; a Request for Proposals (RFP ) for
redevelopment of the project was sent to the owner in December
2000; the owner sent a letter in January 2001 which thanked the
City for sending the RFP and stated: ""the owner's desire is to
wholeheartedly endorse the City's effort to locate a developer to
redevelop the Alameda Theatre; staff has been proceeding on said
basis for sometime; the DDA does not pre-commit the condemnation
action; staff has always intended and hoped to acquire the property
amicably; noted the property owner did not object at the CEQA
hearings or DDA adoption.
Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to comment on the claim of
defects in the appraisal.
Legal Counsel responded the Commission's action is not predicated
on the joint appraisal; staff has full faith and confidence in the
appraisal upon which the action is being based.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is important; the City
has an opportunity to save the Alameda Theatre; the City should
continue negotiating with the owner.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Commissioner Matarrese would amend
the motion to include approval of direction to continue
negotiations.
Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion to include
direction to continue to negotiate [with Mr. Cocores].
Chair Johnson stated negotiations should continue if the owner is
willing the owner has indicated a willingness to continue to
negotiate; the City hopes to resolve the matter by agreement ;
hopefully, the owner is sincere about being willing to negotiate.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,35,"Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in
the best interest of the City.
Commissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers
received notification.
The Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the
tenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the
owner the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided
information to all of the tenants at that time staff would ensure
the tenant has all the facts.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go
forward to allow a common position to be reached.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,4,"(*05-232) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the
Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
( *05-233) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for one animal control vehicle. Accepted.
(*05-234) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4,
No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(05-235) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-Way -
Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman
Street.
Don Patterson, Alameda, stated that he opposes the four-way stop
sign; the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) did not address the
real problem of why Sherman Street is operating as a major
thoroughfare; the General Plan Traffic Element's goal and intent is
to have a transportation plan with traffic controls and techniques
that direct and keep traffic on major streets; questioned how the
City can make decisions without the advice of a professional
traffic engineer on staff; stated said position has been vacant
since October 2003; urged Council to direct the Acting City Manager
to hire a traffic engineer suggested the application be withdrawn;
noted the individual who filed the application has not participated
in any of the public hearings and must not be very serious about
the request stated the stop sign should only be addressed in the
context of a total transportation plan, not a band-aid approach
that would only exacerbate the problem by moving traffic faster
along Sherman Street.
Stanton Scott, Alameda, stated that he has witnessed many accidents
at the intersection; increased traffic has become more aggressive;
that he supports some form of traffic controls; stop signs would be
good.
Mary Amen, Alameda, stated that she represents a group of Santa
Clara Avenue residents who are opposed to the stop sign; she
gathered signatures in the four blocks directly affected; the
residents would like the City to implement traffic calming devices
before deciding to have 7000 cars a day stop in front of homes,
including 12 buses per hour; accident statistics dropped to one per
year after the City addressed visibility issues; buses and cars
travel at 40 miles per hour (mph) during peak times; cross traffic
could pass safely if cars traveled at the 25 mph speed limit; the
U.S. Department of Transportation and CalTrans guidelines indicate
stop signs should not be used for speed control; the Police
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,5,"Department is called to ticket cars parked in red zones at all
corners of the intersection on a daily basis; submitted photographs
of cars parked in the red zone.
Kathy Gardner, Alameda, stated the intersection does not have cross
walks; drivers on Santa Clara Avenue do not stop for pedestrians
there should be a stoplight, not a stop sign, at the intersection;
drivers on Sherman Street cannot see traffic on Santa Clara Avenue
something needs to be done; there have been multiple accidents an
all-way stop sign is not the best solution; crosswalks and pressure
sensitive stoplights should be installed.
The Public Works Director stated the intersection meets the traffic
volume warrant and accident warrant; the TTT recognized that the
stop sign would impact residents; Council is being requested to
approve the all-way stop because it is the best short-term way to
address the traffic operation issues; the TTT recognized an all-way
stop is not the best long-term solution; Public Works staff is to
provide long-term traffic operation safety at the intersection,
including a review of installing a traffic signal or flashing
yellow signal; Public Works will review how to improve traffic
circulation in the area, how to de-emphasize Sherman Street, and
coordination of traffic corridors.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has asked for an overall,
comprehensive review of the issue over the years, instead of
putting in four-way stops when the City receives requests inquired
what impact a four-way stop would have on Sherman Street would the
stop encourage more traffic on Sherman Street; should the City
discourage additional traffic on Sherman Street stated the City
has been trying to equalize traffic on Santa Clara, Lincoln and
Buena Vista Avenues; inquired whether the proposed stop sign would
put an unfair burden on Lincoln and Buena Vista Avenues; stated
every street in Alameda is a neighborhood; pushing traffic from one
street to another is not fair; a comprehensive review is needed to
address traffic issues; that she wants a better sense of impacts
[before proceeding with a stop sign]; that she agrees with Santa
Clara Avenue residents because she would not want cars and buses
stopping and starting in front of her house.
The Public Works Director stated the Public Works Department is in
the process of completing a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which
would strategically review how the City should assign traffic
street by street.
Mayor Johnson stated both residents speaking in support of some
form of traffic control are willing to consider other methods; one
stated a four-way stop sign is not the best way; if staff is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,6,"working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been
one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone
review until information from the strategic plan is available.
The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all
way stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to
liability.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs
if the City studied every intersection to determine whether
warrants are met.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City
Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not
in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a
number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has
witnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles
travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa
Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,
traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether
peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are
probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street
traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier
for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling
down Constitution Way and Eighth Street.
Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would
be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention
to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more
traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution
Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from
using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.
Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one
lane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at
Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it
more convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.
Mayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of
the City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the
reason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get
around and off Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,7,"onto Grand Street to travel to South Shore; drivers try to find the
easiest path; for example, changes on Buena Vista Avenue are
causing Pacific Avenue to become a major road; everything has
secondary impacts; that he understands the concerns about a four-
way stop; however, a measure of control is needed [at Santa Clara
Avenue and Sherman Street]
The Public Works Director stated Councilmember Daysog's idea has
not been reviewed; data could be analyzed; staff reviewed the
traffic characteristio on Sherman Street; the average daily volume
along Sherman Street is 5,500 vehicles at Buena Vista Avenue, 3,100
at Pacific Avenue and 2,500 at Santa Clara Avenue the grid system
is designed to filter people and is working; both Sherman Street
and Santa Clara Avenue are minor streets; traffic volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are higher than Sherman Street; since volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are acceptable, then volumes on Sherman Street must
also be acceptable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Santa Clara Avenue is wider than
Sherman Street, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative. stated Santa Clara Avenue is designated as a minor
street in the General Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated Sherman Street should not be treated the same
as Santa Clara Avenue as far as traffic loads.
The Public Works Director stated that he agrees there needs to be a
strategic plan; the all-way stop is the best option for now with
the funding available; noted Council approved funding to complete a
Pedestrian Plan tonight, which is an element of the TMP .
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should do anything possible
to decrease the volume of traffic on Sherman Street; the character
of Sherman Street is different than Santa Clara Avenue; the biggest
problem is the excessive speed on Santa Clara Avenue; suggested the
Police Department put together a program which tickets people
traveling above the speed limit on Santa Clara Avenue to slow down
traffic; stated most of the accidents are probably cause by
excessive speed, rather than lack of a stop sign on Santa Clara
Avenue; the City should review what can be done in the short term
to encourage people to take other north/south streets, such as
Constitution Way and Grand Street; noted the intersection is a
block away from Mastick Senior Center suggested that Council
postpone the decision until there are answers about what can be
done to reduce the load on Sherman Street in the short term.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council should wait; Council should
direct staff to review other ways to remedy the problem at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,8,"intersection and review whether traffic would be pushed to Lincoln
and Buena Vista Avenues before a four-way stop sign is installed
the traffic lights on Constitution Way should be timed to prevent
bottlenecking and encourage drivers to use it.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers mentioned that the City
does not have a certified traffic engineer requested staff to
comment on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog noted there have been two pedestrian deaths on
Constitution Way, which should be kept in mind; stated there should
be a greater review of the data; requested a comparison with
previous levels to determine whether Gold Coast residents are
commuting down Sherman Street.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the problem is traffic traveling to the
Gold Coast or South Shore filters down Sherman Street, as well as
Bay and Saint Charles Streets, to avoid the bottleneck on Eighth
Street.
Councilmember deHaan noted people are using other routes because
Grand Street is becoming a bottleneck in the morning a remedy is
needed while waiting for the traffic study; police activity is
temporary; pedestrian crosswalk paddles and blinking lights work
well and should be considered; the intersection was a high priority
for a traffic signal fifteen years ago; a solution is needed.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember deHaan's
suggestion to install pedestrian paddles; requested the liability
issue be addressed related to postponement.
The Public Works Director stated paddles could not be installed
until there are crosswalks at the intersection; Public Works would
need at least four weeks to compile data requested by Council.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included direction for
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by the
Council.
Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to include direction to
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that police
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,9,"officers begin enforcement in the area immediately to slow down
traffic while analysis is being completed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the speed board [radar
trailer] retains data, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the equipment has the capacity to
retain information, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's equipment has messages, such as :
""please drive slowly this our neighborhood"" or ""children at play;
suggested use of the radar trailer and, if effective, the purchase
of additional radar trailers.
Councilmember deHaan stated other cities have permanent speed
display devices.
The Public Works Director stated staff applied for grants and may
have received funding for a smaller device showing traveling speed
on Lincoln Avenue; suggested staff be authorized to proceed with
putting up pedestrian and speed limit signs, along with the
enforcement and radar trailer.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council would not object to staff taking
said actions; drivers forget everywhere in Alameda is someone's
neighborhood.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *05-236) Resolution No. 13941, ""Authorizing the use of Measure B
Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and Matching Funds
from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a Citywide
Pedestrian Plan. Adopted.
(*05-237) Resolution No. 13942, ""Extending Period for Providing Low
and Moderate Income Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33334.16 for 30 Units Within the Bachelor Officers'
Quarters at Alameda Point. Adopted.
( *05-238) Resolution No. 13943, ""Resolution of Intention to Levy an
Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for FY 2005-06 and Set a Public Hearing for June 7,
2005 "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,10,"(*05-239) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park
Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2
(Membership; Appointment ; Removal). 2-7.3 (Qualification: Voting of
Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-240 ) Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit
(Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06; - and
(05-241) Resolution No. 13944, ""Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-242) Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent
Business License Fees via the Property Tax Bills.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Huong Anh Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated the company has
been closed since 1996 and does not have a contractor license.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Silver contacted the Finance
Department, to which Ms. Silver responded in the affirmative;
stated the Finance Department stated paperwork was not adequate and
SOS Urethane Foam Roofing has been listed in the telephone book.
Sherman Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated that he shut down
the roofing company ; that he is keeping his license with the State
contractors board until he dies; he removed the sign in his front
yard tonight; outlined his medical condition; stated he is not
roofing anymore.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could vote on the rest and
hold over SOS Roofing to allow staff to take a closer look, to
which staff responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mr. Silver's question about review of his materials,
Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director would review everything.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,11,"Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion was to exclude SOS
Urethane Foam Roofing, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded
in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would come back to
Council if additional action was necessary, to which staff
responded in the affirmative
(05-243) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001; and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant; Jeanne
Nader, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Ivan Chiu, representing Applicant.
There being no further speakers Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Appellant's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired why
there has been uncertainty about whether there was a Code
violation.
The Supervising Planner responded the Police were called when
removal of the oak tree began; the officer was not aware Coast Live
Oaks are protected; Planning staff was very clear that there was a
violation when contacted about the tree.
Mayor Johnson requested the Appellants to provide staff with a copy
of a letter from former City Manager Jim Flint.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,12,"The Supervising Planner noted the Council is considering the
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approval that the two replacement
oaks are in the proper place; a requirement of allowing the tree to
be removed was that the HAB would review the landscaping plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing two oaks would
remain in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative; noted one is partially on City property.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff reviewed damage to the
remaining trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the HAB required that the oak trees
be protected during development and required a registered arborist
advise the Applicant.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the two existing oak trees are being
maintained in their present condition and two more oak trees are
being planted in positions determined by a landscape architect;
inquired whether the complaint is that the two new oak trees are
not in the correct position.
The Supervising Planner responded the complaints are that the HAB
determined that the project was categorically exempt from
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and the two trees on the
site are not properly protected.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the landscape plan has been
modified since approved by the HAB.
The Supervising Planner responded the site plan has been modified,
not the landscape plan; the building was moved five feet from the
existing tree.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about whether building
a single family home is categorically exempt from CEQA, the
Supervising Planner stated CEQA permits construction of single
family homes to be categorically exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why building of the house, which is
exempt from CEQA, could not proceed even if a CEQA review were
required for adding new trees.
The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Lynch is referring to
segmentation; CEQA and the courts do not look kindly upon
segmenting a project into pieces, which would be exempt
individually, but which taken together would not be exempt.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,13,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether segmenting is clearly not the
case for the project, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff does not believe segmenting has occurred.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why CEQA would be required for the
trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the project is a single family home ;
there is a landscape plan which is part of the project; the HAB had
purview over the two new oak trees in the landscape plan as a
condition of a previous approval [to allow removal of an oak tree] ;
the HAB was concerned with ensuring the two new replacement trees,
which are required when an oak tree is allowed to be removed, would
be located in a spot where the trees would thrive.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the basis for
the appeal, Mayor Johnson stated the concern is the construction
process and the impact on and protection of the two existing trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an arborist was hired, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff believes there are adequate
measures in place to protect the two existing trees, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants believe the
measures are adequate.
Ms. Nader responded the problem is she understood there would be no
construction activity after the Appeal was filed; the Applicant
used a front end loader on top of the root system of the trees on
April 25, which the arborist instructed him not to do without
protection; the Applicant exposed and cut into several tree roots;
the certified arborist, which she hired to look at the trees,
determined the damage could be mortally wounding; that she was
informed by City staff that the City does not have money for a
certified arborist to ensure the trees are protected; the damage
occurred after the appeal; the owner has blatantly disregarded the
recommendation from his own arborist; the Applicant drove over the
root system to move fill across the property; Code Compliance
indicated tread marks were not apparent; her arborist indicated any
contamination in the fill would kill the trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the City could do about the issue.
The Supervising Planner responded staff attempts to do everything
possible to ensure that property owners comply with regulations
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,14,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could require the arborist
to submit a periodic report regarding compliance with
recommendations, to which the Supervising Planner responded the
suggestion might be a good solution.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Ms. Nader's comments are
factually correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
she did not know.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants provided
information to staff, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff probably visited the site since Ms. Nader mentioned Code
Enforcement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Code Enforcement staff
provided feedback about the site visit, to which the Chief Building
Official responded that he would review the matter and report back
to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the site; that he is
concerned about the disruption around the tree; the owner should be
requested to agree to stipulations overseeing the construction
activity.
Bill Wong, Architect for Applicant, stated the arborist recommended
a fence around the tree during construction.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council wants to allow the Applicant to
proceed, but the Applicant needs to protect the trees.
Mr. Wong stated the fence would be put in place once the project is
approved.
Mayor Johnson requested the arborist to explain what needs to be
done to protect the trees during construction; inquired whether he
was retained to provide oversight during construction.
Christopher Bowen, Project Arborist, stated that he discussed the
matter with Planning staff and determined the drip line should be
fenced off.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other measures were being
recommended.
Mr. Bowen responded the fence was to be installed prior to
construction; that he recommends bails of hay be placed around the
three, the trunk be wrapped in carpet, and 2"" X 4"" lumber be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,15,"strapped to branches when construction commences protecting the
root system is the most important action; that he recommends
placing a thin layer of compost, wood chips, and plywood to protect
the root system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Bowen last visited the sight,
to which Mr. Bowen responded about a month ago, on April 7.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Bowen has visited the site
to witness the activity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Bowen has seen the
exposed root system, to which Mr. Bowen responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan noted the fenced off area is only five feet.
Mayor Johnson stated Mr. Bowen should conduct further analysis and
determine whether restoration is needed before other measures are
implemented.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Bowen visited the site a month ago
and created a plan for protection of the tree; apparently the plan
was ignored; that she is not convinced a plan will be followed;
that she understands the neighbors' concern; inquired whether the
City could require the owners to post a bond for the security of
the trees.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted the
resolution states: ""prior to issuance of building permits for the
development on the site, the Applicants shall sign and record with
the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak Trees on the
property. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect
for five years from the date of the recording; Council is
discussing having specific terms and conditions as part of the
recorded Agreement that runs with the land and any violations can
be enforced through Code Enforcement; the terms and conditions
could include posting of a bond to ensure protection.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the City Council has certain powers
under the City Charter with regard to compelling testimony;
inquired when the arborist heard about the disturbance at the site.
Mr. Bowen responded tonight; the last time he spoke to the owner
was to give advice on how to set up a fence around the drip line of
the tree; the he understood the site would be untouched until the
building process began; he was unaware any site work was being
done; his recommendations were to take place before construction
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,16,"began; he was informed that the fence was installed; that he was
not hired to install the fence.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued since there has
been some disruption on the site; the arborist could inform the
City about ways to protect the tree, which could be used as
conditions in the approval and the matter could return to Council;
the owner needs to understand the conditions are serious and cannot
be disregarded, and there should not be any other activity on the
site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the arborist's assessment should
include whether the damage jeopardizes the tree; the City needs to
take a close look and have a binding report.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in determining
what occurred at the site: were conditions disregarded, was there
an accident or did nothing happen.
Councilmember deHaan stated the soil brought onto the site does not
look clean; the City should review the source of the soil and
determine if there is a problem.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the owner should be liable for
making the determination; the City should request that the owner
conduct a soil test.
The City Attorney stated a design review appeal could be
forthcoming in four weeks and the two issues could be combined.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should not assume there would be an
appeal of the design review.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the tree issue should be resolved.
Mayor Johnson requested the matter return at the next Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the conditions of approval should have
teeth, which could be anything from having a bond posted or
recording documentation; encouraged the City Attorney to be
creative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would
amend the motion to include requiring a review of the soil
condition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,17,"Counci lmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion accordingly.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-244) Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary seismic
retrofit programs.
Ken Gutleben, Alameda, thanked City staff for making long overdue
recommendations stated the program will lay down the foundation
for developing a safer community; Victorians are extremely
vulnerable to seismic activity; obtaining permits to retrofit
Victorians is difficult due to strict design review laws.
Councilmember deHaan stated Victorian homes often have brick
foundations, are not bolted and do not have any kind of earthquake
bracing.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-245) Recommendation to accept Report on results of Actuarial
Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement 1079 and 1082 Plans
and the Retiree Health Care Plan.
The Finance Director gave a brief review of the reports.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the new Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules are different and how the
City proceeded in the past.
The Finance Director stated the current rule requires a valuation
of the 1079 and 1082 plans once each three years; a roll forward
letter is completed and there is a footnote in the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in between years;
there is not a lot to report since the City funds on a pay as you
go basis; there will be a new rule pertaining to other post
employment benefits in 2007; the actuarial was completed to look
ahead and determine the value of the Retiree Health Care Plan
benefits in the future; the new GASB rules require a lot of the
data to be reported; the reporting for the Retiree Health Care Plan
will become almost as extensive as the reporting for the 1079 and
1082 plans; additionally, the City will have to decide whether to
fund pay as you go or find a way to fund the entire plan, which
needs further review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,18,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reports attempt to make
the information more transparent and look at future liabilities, to
which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would develop a
plan, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 10-year plan being formulated
would include the liabilities.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated how the
City funds the liability needs to be determined.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the two plans are limited
and new employees are not being added.
The Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 plans are closed
the other post employment benefits are for employees who have or
will retire under the current agreements in place.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is making plans and examining
liabilities other cities, such as San Diego, raided funds that
should have gone toward liabilities and are almost bankrupt ;
inquired whether the reports are related to said case.
The Finance Director responded the rule was in place and had not
been implemented; the San Diego crisis just occurred at the same
time.
Mayor Johnson stated the actuarials, along with the 10-year plan,
are very important i the City needs to consider current obligations
in evaluating economic decisions in the future.
The Acting City Manager stated the point in evaluating the
liability and establishing a plan is to ensure the City does not
end up like San Diego in the future; the City should start
mitigation and establish a plan.
louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the costs appear under the
retirees' names on the monthly expenditures check register [bills
for ratification], to which the Finance Director responded
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one plan is $68,000 and the
other is $37,000 per month, the Finance Director responded that she
could review and confirm the figures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,19,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the actuarial accrued liability
is in excess of $70 million for both the closed plans and the on-
going retiree benefits.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $70 million
is for the retiree benefit plan; the actuarial accrued liability
for the 1079 and 1082 plans is $31,683,000 as of January 1, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
are reported to bond underwriters.
The Finance Director responded bond underwriters receive the CAFR
for three prior years; the liabilities are included in the
footnotes.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
would affect the City's bond rating.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City
is judged on whether or not a plan has been established; pay as you
go is one plan.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry whether a plan would be
brought to Council, the Finance Director stated a report would be
brought back shortly after the first draft of the 10-year plan.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda's liabilities are
typical for a city of its size.
The Finance Director stated the City's consultant who completed the
study could respond.
John Bartel, Bartel Associates, stated the City of Alameda's 1079
and 1082 plans are a little unique; most agencies do not have
frozen plans; the retiree health care plan is a $70 million
unfunded liability with two separate promises : safety and non-
safety; the promise to the non-safety group is at the lower
quartile of what other agencies promise the promise to the safety
group is in line with an upper quartile of what agencies promise.
Councilmember Daysog requested a background report on the matter to
understand the quartiles and median being used.
(05-246) Presentation on the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2005-06.
The Acting City Manager provided a brief report on the budget and
provided examples of surrounding cities budget problems.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,20,"Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the clarity of
the staff report.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good approach to balancing
the budget, which Council needs to continue working on; savings are
the result of keeping positions vacant; a more permanent solution
is needed to address on-going decreases and shortfalls in revenues
the proposed budget is a good place to start; despite numerous
budget sessions last year, a balanced budget was not reached
thanked the Acting City Manager for his work; stated that she would
like to see a combination of legal expenses in one place; legal
expenses are under the City Attorney's office, Risk Management, and
Alameda Power and Telecom; the legal budget should be more
apparent; tracking is difficult when the entire legal budget is not
in one place.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would provide the information.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the summary
highlighting the $1.9 million gap and how the gap was filled;
inquired whether the budget includes the $1.8 million decrease in
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) funds.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
$1.8 million reduced ARRA revenue caused part of the problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Recreation and Park Director
position is being left vacant, which is leading to a policy issue
of how the Council wants to organize department heads; under the
Charter, the Council is responsible for organizing departments; a
background on the issue should be provided when the budget adoption
is considered.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog is raising the type of
long-term issues she was raising Council will probably look at
reducing the number of department heads.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the recommendation is simply for the
next fiscal year; the position is not being eliminated; Council
needs to make a decision about structure at some point.
The Acting City Manager stated staff is not requesting the position
be eliminated, but is requesting that Council de-fund the position;
staff is requesting the position remain in place, without funding;
Council would have the policy decision about whether or not to fill
the position if funding becomes available.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,21,"Mayor Johnson stated Council could begin working on the larger
issue; the Acting City Manager should not be expected to deal with
the budget problem and the major project of restructuring the
City's government, which is a longer term issue that needs to be
addressed separate from the budget.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposed budget gets the City
through the next year; hopefully the State will live up to the
requirements of Constitutional Amendment 1A and no longer take city
revenues, which would put the City in a better position the
following year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would not exclude reviewing
reorganization for the next year budget; staff has the knowledge to
determine service impacts; the budget is a major step in the right
direction; all budgets should be reviewed, not just the General
Fund.
The Acting City Manager stated the Council should be aware of other
funds in the City; the budget document addresses other funds, but
other funds were not highlighted in the staff report; the major
deficit is in the General Fund, which funds most departments.
Councilmember deHaan stated deficits would occur in some of the
funded programs and adjustments would be necessary.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the clarity of the report.
stated the Council is concerned about not filling vacant positions
and about reductions in force; Department Head presentations [at
the next meeting] should address how reductions affect service
delivery to citizens; the Council should adopt the budget with eyes
wide open and the citizens should know what is coming down the
pike; if it will take staff longer to respond to questions after
budget adoption, people should know before it occurs; the community
should be involved; hopefully, there will be more citizen
participation at the next meeting; suggested the matter be placed
earlier on the agenda.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should know the profile of a
full service city; if the police force is down to 104 officers, the
Council should know whether similar size cities have more officers;
the public should have the context of where the City is versus
where the City should be even if there might not be funding to
increase the number of officers; the budget should include said
information; requested a distribution of budget reductions by
department; suggested a comparison of budget reductions versus
operating cost to come up with an index which would indicated
whether anyone is being disproportionately impacted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,22,"The Acting City Manager stated an across the board cut was not
implemented; some departments have been hit more heavily than
others ; the cuts were based upon a judgment he conveyed to
departments based on his understanding of the Council's service
delivery priorities; cuts were made in departments with the ability
to provide the level of service that the Council has indicated
should continue.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has expressed that across the
board cuts are not the correct approach; the proposed budget is a
good attempt to reflect the Council's priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not opposed to implementing
a one-day furlough instead of eliminating actual positions; the
proposed budget does not trigger the need for one-day furloughs ;
the trigger would have been met if more positions were being cut.
The Acting City Manager noted four positions are being eliminated.
Councilmember Daysog stated if a number of police officers and fire
fighters were being eliminated, considering options would have been
necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed budget is a solution for next
year, not a long-term solution; the Council will have to decide
whether positions remaining vacant should be eliminated or funded
at some point.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff and service levels for the last
five or ten years should be reviewed to determine where the belt
needs to be tightened or where positions should be added.
Mayor Johnson suggested staffing levels for the last seven years be
reviewed.
The Acting City Manager responded said information would be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should know the impact of
eliminating four positions; Council needs to understand impacts to
evaluate whether the Council's priorities are being met prior to
voting.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Council would like a short
impact statement from each department head.
Councilmember Matarrese responded only for the four departments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,23,"with cuts.
Mayor Johnson concurred.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each
department, especially departments not losing actual employees.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a
profile for Alameda's budget the International City Management
Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police
officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available
for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated
ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for
a
department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would
like to know where the City should be.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was
requesting information on ideal staffing levels.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda
County uses said standards to produce its budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,
to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching
base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very
valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,
such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that
must be taken into account.
Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;
stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is
requesting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information
from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large
number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as
public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting
so the public would be aware of changes in service.
The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in
Development Services, which is funded through sources other than
the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in
positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,24,"Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been alluding to the
inability to live off of billets being attrited down; cuts might
not be appropriate; the City needs to be realistic; the easy way,
such as 5% cuts, cannot be used; service needs to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she inquired about purchasing goods and
contracting locally; creation of central purchasing was a suggested
way to do so; requested other ways to ensure as much money as
possible is spent in Alameda and not generating tax revenues for
other cities if the budget does not allow for the creation of
central purchasing.
The Acting City Manager responded staff is addressing the matter
the budget was prepared prior to the request; the matter would
return separate from the budget perhaps a position could be
converted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed budget is fabulous,
particularly the page reflecting salaries and benefits by
department and the statement that: ""if adopted, there would be no
impact on the General Fund reserve.'
John Oldham, Acting President of the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) thanked the Acting City Manager,
Finance Director and Human Resources Department for outlining what
is happening with the City budget stated the MCEA membership is
concerned about the proposed cuts and the impact on workload as
jobs of association members are eliminated; employees are the
foundation of what the City does, which is serve the citizens; the
proposed budget requests that employees do more with less, which
will erode the customer experience; that he started his career with
the City in the Recreation and Park Department as a Park Director;
the proposed budget eliminates the position that supervises park
directors, which is a loss of a mentor who understands the
operation; MCEA understands every position has a similar story and
choices will be difficult; MCEA has had just over a week to review
the budget and proposed reduction in force; MCEA would like to
partner with the City to resolve the budget shortfall, while
preserving services, program delivery and the quality of life for
Alamedans requested Council to continue to review unfilled
positions to reduce costs and take a closer look at revenues and
expenditures before eliminating the positions of employees who have
dutifully served the City for years; further stated prior to acting
on the budget on June 7, MCEA is asking to work together to look at
the whole picture before making a reduction in force; MCEA is
asking for time to review the budget together so that everyone
understands the impact of the reduction in force.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray
Gaul, Commissioner Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and
Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: None. Also present was Head Golf
Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 20, 2005
The following correction was made to the minutes:
Commissioner Bob Wood was absent and not present as stated.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the
aforementioned change.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Presentation on Front Entrance Beautification by Commissioner Wood.
Eight years ago Commissioner Wood constructed a model of a potential
plan to redesign the front entrance to the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The plan included renovation of the Fire Training Tower instead of
removing the structure. The General Manager met with the Acting City
Manager recently and the discussion concerned removing the tower. The
Acting City Manager would like the structure removed and the cost
absorbed by the Golf Complex. The question was raised why the Golf
Complex is responsible for the price of the tower removal when the site
has been utilized by the Fire Department. The redesign consists of
removing or relocating many obstacles that are located in the area of the
entrance. It was mentioned that there is a memorial flagpole and plaque",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,2,"located at the site, which should not be removed. The model shows two
semi circular walls at the entrance and additional foliage. The tower itself
would be stripped of the fire escapes and the windows would be covered.
The top of the tower would be peaked and possibly a clock tower installed.
The tower would act as a landmark for the Golf Complex. Any additions
to the structure would necessitate a structural assessment of the building.
The problem with keeping the tower instead of tearing it down is that it
would be costly and would serve no purpose other than aesthetics. The
question was raised as to the cost of tearing the structure down versus
renovating it. The General Manager has met with an environmental
company to get an estimate on the cost of removal. Commissioner Wood
will research the funds needed to perform a cost analysis for the
renovation and retrofit of the structure. The Golf Commissioners agree
that although the entry is in need of beautification, the main priority for
the Golf Complex is the new clubhouse project and that is where their
attention needs to be focused.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional welcomed the newly appointed Golf
Commissioners, Ray Gaul, Jane Sullwold and Bill Schmitz. Chair
Swanson suggested that a new division of labor for the Golf Commission
monthly reports be done, taking into consideration the interest of the
Commissioners. Commissioner Gaul requested that the City of Alameda's
ordinance 2-9.4, regarding the Golf Commission's responsibilities be
reviewed. The recommendation was made to place the item on the
agenda. The Head Golf Professional reported that the Mif Albright
Course has been aerated and work has begun on the new short game
practice area at the Driving Range. The new Golf Commissioners should
meet with the General Manager and take a tour of the site to better
understand the plans. Staff has put together a maintenance schedule for
the Driving Range to assure that repairs and cleaning are done. A new
golf ball picker has been purchased and is working well. Staff is currently
seeking quotes for the painting of the Driving Range buildings and the
new Club Repair Shop has opened and is a success. Employee Shawn
Shelby who formerly worked at the Alameda Golf Shop repairing clubs is
running the shop. The demo clubs are being removed from the Pro Shop
and placed at the Driving Range for customers to practice with on the
range. The parking lot has been patched and is scheduled to be re-striped
in the next few weeks. The Commuter's Golf Tournament was a huge
success and the players commented on the excellent shape of the courses.
Many new volunteer marshals have been brought on and the new marshal
coordinators, Mike Logan, Joe Crespin and Paul Mountain will be",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,3,"working with staff to organize and train the new volunteers. Also
mentioned was that the old Junior Golf Resources container on Clubhouse
Memorial Road has been removed.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
Covered in the Head Golf Professional's report.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony is being held next weekend
and mentioned that a number of trees on the right side of #13 on the Earl
Fry Course are dying and need to be replaced. Mrs. Arnerich also thanked
the players in the Commuter's Golf Tournament that donated their prize
gift certificates to the Junior Golf Club.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Report previously discussed.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past
month and the Driving Range is doing well. Also reported was that the
redesign of the Mif Albright Course looks good.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that the two major Capital Improvement
Projects (CIPs) are currently the Clubhouse project and the Urban Runoff
project. Also reported was that the golf courses are in good shape with the
exception of some dead areas of grass. The question was raised
concerning the Ladies tee on #14 of the Earl Fry Course and where it is
suppose to be. The Head Golf Professional stated that the tee is located at
the very front of the tee area before the water feature. The complaint was
that the tee is often on the other side of the water, in the area where the
yellow (drop area) tees are.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report
The total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 22% for the",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,4,"month of April 2005 as compared to April 2004, with play down by 35%.
For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is down 20% and revenue from golf is
down 11%, as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. All ancillary services
were below their revenue from last April with the exception of lessons.
The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month of $58,010 due to a three
pay period month, which increased personnel expenditures by over
$100,000. The first ten months of fiscal year 2004/2005 show a loss of
$290,707. A contributing factor to this loss is the sixty-four (64) rain days
to date compared to thirty-five (35) last year.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood reiterated to the new Golf Commissioners that he
has taken the footprint of the Poplar Creek Golf Course and placed it on
the Chuck Corica Golf Complex footprint and the design fits very well.
The current buildings at the Complex are 10,500 square feet and the
Poplar Creek design is 11,600 square feet, adding 1,100 square feet. The
Poplar Creek banquet room is L-shaped and holds 169 patrons. The plans
for the original Chuck Corica Golf Complex rebuild called for a larger
capacity banquet room. It needs to be considered that if you change the
plans that already exist there could be a significant cost, possibly out
weighing the benefit of purchasing the plans. The City of Alameda is
currently negotiating with the City of San Mateo on a price for the plans.
The purchase of the plans was an idea to save money and get the project
moving along. Financially to get the project done concessions may need
to be made in the size of the banquet facility. The request was made to
receive a report on the cost of the plans. The question was asked
concerning the timeline for the project. The timeline is currently
dependant on the new financial projections showing the debt that can be
handled by the Complex. The previously compiled data is no longer
accurate. The suggestion was made to have another joint work session
with City Council prior to the approval recommendation.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
None to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
Chair Swanson reported that a responsorial letter to the Alameda Golf
Club's letter of last month has been completed and asked that the Golf",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-05-18,5,"Commissioners to review and approve it.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for April 2005 of $10,169.
The year-to-date total is $123,661 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
May 23, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
McGaughey, Moore, Steffens
Absent/Excused: None
Guests: Greg Stoia, City Senior Construction Inspector
Mary Louis Lambert
MINUTES: The minutes of April 28, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Event Parking:
Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission that the East Bay Regional Park
District would again provide additional disabled parking spaces for the summer concert
events scheduled for the 2nd Friday of June, July and August. Secretary to provide revised
table sign.
2. Curbside Mailbox Reductions:
Chair Ed Cooney concerned about the reduction in street mailbox locations contacted the
Postal Agency (748-4156). They informed him that if contacted they will provide the
location of the nearest box. They also informed him that a person could make arrangements
with the postal delivery person to have the mail picked up. A commissioner suggested that
Braille be provided in the inside of the door flap as to pick-up times, etc.
3. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commissioners and Greg Stoia, City's Senior Construction Inspector, discussed pedestrian
access during the Webster Street project. Though contractor assistance is available to
provide assistance to the public during working hours, it is sometimes difficult during non-
working hours for the visually impaired to ascertain the location of bus stops or street
crossings. The committee made some suggestions and discussed forming a subcommittee to
make additional recommendations on current and future projects.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
4. Bylaws - Absences:
Discussion on number of absences allowed per the commission bylaws was tabled.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The Secretary informed the Commissioners that Commissioner Elaine McCoy had resigned.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioners Toby Berger and Alysa Chadow shared information on audible signal
products through their discussions with Mr. Ed Campbell, an audible signal supplier.
Secretary informed the commission that Mr. Campbell has provided audible signal products
to the City in the past via bidding process, the most recent being the audible signal upgrades
at the intersection of Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue and Park Street at Otis Drive.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore would like that the local newspaper(s) publish an article on
disability awareness. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that this could coincide with
Disability Awareness Month, which is held annually in October, and that it be placed on the
September agenda for further discussion.
3. Guest Ms. Mary Louis Lambert informed the commission that there is a video relay system
that works that interfaces with the internet to provide video sign language translation for the
hearing impaired, similar to TTY's which is a phone line based interface. The video relay
system requires a 256MB uplink that is available only with the ""business' level cable service.
The ""business level service is available by AP&T for an additional $10/month above the
Basic package. A commissioner suggested if AP&T could provide a medical discount.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0523min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
May 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Mariani was absent from roll call and arrived during Oral Communications.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005.
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Mr. Piziali suggested the
use of dark anodized aluminum glass.""
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, bullet 2, should be changed to read, ""2. The aluminum storefront
would have dark anodized frames glazing.'
Vice President Cook advised that on page 1, regarding the minutes for April 25, 2005, she did not
believe she seconded the minutes, and indicated that she abstained.
Ms. Eliason advised that staff would confirm that item.
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that staff had received a letter regarding Items 8-B and 8-C, and that
while public comment would be taken, there would be no Board discussion or action on the item until
staff had a chance to address the issues raised by the letter. Board discussion would be continued until
the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,2,"Ms. Barbara Nemer expressed concern about a sign to be erected at Donald Lum School on Otis
Drive, and that the sign is to be over eight feet tall. She noted that it was larger than any other sign in
Alameda schools, and expressed concern that it would be plastic and illuminated. She believed it
would be a safety hazard because of its location at a crosswalk and a corner, and believed it would be
hideous. She would like to see a wooden sign, illuminated by plant lights. She noted that this school
was one of the nicest on the Island.
Mr. Piziali noted that this sign was not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the Board of
Education would be the property entity to address. The Planning Board has no control over this sign.
Mr. Lynch advised that the designs, plans, building inspections and contracts for schools go through
the school board of the local jurisdiction, including design review.
Ms. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, expressed concern about the Donald Lum School sign, which
would cost over $8,000, and the monthly cost would also be at taxpayer expense. She would consider
a ""No"" vote on the taxpayer-funded school assistance if her money were to be spent this way.
Ms. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, spoke in opposition to this sign, and expressed concern about safety
at the corner and the crosswalk with respect to the proximity of the sign.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street,
Alameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to
allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General
Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve
a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,4,"7-B.
Interim Use Permit UP05-0004: Alameda Point Collaborative/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, 2580/2700 Barbera Point Road Near Main Street at
Singleton Avenue, Parcel 99, Alameda Point (ATh). The applicant requests an Interim Use
Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. The site is located in the M-2-G
General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-16 to approve
an Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Variance V05-0003.Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KDArchitects, Inc. for Kwan Li
- 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances
to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The
project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and
two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700-1,000 square feet of floor
area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a
streamlined moderne appearance with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear
anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a
driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The
project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the plans provide eight total spaces with
residential parking in the form of stacked parking lifts. Two variances are requested for the
deficiency of four parking spaces and a reduced landscaping separation between one parking
space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located at
2411 Webb Avenue, within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether this site would qualify for the in lieu parking fee,
Ms. Eliason confirmed that it would.
Ms. Kohlstrand liked the traditional, old-downtown look of Park Street, which provided a continuous
street frontage. She expressed concern about providing required parking on-site, particularly when
there was public parking available across the street at the Bank of America site. The possibility of
stacked parking concerned her, and would rather see a Variance for six parking spaces.
President Cunningham inquired how much the stacking devices cost, and whether it would be better
to put the money into the in lieu fund instead.
Mr. Piziali noted that he liked the stacking device at first, given the Board discussion of open space
and tandem parking. He agreed with the idea of putting the money intended for the lifts into the in
lieu fund instead, and to grant the applicant a Variance.
Mr. Lynch complimented the applicant on a beautiful architectural design and layout.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,6,"President Cunningham did not want the lifts to be used all over the City as an unintended
consequence.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would normally prefer continuous store frontage, but she would accept
a driveway through the building. She agreed that the design was very nice, and was a positive mixed-
use proposal.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not object to stacked parking if it were inside a structure elsewhere in
the City.
Mr. Lynch would be willing to entertain the Variance that reflects the withdrawal of the lift, and those
funds being placed into the City in-lieu fund.
Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board give direction to staff as to what it would like to see, and
continue the item to the next meeting so it may be placed on the Consent Calendar.
At Vice President Cook's request, Mr. Tai summarized the changes in the design.
President Cunningham suggested that taller landscaping be planted in the back, instead of the
boxwood. She noted that several other buildings had a view to the back of the site.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the architectural design of this building that seemed to have
been designed without regard for the adjacent building.
President Cunningham noted that the trashcans as illustrated were shown to be half the size of real
trash cans, and suggested that the space under the stairs be used to house the trash containers.
Ms. Eliason summarized the Board's direction: a Variance for six spaces rather than providing the
stacked units and payment of an in lieu. Four parking spaces would be for the residential units, and
would be dedicated for residential use.
Mr. Tai noted that there may be required handicapped accessible spaces for the commercial spaces,
and added that two spaces each may be for the residential units; the remaining two spaces may be
devoted to handicapped accessible parking for the commercial use.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,7,"8-B.
Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All
Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The
applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit
approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or
less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater.' (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that many speaker slips were for both Items 8-B and 8-C.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff clarify the distinctions between Items 8-B and 8-C for the public; Ms.
Eliason explained the difference for the audience.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he had acutely aware of the absence of a movie theater
in
Alameda; he described the background of this application and noted that his intent was to create a
positive influence on the community. He noted that this theater was the smallest commercial movie
theater in the country. He presented a petition in opposition to closing the theater which was signed
by 1,500 people; he noted that he did not initiate the petition.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he would like to present the response
regarding CEQA at the next meeting. He noted that the General Plan presented the ideal of a less
automobile-oriented city with mixed uses and a traditional ambience, also known as the ""new
urbanism."" He noted that included pedestrian orientation with places worth patronizing within the
city, as opposed to megaplexes at the edge of the city center or further. He noted that the seats were
low-density seating featuring couches and easy chairs, as opposed to airline-type seating. He did not
believe that many boutique theaters would be created, and that this zoning amendment would indicate
the City's commitment to entrepreneurs. He noted that the applicant often found available parking
space in the vicinity when his theater has sold out. He surveyed his customers, and found that only 15
cars were driven by customers on a Friday night, and 13 cars on a Saturday night, which was less than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,8,"projected by staff. On both nights, about 40% of his customers walked to the theater. He believed this
theater was an asset to the community. He noted that the movie could not be heard from the
neighbor's fence. He noted that he would respond to Ms. Barbara Thomas' comments in opposition
to the theater at the next meeting. He expressed concern about the condition requiring a 20-minute
gap between movies, and did not believe it was necessary during the day when there were seldom
more than 15 people during those showings. He suggested that that condition be applicable only after
6 p.m.
Mr. David Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived a half mile away from the theater. He believed this business was a good fit for the neighborhood,
and would like to see a few more throughout the City.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and believed that the cinema was an
unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. He liked the family-friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and had never found parking to be a problem. He noted that most of the patrons walked to
the theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived within walking distance of the theater. He believed this was an excellent and creative solution to
the conflicts that arose earlier, and supported local ownership. He believed this size and type of
business ownership should be encouraged.
Ms. Chantal Currid, 834 Taylor Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and would like to see
the City encourage this type of business.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
seen many people walking and riding their bicycles, which has brought a good atmosphere to the
neighborhood. He would like to see a stop light near the cinema for safety. He believed this use
would be a good activity for families and children in a small-town atmosphere, and would not cause
any spending leakage to off-island cities.
Mr. Matthew Callahan, 1822¹/² Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and believed that
the Central Cinema was a jewel in the City. He would like to see more boutique theaters in Alameda.
He supported the zoning change, and noted that there were many members of the audience who
supported it as well.
Ms. Eve Abrahams Shutt, 927 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and enjoyed
walking to the theater. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the theater, and added that there had
never been any parking problems.
Mr. Ethan Rafferty, 1217 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He discussed the
economic benefit of this theater to other small businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,9,"that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the
megaplex theaters.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived
three blocks away from the theater.
Ms. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had
been a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her
elderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented
clients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after
the Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful
idea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had
closed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a
macro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda
Municipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as
Webster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of
parking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses
were spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed
should be dissuaded under the General Plan.
Mr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here
because of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported
this application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted.
Mr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in
the West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood feel and businesses. He noted that when
he worked at the mortuary as a young man, there were many cars parked in the neighborhood without
complaint.
Ms. Holly Ackley, 3015 San Jose Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and appreciated being
able to stay on the Island for dinner and a movie. She noted that she often walked there, but never
had trouble finding a parking space even when the movie was sold out. She liked the non-rowdy
nature of the patrons.
Ms. Louise Elsea, 470 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that
Alameda's small-town atmosphere was very different than the rest of the Bay Area. She believed this
theater helped neighbors get to know each other.
Mr. Robert Lundy Paine, 2056 Pacific, spoke in support of this application and introduced his
daughters Bridget and Jessica. He believed that Central Cinema was a small and comfortable addition
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,10,"to a unique community.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe
this theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood
theater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons.
Mr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may
expand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as
a
restaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave,
causing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise
restrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future.
He expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department.
Dr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She
noted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family
community, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was
more intense.
Ms. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived
next door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their
initial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way
in which he kept the property up.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was
a good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater.
Ms. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and
liked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise
impact from the theater.
Mr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda
might emulate the character from other towns rather than be a unique community. He believed
Central Cinema was an important component of Alameda's character.
The public hearing was closed.
There was no Board discussion.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June
13, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,11,"Page 11
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,12,"8-C.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theatre Project Inc.), - 842
Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the
operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the
meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued to the
Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, declined to speak again.
Ms. Mallory Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She stated that
she often walked to the theater with her friends, and often saw people at the theater that she knew.
She liked the welcoming atmosphere of the theater. She liked the theater on Alameda Point, but
preferred the smaller theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He recalled the
amount of emotional opposition to the Multicultural Center, which had turned out to be a valuable
addition to the community. He believed this use was a good response to local needs, and that it would
be more widely use. He believed that every request by the Building Department for Code upgrades to
the building should be met as soon as possible. He worked on the pilot program for the Safe Routes
to School program at Franklin Elementary School, and noted that the crosswalk in question would be
included in that program for Washington Elementary at Taylor and 8th, as well as Grand Avenue and
other intersections.
Ms. Darnell Arniola, 3039 Fernside, spoke in support of this application, and complimented the
applicant's service to the community.
Mr. David Little, 2046 San Antonio, spoke in support of this application, and noted that Alameda has
had very few theaters to choose from. He believed the Central Theater had enhanced the cultural
atmosphere in Alameda. He did not want to spend his film dollars off the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,13,"Mr. Dean Ironside, 1206 Ninth Street, spoke in support of this application. He had not noticed any
change in the traffic patterns in the 43 years he had lived in the neighborhood.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the applicant
took it upon himself to open this business, obtained a business license that did not construe Use
Permits. She stated that the applicant was cited by Planning Staff on December 17, 2004, as
committing a misdemeanor for operating an illegal use. She noted that on January 18, 2005, the
Building Official and the Fire Marshall posted a notice on the door that the building was unsafe, and
recorded that notice with the County Recorder. She noted that Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's
attorney, removed the sign. She inquired whether the applicant had liability insurance. She believed
there would have been no opposition to the use had he appeared before the Planning Board at the
beginning of the process. She noted that the patrons parked in the residents' parking spaces.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 1170 9th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that the
Alameda Cultural Club did not have any parking for five blocks away. She noted that the noise, traffic
and harassment from that use had been difficult to bear. She noted that this use did not cause noise,
parking problems or harassment, and that the neighborhood was generally supported.
Mr. Dren McDonald, 740 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this application and noted that there were
not many movie theaters that a toddler could attend. He added that this theater was very different
from the average multiplex, and did not believe it was comparable to other theaters that had been in
Alameda in the past. He did not find the building to be unsafe, and did not believe the applicant would
bring his own children to the building if it were.
Ms. Antoinette Lajoie, 1170 9th Street, #18, spoke in support of this application, and added that she
walked to the theater from her home, as do her neighbors. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and believed it was child-friendly. She had never noticed any traffic problems.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding other courses of action regarding this application,
Ms. Harryman advised that there were two ways that this particular business could be allowed in the
Alameda Municipal Code: as of right, and with a Use Permit. The Zoning Code currently only
allowed theaters in the Central Business District (C-C). The Use Permit would be the more restrictive
of the two methods, and there was no means of getting a Variance for this use.
M/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item
11-A).
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer
until the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting
from the Alameda Point proposed development.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Staff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point.
Mr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding
the preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and
transportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written
documents would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development
principles would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic
preservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept
would be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8,
and would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further
work. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch
expressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired
whether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right to move
forward with the development, whether they can request an extension, and what the triggers in the
agreement were. Mr. Thomas recalled the background of the project, and noted that a Conditional
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,15,"conveyance. He believed that the decision to move forward with the business plan was an internal
decision of the organization.
Vice President Cook commended staff on an excellent job in conducting the workshops, which have
been very informative. She asked the Planning Board to become more involved in the community
workshops. She noted that transportation on/off and within the Island was a critical issue, and there
was expertise on the Board regarding that issue. She noted that Measure A was a critical issue as
well, and believed that staff had been given the direction to look at only Measure A-compliant
alternatives. Many members of the community believed that Measure A should be examined more
carefully, and that non- Measure A-compliant alternatives should be examined as well. She believed
that the community wanted Alameda Point to ""look like Alameda,' but there may not be consensus
about what that means, especially with respect to single-family homes or a fine-grained mixed use
seen throughout Alameda. She believed there was a tendency to not look at both alternatives in an
equal capacity.
President Cunningham requested the City Attorney's perspective on the possibility of a non-Measure
A-compliant alternative being preferred. Ms. Harryman advised that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Thomas
were the most knowledgeable about that issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that they had started the workshop process 12 months ago, and staff had been
very straight-forward detailing the constraints, including Measure A. Because Measure A is in the
City Charter, it would require a ballot measure to change; staff would not spend an excess amount of
time exploring a non-Measure A-compliant alternative. He noted that the City, through the
Chinatown agreement, had agreed to look at a higher density alternative in the EIR, and to give it a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,16,"full analysis.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents
first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general
concept as it related to the baseline data.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful
community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development
approach should be considered for that area.
Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating
the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end
of the planning process.
Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election
schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that
would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered.
Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known.
b.
Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building
Department.
Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be
frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that
staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building
Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building
Director position.
The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and
evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it
would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning
&
Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position to be unfrozen.
Mr. Lynch noted that because of the time lags involved, some of the fees may not be recovered during
the current fiscal year. He noted that the expectations of processing applications must be considered.
Mr. Lynch inquired how many city and county jurisdictions in the State were fully funded and staffed.
Ms. Mariani suggested that point be brought before City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,17,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the June 13, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
:PLANNINGIPB\Agendas_Minutes)Minutes.05\May 23_Minute
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF MAY 26, 2005
GO.
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, May 26, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia
Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Committee Member (CM) Karen Lee
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Staff:
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on March 24, 2005
CM Wolfe inquired about the Public Art Ordinance in relationship to
infrastructure projects (Item 6A). During a previous meeting, AD Lillard
had stated that he would ask the City Attorney about this. RS Russi
stated that AD Lillard would update the PAAC during June 23rd meeting.
M/S/C
Wolfe/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on March
24, 2005 be approved.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Wolfe
Absent (1) - Lee
Abstain (1) - Rosenberg
B.
Minutes of Meeting on April 28, 2005
On page 3, paragraph 2, C Huston asked that ""slide scrip"" be changed to
""slide script.""
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,2,"M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on April 28,
2005 be approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg
Absent (1) - Lee
Abstain (1) - -Wolfe
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and
Parking/Garage Projects from Sue Russell of Development
Services - (Discussion Item)
Sue Russell stated that Development Services submitted a project
application for the Alameda West Gateway Project to Alameda
Recreation and Parks on May 5, 2005. Through discussions with RS
Russi, she understood that an infrastructure project would not require
Public Art. However, the project would like to set aside a contingency
of $25,000 for an entryway project. The location would be as you exit
the Webster Tube at Neptune Park. Currently, this location is home to
concrete signage and three flags, which were installed during the early
1990's.
CM Wolfe expressed two concerns: 1) interaction or conflict between
what is existing and what will be placed on the site; 2) a definition of
where Caltrans begins and if they have any stipulations for placing art
near roadways.
CM Rosenberg expressed a desire to see a playful-themed sign,
reminiscent of Neptune Beach.
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,3,"RS Russi and CAS Bailey stated they would research who placed the
existing signage and flags near the tube.
Regarding the theater/garage project, Sue Russell stated that a formal
application would be submitted by the June 23rd meeting. C Huston
offered the suggestion to have a Public Art competition, where prize
money would be offered as opposed to a commission. There are artists
seeking large venues, who are willing to work to cover their costs.
B. Finalize Mission Statement - (Discussion/Action Item)
CM Cervantes offered a draft of the Alameda Public Art Program's
Mission Statement. PAAC members discussed specific wording and
stylistic changes. A final draft will be included on the June 23rd agenda.
6.
New Business
A. Approve Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway
Project - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes
for both Public Art documents. Final documents will be included in
June 23rd packet for PAAC records.
PAAC also developed a short ad for art publications.
B.
Set PAAC Meeting Schedule - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed and finalized possible meeting dates
(Wednesday, July 27, 2005 and Thursday, August 25, 2005).
C.
Obtain Alternative Meeting Dates for Meeting with Applicants -
(Discussion/Action Item)
CM Cervantes stated that she could not make meetings on 2nd and
4th Tuesdays. CM Rosenberg stated that she could not meet on
Tuesdays or Thursdays.
D.
Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)
-
Prioritizing Calls and Outlets for Dissemination
-
Artist and Consultant List Update
-
Theater and Garage Project Update
-
Finalize and Approve Mission Statement
7.
Oral Communications, General
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-05-26,4,"CM Rosenberg stated that the Artist and Consultant Lists need to be fact-
checked. She also expressed a concern over mailing RFQ's directly to
individual artists. She went on to state that she and C Huston would create
an Artist Organization List, which would include but not be limited to,
Oakland Arts Commission, San Francisco Arts Commission, Pro Arts,
Berkeley Art Center, Richmond Art Center, and Center for Art in Public Life
(CCA).
CM Rosenberg also stated that if an artist registry were ever developed, it
would need to be put on a database.
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
See Item 5A.
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
See Item 5A.
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
May 26, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-05-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-05-26,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, May 26th, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:37pm.
Present were Vice President Chen, Members Bonta, Hanna, Hollinger Jackson, and Wasko. Absent:
Flores-Witte. Staff: Beaver and Brown.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING GUGGENHEIM ENTERTAINMENT FOR CO-SPONSORSHIP OF
MAY 2005 FESTIVAL OF FAMILIES - Taken out of order.
President Franz read the Resolution and presented it to Kimberly Miner from Guggenheim
Entertainment. Ms. Miner thanked the Board. She stated it was a pleasure and they look forward to
future ventures with the City and this Board. M/S (Bonta/Wasko) and unanimous.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting were approved, M/S
(Bonta/Hanna) and unanimous. The minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting were approved, M/S
(Wasko/Bonta) and unanimous.
2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOALS 2005 - The Accomplishments cover the period from the
last Joint Session to the current date. A few edits were made to the draft list and staff was asked to send
a reminder email to the Board for all edits due by June 6. The Co-Chairs for the workgroups will tally
volunteer hours from events and outreach and forwarded to Brown. Motion to adopt the report and
attachment with edits discussed. M/S (Hollinger Jackson/Hanna) and unanimous.
JOINT WORKSESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR - The Board agreed to the June 23
date for the Joint Work session. Staff will contact the Clerk again to confirm attendance. M/S
(Hollinger Jackson/ Hanna) and unanimous. President Franz will bring light refreshments, and the
meeting will be in Room 391 beginning at 7:00 p.m.
SPIRIT OF WORKING TOGETHER RECOGNITION - Five local agencies, Alameda Food Bank,
American Red Cross of the Bay Area, Meals on Wheels, Midway Shelter, and Alameda Education
Foundation have worked together annually to organize and sponsor the Ralph Appezzato Charity Event
(RACE) in conjunction with the Mayor's 4th of July Parade. The RACE precedes the parade on the
parade route. Last year $25,000 was raised for charity. M/S (Wasko, Hollinger Jackson) to recognize
the five agencies with certificates of appreciation, and to invite them to the July regular meeting was
unanimously approved. Member Wasko will review draft certificates.
OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO REPORTS OF DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS AND
HOUSING An editorial that ran in the Alameda Journal regarding a previously published letter
regarding discrimination was handed out along with a letter Member Hanna drafted. Staff reminded the
Board they are not allowed to investigate. Discussion included that the letter remind the community of
the Board's anti-hate objectives and to keep the facts straight. The Board also discussed who will
endorse the letter after the City Manager reviews it, and how to revitalize ATAH. M/S (Franz/Hollinger
Jackson) and unanimous for staff to forward letter to City Manager's office for review and then send to
press.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-05-26.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-05-26,2,"May 26, 2005
Page 2
WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup: President Franz reported that each of the workgroups have
done a lot of work. There was a successful rollout of the needs survey at the Festival of Families in
May. This Workgroup will be meeting to review responses of the survey and to discuss the questions
needing a little adjustment. Further survey possibilities are Alameda Food Bank, Alameda Point
Collaborative, Head Start, and some of the faith-based organizations, and getting the local newspapers
involved for online approach. A contact list of services should be available to survey participants at the
outreach sites.
Family Services Workgroup: Member Wasko reported that the next meeting would be on Friday, June
3rd to review Festival of Families event. They will be discussing the budget. She stated the participants
from the childcare community were very involved and helped, and added the event was 100% worth our
time. President Franz spoke with approximately 70 families. Requests to have a map of the festival
layout for next time, the possibility of sunshades, and scheduling the last bus after all festivities have
ended will be considered.
Alamedans Together Against Hate: President Franz reported on an email from former ATAH Chair
Ken Werner regarding the Mayor's 4th of July Parade. He stated that a trolley was reserved and will cost
the Board $500 this year. The actual amount is $730, but RACE committee use the trolley also to
transport runners. A meeting will take place in the next couple of weeks to discuss budget.
Sister City Project Workgroup: Vice President Chen reported that the workgroup met this morning and
they are busy planning for a delegation from Alameda to go to Wuxi, in September and October for two
weeks. He asked which Board members are interested in joining the delegation. He further reported the
Wuxi delegation who were here May 15 - 18th had a wonderful time and an MOU was signed at the
Council meeting. Franz and other Board members reported having a wonderful time. Beaver stated that
the dinner fulfilled one of the goals of getting the community interactive, and it was a pleasure to
witness. Anticipated cost for the trip will be approximately $1,500 per person; it will depart on
September 25th
BOARD AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Hollinger Jackson mentioned that Wednesday nights
she is not available due to workload. Beaver announced to the Board her plans of retiring this year.
ADJOURNMENT: President Franz adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:SSHRB/Packets/2005/May 05/Minutes052605REG.doc
F:SSHRB/Agenda Packets/2005",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-05-26.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY -JUNE 1, 2005- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-253) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction
regarding City Manager recruitment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-06-01,1,"SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Franz Called Meeting to Order at 6:15 pm.
Present: President Franz, Vice-President Chen (Arrived at 6:18 pm), Members Hanna, Bonta,
Wasko, Flores-Witte (Arrived at 6:25 pm) Absent: Member Hollinger-Jackson Staff: Harris
CONSIDERATION OF LETTER TO THE EDITOR REGARDING HATE-FREE CITY
POLICY (taken out of order)
Carol Beaver reported that Interim City Manager Norton approved the SSHRB/ATAH sending a
letter to the editor in response to an earlier letter to the editor about discrimination in Alameda,
and suggested a change to the third paragraph to reflect the many ways in which children can
learn discriminatory behavior, i.e.""A slur overheard from a family member, in the media, or by a
member of the community at large can result in hateful behavior in the sandbox the next day.""
The letter will be signed ""Alamedans Together Against Hate, a work group of the Social Service
Human Relations Board."" Jim Franz will speak to the Editors of the Sun and the Journal to
confirm that they are willing to print a letter without a person's name on it. If they are unwilling
to do so, the letter will be signed Dennis J. Hanna, Chair of the Alamedans Together Against
Hate Work Group and Jim Franz, President of the Social Service Human Relations Board.
A motion and second (Chen/Wasko) to send the letter to the editor with the above changes was
unanimously approved.
WORK SESSION TO REVIEW NEEDS ASSESSMENT PILOT SURVEY RESPONSES:
Harris provided a summary of the first 91 responses to the survey from the Festival of Families.
There are additional surveys to be added but they are in Chinese and Harris could not read them.
Member Wasko will have one of her staff input the Chinese language surveys.
Harris feels that the survey generated some solid statistics but suspects that some of the survey
questions were misunderstood and did not generate accurate results. Harris noted internal
discrepancies within the questions, such as people earning large incomes who say they live at
Alameda Point Collaborative. Member Wasko noted that the group needs actual statistics on %
of questions where answers contradicted themselves before making a decision on how to adjust
the survey. Harris stated that she was only giving her impressions and not a scientific analysis of
the results. All of the members agreed to individually review survey responses and then consider
appropriate next steps at a future AAWG meeting.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-06-01.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-06-01,2,"SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
Minutes of Wednesday, June 1, 2005 meeting
Page 2
The Board considered possible strategies for improving the integrity of the survey responses,
including:
- Changing text in some of the questions. e.g. instead of asking of about professional degrees,
write down ""Master's Degree"" or ""Doctorate Degree.'
- Administering the survey verbally. Some members of the SSHRB felt that this would make
people answering the surveys answer more carefully and would allow the interviewer to address
question misunderstandings. Others argued that one-on-one administration is too labor intensive
and that there would inevitably be inconsistencies in how the document was administered. In
addition, people may be more honest if they are not speaking to someone face-to-face. Member
Bonta noted that we could simply try to do enough surveys to be able to eliminate any outliers.
- Changing question 7 to read ""What is the highest level of education that any family member,
currently living with you, has achieved?""
WORK SESSION TO PLAN FOURTH OF JULY PARADE ENTRY
Carol Beaver suggested that the focus of the Fourth of July be on the Alamedans Together
Against Hate message, with other workgroups listed on banners on the side of the trolley. Vice-
President Chen, Member Bonta and Ken Werner will definitely be on the trolley. Member
Flores-Witte will be on the trolley if she is not in China. Some Even Start families could also
ride.
The group wants to purchase ""No Room for Hate"" stickers. Susie Brown will price these and
specifics can be worked out at a work group meeting next week. Jim will price the cost of
armbands with the No Room for Hate in Alameda message.
Carol Beaver asked Alamedans Together Against Hate to fundraise to offset the cost of the
event. The SSHRB members agreed to contribute a total of $150 towards the price of stickers.
They will also ask Out on the Island and Alamedans from various organizations to contribute.
ADJOURNMENT:
President Franz called for a motion to adjourn. Motion, second (Bonta/Hanna). Meeting
adjourned at 7:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Harris, Program Specialist II
EH:sb
G:\SSHRB\PACKETS\2005\June 05\Mtg June 1.doc
FISSHRB\AGENDA/2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McPherson; Vice-Chair Anderson; Boardmembers Lynch
and Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Boardmember Tilos (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Acting Recording Secretary Rosemary Valeska
MINUTES:
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Special Meeting of March 10,
2005 to the next meeting in order to allow more time for review.
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 7,
2005 due to the lack of a quorum present for these minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to elect Vice-Chair Anderson as Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (McPherson/Anderson) to elect Boardmember Miller as Vice-Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS (Discussion/Action)
1. Consideration of Independent Consultant's Findings and Issuance of Certificate of Approval
CA-05-0012 - City of Alameda (DSD) - Alameda Theatre- 2317 Central Avenue.
Jennifer Ott of Development Services gave an overview of this item and introduced Naomi
Miroglio of Architectural Resources Group (ARG), who gave a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the Historic Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,2,"*
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
Planning & Building Department, at 510.747.6850 or 510.522.7538 (TDD
number) at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
*
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs)
is available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Please contact the Planning & Building Department at 510.747.6850 or
510.522.7538 (TDD number) at least 48 hours before the meeting to request
agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of
the meeting.
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\09-01-05 draft Agenda. HAB.doc",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,3,"Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter commended Bruce Anderson's Section 106 Findings Report. He explained
that there was a process called ""jacketing"" that could be used to make the window columns
appear smaller. He stated that he would like to see more detail on the proposed automatic movie
ticket dispensing machines - wants to be sure that they don't look like BART ticket machines.
He also noted that there are companies back East that specialize in salvaging vitolight from old
buildings.
Ani Dimusheva stated concern that the Historic Theatre Rehabilitation portion of the project
could bear the burden of a budget shortfall.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society. He recommended the HAB approve the Certificate of
Approval with the conditions that the details of the storefront, ticket booth and concession stand
are brought back for further review and that the HAB should request material and color samples.
Birgitt Evans criticized the design of the cinema multiplex. She commended Bruce Anderson's
Section 106 Findings report and agreed with the finding recommending redesign of the ticket
booth for the Historic Theatre. Secretary Eliason noted that the ticket booth would be redesigned.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that even though the HAB could not turn its back on the Theatre's
historic status, we need to move forward on retrofitting for seismic safety. Automatic ticket
booths are the wave of the future but these will need to be redesigned. The concession stand is
OK to be in the center of the lobby but should have architectural features with Art Deco
elements.
Chair McPherson stated her concurrence with Vice-Chair Anderson.
Vice Chair Anderson summarized the need for the HAB to see: 1) material samples, 2) storefront
details, 3) material colors, and 4) further detail regarding the ticket booths.
Boardmember Miller asked about the suggestion regarding column jacketing. Ms. Miroglio
stated that would follow up with her engineer regarding this item.
Judith Altschuler, who was in attendance in the audience, addressed the Board, stating that the
HAB's purview was for the exterior only - not the interior design. Exterior elements could come
back to the HAB and that could be part of the overall design approval. HAB's advice to staff
would be taken into consideration regarding the structural changes and exterior design, only.
Chair McPherson stated that she wanted the details of the ticket machine and the window and
door system to come back to the HAB. The HAB wants to see a finished sample of the
Vitrolight.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,4,"Secretary Eliason noted that staff would craft into the conditions of the Resolution: 1) final
design of ticket machines and 2) return with storefront window details, including finished
samples and materials.
M/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve per the staff recommendation with conditions as noted. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
2. Review and Comment on Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Cineplex -
City of Alameda (DSD) - 2305 Central Avenue.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott addressed the Board and noted that the City does not agree with the consultant's findings
regarding aluminum door and window systems.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter noted that the consultant was only referring to the aluminum color. Alcoves
for the recessed entry doors should be required. Consistency of column treatments would unify
the building façade.
Ani Dimusheva stated that the proposed new buildings ""bully"" the surrounding historic buildings
and were examples of ""disposable architecture.""
Kevin Frederick stated that the original vision of the multiplex has been blown out of proportion.
This is not what Alamedans expect. The Planning Board was pressured by the developer.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He gave an overview of AAPS comments to the Planning Board regarding Section 106
and read from Item 2, page 9 of the consultant's report. Mr. Buckley stated that he endorsed the
consultant's recommendations. The Chair granted Mr. Buckley additional public speaker time in
order for him to show samples of other architecture on the projector. One of the examples shown
was a theater in Livermore designed by Rob Henry, the architect for the cineplex.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
recommend to the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the cineplex.
Boardmember Miller stated that he agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He doesn't think
we're there yet. Asked how much room there was for change.
Boardmember Lynch stated that people at Twin Towers were concerned about looking at a blank
wall. In fact some church members have discussed taking slides of their own historic art glass
church windows and projecting the images onto the blank surface of the Oak Street façade.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,5,"Vice-Chair Anderson stated that there was too much of a difference between the Historic Theatre
and the proposed cineplex and parking structure - not compatible with historic standards. A
stronger connection is needed - cited the Livermore example.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Planning Boards May 9 preliminary design approval was to
provide consistency for the Section 106 findings study.
Boardmember Tilos stated that the vertical elements needed work.
Chair McPherson suggested making a recommendation requiring clear anodized aluminum.
Vice-Chair Anderson would like to ask the architect to design an alternate façade.
Chair McPherson stated that the Oak Street façade needs to be looked at.
Boardmember Miller stated that it would be a good idea to ""Send it back to the drawing board. ""
Chair McPherson stated that she did not think it was awful but it could be reworked.
Boardmember Lynch stated that we began with the preliminary massing design that was a
building with a refrigerator box at the corner and now we are presented with a building with a
grain silo on the corner. It is still not compatible. She recommended telling Rob Henry to take a
look at his design for Livermore.
Chair McPherson stated that greater design detail on the façade was needed and the vertical
elements needed to be more consistent.
Boardmember Lynch stated that true Art Deco moldings and details could be introduced and
cited the example of the apartment building on the corner of Shattuck and Haste in Berkeley.
Chair McPherson summarized as follows: 1) more attention to the Oak Street façade; 2) use
elements like Livermore; 3) use clear anodized aluminum framing; 4) more attention to vertical
elements; 5) more Art Deco details; 6) the architect needs to revisit the Livermore project
elements for an alternative design.
Ms. Ott noted that the Livermore project had been brought up at a previous Planning Board
meeting. Mr. Henry had cited the Alameda projects' site constraints compared to Livermore.
Chair McPherson noted that Art Deco elements could complete with the Historic Theatre and be
at odds with the Federal standards.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that you don't have to repeat the Alameda Theatre but more
elements are needed on the façade so it won't read as a blank wall.
Boardmember Miller stated that the design competes with and overwhelms the Historic Theatre.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,6,"Boardmember Tilos stated concern with the horizontality of lobby windows.
Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board wants the mezzanine ""punch out.""
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that the architect should revisit the design and incorporate elements
from the Livermore theatre.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Board had provided quite a bit of direction.
3. Review and Comment on the Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Civic
Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD) - 1416 Oak Street.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott gave an overview to the Board.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Kevin Frederick stated that he was concerned about potential traffic and circulation problems
along Oak Street and stated that the garage would have been better sited on the Elks property. He
also stated that the garage drawing did not look proportional.
Richard W. Rutter stated that he supposed that the reason there were no architect's comments in
the Section 106 Findings report was due to the garage being a design/build project. He agrees
with the recommendations regarding lighting and signage in the 106 Report, but with a caveat
that there should be an emphasis on the lights being easily accessible for effective maintenance.
He also agrees with the recommendation for a graphics consultant.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He stated that he had made a recommendation to the Planning Board to ""dress things up
a
bit."" The design looks massive - maybe moldings would help. It is obvious that there are
budget concerns with this project.
Ani Dimusheva stated concerns with traffic issues - ingress and egress on Oak Street. Asked if
the drawing proportions were correct - the height to width ratio did not look right.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the parking garage.
Chair McPherson stated that there needs to be a focus on signage and lighting.
Vice-Chair Anderson explained the concept of ""design/build.""
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,7,"Ms. Ott noted that if the façade did change, the project would be required to go back to the
Planning Board.
Chair McPherson stated that more needs to be done on the street level - They can do better than
four movie posters. Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board did require additional
framing around the posters.
Chair McPherson asked about landscaping. Secretary Eliason stated that there would be street
trees along Oak St. Ms. Ott noted that landscape design would be required as part of the
design/build and that sidewalks would be widened.
Chair McPherson stated that the detailing on the façade needs revisiting - too vanilla, not
consistent with the architecture in the area. The whole thing needs revisiting with special
emphasis on the public walkway.
Boardmember Tilos asked how HAB's previous comments would be incorporated. Ms. Ott
stated that at this meeting, HAB was being requested to comment only as it related to the Section
106 Findings.
Secretary Eliason stated that a recommendation could be made for a signage and lighting
program to go back to the Planning Board for approval and this condition could be added to the
cineplex recommendations, also.
REPORTS: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Miller asked about the status of the code enforcement action against the house
demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue. Secretary Eliason took this opportunity to introduce Emily
Pudell, a new member of the Planning Staff. Ms. Pudell stated that she is preparing the agenda
report for this item. The property owner is appealing the five-year stay imposed by Code
Enforcement. The owner states that he intends to re-use architectural elements from the original
structure.
Chair McPherson directed that discussion of 616 Pacific Avenue be agendized for the next HAB
meeting.
Vice-Chair Anderson thanked Chair McPherson for her service to the HAB.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,8,"Respectfully submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGUHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\06-02-05 minutes.do
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-259) Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the
Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas & Electric and
Alameda Power & Telecom [paragraph no. 05-260], the Proclamation
recognizing contributions to the City by our Gay and Lesbian
Citizens [paragraph no.05-261] and the Resolution Commending
Officer Frank Damian [paragraph no. 05-262] prior to the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-260) Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas &
Electric and Alameda Power & Telecom for the prompt response in
relocating a gas line, thereby greatly aiding the City's efforts in
the construction of the new Main Library.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Susan Yee and
Tom Gaurino from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Dean Batchelor
from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T).
Susan Yee thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated PG&E's
priory has always been to be customer focused and provide the best
level of service possible.
Tom Gaurino thanked the Council for the recognition.
Dean Batchelor stated that AP&T appreciates the proclamation and
looks forward to working with departments to ensure the Library
project's success.
05-261) Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our
Gay and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to recognize
these contributions particularly during the month of June, Gay
Pride Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,2,"from Out on the Island and the Alameda Lesbian Potluck Society.
Ms. Arbuckle thanked the Council for the proclamation and for the
recognition of the Gay and Lesbian citizens.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-262)
Resolution No. 13846, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Officer Frank Damian for His Contributions to the City
of Alameda. Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Officer Frank
Damian.
Officer Damian thanked the Council for the Resolution and stated
that it has been an honor to serve with such a great department.
The resolution was adopted by consensus - 5.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:55 p.m.
***
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-263) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring
that the project is on time and on budget; stated that it would be
nice not to have to draw down on the $2 million fund redevelopment
bond money that has been earmarked for the project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the City
of Alameda Long-Term Park Use Policy [paragraph no. 05-267] and the
recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services [paragraph no. 05-
270) ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,3,"[Items so enacted or adopted are noted by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number. ]
( *05-264) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on May
12, 2005; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
May 17, 2005. Approved.
(*05-265) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,017,578.09
(*05-266) Recommendatior to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a temporary Agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive
provision of ambulance services by the City of Alameda Fire
Department to the City of Alameda. Accepted.
(05-267) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Long-Term
Park Use Policy.
Loretta Ferraro, Alameda, requested that there be a provision in
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) which would allow the Gold Coast
Coffee Mobile Expresso owner (proposed vendor) to use a parking
space at the Lower Washington Park area and operate his truck in
Alameda.
Michael Ferraro, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff
recommendation; stated that there is no ordinance permitting mobile
vendors to operate within the City; provided a handout regarding a
Recreation and Parks Department public hearing on June 9, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council has been in contact
with the proposed vendor and staff has been requested to look into
the operational issues.
Susan Potter, Alameda, stated that other trucks are doing business
in Alameda without licenses which causes revenues leave the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the ordinance allows ice cream
trucks to roam through the City; the proposed vendor's request is
for parking; inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission
would address the matter.
The Acting City Manager stated that there is an ordinance that
addresses mobile vendors; the proposed vendor's request is working
its way through the system.
The Assistant City Manager stated that there is a section in the
AMC that prohibits rolling stores from using City streets, with the
exception of selling fruit, vegetables, packed or labeled ice
cream, peanuts or popcorn; the proposed vendor would like to park
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,27,"would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog
down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent
matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to
delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council
should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for
Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over
spending in the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget
amount she is trying to follow the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the
General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt
service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to
a
certain extent and have impacts on each other.
Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement
Commission Resolution.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that
planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are
necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low-
and moderate-income housing.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
12
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,28,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
13
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,4,"in the parking lot near the Dog Park and then move from park to
park; there is a Use Permit provision in the Open Space section of
the Zoning Code that allows commercial concessionaires the
proposed vendor would need to get permission from the Recreation
and Park Commission first in order to get a Use Permit from the
Planning Commission to vend from a City park.
Mayor Johnson suggested having a workshop involving the business
community and Recreation and Park Commission; stated that there is
a significant difference in using a park versus a City street; the
possibility of 10 trucks selling coffee in one place needs to be
considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was a mobile canteen at Alameda
Point; it is important to review the whole picture.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not clear on the recommended
policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the draft
policy is ready for adoption; the policy does not establish or
define standards for non-City use, long-term use, construction or
renovation, or private uses; concessionaire needs to be defined;
stated that he would oppose any private use that is 25% of the
total park acreage available; the park application and review
process is a procedure and not a policy procedures and policies
need to be kept separate; suggested that the policy be sent back to
the Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; noted that
the statement regarding the Recreation and Park Department's
authority to deny non-City uses is unclear; Recreation and Park
Commission decisions need to be able to be appealed to the City
Council stated that it was not the Council's intent to have the
Recreation and Parks Department have the sole determination to deny
non-City uses; the language needs to be changed; the Council did
not request a policy that limited any appeal rights or delegation
of Council authority.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that it appears that the policy was
combined with the process and did not follow through on either one
completely.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a need for a policy.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the
Recreation and Park Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,5,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council was clear on direction
regarding the Recreation and Park Commissions review the coffee
vendor issue, to which the Acting City Manager responded the
Recreation and Park Commission is currently reviewing the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated it appears that the matter is farther
reaching than just the Recreation and Park Commission and could
spill over into other activities.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is no need to change the
ordinance if the proposed vendor does not want to have a rolling
store; the proposed vendor's sole intent to park his truck would be
a separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would come back to the Council if
necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council's intent was to
have a policy in place before another request for use of parks was
received which might cause some difficulty with the neighbors or
the use of the park; stated that he wants the matter to come back
to the Council regardless of what the Recreation and Parks
Commission determines.
(*05-268) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to Agreement
with Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope
of work and price for the New Main Library Project. Accepted.
( *05-269) - Recommendation to set June 21, 2005 as the hearing date
for Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges. Accepted.
(05-270) Recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services :
(05-270A) Resolution No. 13847, ""Applying for Five Percent
Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds
for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda
Ferry Services, and Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Enter
into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. Adopted;
(05-270B) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Ferry Service Agreement with the Port of
Oakland; and
(05-270C) - Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet Operating Agreements
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,6,"for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS) and adopt associated
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there was a public hearing
regarding the Harbor Bay ferry which addressed increasing ridership
and marketing services the public should know that the City is
trying to get as much grant money as possible to keep the ferries
operating the ferries need to be in front of the public's eye;
encouraged people to take the ferries.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Water Transit Authority (WTA)
joined forces with the City in moving forward with publicity; noted
the Port of Oakland's $140,000 contribution is now reduced to
$83,000; there is talk about the Port not contributing at all;
noted there would be a major glitch if the contribution amount was
not maintained at the current amount or higher.
The Acting City Manager stated the contribution was going to be a
budget cut for the Port of Oakland; the Port was persuaded to make
a contribution of $83,325 for the next fiscal year; getting the WTA
to take over in the future would solve the problem with the Port of
Oakland funding the ferries.
Councilmember DeHaan stated that it appears that the WTA is going
forward to establish runs in various directions inquired whether
it was the Council's desire to join forces with the WTA at some
point.
The Acting City Manager responded that joining forces with the WTA
would be a Council decision; the WTA's first goal is to establish
new ferry services; the WTA is starting to look at the Harbor Bay
Ferry Service for merchandising and providing some other services
to the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA would have
jurisdiction over funds.
Mayor Johnson responded that the WTA is a transit agency and would
have access to funding that the City does not have.
The Acting City Manager stated that the WTA has access to Regional
Measure 2 Funds which are difficult for the City to access except
through the WTA; the City is currently using Regional Measure 1
Funds through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution and
acceptance of the staff recommendations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,7,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council
needs to be careful with the WTA taking over the Harbor Bay ferry
or any of the ferries; the Blue and Gold ferry, and to some extent
the Harbor Bay ferry, are locally controlled; the WTA might decide
to have the ferry leave from somewhere else.
Mayor Johnson stated the level of service and location can be
negotiated.
On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-271) Resolution No. 13848, ""Approving the Paratransit Service
Plan and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding. Adopted.
(*05-272) Resolution No. 13849, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Cogent Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm/Fingerprint Identification
System Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815. "" Adopted.
(*05-273) Resolution No. 13850, ""Adopting an Agreement for
Participation in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization. Adopted.
(*05-274) Resolution No. 13851, ""Designating All Alameda Fire
Stations as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the
California State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7 known as
the Safely Surrendered Baby Law. "" Adopted.
( *05-275) Resolution No. 13852, ""Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05 5-276 - ) Ordinance No. 2941, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission
from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2
(Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2-7.3 (Qualification; Voting)
of Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) . "" Finally
passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,8,"(05-277) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001 and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader. Continued to June 21, 2005.
05-278 ) Resolution No 13853, ""Confirming the Business Improvement
Area Report for FY 2005-2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY
2005-2006. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( 05 -279 - ) Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names
Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $30,000 contribution for the
mural was reflective of the cost.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated that four
or five works of art have been selected for the new Main Library ;
there is funding for only one.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed policy has been
patterned after other libraries, to which the Library Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan commended the Library Director's ingenuity
inquired whether plaques would be placed in appropriate spots
reflecting the donation.
The Library Director responded there would be a donor wall;
individuals who donate $5,000 over their lifetime would be
recognized on the donor wall; rooms and pieces of furniture would
also be recognized; areas of the library will be built without
donations; donations can specifically name and honor the donor in a
particular area of the Library.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired who would decide on the wording and size of
the plaques.
The Library Director responded that there would be different sizes
for different donation levels; the donor and the Foundation will
work together to finalize wording and ensure appropriateness.
Mayor Johnson stated the size and approved wording should be
established; inquired whether there would be a provision to not
accept a donation.
The Library Director stated that the final bullet in Exhibit A of
the staff report states that final approval rests with the City
Council; inquired whether the Council would like to review the
policy again.
Mayor Johnson responded that the Council would like to review the
policy when the finer details are in place.
The Library Director stated that the named gift list is not final.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council might want to move
slower and get more public input.
The Library Director stated that there has been a public process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Library is public space and almost
becomes a quazi-privatized space with all the donation recognition
markings it is important to have balance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the criteria regarding the ability
to refuse a contribution, prohibiting corporate logos, and
appropriate recognition should be spelled out.
Mayor Johnson stated criteria for appropriate wording should also
be included.
The Library Director stated some suggested wording could be ""Gift
from"" or ""In honor of. ""
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a wall of recognition was considered
instead of plaques on objects throughout the Library.
The Library Director responded the wall recognition was also
intended.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether it was necessary to have both the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,10,"wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director
responded that having both is usual.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is concerned with
positioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library;
inquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated
on the wall.
The Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or
more would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library
Foundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area
recognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be
impacted.
The Library Director responded that having recognition for large
items and areas might be an incentive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get
clarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution.
The City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules could be
imposed; the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons. parameters
can be drafted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and
framework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the
criteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would
come back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that
she would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting
in July.
Councilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only
as long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking
into what other libraries and public buildings have done.
The Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on
shelves.
(05-280) Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic
Plan Report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key
anchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being
proposed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,11,"The Business Development Division Manager responded she is talking
to an owner.
Councilmember deHaan stated parking accommodations are all
important for any business and retail area.
Councilmember Daysog encouraged doing an analysis on the demand for
parking spaces.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the report
addresses the need to review parking in the entire area; when new
businesses try to existing buildings to a new use, meeting the
parking requirements is difficult; there is a need to look at
a
parking policy for the area which would met the parking demand.
Councilmember Daysog stated that quantifying is important; there
are pros and cons; some neighbors might not want parking structures
while businesses would.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council gave direction to purchase
an existing parking area that was previously rented.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , expressed
her appreciation for the support that WABA has received from the
Council and City staff; stated WABA supports the goals of the
Strategic Plan and urges implementation as soon as possible; WABA
does not want the Plan to close off viewpoints for other
opportunities; the funding for Goal #5 [Small Business Assistant
Program] has been eliminated because of reduced funding; there is
continued funding for the Façade Grant Program and some funding for
a recruiter; noted the analysis of opportunity sites was limited to
vacant land on Webster Street; there are other opportunities WABA
will address the need for long- and short-term parking solutions;
stated she receives daily calls regarding parking issues; parking
will bring in additional business.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-281) The following speakers spoke in opposition to the
proposed theatre multiplex and parking structure: Deborah
Overgfield, Alameda Jay Levine, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda;
Richland Tester, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda (submitted
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,12,"Council.
(05-284) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that public transit is
still a problem in Alameda; parking is allowed at bus stops;
temporary bus stops should be fixed to allow accessibility.
(05-285) Michael Ferraro, Alameda, stated that the proposed coffee
vendor [who would like to park near City parks] is seeking a
working permit for the whole City; he is not proposing to do
business within the Park Street or Webster Street areas; stated Mr.
Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, suggested seeing if there
was a way the proposed vendor could have access to the park for his
business.
(05-286) Sherri Stieg, WABA, stated that the Grand Opening of the
Webster Street Farmers Market would be Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,13,"8:00 p.m. i Friday night will be the first of the Concerts at the
Cove; the third Thursdays of the month will offer a variety of
festivities; encouraged everyone to attend.
(05-287) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
there is a misconception that the Park Street streetscape is being
done to eliminate parking in order to create a need for the parking
structure; two parking spaces have been lost on Santa Clara Avenue
because of the new bus plaza and one parking space has been lost in
front of Bonniere Bakery on Park Street; stated he spoke in favor
of the original Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the theatre
four years ago; a Request for Proposal was sent out and no one ever
came forward with any plans.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of addressing the Council
Communications items past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-288) Discussion regarding City of Alameda Management Practice
#37 : Staff-Council Communication Policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that an informational library is being
compiled which would allow Council to have access to information at
one location at City Hall; she feels that Alameda Management
Practice #37 is more restrictive than what the Charter provides
the Practice should be reviewed and either revoked or replaced.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson.
Councilmember Daysog stated that issues that led to past
discussions on the matter should be discussed when brought back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that everyone seems to agree to place the
matter on the agenda.
(05-289) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Peter W. Holmes and John R. McCahan.
(05-290) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the
Bridgeside Center; stated there were previous discussions regarding
the Video Station's ability to either occupy a space at the Center
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,14,"and the possibility having a Blockbuster; requested an update on
when construction would start and the leasing mix.
(05-291) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review how
existing transit operations, such as paratransit and Kid's Coach
services, could provide inter-Alameda transportation intertwining
with Alameda Point.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 12:04 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-254) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
( (05-255) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : McGee V. City of Alameda.
(05-256) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA)
.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the Acting City Manager; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel -
Existing Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal
Counsel: and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the
Council obtained briefing from the Human Resources Director.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members
Daysog, deHaan Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
MINUTES
(05-257CC/05-029CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. Approved.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of
minutes with the amendment that the minutes state: ""Recommendation
to receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation recommendations.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
ARRA Resolution No. 36 , ""Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. "" Adopted
(05-030CIC) Resolution No. 05-137, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for
the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. "" Adopted; and
(05-258CC) Resolution No. 13845, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.
The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated that this is the
first time that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council
budgets have been presented at one time noted it is important to
receive the budgets together because there is a considerable amount
of interaction between the three agencies; a long-term financial
plan for ARRA is provided and a ten-year financial plan for the
City would be provided in the near future; additional CIC
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,17,"information would lay the ground work for the next fiscal year
budget the balanced budget has no new or increased taxes; there is
a significant deficit in the infrastructure maintenance; the City
needs to spend considerably more than what is included in the
budgets to maintain the City streets, sidewalks, and trees; a
proposal on how to approach the backlog will be presented to
Council during the next six months; stated that service delivery
impact presentations will be presented to the Council by the
departments with the most significant impacts.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation on the changes in
revenues for the next fiscal year.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation on the Fire Department's
budget reduction impacts.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations gave a brief
presentation on the Police Department's budget reduction impacts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Police Department is being asked to
do more with less resources crime statistics and how the Police
Department handles duties matter to the citizens in Alameda; that
she received an e-mail recently stating how well the Police
Department fights crime and that overall crime statistics have gone
down; requested statistics be shared with the public.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations outlined the following
statistics for 2004: Part 1 crimes for more serious crimes
decreased by 16.5%; Part 2 crimes for misdemeanors decreased by
4.6%; arrests were up 3.5%.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 2005 statistics were available, to
which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that
Part 1 and 2 crimes are down, but that he does not have the exact
numbers; arrests are on par with last year.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the hard work of
the Police Department and the pro active approach; Alameda has an
earned reputation to be a place where people who have served time
do not want to come; reaching appropriate staffing levels is a
challenge; his suggestion [to increase the number of police
officers] addressed 18 months ago should be revisited.
Counci lember Matarrese stated that he leaves the ability to keep
crime levels down to experts; Council should be advised when
staffing levels dip below 99 officers; stated the City has 5,000
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,18,"marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the
Council wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat
services; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police
patrol boat to last summer's level.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor
Patrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or
three officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime
backfilling.
Councilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to
restore the patrol operation to last summer's level.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating
for boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City
could join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's
department, to provide patrol services on the Estuary
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the
Sheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor
assistance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary
patrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs
enforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of
Operations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast
Guard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties;
stated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their
boat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded
that the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due
to the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might
have changed; he would look into the matter and report back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the
estuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is
a very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the
boat program is that officers' skills diminish due to the limited
time spent on the boat; lack of expertise and training also add to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,19,"the expense of the boat operation.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney' S
office budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the
City Attorney's office reductions.
The City Attorney stated that the duties of two full-time positions
that are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and
would result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the
workload.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in
reviewing contracts, to which the City Attorney responded that the
current contract review time is two days; contract review will
continue to be treated as a priority.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for
contract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two-day
turnaround time was the average time for contract review during the
last five months.
Mayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments
could expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if
there was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a
contract.
The City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be
spread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice
mail at lunch time there may be a delay in document production and
routine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work
smarter the workload that is handled by the Administration
Management Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining
staff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in
terms of contract preparation and review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the
Department Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City
Attorney's office and which do not.
The City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts
by preparing a training program and getting forms and options on
line to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the
level of the budget cut requires that things be done differently.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,20,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate
presentation for Risk Management, to which the Acting City Manager
responded that Risk Management has been included in the City
Attorney's presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation
contingency account issue later.
Councilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an
important issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with
streamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the
City Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as
the Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit;
stated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the
citizens could not be overstated.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation
on the impacts of the budget reduction.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park
Master Plan.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are
between $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public
meetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is
brought back to various entities.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director
responded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan
covering almost every detail of the park system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully
applied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in
grants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the
three grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and
Alameda Point Gym.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full-time
grant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided
among the administrative staff.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be
worth reviewing.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,21,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be
utilized by all departments.
The Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to
have an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant
application opportunities will not be missed.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that
provide grant search and administration services and only charge a
portion of the grant amount.
Mayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more
aware of grant opportunities the possibility of contracting out
Citywide grant writing services should be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the
Park Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to
which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director
responded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs
assessment was performed a few summers ago.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human
Resources Department's budget reduction impacts.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and
Building Department's budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson stated that there are part-time planners at Alameda
Point and City Hall: inquired whether having all planners at one
location would be more efficient.
The Building Official responded there is one Planner working two
days a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall;
the schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend
more time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager
cut.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost
recovery is still at 90%, to which the Building Official responded
cost recovery is at 100%.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,22,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates
revenue may need to be re-thought the City needs to be business
friendly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract
assistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the
costs would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official
responded in the affirmative.
louncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning
Services Manager would slow down the permit and plan review
process, to which the Building Official responded that there would
be a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced
planning projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to
justify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be
far greater than the savings.
Mayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside
consultants.
The Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in
activity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels;
outside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid
for by the applicant.
Mayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet
the peak demand.
The Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building
Director could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the
workload.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the
intermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do
not have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without
permits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the
housing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying
to save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the
future.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing
a one-stop permit center and whether it was within the budget.
The Building Official responded that staff is working with the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
7
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,23,"Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one-stop
permit center could be; funding has been set aside.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in
the vver-the-counter permit processing.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front
line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with
streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation
on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of
the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to
which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes
the City would be a better candidate once the project has been
completed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant
funding next year, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula
criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have
been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or
unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that
money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be
very careful in Fiscal Year 2005-061 what happens in the coming
year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot
of committed projects.
The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner/Boaró
Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is
anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the
position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,24,"Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the
overhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 10%; there
are very few bodies managing CIC projects Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects
because it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there
is flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are
funded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the
Development Services Department will continue to morph throughout
the year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which
will provide a good picture of all obligations, pass-throughs,
contractual arrangements, etc.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control
over the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a
close eye on projects.
The Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of
cushion built in for all of the capital projects.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the
Library might not go for the Library because the money might be
needed for the redevelopment projects.
The Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common;
when large construction projects are started there is a slip period
of 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls.
Commissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious
with the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable
television project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29
million.
The Development Services Director stated that construction costs
continue to escalate.
Commissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for
the leadership shown.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at
the best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern;
noted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he
would like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in
the future.
The Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter
has been funded for one year.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
9
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized,
funding can be added for the future years re-emphasized that 2005,
2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years ; stated that she
appreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development
Services Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the
viable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago.
Commissioner/Boar Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City
Manager/Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an
extremely useful budget presentation; requested additional
information on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE
Program.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to
date information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund
infrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax
and the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks.
The Acting City Manager responded that he would include the
property transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney
will look into the legality of the matter Proposition 218
addresses what can and cannot be done.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look
at attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as
little as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent
elsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money
and not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated
that the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the
litigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk
Management is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as
proposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests
to hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney
could be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the
approval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council. stated
she is open to suggestions from the City Attorney noted that the
Charter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building
reduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting
City Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he
would like to fill the Planning and Building Director position
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
10
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,26,"first and then get staffing recommendations.
Councilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the
reduction is small. that he likes the idea of contracting services;
having a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans
costs the City and customer money in the long run; other budget
issues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of
money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in
permits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits
have totaled $138 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY
2004-05 for nine months the ten-year plan will give better
insight he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts
of all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information
provided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances
in equity within pay structures and labor management agreements.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was
present at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend
when the ten-year budget is presented; the City's past commitments
will pay a big role in the future.
Councilmember Daysog stated that having a ten-year budget is great
but it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation
for the next 6 to 18 months suggested devising a system to track
spending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks.
The Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget
with the Finance Director. stated that said information can be
passed on to Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models
and payment options; stated he looked forward to the City
Attorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-06-08,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
June 8, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of June 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of May 11, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of April 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 200-05 Library expenditures
(by fund) through May 05. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Public Art - Resolution to Council
WHEREAS, the Library Art and Recognition Committee conducted a public RFQ
process to secure the services of a professional art consultant, and an RFP
process to solicit proposals from artists to create art at the new Main Library;
and
WHEREAS, a committee of local artists and art lovers worked with the art
consultant to review artist submissions and to interview finalists, selecting
Masayuki Nagase to provide a work of art titled ""Cadence of the Water"", a series
of eight limestone medallions to be installed on the exterior of the new Main
Library along Lincoln Avenue and Times Way; and
WHEREAS the Public Art Advisory Committee and the Recreation and Parks
Commission have both approved ""Cadence of the Water""; and",LibraryBoard/2005-06-08.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-06-08,2,"WHEREAS the Friends of the Library provided the initial funding for the art
consultant and also, together with the Alameda Free Library Foundation, have
guaranteed $75,000 toward the cost of ""Cadence of the Water"";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Alameda Free
Library that the Board does hereby recommend to the Mayor and Council of the
City of Alameda that the City enter into an agreement with Masayuki Nagase for
the fabrication and installation of ""Cadence of the Water"".
There was a brief discussion regarding the original cost of the medallions. There will be
a small increase of $2,500 to cover the rising cost of materials.
Board member Butter MOVED to recommend adoption of the Public Art Resolution to
the City Council. Board member Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by
a unanimous voice vote.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove reported that Circulation Supervisor Laura Chaquette gave a
nice library report at the last Foundation meeting. The fundraiser will be demonstrating
to the members how to make successful donation calls. New board members were
nominated at the last meeting.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen reported that the Friends donated $750.00 to the Literacy Program for their
20th Anniversary celebration. Supervising Librarian Jane Chisaki requested funding for
the Summer Reading Program. The book sale will be held on June 24, 25 and 26 at the
""O"" Club. The Friends next meeting will be on June 20 and they will not meet during
July and August. The Friends are putting together a questionnaire for new volunteers.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that the Library Building Watch newsletter will be out next
week.
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library Director Hardie read 1 input/feedback form regarding: Please purchase the series
Sue Barton, Staff Nurse by Helen Boylsten.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Marc Lambert informed the Board that President Krongold has signed up to be a Literacy
tutor.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Butter commented that the amendment to the contract from CMM is
confusing. Library Director Hardie stated the amendment deals with the cost of the
Library move that was not budgeted for previously.
Vice President Belikove complimented Literacy Coordinator Jordona Elderts for the 20th
anniversary celebration that she attended. She handed out an article regarding a Chicago
library. In their efforts to improve security over the Internet, they are now asking for
patron's fingerprints to access the Internet.
Vice President Belikove asked the Library Director what the new Library Logo looks
like. Library Director Hardie stated that the thinking logo was selected. There are three
designs for the new library cards, and the order has been placed and should be in anytime.",LibraryBoard/2005-06-08.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-06-08,3,"Board member Butter asked Library Director Hardie if the library has purchased
""Overdrive"". Library Director Hardie answered in the affirmative and stated that it will
be available to patrons very shortly.
There was a brief discussion about a recent article in the paper about City Council
wanting to combine departments within the City.
Board member Butter asked about the new Horizon system and how long it will take to
have every function operable. Library Director Hardie stated that staff has concerns
about how the library statistics are coming in. Dynix has not been able to get the email
notification working. She will keep the Board updated.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie stated that the Summer Reading Program will begin on June 18th
The City Council adopted the general fund budget. The Council did not pass the Donor
Recognition and Named Gifts Policy. Council expressed concerns about what the
plaques would look like on all the library furnishings. They do not want the library to
have a ""cluttered"" look. Library Director Hardie stated that there will be a committee
meeting next week and they will come back with some changes to the policy.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting of the Library Board at 7:48
p.m. Vice President Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a
unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-06-08.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2005
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, June 9, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, and Georg Oliver
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
John McDonald, Park Manager (PM)
Absent:
Commissioner Reeves
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of May 12, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
OLIVER/KAHUANUI
(approved)
In Favor (4) -
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver
Absent (1) -
Reeves
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.)
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
-
Letter from Babe Ruth in support of the Field Use Fee.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Consideration of Request to Provide Mobile Beverage Services at Washington
Park Dog Park - (Discussion/Action Item)
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,2,"Chair Ingram stated that this item will be for discussion only tonight as more of a public
process is needed.
Mr. Ensminger, business person, is seeking to operate a mobile coffee business at the
Washington Park Dog Park and also other parks including Shoreline Drive. AD Lillard
asked Mr. Ensminger to be specific with regard to which parks he would be selling the
beverages. Mr. Ensminger stated that he would be at all of the parks. Ideally he would
begin at Washington Park and branch out from there. The mobile beverage truck is self
contained. AD Lillard asked if Mr. Ensminger was talking about doing a few hours at
Washington Park and then a few hours at another park. Mr. Ensminger stated yes.
Commissioner Oliver asked if Mr. Ensminger had a Use Permit to operate in the City of
Alameda. Mr. Ensminger stated no, not currently.
Chair Ingram asked Mr. Ensminger for clarification on what happened at the Council
Meeting. Mr. Ensminger stated that there is an Ordinance in Alameda that is being
amended which will allow mobile beverage/coffee businesses to operate in the City of
Alameda.
AD Lillard stated that Mr. Ensminger applied for a Use Permit and Planning told him that his
request needed to first go before the Recreation and Park Commission for approval. Also,
there is an ordinance in place that is approximately 100 years old that does not allow rolling
stores with the exception of peanuts, rock candy, etc. There are two ways for Mr.
Ensminger to proceed. Mr. Ensminger could go through the process of putting his mobile
truck in the park or amending the Ordinance to where Mr. Ensminger could operate on the
street.
Mike Guerrero stated that this whole idea came about when Mr. Guerrero was in a meeting
with Doug Siden, EBRPD Board Member, and Mr. Siden mentioned that it would be nice to
get a cup of coffee at the Dog Park. Mr. Guerrero then mentioned that Mr. Ensminger had
a mobile coffee business and since the City (Alameda Recreation & Parks) owns the
parking lot of the park Mr. Ensminger needed to get permission from the Recreation and
Park Commission.
AD Lillard stated that at the Council Meeting, Council asked that this item be brought back
to them for further consideration before it is approved. This item may fall under the Long-
Term Park Use Policy.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the cons would be in having this type of service. AD
Lillard stated that one of the things that could come up would be that ARPD would be
inundated with requests from similar vendors (e.g., sno-cone vendors, hot dog vendors,
etc.). The Commission would need to deicide how future requests would be handled. AD
Lillard stated that he would not want to see ARPD lose a large portion of the parking lot to
multiple vendors because park users would be displaced.
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,3,"Commissioner Oliver stated that once you open it up for one vendor then you will receive
multiple requests and soon you could have many vendors wanting to provide the service.
Mr. Guerrero stated that this was an interim deal until Mr. Siden could get a permanent
structure built on EBRPD land. AD Lillard stated that this was the first time he had heard of
the idea. Mr. Guerrero stated that it would be somewhere, but not sure where. AD Lillard
stated that EBRPD property starts at the dog park fence and goes toward the beach and
Otis Drive.
Mr. Guerrero stated that Mr. Siden stated that the project could possibly take a year or two,
but he would like to have an interim spot. AD Lillard stated that this was the first time he
had heard that this would be an interim spot until there is a permanent structure on the
EBRPD property. Mr. Guerrero stated that Mr. Siden stated that they (EBRPD) would like
to build a store similar to mud puppies operation but it would take a year or two to get the
project rolling.
Mr. Guerrero stated that another possible way to be in compliance would be to sell
packaged peanuts.
Chair Ingram asked if the vendor could just put it on the EBRPD property with the EBRPD
District Board approval and not go to the Recreation Commission or City Council. AD
Lillard stated that it is their property and their Board could agree to go into a
concessionaire's agreement. But, Mr. Lillard believed that they would still have to go to the
Planning and Building Department for the proper/appropriate use permits.
Commissioner Johnson asked what time Mr. Ensminger would go to the Dog Park to do
business. Mr. Ensminger stated that the ideal time for weekdays would be approximately
4:00 p.m. to dusk. AD Lillard asked if there would be early morning hours. Mr. Ensminger
stated not during the weekdays. No one is there at that time.
Chair Ingram stated that with the Long-Term Park Use Policy in the works, he felt that the
Use Policy needed to be done first before approving any proposal.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission approves the proposal would the other
vendors like Mr. Ensminger compete for the same thing. Commissioner Kahuanui stated
that by accepting this proposal the Commission would be setting precedence and would
have to have a procedure on how to choose a vendor, what kind of restrictions, etc. It
throws the Commission into a whole new set of policies and procedures to determine which
vendors come in and which ones do not.
Susan Krala stated that she has looked around the island and has counted at least 15
vendors that do business on the side illegally as roach coaches. They are at Alameda
Point, business parks, container ship areas, parks, etc. They are not licensed and do not
pay taxes to this City and the powers that be of Alameda just decided that they would look
the other way.
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,4,"Chair Ingram asked if there was a difference between industrial areas and neighborhood
areas. AD Lillard stated that the Assistant City Manager is looking into the issue.
Commissioner Kahuanui stated that being a life-long resident of Alameda as well, she feels
that it is irresponsible to think that we are all looking away when these so called illegal
trucks are coming around. Ms. Kahuanui asked if all the trucks were illegal. AD Lillard
stated that the Assistant City Manager is looking into the situation.
Commissioner Oliver stated that the concern of the Recreation and Park Commission is
vendors in our parks. Other City staff will investigate the issue of other truck vendors
having use permits, but for now the Commission is concerned about the parks.
Chair Ingram stated that he feels the Long-Term Park Use Policy should be worked on and
approved and then work from there. Unfortunately this will delay a decision on Mr.
Ensminger's request until at least the end of summer.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ensminger if he owned the truck. Mr. Ensminger stated
yes.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Ensminger is currently allowed to go into other cities.
Mr. Ensminger stated yes, he goes into San Leandro, Oakland, San Luis Obispo County,
Santa Barbara County (music festivals).
Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Ensminger is not really counting on Alameda. Mr.
Ensminger stated that his goal is to work in Alameda where he grew up. Branching out is
more of a necessity.
Chair Ingram stated that the Long-Term Park Use Policy will continue to be worked on and
it may be several months before the policy is completed. AD Lillard stated that when it is
appropriate the request will be revisited and those involved invited to another meeting.
B.
Consideration of Conceptual Drawing for Bay Port Park and Community
Building - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard presented the conceptual drawing for Bay Port Park which will be adjacent to the
school in the Catellus Development. Karen Folsom, LPA Architects representative, and
John McDonald, Park Manager, were present to answer any questions.
The Park will be 4 acres and includes 2 small soccer fields. The community building is
separate and a separate plan will be presented later.
Chair Ingram asked if Little League had seen the plans. AD Lillard stated that after it is
reviewed by the Commission the plans will be taken to the Sports Advisory Group for
review. The plans will be again reviewed by the Commission and then go to Council for
approval.
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,5,"Commissioner Oliver asked if the park entrance will be on Jack London Avenue. AD Lillard
stated yes and that is where the parking lot is located. PM McDonald stated that we will be
sharing the parking lot with the school.
Chair Ingram asked if the school has their own playground. Ms. Folsom stated the school
has their own play area.
Chair Ingram stated that a skinned infield would be great. AD Lillard stated that will be
taken to the Sports Advisory Group.
AD Lillard stated that the community building will be 1,720 sq. ft. of program space. There
is program space, storage, kitchen and one more restroom. This building was specifically
designed to fit in with the school. The building will be the Alameda Recreation and Park
Department's and according to the joint use agreement, as time and space is available, the
School District may also use the building.
The Recreation and Park Department is currently looking at providing before and after
school care and a Tiny Tot program. During the summer the Department will also run
sports camps out of the building.
Chair Ingram asked if it will be a prefab building. AD Lillard stated no.
Commissioner Oliver asked if one restroom is enough for a building that will hold 85
people. AD Lillard stated that would be adequate. It is a unisex bathroom with two stalls.
AD Lillard stated that it is anticipated the project will be completed by September 2006.
C.
Consideration of Proposed Additional Telecommunications Facility at Krusi
Park - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that Cingular is proposing to replace the tennis lights on the other side of
the courts with the same type of lights and telecommunications antennaes that are
currently there on the other side. The equipment building proposed is in the back toward
the fence near the maintenance shed and is larger than the one that is currently there.
PM McDonald stated that the equipment building being proposed is close to 400 sq. ft., but
are not supposed to go more than 200 sq. ft.
Chair Ingram stated that he felt it was time to start setting a policy with regard to installing
cell towers in parks. Several other cities have policies in place and some have resolutions
for each telecommunications company. Something needs to be done or the Commission
will be discussing this issue a lot until Alameda has enough cell towers.
Chair Ingram stated that he is not prepared to make a decision tonight since the paper work
was just received tonight.
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,6,"Commissioner Kahuanui stated that whether it is cell towers or equipment structures, the
Commission needs to make sure that the policy covers everything.
PM McDonald stated that the few towers that have gone in have been a good source of
revenue. We have not fully tapped into the resources, which is good because we have a
little bit of reserve money. But, the Park Maintenance Division does not have any revenue
sources other than these rental monies. ARPD was able to repave a bad area of
Washington Park with these funds. Mr. McDonald stated that he would appreciate it if the
Commission would look into the particulars and the rental agreements that are made. The
best deal possible is what will help the Park Maintenance Division. The Division was cut by
$200,000 so any additional revenue will be of great help.
Chair Ingram stated that there is no doubt that this is a major source of revenue and that all
cities are looking for revenue, but we need to set a policy with parameters.
AD Lillard stated that the Commission can set a policy of building size that can be put in the
park, etc., but the negotiation part is handled through Development Services. The
Commission cannot put into the policy that they (Commission) will negotiate the terms of
the lease.
Commissioner Johnson asked PM McDonald what he would like for the Commission to do.
PM McDonald stated that he would like the Commission to get the best deal possible
because it would really help the Park Maintenance Division.
Chair Ingram stated that from his prospective, we need to respect the Park Manager's
opinion, but the Commission as park stewards needs to look at the policy and the bigger
picture of the parks and how it will effect the park.
This item will be tabled until the next meeting for further discussion.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Consideration of Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation regarding
Field use Fees - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that the Sports Advisory Committee has reviewed the Field Use Fee.
Babe Ruth has provided the Commission with a letter of support.
Policy includes:
1. Groups requesting City owned field space on an ongoing basis for either games or
practices will be covered under the policy.
2. Any applicable fees will be assessed per season according to the established field
allocation process.
6
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,7,"3. There will be a $3 per player fee assessed per organization. The minimum fee will
be $500 per group.
4. For organizations with memberships larger than the $500 minimum, there will be an
additional $3 per player fee assessed.
5. Groups will have the option to work off their assessment by completing field
improvements or providing goods or services equal to their assessment. The value
of such improvements will be determined by the Park Manager.
6. Groups failing to either submit payment or completing work projects will not be
issued permits for future seasons until the assessment is cleared.
All groups (Alameda Soccer, High Schools, Little League, Babe Ruth, Football, newer
leagues) agreed to support the proposed Field Use Fee.
AD Lillard stated that he felt that the organizations who traditionally do a lot of work will
work off the debt and smaller organizations will pay.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked if that included schools. AD Lillard stated yes that includes
the schools.
Chair Ingram stated that he received a call from Nino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer
representative. Mr. Borsoni had some questions with regard to the fee.
Questions were as follows:
-
Will this be a once per year fee, or once per season? AD Lillard stated it would
be per season.
Will kids that participate in multiples sports (e.g., soccer, baseball, football, etc.)
be expected to pay the fee for each sport in which they are registered. AD Lillard
stated yes, because they would be using the field for each sport they participate
in.
Will youth organizations that have already done projects be given credit for what
has already been done? If so, will there be a deferred start date given upon
credit already received? AD Lillard stated no, it would be starting from today. It
would not be feasible to try and credit items from prior years.
How will the collected fee be applied to field maintenance? Will certain fields be
given priority? If so, on what basis and terms? AD Lillard stated that it would be
determined based on need. We could generate a yearly list of fields and items
that need to be done for additional tracking if needed.
It has been determined that in lieu of fees the sports groups could do field
maintenance work themselves. If that is the case how will the work assignments
be made? Who will establish the value of each assignment? Is the Risk
7
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,8,"Manager okay with non-City people providing materials, labor and possibly using
heavy machinery to perform tasks? AD Lillard stated that the Park Manager
would determine the value. The group would determine that they want to do a
project. It could be to a specific park or it could be a monetary amount to be
determined by ARPD staff. The people doing the work would be treated as a
volunteer for the City just as is currently being done. Most of the work will be
manual. Unless volunteers are heavy equipment operators by trade they would
not be allowed to move heavy machinery.
Would the fee be applied to outside teams competing in Alameda? If so how
would that be returned? AD Lillard stated no, the fee would not apply to outside
teams.
Will the funds be put in the City's regular general accounting department? AD
Lillard stated that the fee will go into a regular Recreation and Park Department
budget and it will go into a dedicated account. There will be records of deposits
and expenditures that anyone can ask to look at because it is public record.
Chair Ingram stated that Mr. Borsoni states that all of the above questions should be
addressed and brought to the sports groups so they can have a final review and sign off for
approval. AD Lillard stated that was already done at a prior meeting. Mr. Borsoni was not
at the meeting and another representative was not present.
Chair Ingram stated that he would feel more comfortable if the groups would sign off on the
fee.
Commissioner Kahuanui stated that she understands that Chair Ingram wants to get the
groups to sign off on the policy; however the group works as an advisory to the
Commission. The Commission gave them an opportunity to have an option. Originally the
Commission and staff just wanted them to pay a fee. The Commission was nice and let
this item go to the Field Use Group because the groups wanted to try and barter out of the
fee. We are trying to increase revenue, keep fields playable, etc., and before ARPD was
not receiving funds. If we send this back to the group and two people do not sign, it will not
change her mind. Ms Kahuanui thinks the policy proposed is a good idea and the
Commission is being very generous in giving the groups the opportunity to barter work.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oliver:
""That this policy be accepted as is and approved tonight.'
Further discussion was held.
Chair Ingram asked what the harm was in having the proposal go back to the group again
and having them sign off. It will not hurt us.
Commissioner Oliver stated what if it is taken back to them and they do not sign off on it?
Chair Ingram stated that it would then be like Commissioner Kahuanui mentioned. If two
people do not sign it, then the group has had an ample opportunity. Commissioner Oliver
8
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,9,"stated that he felt the group has already had ample opportunity. Chair Ingram stated that in
his opinion he did not feel that was the case when Alameda Soccer has come back with a
letter that has seven questions.
PM McDonald stated that he did not want to give anyone the thought that this will take care
of all the maintenance problems. The Maintenance Division was just given another field
near the Alameda Point Gym that is approximately five acres and there is no extra money
to maintain it. Also, there is the Main Street Soccer Field and there were no extra funds
appropriated to take care of that field.
Commissioner Kahuanui asked if the group, by having this fee, that this does not mean that
the lawns are not going to be cut on their demand. AD Lillard stated that the group
understands that this is an attempt to defray a part of the cost. At no time has this been
presented to them as solving all of the field maintenance problems.
PM McDonald stated that since he has been here (1995) there has not been a whole lot of
support for maintenance costs. Granted there have been donations to repair damage or to
build or rebuild something, but no monies were given to assist with field maintenance costs.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Acting Director recommended approving the policy.
AD Lillard stated yes.
Chair Ingram stated that again he favors giving the groups ample opportunity to review and
actually feels that having each group sign off would be the proper community process.
M/S OLIVER/KAHUANUI
(not approved)
""That the Field Use Fee Policy be accepted as is and approved tonight.
""
In Favor (2):
Kahuanui, Oliver
Opposed (1):
Ingram
Abstention (1):
Johnson
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
PM McDonald provided plans for the Dog Park drainage to the Commission.
Chair Ingram mentioned that he liked the newly installed gate at Franklin Park.
For additional information see attached Activity Report.
B.
Recreation Division
9
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-06-09,10,"See attached Activity Report.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
See attached Activity Report.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No new information to report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
There was a public meeting held the week of May 30, 2005, at Mastick Senior Center.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
The Transportation Master Plan is Completed.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
Chair Ingram asked about the status of Leydecker Park Playground Renovation. AD Lillard
stated that equipment was to be shipped the week of May 30, 2005. As soon as the
equipment is delivered the project will begin.
PM McDonald stated that the biggest project was relocating the Administrative Office to
2226 Santa Clara Ave. Everyone is happy with the new location.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, July 14, 2005
12.
ADJOURNMENT
10
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-06-09.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 13, - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:14 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
President Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul
Benoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,
Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai,
Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services
Department, Leslie Little, Development Services Department.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23,
2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Ms. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar so that it may be continued.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Ms. McNamara advised that she would vote ""No"" on the Consent Calendar because she
still had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued
to voice her opposition to the design review.
Ms. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the
meeting.
7-A.
DA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from
January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-
95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January
through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,3,"7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle
Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor
Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement
DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning
Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family
Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning
District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and
Height Limit Combining Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,4,"7-C.
UP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of
Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB).
Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow
an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates
on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00
p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located
in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community
Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the
existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include
late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the
summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The
site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is
located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,5,"7-D.
Variance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc.
for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design
Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia mixed
use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail
spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the
second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total
gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles
a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and
clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the
building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a
portion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces,
and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the
City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping
separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where
three feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve a Major
Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed
use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces
approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor
with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of
3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style
with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access
to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right
side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of
twelve parking spaces, and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu
fees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced
landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines,
where three feet is required.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,23,"8-E.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the
Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD).
Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of
Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak
Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is
located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial
and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous
week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the
Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of
that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject
of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months.
She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President
Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,24,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project
Inc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda
(DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code
Section 30-4.8(c) to add ""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning
district, subject to Use Permit approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as
""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the
screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater.""
(Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
Vice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for
this item.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters,
and that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex
theaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote
family businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique
theater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was
heavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on
the Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode
Toyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the
entrepreneur would take all the financial risk.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted
by Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the
staff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added
that a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that
the scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated
that. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up.
Ms. Lisa Griffith noted that she and her husband owned the home next to Central
Cinema, and were not opposed to the idea of a boutique theater itself. She was concerned
about the parking impact on her home, and noted that many evenings, cars had been
parked in front of her driveway, some belonging to theater patrons, and some not. She
was opposed to this particular use because of its impacts on her home; she noted that
many supporters of the theater either lived elsewhere or had a usable driveway.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item, and wished to
ensure that the 16-page letter had been received by the Board. She had not seen a
response to that letter. She noted that the first letter she wrote was submitted after staff
stated that CEQA did not apply; staff reread the letter and then stated that CEQA did
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,7,"apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale
environmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the
applicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted
that it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished
to have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically
exempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She
believed a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in
residential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the
Webster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would
be sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three
months of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this
theater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that
commercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be
taken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not
believe that boutique theaters would be able to succeed.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr.
Gavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a
homeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into
the neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were
supportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had
been heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the
theater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail.
He noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's
efforts to succeed in other districts. He noted that the applicant was not using any public
dollars or City funds, and that he was risking his own dollars. He noted that there was
overwhelming neighborhood support for Central Cinema and boutique theaters in
Alameda.
Mr. Chuck Millar noted that the boutique theater was in keeping with the other charming
aspects of Alameda. He noted that any ordinance should include parking guidelines, and
believed that the patrons should be considerate of the neighbors.
Mr. Kirwin agreed with the other supporters of boutique theaters in Alameda, and
believed that the free market would prevent oversaturation of boutique theaters in
Alameda. He lives next to a park, and understands the parking problems inherent; he did
not want to eliminate soccer games in Alameda because of the inconvenience of a
homeowner. He did understand residents' concerns about parking, and has found that
Alamedans generally respect one another. He suggested that the applicant post a sign
asking the patrons to respect the adjacent neighbors with respect to parking.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the residential
properties within the 17 C-1 districts, as well as the residential areas within 100 feet of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,8,"those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads.
All responses were provided to the Board.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning
language change.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a
conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial
use within a residential zone.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the
C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall
parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new
uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to
the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr.
Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to
be categorically exempt, the City must prove that.
Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they
were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and
the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did
not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor
spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away.
He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors'
use.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if
parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual
boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use
permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the
Board.
Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been
attached to use permits in the past.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and
that it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts.
Vice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to
recommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,9,"add ""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use
Permit approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of
49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where
there is only one screen in the theater.""
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,10,"8-B.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project,
Inc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use
Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning
District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the
agenda.
M/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes
throughout the remainder of the meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
taken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie,
and that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood
frequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central
Cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a
theater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a
feature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or
seven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested
assessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood.
Mr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked
her car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not
want to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced
people parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater.
Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the
neighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was
happy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of
the Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be downscaled.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that there was a parking requirement (AMC 30-7.2), and
noted that offstreet parking was intended to protect neighborhoods from parking and
vehicular traffic congestion generated by adjacent nonresidential district. She noted that
theaters require one space per 350 square feet in a C-1 zone, and was dismayed to find
that information was not in the staff report. She noted that she had served Mr. Haskett at
his house, which was not one block from the theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar believed this use should be made conditional, to be reviewed from time
to time, and that the City should proceed with caution. He believed it could be the start of
a wonderful use in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,11,"Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to
address the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the
weekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very
concerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should
have residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like
the owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more
difficult for the residents.
Mr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was
comfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party
there, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were
allowed to remain open.
Mr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and
preferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and
believed it was a great neighborhood use.
Mr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal
parking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked
to the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did
not believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when
street parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted
that the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an
audience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to
process this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for
certain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get
through the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included
in those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were planning processing fees.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he kept track of spaces available during sellout
nights, and added that there were often spaces available during those times. He corrected
Ms. Thomas' assertion that he did not live near the theater, and added that he had moved
to a house one block from the theater during the past week. He noted that businesses that
draw pedestrians serve to enliven the neighborhood and make it a safer place to live.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding intervals between shows, Ms.
Eliason replied that the 20-minute interval was staff's recommendation in order for the
theater to clear out and for the new patrons to arrive; the parking would be cleared
between the shows.
Mr. Haskett noted that some people will arrive 30-45 minutes early because the theater
only have 45 seats. The parking capacity will sometimes accommodate two shows.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,12,"Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and
suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient.
Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening
show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a
sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her
visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no
bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of
approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that
a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to
realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the
small district businesses would support each other.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the
building up to code was excessive.
Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing
standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six
months.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more
specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to
the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements
should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street
parking.
Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban
areas.
Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a
hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under ""Staff Communications."" If the
Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building
Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the
planning issues were being separated from the building issues.
Mr. Haskett advised that everything requested by the Building Division had been
submitted to them.
Ms. McNamara noted that she had not attended Central Cinema, but was impressed by
the outpouring of support from the neighborhood. She was very sensitive to the parking
issues, and noted that her neighborhood would be affected by the zoning changes. She
noted that sensitivity to the neighborhoods was a very important component to those
changes. She supported the idea of an analysis report. She believed this was a good
business.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,13,"Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this
agenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses
had a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted
that the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended
the applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a
Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District.
The following modifications would be included:
1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the
theater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before
6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.;
2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one
year after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before
the Planning Board; and
3. A bicycle rack would be installed.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,14,"8-C.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The
proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the
demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in
violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure
without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that
prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the
property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004
for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square
feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The
property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,15,"8-D.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of
Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106
findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central
Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central
Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community
Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she
was involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater.
Ms. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board
preliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for
Section 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board;
those draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the
design of this project.
Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes
made to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the
HAB led to the following changes:
1.
The corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the
horizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the
corner;
2.
HAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns;
the white element was replaced by brick;
3.
The dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and
was replaced by a flat corner element;
4.
The roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a
recessed element was placed further from the face of the building;
5.
The mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible
from the street level;
6.
The historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in
the new facility; and
7.
The aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized
aluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater.
Mr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted that a colors and materials board
was available.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that this item was to discuss
the design review of the new theater. No restoration issues would be discussed.
Vice President Cook confirmed that all comments would be three minutes long as
previously voted upon. She advised that City Council agreed with the developer through
Disposition and Development Agreement to proceed with this project. She noted that the
Planning Board's job was to provide the best design for this project, which was located
on a small site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,16,"The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed
concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of
Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of
Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from
outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more
traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park
in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested
the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size.
Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that
she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building
was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would
be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City.
She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple
screens were necessary to be economically feasible.
Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with
traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design
would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly,
and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be
restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and
the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult.
Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that
the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the
neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropriate for the area.
She supported the garage, and believed there should be more land area for the garage.
She believed this design was too massive for the area, and suggested rethinking the
Cineplex.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She
supported the elimination of the Cineplex from the site, and did not believe that Alameda
wanted or needed a Cineplex. She would like an open, walkable, sunny area in that
district without excessive traffic.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in opposition to this item. She submitted
petitions signed by residents who opposed the Cineplex on this site, and believed that the
restoration of the historic theater had been lost in the design of the Cineplex. They were
concerned about the traffic impacts, and that opposition to the Cineplex design had not
been fully heard. The petition called for the immediate halt of this process, and to discuss
the alternatives with the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Board. She believed the
historic theater rehabilitation had been a ""bait and switch,"" with the Cineplex.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,17,"Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a
petition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large
Cineplex, and had been called a ""Nimby"" by one person.
Ms. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that
the design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that
hundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She
believed the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda,
and that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for
people to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this
design was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would
be financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,18,"Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was
slightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor.
He supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and
unattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He
supported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested
that the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the
parking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left
intact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically.
Mr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the
1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed
the historic theater was being lost in this design.
Mr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their
business would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact
on his business by traffic congestion.
Ms. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex
should be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the
combination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed
concern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the
Cineplex as well.
Mr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as
the restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by
the garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a façade through
which people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of
new stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about
cost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project.
Mr. Lee expressed concern about this design, and believed it was too large for the site.
He believed the Cineplex would be an eyesore, and was very concerned about the traffic
impacts. He believed the financial risk to Alameda in funding the project was too big.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item, and did not approve of the plan; he did
not like the design of the building. He would support a theater on the scale of the Grand
Lake Theater, with three or four screens. He believed this was excessive and was too
expensive.
Mr. George Hubbard noted that he had previously worked for Skywalker Sound, and
worked in the industry. He suggested that the Planning Board consider alternate uses for
this theater, and was concerned that this theater would fail without freeway access.
Mr. Robert Van Der Wall spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that Alameda
was the antidote to sprawl. He did not believe that massive parking garages and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,19,"megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own
design for a scaled-down theater.
Ms. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda ""Ala-Mayberry."" She
enjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to
walking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did
not know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her
neighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for
the Island.
Morgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that
she felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that
walking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous.
Ms. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
design has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was
appropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many
screens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and
believed that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She
did not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and
noted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with
Christopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was
""highly responsive"" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this
design reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review,
as well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB
members stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that
the Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore
that featured vertical elements. She believed the current design was a cacophony. She
was very concerned that the big box look and the second story gallery window would
overwhelm the buildings next door.
Mr. Rob Ratto, PSBA, noted that the Board of Directors of PSBA had reviewed this
design and approved it unanimously. He commended Kyle Connors (architect) for taking
so much community feedback, dealing with the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, and
integrating the comments by the Planning Board and City Council to design a workable
theater. PSBA believed this design would work, and believed the downstairs retail would
be a good addition. He urged the Planning Board to accept the final design.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed
that the design was offensive and did not believe the architecture was compatible with
Alameda's vision for a theater design that would be appropriate to the neighborhood. He
noted that there was considerable opposition to this design in town, and that it would be a
financial disaster for the City.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,20,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m.,
but that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain.
Mr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of
the lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both
items in a timely fashion.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Mr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a
full Board.
Mr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the
property has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to
do so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be
addressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross
overstatement.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much
larger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that
there had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and
emphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest
way possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic
theater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted
that the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the
original seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for
many years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and
that the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted that as
conceived, parking on the street would be as it is now; it would be free in the evenings,
and metered during the day. She advised that all of the theater parking would be validated
by the theater operator, and there should be no concern for incursions into the
neighborhoods for parking. She noted that the General Plan required that all new
construction in the commercial district be constructed right on the street so that it
repeated the same pattern of the historic district. The tools of the General Plan, including
the economic development strategy and the Downtown Vision Plan, have been used to
help guide this design.
Ms. Little wished to address the size of the new Cineplex, and the suggested that it be
eliminated to gain more parking. She noted that the new Cineplex structure would be
only 35,000 square feet on two stories; the footprint would be 17,000 square feet. Parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,21,"structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may
accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that
the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent
operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did
have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag
included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet
Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking
structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business
association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did
not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of
Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail
uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be
drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new
people, and that there would be some crossover trips.
Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he
had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that
this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning
Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other
projects.
Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments
throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was
on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to
enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site.
She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She
wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater
had not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past.
Ms. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the
restoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and
questioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic
theater.
Ms. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108
dollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added
that they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create
new revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest
projects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social
services.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that
the only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down.
Ms. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate
design criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,22,"Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was
performed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement.
Vice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for
this project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She
noted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place
for this project.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future
meeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that
would affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and
could not modify the project outside those parameters.
Mr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was
done or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO.
Ms. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file.
M/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JUNE 14, 2005- -5:30 P. M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note:
Mayor Johnson was present via
teleconference from The Hilton, 720 S. Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60605. ]
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
( 05-292 - ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council discussed
public employment of the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 14, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-14.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-06-15,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray
Gaul, Commissioner Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and
Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: None. Also present were General
Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of May 18, 2005
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Discussion Regarding the Responsibilities of the Golf Commission per the City of
Alameda's Ordinance 2-9.4.
The General Manager reported that the question was brought up at the last
Golf Commission meeting regarding the role and responsibilities of the
Golf Commissioners. The General Manager handed out a copy of the City
of Alameda ordinance 2-9.4 that outlines the role of the Golf Commission.
The Golf Commissioners have been given the responsibility to review
policies regarding the Golf Complex and to make recommendations to the
City Council. In years past there have been problems with Golf
Commissioners disciplining employees at the Complex. These concerns
need to be brought to the General Manager. An item not mentioned in the
ordinance was the term limits for the Golf Commission. The term of a
Golf Commissioner cannot exceed two consecutive four-year terms. The
thought is that it is a standard for all of the City of Alameda's Boards and
Commissions and stated in another section of the City's Municipal Code.
The General Manager will get clarification on the matter.",GolfCommission/2005-06-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-06-15,2,"3-B
Monthly Reporting Assignments for the Golf Commissioners.
Chair Swanson stated that that due to the increase in Golf Commissioner's the
decision was made to reassign the reporting duties for the monthly meetings.
Chair Swanson read the suggestions for the new Golf Commission assignments:
Secretary Betsy Gammel-Marketing and Promotions
Commissioner Ray Gaul-Financial Report
Vice Chair Tony Santare-Men's and Senior Club Liaison
Commissioner Bill Schmitz-Golf Clubhouse Project
Commissioner Jane Sullwold-Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course
and Driving Range
Chair Sandré Swanson-Council and Government Liaison
Commissioner Bob Wood-Front Entrance Beautification Project
The Commission approved the new assignments unanimously.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional stated that the busy golf season has arrived
and many golf tournaments are scheduled. The East Bay Conversion and
Reinvestment Commission (EBCRC) Golf Tournament is scheduled for
this Friday and the East Bay Junior Golf Tournament will be held next
Monday and Tuesday. The Alameda Chamber of Commerce held their
tournament in May and it was a big success. Also upcoming is the
Women's Golf Club Invitational Golf Tournament on July 28, 2005. The
twilight leagues have been canceled due to a lack of interest. The leagues
will be revisited next year. The maintenance crew is sweeping the Driving
Range regularly to keep the debris down.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager referred to questions brought at last month's
meeting. The tee sign on #14 of the Earl Fry Course has been put in place,
although the sign is in the middle of the tee area and hard for the ladies to
see. The suggestion was made to plant more ice plant along the edges of
the lakes and sloughs. The General Manager reported that the sloughs and
lakes fall under the Urban Runoff Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
The engineering firm of Moffett and Nichols has been hired to look at the
site and make suggestions to combat the erosion. Also mentioned was that
the trees on the right side of #13 of the Earl Fry Course are dead and it",GolfCommission/2005-06-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-06-15,3,"seems to be the small trees that are dying. The General Manager replied
that the Complex has always had problems with starter trees due to the
reclaimed water quality. The suggestion was made to remove the dead
trees. The materials for the practice putting area have been on order for a
few months and the last time the General Manager spoke to the vendor he
stated that he was not happy with the quality of the material after returning
from an installation in Texas. The vendor is now suggesting that a
material needing topdressing be used. This is not the surface we wanted to
install due to the fact that it gets compacted and tends to run faster than a
grass green. The management is now trying to renegotiate to find another
product. The suggestion was made to put a grass green in the area. The
parking lot is being striped this week. In reference to the fire tower at the
entrance, it is anticipated that it will cost around $14,000 to have
a
hazardous materials report done at the site. Bob Han of the Public Works
Department has estimated that it could cost upwards of $100,000 to
remove the tower. Commissioner Wood met with the Acting City
Manager to discuss the cleaning up of the building and integrating it into
the entrance. The area has many utilities housed at the site. The burden of
cost for either removal or renovation of the tower will likely be placed on
the Golf Enterprise Fund after the land is conveyed to the Golf
Department from the Fire Department. The question was asked if there
was any liability in keeping the building. The General Manager stated that
the building would not be inhabited and would basically be a monument to
look at. More research needs to be done to determine whether it is more
feasible to tear the building down or renovate it. The new bunker has been
constructed at the new practice area and the hope is to open the entire area
once the practice green is completed.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony is being held for the
Women's 9-hole Club and another ceremony is planned for August.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Chair Swanson reported that the cart paths on the #5 and #8 holes of the
Earl Fry Course are in need of repair. The General Manager stated that
the plan for the cart path renovation was to have it done during the
clubhouse construction. In the meantime the maintenance crew will make
in house repairs filling holes and evening areas out.
5-B
Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary
Gammell.",GolfCommission/2005-06-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-06-15,4,"Commissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past
month and the Driving Range is doing well. Also reported was that the
business at the Driving Range has picked up due to the good weather and
the cleaning at the range is a nice improvement.
5-C
Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice
Chair Santare.
No report given.
5-D
Golf Complex Financial Report
The total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 10.5% for
the month of May 2005 as compared to May 2004, with play down by
14%. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is down 19.7% and revenue from
golf is down 11%, as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. All ancillary
services were below their revenue from last May with the exception of Pro
Shop sales and lessons. The Golf Complex showed a profit for the month
of $91,453. The first eleven months of fiscal year 2004/2005 show a loss
of $199,254. A contributing factor to this loss is the sixty-eight (68) rain
days to date compared to thirty-five (35) last fiscal year.
5-E
New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction
Issues, Commissioner Wood.
The General Manager reported that there has been a lot of movement on
the Clubhouse Project. The General Manager met with the new project
manager, Dorene Soto who is a division manager at the City of Alameda's
Development Services Department. The General Manager also met with
John Ritchie, the CPA who will be preparing the five-year financial
projection. Mr. Ritchie will put together the projection and different
scenarios for increasing revenue and decreasing debt to pay for the project.
One scenario being reviewed is the possibility of reducing the amount of
money the Golf Complex gives to the City of Alameda's General Fund.
The hope is to have all of the information packaged and brought to the
Golf Commission soon. Some Golf Commissioners went over to Poplar
Creek Golf Course to view the clubhouse and liked it very much.
Negotiations are still ongoing with the City of San Mateo to purchase the
plans of the Poplar Creek clubhouse. The original soils reports from the
construction of the current clubhouse were located by Commissioner
Wood and will be very helpful in the new construction process.
5-F
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.",GolfCommission/2005-06-15.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-06-15,5,"6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
Mrs. Arnerich mentioned that the 70th Annual East Bay Junior Golf
Tournament is being held on June 20 and 21. The tournament directors
still need volunteers to keep score for the 11 and under juniors if anyone is
interested.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for May 2005 of $16,526.
The year-to-date total is $140,187 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-06-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(
05-298) - Proclamation recognizing Alameda Reads 20th Anniversary
of formal literacy service to adults.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Jordona
Elderts, Alameda Adult Literacy Program Director.
Ms. Elderts thanked the Council for the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*05-299) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on
June 1, 2005; and Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on June 7, 2005. Approved.
(*05-300) Ratified bills in the amount of 2,944,635.27.
(*05-301) Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising
for Fiscal Year 2005-06. Accepted.
(*05-302) - Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with
Golden Bay Construction Inc. for the Webster Renaissance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,2,"Project, No. P.W. 07-02-07 in the amount of $50,000 using
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the purchase
and installation of bus shelters. Accepted.
(*05-303) Resolution No. 13854, ""Recommending the Inclusion of
Projects in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( (05-304) - Resolution No. 13855, ""Appointing Peter W. Holmes as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board. "" Adopted.
(05-304A) Resolution No. 13856, ""Appointing John R. McCahan as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath and presented certificates
of appointment to the Public Utilities Board members.
( (05-305) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory
Committee to Public Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from
Recreation and Park Commission to City Council, and Transfer
Staffing from the Recreation and Park Department to the Planning
and Building Department by Amending Subsections 30-65.3
(Contribution Requirements), 30-65.4 (Public Art) 30-65.5
(Alameda Public Art Fund) , 30-65.7 (Public Art Advisory
Committee), , 30-65.8 (Application and Approval Procedures for
Placing Public Art on Private Property) , 30-65.10 (Guidelines
for Approval) and 30-65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of
Section 30-65 (Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial,
Residential and Municipal Construction) Introduced.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that changing the name of the
Public Art Advisory Committee to the Public Art Commission would
involve increased responsibility. suggested that the duties be
reviewed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-306) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree
in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce Street within the R-4
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant : Bill Wong
for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader; and
(05-306A) Resolution No. 13857, ""Upholding the Historical
Advisory Board's Approval of a Landscaping Plan for Planting Two
Coast Live Oak Trees on the Vacant Property at 301 Spruce
Street. Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponent (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Joanne Lam, Applicant; Ivan Chiu,
Bill Wong Engineering & Design Christopher Bowen, Project
Arborist.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what percentage of the
composite sample came from the piles of fill versus the areas
under the drip line of the tree, to which Mr. Bowen responded
about half of the soil was from the piles.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the Appellant stated that the
laboratory scientist was not accredited; inquired to what extent
the matter would be an issue.
Mr. Bowen stated that the laboratory would supply the Title 22
limits which include heavy metals; the laboratory is reputable
and is recommended in the arborist field.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how to address the concern that
the laboratory is not accredited to perform Title 22 soil
testing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,4,"The Acting Planning Director stated that he had no knowledge of
the issue; the Planning and Building Department was asked to
test the soil to see if the soil was safe for the trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Title 22 related to safety for
trees.
Mr. Bowen responded that he was advised that Title 22 addressed
toxicity of materials in the soil; he was asked to find out if
the trees would be harmed by anything in the soil; the soil from
the fill was tested as well as the soil around the trees.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be removed from
the site during construction, to which the Acting Planning
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pile of dumped soil
would be removed, to which the Acting Planning Director
responded that most of the pile would be redistributed, if not
removed from the site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the soil should be analyzed for
the health of the trees and to see if there was dumping of
hazardous soil; there is a concern with mixing the soil.
The Planner III stated that Title 22 specifically addresses
environmental hazards and hazardous waste materials for the
general environment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a licensed arborist is
looking at the health and protection of the trees; the Historic
Advisory Board has a solution to mitigate the removal of trees;
a composite soil sample has been collected that is appropriate
for the future health of the trees; the laboratory' S
certification to determine whether the soil dumped was toxic is
questionable; the owner should be responsible for taking the
soil away if the levels exceed the same standards that are
applied at Alameda Point for building residential units.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted that the Planner III stated that Title
22 covers hazardous waste in situations beyond agriculture; the
report states that the mineral content of the soil does not
exceed Title 22 limits.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a question about whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,5,"the correct method was used.
Mayor Johnson stated the project could move forward with a
condition of staff confirmation.
Councilmember deHaan stated it is important to ensure that the
dumped soil is analyzed and moved to the proper location and
that the project should continue.
Councilmember Daysog provided a brief background on the history
of the trees at the site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
conditions to require appropriate analysis of the soil deposited
to ensure it meets residential safety, to require the owner to
remove the soil if levels exceed levels necessary for
residential use, and that staff oversee the project.
Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda report on the
matter.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-307) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13858, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-308) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13859, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance
Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-309) - Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,6,"13860, ""Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills.
Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponents : Nancy Schlegel, Alameda; Leo Beaulieu, Alameda;
Pamela Jones, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Following Nancy Schlegel's comments, Mayor Johnson suggested
that Ms. Schlegel discuss her garbage problem with the Acting
City Manager.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that Ms.
Schlegel's garbage problem had been on going for two years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that space allotted for recycling
bins is the Home Owner Association's responsibility the City
can address the lack of response and communication between the
contractor and the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Schlegel received any
notification.
Ms. Schlegel responded that she has returned unopened statements
and left messages but has not been called back.
The Public Works Director stated notification is via the bill; a
late notice is sent 45 days after a bill has not been paid;
there have been eight notifications over two years based upon
information provided by Alameda County Industries (ACI)
Following speaker Leo Beaulieu, the Public Works Director stated
the integrated waste management rate pays for all services
residents can use one or all of the services; there are no
longer exemptions for green waste; the contract with ACI allows
for vacation exemptions it is necessary to call ahead of time
to stop and start service.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Beaulieu discuss the matter
with the Public Works Director.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,7,"The Public Works Director stated that the Council could make a
motion to adopt the resolution and give staff two weeks to
resolve the issues; if the issues are not resolved, a lien would
be placed on the properties.
The Acting City Manager requested that the two written
communications presented to Council tonight be included with the
speakers' requests for staff review.
Councilmember deHaan stated better communication regarding the
new contract requirements is needed; inquired whether collection
through property taxes has been done before.
The Public Works Director responded that collection of payment
through property taxes has not been done in the seven years he
has been with the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it is the City's
responsibility to determine how outstanding bills are resolved.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
that delinquent accounts would be included in the next rate
review in a year and a half; any garbage fees that are not
collected is passed on to the rate payers; rates would be
increased because the City is required to compensate ACI for the
service.
Mayor Johnson stated that the problem is that everyone who pays
their bill subsidizes those who do not.
The Public Works Director stated that 23 residents on the list
included in the staff report have paid.
The Acting City Manager suggested that the Council adopt the
Resolution with direction for staff to resolve issues of concern
raised by residents tonight and provide a status on said claims
within two weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution,
including the Acting City Manager's suggestion [to direct staff
to resolve issues of concern and provide a status on said claims
within two weeks].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,8,"Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that individuals
appeared tonight or e-mailed the Council to contest their bill;
inquired whether the Council would allow individuals who have
not responded to contest their bills.
The Acting City Manager responded that everyone had the right to
either provide something in writing or come to the Hearing to
respond; stated that he does not see any way for other
individuals to be accommodated now.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-310) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreements for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS) and
adopt associated budget.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Agreement is an
extension of an existing Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime
(HBM) to operate the AHBFS between Bay Farm Island and San
Francisco; the Agreement is complicated because a good deal of
the funding comes through Regional Measure 1 Funds, which are
administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) ; HBM must achieve 40% revenue through fare box collections
in order to receive the funding through the City; the fare box
collection has dropped in the past few years; collection was 23%
last year, 31% the year before, and 32% the preceding year MTC
has notified the City that funding will no longer continue if
the 40% revenue through fare box is not achieved; MTC has
allowed the City an additional year; stated that the ferry was
down for four months last year and the cost of fuel has
practically doubled during the last two years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether on board labor costs was a
concern.
The Acting City Manager stated that the City is not a party to
negotiations between the Operator and the Union; the Union
contacted the City regarding concern with a reduction in the
work shift from eight hours to seven hours. eight-hour - work
shifts will be maintained per negotiations.
The Ferry Services Manager stated that HBM and the Union have
reached a contract agreement for the next year beginning July 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired where the fuel was bought, to which the
Ferry Services Manager responded that the fuel for the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry is purchased through Blue and Gold Fleet,
bought in bulk volume, and stored at Pier 39; AHBFS has a
contract with a fuel provider and is fueled at Pier 48.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fuel rates were comparable,
to which the Ferry Services Manager responded there is
a
difference between 18 and 20 cents per gallon.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether HBM could fuel at Pier 39, to
which the Ferry Services Manager responded that there have been
discussions with Blue and Gold Fleet regarding fueling at Pier
39; insurance requirements make the possibility difficult and
costs would offset any benefit; there have been discussions with
the WTA regarding bulk purchases.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether gas could be purchased
ahead of time and locked in at lower prices, to which the Ferry
Services Manager responded that HBM does not purchase ahead of
time but that Blue and Gold Fleet does.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether purchasing gas ahead of
time would be a possibility for HBM, to which the Ferry Services
Manager responded there is a question of fuel storage
capability; relocating to Alameda Point is being reviewed.
Michael Torrey, Alameda, encouraged the Council to accept the
staff recommendation.
Scott Hennigh, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff
recommendation; stated eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run is short
sighted and will decrease ridership; suggested capital reserve
funds be used to cover the cost of the 7:30 p.m. run and that
the Council consider a temporary reallocation of the Measure B
Funds toward advertising costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was any way to avoid
eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run.
The Acting City Manager responded there would be approximately
11 to 15 riders lost with the elimination of the 7:30 p.m. run;
increased ridership through marketing efforts should result in
breaking even; reducing what is set aside for capital reserves
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,10,"ratio.
Councilmember Daysog stated that more information is needed on
the advertising strategy to properly evaluate the different
scenarios.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with cutting
the 7:30 p.m. run; riders are lost and not recovered when
services are down.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the advertising would start, to
which the Acting City Manager responded that some direct mail
advertising has already started.
The Ferry Services Manager stated a survey was conducted in May
inquiring whether commute patterns would remain the same if a 50
cent each way fare increase was implemented and the 7:30 p.m.
run was eliminated; 22-23% riders indicated there would be a
significant reduction in ferry usage; 50 to 60 riders per day
would be needed to make up the loss in a worst case scenario;
the survey indicates that the market potential exists in the
primary market, which is the Harbor Bay and the Fernside
Districts; tests on the secondary market, covering San Leandro
and Oakland, are being conducted.
The Acting City Manager stated retaining the 7:30 p.m. run is
important a three month trial would show whether increased
ridership would make up for the $2,500 loss per month.
Lorre Zuppan stated that she has not done an analysis of the
7:30 p.m. run; tracking the success of prior campaigns is
difficult; if ridership is not increased, keeping the 7:30 p.m.
run presents a risk.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,11,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether having the 7:30 p.m.
run would be better for marketing.
Ms. Zuppan responded that added features attract users.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that time is needed to allow the
marketing to work and be assessed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there would be more people on the 7:30
p.m. run now if the run was a desired feature; missing the
target would require putting in a lot of money or not meeting
the 40% fare box requirement and losing the entire ferry
operation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the break even number of
riders would be for the 7:30 p.m. run, to which Ms. Zuppan
responded 22 riders.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Executive Director of the WTA
had any thoughts on the matter.
Steve Castleburry, WTA Chief Executive Officer, stated there is
uncertainty in marketing; information obtained in surveys is
highly unreliable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is any information on the
impacts of cuts elsewhere.
Mr. Castleburry responded that the City of Larkspur did not lose
as many riders as anticipated; stated ferry ridership is up
compared to other services.
The Acting City Manager stated that part of the increased ferry
ridership is because the economy is starting to get a little
better having the trial period in the summer might not be good
because people are on vacation.
Mayor Johnson inquired about lost ridership last summer.
The Acting City Manager stated that last summer would not be a
good comparison because the ferry was down for four months.
The Public Works Director corrected the break even number of
riders for the 7:30 p.m. run to 36.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,12,"Councilmember deHaan stated taking one trip out per day is a
major change.
Steve Brimhall, President HBM, stated the capital reserve funds
do not apply against the fare box; HBM is not in a funding
position.
The Ferry Services Manager stated that the City has an
obligation to maintain ferryboats or pay back the grants used to
acquire the boats.
The Public Works Director suggested the recommendation might be
to accept the three-month trial subject to MTC's approval and
reaching an agreement with HBM.
Mayor Johnson suggested conveying to MTC that the City does not
want to lose more riders by cutting service and wants to do
everything possible to maintain the level of service and
increase the number of riders above the current level.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any indication
that the June fare box recovery is trending upwards, to which
the Public Works Direction responded that he did not know.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run
would impact ratios, to which the Acting City Manager responded
by 1%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is in favor of presenting
the proposal to MTC ; eliminated services are never recovered.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a month-and-a-half trial period
would be fine if a three-month trial period were too long.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation with the exception of eliminating the 7:30 p.m.
run contingent upon MTC allowing the City to preserve the 7:30
p.m. run for an approximate three-month trial period and
agreement with HBM.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,13,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-311) The following speakers spoke in favor of the
theatre/parking structure project : Pauline Kelley, Alameda,
Debbie George, Alameda, Michael Britt, Alameda Eyes Optometry
Catherine Brewer, Alameda; Melody Marr, executive Director,
Chamber of Commerce; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda; Kathy Leong,
President, Chamber of Commerce; Mel Waldorf, Alameda; Robb
Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) (submitted
handout) ; Frank George, Alameda; Lars Hanson, PSBA; Kate Pryor,
Alameda.
The following speakers expressed concern with the
theatre/parking structure project Bill Woodle, Alameda Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Richland Tester, Alameda; Morgan, Alameda
( submitted handout) ;
Kevin
Frederick,
Alameda;
Deborah
Overfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva,
Alameda; Steph Wades, Alameda.
Following Jon Spangler's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
inquired whether the theatre would cost $25 million.
The Acting City Manager responded that the parking structure and
the theatre cost is $25 million.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the theatre cost was $9
million.
The Development Services Manager responded that the historic
theatre project cost is $9.6 million; $10.5 million is for the
352 space parking structure; the multi screen cinema is a
combination of private and public dollars; $5.3 million has been
raised privately by the developer; there is a contribution of
$2.8 million in loans; the vertical features will be put into
the new theatre for an additional $760,000; the total project
cost is about $28 million with the developer's contribution.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report specifying
project costs.
Councilmember deHaan stated an economic feasibility study and
market study was performed in 1997; inquired whether the
operations of movie theatres have changed stated it would be
prudent to review an updated market study.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,14,"Mayor Johnson noted the matter was not on the agenda and Council
could not discuss the matter and could only ask questions.
Following Kate Pryor's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
requested a catalog on the website indicating where reports can
be found regarding the theatre and parking structurel stated
that the Planning Board has deferred the design review for both
the parking structure and theatre.
(05-312) Will Richards, Alameda, stated that Alameda growth is
inevitable; redevelopment projects should be reviewed on own
merits.
(05-313) ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that June 25
through June 26 is the annual Amateur Radio Field Day.
(05-314) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated there has been no
planning for temporary bus stops during the Park Street and
Webster Street construction.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-315) Discussion of the proposed baseball stadium along
Alameda and Oakland's shared estuary.
Councilmember Daysog requested staff birddog the proposed
baseball stadium; stated the matter could be bad or good; noted
there is a shared interest in the estuary and the City of
Alameda should be part of the planning.
(05-316) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing
and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning
Board, and Social Service Human Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Randal S. Miller for reappointment to
the Historical Advisory Board; Edward Dependbrock for
reappointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board [remaining appointment continued] ; Nancy W.
Gormley and Garnetta S. King for reappointment to the Housing
Commission; Ruth K. Belikove and Alan D. Mitchell for
reappointment to the Library Board; Rebecca L. Kohlstrand
Parsons and Margaret McNamara for reappointment to the Planning
Board; Stewart Chen, Karen Hollinger Jackson, and Cynthia Wasko
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,15,"for reappointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-293) Adjournment to closed session to consider : Public
Employment; Title City Manager
Following the closed session, Mayor Johnson announced that the
City Council discussed selection of the City Manager.
(05-294) Recommendation to approve Agreement Appointing Debra
Kurita as City Manager.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Agreement
appointing Debra Kurita.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 6:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider :
(05-295 ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the
performance of the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-296CC/05-032CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissione: deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-297CC/05-033CIC) Joint Public Hearing to review and approve
concept of Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible
use of District Housing Fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
The Development Manager for Housing provided a briefing on the
proposed concept.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there would be a
targeted beneficiary for rental housing, to which the Development
Manager for Housing responded that the agreement allows the School
District to target beneficiaries to the extent allowable by law;
stated the School District would prefer to give priority to
District employees.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,19,"recommendation
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an opportunity
to provide meaningful, affordable housing.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-23,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -JUNE 23, 2005- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note : Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:15
p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider
:
(05-317) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 23, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-23,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY- -JUNE 23, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special joint meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson; Board
Members Bonta, Chen, Franz, Flores-Witte,
Hanna, Hollinger Jackson, Wasko - 12.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog could not stay for the
entire meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-318) - Work Session to discuss 2004 Board accomplishments and
goals; workgroup accomplishments and 2005 work plans for the
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup, Family Services Workgroup and
Sister City Workgroup; and Board directions for coming year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special joint meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Social Service Human Relations Board
June 23, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,1,"CITT
OF
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2005
GO.
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Thursday, June 23, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg,
and Peter Wolfe
Absent:
Committee Members (CM) Cecilia Cervantes and Karen Lee
Staff:
Christa Johnson-Seely, Assistant to the City Manager
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on May 26, 2005
C Huston asked that the wording on page 3, paragraph 5 be changed to
the following: Where prize money would be offered as opposed to
commission. There are artists seeking large venues, who are willing to
work to cover their costs.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on May 26,
2005 be approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee
Update Public Work Projects & Public Art Ordinance
AD Lillard stated that the City Attorney concluded that infrastructure
projects, such as sewer or street projects, would not count toward
the Public Art Ordinance. City may choose to participate in the
Ordinance when developing buildings and parks.
PAAC Meeting
1
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,2,"3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee 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
Staff will obtain the artist list, sent by Mary Oliver, from the City of
Emeryville. An art consultant compiled the list. The list will be included on
July's agenda.
5.
Old Business
A. Update on Alameda West Gateway and the Theater and
Parking/Garage Projects from Jennifer Ott of Development
Services - (Discussion Item)
-
Jennifer Ott, Development Manager from Development Services
Department, stated that an application for artwork on the parking
structure facing Santa Clara Avenue had been submitted to
Alameda Recreation & Parks. The artwork would consist of a
temporary mural, using billboard technology. The installation of the
art would coincide with the building of the garage. The billboard
would be vinyl and the dimensions would be left to the discretion of
the Public Art Advisory Committee. The art would be digitally
transferred and could be reproduced and placed in a different
location. Ms. Ott explained that the piece could last up to or
exceed two years, since it would be facing north. She went on to
state that there had been previous discussions about using a
historical picture; however, a more contemporary image was
requested.
CM Wolfe asked what the project budget would be. Ms. Ott stated
that the budget would be $10,000. CM Wolfe expressed his
concern that the Public Art be accessible to the public, even those
who do not pay $7.00 to enter the theater. His understanding was
that the Development Services Department was going to allot
Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater, and that it should
be done in a publicly accessible area.
C Huston asked if the work would be displayed on a single panel or
on multi-panels. Ms. Ott stated that the issue was open to
discussion; however, the installation specifications would need to
PAAC Meeting
2
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,3,"be written carefully so a change order would not be required. C
Huston asked what the mounting technology would consist of. Ms.
Ott explained that the architect would design it.
CM Wolfe inquired about the lighting of the piece. He asked if the
lighting would be worked into the architecture of the wall. Ms. Ott
stated that lighting could be worked into the specifications. C
Huston added that maintenance and vandalism parameters should
be considered, as well as, the relationship of the piece to the
architecture.
B. Approve Mission Statement - (Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. AD
Lillard stated that all references to Committee would be changed to
Commission.
M/S/C
Wolfe/Rosenberg
(approved)
""That Mission Statement of the Alameda Public Art Program be
approved with changes.""
Approved (3) - Huston, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Absent (2) - Cervantes, Lee
C. Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda West Gateway Project: Put on
Hold - (Discussion Item)
Jennifer Ott stated that the Gateway Project is on hold due to
budgetary constraints. She reiterated that the City is still committed
to the project.
RS Russi presented the final draft of Call for Artists and RFQ for
PAAC review. PAAC proposed specific wording and stylistic
changes to the documents. RS Russi will make changes for final
document.
6.
New Business
A.
Reorganization of PAAC - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard explained that an Ordinance was introduced, at the City
Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, that will change the
Committee to a Commission. The new Commission will report
directly to the City Council. Staffing for the Commission will be
transferred from Recreation & Parks to Planning & Building. CAS
Bailey will continue to be a staff-level person. Christa Johnson-
Seely, Assistant to the City Manager, will become a liaison between
PAAC Meeting
3
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-06-23,4,"Planning & Building and the Public Art Commission (PAC). AD
Lillard stated that the Ordinance would not be official until it is read
for a second time, 30 days from the time of the first reading.
CM Wolfe asked if the Guidelines would be edited to reflect the
changes. AD Lillard stated that all references to Committee would
be changed, as well as, the steps of the approval process.
AD Lillard stated that he and RS Russi will continue to attend
meetings through the July meeting, at least.
B.
Call for Entries & RFQ for Alameda Theater Project: Parking
Structure Mural - (Discussion/Action Item)
PAAC members discussed specific wording and stylistic changes. RS
Russi stated that suggested changes would be made and the final
document would be mailed out for the Call for Artists.
C.
Set Priorities for Next Meeting - (Discussion Item)
-
Artist List from City of Emeryville
7.
Oral Communications, General
8.
Committee Reports
-
Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe
None
-
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
None
9.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
PAAC Meeting
4
Minutes
June 23, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-06-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:13 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
Board members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development
Services Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.
Vice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, ""Vice President
Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in
the past.""
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the
exception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly
of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment
would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5
acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots
larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum
lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed
Planned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by
five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage
is required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for
parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
decrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of
size. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern
that this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not
heard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of
warehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be
allowed.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with
larger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the
buildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market
for somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light
manufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual
business owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things
economically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the
developer was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change
in the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for
this park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.
She added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,3,"In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.
Eliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant
would have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which
was less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they
would not be able to just add a second story.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including
safety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects
without more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential
mitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing
the landscaping requirements.
Ms. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-
C (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already
approved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.
Vice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental
analysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was
excellent quality.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,
and building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was
under a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business
park. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included
warehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.
Vice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and
discussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop
Road, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.
Mr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold
because portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied
to those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue
this item with the exception of Lot 14.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,22,"proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay
gate to queue up for at the end of the evening.
Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and
added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been
addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.
Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade.
Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the
horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.
President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned
about the current brick detail design.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the
exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that
Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample
board provided.
Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would
be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.
President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that
there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights
could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that
designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will
compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this
volume of parking.
Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too
massive on its own.
Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with
the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City
Attorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.
Ms. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree
with the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a
Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site, with the following modifications:
1.
The size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,23,"accents;
2.
The header courses would be corrected;
3.
A lighting consultant would be utilized;
4.
A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -
0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in
favor of Item 8-A.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a
presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular
review the Board would like.
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board
members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,24,"Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,4,"7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products
(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and
Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing
facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).
The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and
light manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map
No 8574).
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,5,"7-C.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
This item was discussed under Item 7-A.
M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion
with the applicants.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,6,"7-D.
TM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants
request approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside
Shopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned
Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied
that it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the
parcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access
easements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway
Street right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.
Vice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the
transformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.
Mr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel
Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,7,"7-E.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an
appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-
family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b
(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,
subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-
related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval
in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the
dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,8,"7-F.
UP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request
approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The
site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the
service station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales
associated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during
delivery. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service
station was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good
neighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Mr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation
could become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution
from cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want
extra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential
for increased crime.
Mr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed
concern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed
a 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall.
Mr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour
operation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this
application was a request for modification for the operating hours allowed for the gas station. He
noted that the notion of a sound wall was interesting, and added that the gas station faced into the
project, not out onto the street. He noted that many residential gas stations operated 24 hours a day,
and because the grocery store was open 24 hours, there would be eyes on the gas station. They
would adopt security monitoring, and a teller window would be open for after-hours operation.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani noted that she did not feel comfortable with a 24-hour gas station in this center.
President Cunningham noted that he would not favor a sound wall, but that a landscaped berm might
work.
Mr. Piziali noted that he could not support a 24-hour gas station use, and noted that Park Street had
24-hour gas stations. He did not want homes to view the 24-hour use. He would favor a minor
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,9,"change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,10,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda
(CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the
proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video
Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were:
1.
The dome element was eliminated;
2.
The aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and
3.
The roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda
Theater.
Ms. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear
aluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the
joining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able
to attend this meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed
Cineplex on the overhead screen.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island
would continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot
would be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project
was too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would
be financially viable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would miss the view
of the Oakland Hills, and did not want that kind of change in Alameda. She noted that the design in
people's environment was very important. She suggested building retail uses and incorporating it
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,11,"into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five
years.
Ms. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with
projected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church
is taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested
building an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering
place. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory.
She believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented.
Ms. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted
that there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been
responsive to public and Board requests.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a
business owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project
belonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that
over 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda
deserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character
better.
Ms. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many
meetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the
retail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,
noted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about
the design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce
Anderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design
should be made. He believed this report had been glossed over by staff. He displayed an illustration
of the project, and noted that the transom windows were misaligned.
Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he has
been very critical of the design from the beginning. He was very concerned that the City would be
saddled with a regrettable design. He believed that Bruce Anderson's comments had been treated on
the same level as public comment, and added that HAB had been very critical of the design, which
was also not apparent. He noted the walls made of precast concrete would be very suitable for Art
Deco. He strongly urged that more design elements be included in this project so that it would not be
so plain.
Ms. Holly Rose, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that this project overwhelmed the
intersection in a claustrophobic manner. She did not like the aesthetics of the building.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO Chamber of Commerce, noted that the community had been waiting a long
time for this theater. She noted that the visitors and tax revenue were needed badly in Alameda,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,12,"particularly to support police and fire services.
Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure
was also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown.
Ms. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her
concerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one
screen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but
did not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new
structure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She
believed that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not
like the design at all.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A
and 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that
many Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the
recipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that
there were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they
did not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the
main adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to
its original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more
distributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or
watched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only
recently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close
to the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbor Bay if the City wanted the revenue. She
did not believe the decision must be made at this time, and believed that there was more information
to be heard.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, 2829 San Jose, spoke in opposition to this item, and complimented staff on
summarizing her comments on June 13, 2005. She agreed with Bruce Anderson's Section 106
review, as well as HAB's comments on the design of the Cineplex. She noted that four out five
members of the HAB recommended that the architects ""go back to the drawing board."" She
complimented the project architects on their Deco-style cinema in Livermore, and would like to see
a design like that in Alameda. She particularly liked the strong vertical elements. She noted that
most proponents of the Cineplex had a vested financial interest in it. She believed that Alameda
should have a better design for such a major project.
Mr. Anders Lee spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this could be a much better design, and
stated that there was considerable public opposition to this design.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item. He did not like the proposed design, and would
favor the designs suggested by the other speakers. He would like a smaller-scale theater such as the
Orinda Theater. He believed the transit congestion on and off the Island would not attract visitors
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,13,"from other communities.
Mr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and
parking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired
whether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a
smaller and more aesthetically pleasing design.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design
was a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an
elaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw
such as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of
pressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the
benefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments.
Rose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the
restoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized
movie theaters.
Mr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen
this design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed
concern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not
like the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make
theaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He
expressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He
expressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural
center for the performing arts in Alameda.
Mr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in
opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired
about the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the
parking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the
traffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda.
Ms. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis,
which had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis
when it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available.
Ms. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in
the middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was
changing, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would
be appropriate. She did not like the design.
Ms. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of
scale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic
congestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,14,"this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to
renovate the proposed design in the future.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking
garage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much
detail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure
the historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and
would like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about
the design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.
President Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and
that the design issues be addressed at this hearing.
Mr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that
perspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on
the street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.
Mr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised
questions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-
of-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He
complimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed
the staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this
point before such open issues were resolved.
Mr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a
more modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater
with more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.
Ms. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was
speaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was
based on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that
the staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She
generally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible
or harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be
celebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to
consider changing the design.
Ms. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of
Alameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how
good design can bring people together.
Mr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.
He noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,15,"communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to
the community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the
success of downtown businesses.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted
that the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA
business owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended
the architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received.
Mr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10-
screen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it.
He noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been
eight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located
and oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other
businesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to
Alameda.
Mr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted
that he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the
project, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that
there would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very
concerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the
project.
Mr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He
noted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public
input. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown
businesses. He believed the design was acceptable, and complimented staff on incorporating the
requested changes.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.
President Cunningham thanked the public for its comments, and noted that financial issues were
within the City Council's purview, not the Planning Board's. Because a quorum of four Board
members was required for an up-or-down vote, he requested a straw poll of the Board members to
determine whether they wished to move the discussion forward.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of different ideas regarding the value and design of this project had
been heard. He was not inclined to deny this project because he believed the City was getting close
to a workable project. He respected the emotions felt by members of the public, and was ready to
move forward with this project. He encouraged Alameda citizens to continue to be involved with the
process.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,16,"Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the
project. He supported the project at this point.
Ms. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of
starting again with the design.
Vice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was
one of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library
and the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final
decision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City
Council, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly
believed that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have
liked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to
revisit the Long's issue with City Council.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings
should be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed
considerably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's
response to the 106 findings.
Mr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and
PSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which
may dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example
may overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant
evolution of the City.
Mr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate
that increased acceptance into his decision-making process.
Mr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Planning Board's comments,
and if the Council wished to redirect it to the Board, that would be fine.
President Cunningham believed the aversion to the blank panels would be a major part of the
Board's comments to the Council.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the HAB has
already provided their comments and given a certificate of approval for the historic Alameda
Theater; that element would not be within the Planning Board's purview.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Mr. Lynch replied that the Board did not have the ability
to scale the project back; the Board may either approve or deny the project.
Ms. Harryman advised that if the Board approved this item, it would only go to Council if someone
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,17,"appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and
glass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's
recommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in
many tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the
theater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording
to be modified to provide for a base.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum
clad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings.
Vice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings
had an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she
would prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be
deleted.
President Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer
should be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the
signage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft
Resolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board.
Vice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes.
President Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be
monotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated.
President Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions.
Vice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and
believed that the shade should fall on the Long's parking lot; she believed it was important to
respond to the public's concerns.
Ms. Eliason noted that because the Cineplex was a permitted use, the Board would not be asked to
consider any operational limitations. However, the Board will consider operational limitations for
the parking garage.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding how questions and concerns regarding operational
issues for the theater could be voiced, Ms. Eliason suggested that could be expressed before the City
Council; those concerns will also be reflected in the record.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,18,"Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the
owner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened.
Ms. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at
various times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become
accustomed to the operation.
Vice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central
Avenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a
bike lane.
Ms. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and
to have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place.
Vice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street façade; she
noted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the
detailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms.
Ott recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is
part of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance,
and that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along
Central as part of the City's ordinance.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall
enough to soften the building.
M/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the Final design
review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of
Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following
modifications:
1.
The blank panels will be resolved;
2.
Clear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable;
3.
Low-E clear glass will be used;
4.
A base for retail spaces will be provided;
5.
There will not be recessed openings on retail spaces;
6.
The lighting plan prepared by a lighting designer will be returned to the Planning
Board;
7.
The added brick veneer will be retained;
8.
The brick veneer will be variegated as specified on the material board;
9.
The end caps will be deleted;
10.
The shading study will be returned to the Planning Board if there will be shading on
Santa Clara; and
11.
A sign program will be brought to the Planning Board.
12.
The additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,19,"8-B.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New
Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit
and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-
space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the
Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD
(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Ott summarized the staff report.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage
from Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger
site. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He
expressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would
reduce that risk.
Ms. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and
noted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda
where people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets.
Ms. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of
Directors had voted unanimously in favor of this design.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He
noted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the
lower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted some sort of depression in the wall
so the posters could be inserted in them. He suggested the use of opaque spandrel glass around the
perimeter, with the movie posters exposed inside. He believed the use of variegated brick on the
Cineplex would be an improvement, and suggested that it be used on the parking garage as well.
Mr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe this was a true Art Deco
design, and believed that it was too large for the site. He did not like the design of the parking
garage.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,20,"Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the
garage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City.
Mr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure
because of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand
why the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise.
He expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the
design be reduced.
Mr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were
primarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not
a nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be
added for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress
and egress would be easy for people.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned
about its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were
fiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City
to reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid
back by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as
well. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how
many people would buy monthly passes for the garage.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was
concerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed
that would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable.
He noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in
construction. He inquired where the employees would park. He noted that the City was invoking
eminent domain against the owner of the Alameda Theater, and inquired why that could not be
invoked against Long's for the portion of their parking lot that would make this garage publicly
acceptable.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, read an excerpt from the Alameda Journal entitled ""More
Parking is Not Always the Answer:""
""Oak Street between Central and Lincoln Avenue should be Alameda's civic center.
That was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities
and urban design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute
on City Design. The area from historic Alameda High School to the new main library
to be built at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue could be a vibrant area that will bring
residents together.
""Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the City could improvise to get
the feeling of an open gathering space into the existing compact area, the group told
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 27, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,21,"Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended
not building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design
professionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will
destroy the Civic Center.'
Ms. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the
Board to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open
space, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt
from The Whole Building Design Guide:
""Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone
structure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This
has given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the
existing urban fabric.
""However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed
far more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of
good parking design
""Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the
country. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the
surrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding
architecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process.""
Ms. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She
suggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with
the addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with
respect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested
that people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not
generally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the right place for the parking garage. He would
rather see the garage without a Cineplex than a Cineplex without a parking garage. He inquired what
the City would do when the parking structure is declared obsolete, perhaps before the bonds were
paid off. He inquired about the City's exit strategy regarding what would be done with an empty
Cineplex when technology makes it obsolete in the future.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Leslie Little noted that a number of years ago, a parking assessment was performed in the
central business district in which a number of different locations were analyzed to accommodate
future parking. A number of public lots were examined, but they did not have the dimensions to
accommodate that use. The three top sites were prioritized, and the site was identified as the single
greatest priority; it included the Long's parking lot at the time, which yielded 508 parking spaces.
She noted that after 6 p.m., the parking structure would be free. She described the payment method
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 27, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.
Note: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member
Matarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because
the phone connection was not working.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management
practices.
Chair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to
provide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted
that the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and
that some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-
laws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City
Council, CIC and ARRA.
Commissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of
hiring outside counsel was related to determining what the
threshold would be.
Chair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide
information on how much would be required to cover the interim
period before the matter was brought back to the Council.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that
the matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.
Chair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an
outside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that
the issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the
Council, not the CIC or ARRA.
The City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005
Council Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,2,"City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of
outside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.
Chair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5
City Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.
The City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda
per Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that
she was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance
evaluation.
Chair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's
actions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the
Council can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open
session; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session
item.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly
remembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing
authorized amounts in open session because of litigation
strategies.
Chair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open
session.
The City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a
proposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not
reveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's
request for additional oversight and threshold identification; any
budget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session
agenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested
that the matter initially be addressed in closed session.
Chair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be
consistent with the Charter.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.
Chair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council
consent to the hiring of outside counsel.
The City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which
addressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it
is appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice
that has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at
no less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for
the City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,3,"the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,4,"outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of
the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the
Council feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on
outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more
aware of outside attorney costs.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the
parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section
8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of
defining discretionary parameters of ""may empower"" the City
Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations
through the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need
to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will
work for both sides but will not be established tonight.
Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City
Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to
the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of
the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or
resolution defining ""may empower"" the past practice is still in
effect.
Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last
meeting.
The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be
presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the
Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for
additional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council
involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less
discretion on the City Attorney's part.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less
discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should
do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could
be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend
money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or
the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not
going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at
the June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is
allocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the
discretion to spend it without the Council's consent.
The Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the
Council was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,5,"Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the
matter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many
other Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff
follows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have
a motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to
determine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether
the City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the
Council voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to
Council when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the
interim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not
hire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing
counsel, bills and litigation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys
that are already working for the City.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney
intended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which
the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested
a
summary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information
provided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of
litigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the
budget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel
spending the oversight philosophy is important.
Chair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a
need to provide some authority for emergency spending.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important
to establish a policy that is consistent across all governing
bodies.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested
to be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said
information.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of
attorneys, including scope of service; the information should be
presented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the
City Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented
in advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not
distributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,6,"The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the
Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would
bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the
advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council
direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the
additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all
governing bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken
from the Council.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside
counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what
was decided on the interim.
The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep
a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are
authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or
less is the current amount without Council authorization.
Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization
to spend over $800,000.
The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and
reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting
that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'
budget but is exercising Council responsibility.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for
other City departments might change also; the City is in
extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,
and developing needed services.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not
want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney
to be able to do her job.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful
services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the
question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are
necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the
foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.
The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the
proposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.
Chair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,7,"understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on-going ledger.
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,8,"advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 29, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robert McFarland
Patianne Parker
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Michael Krueger
Jeff Knoth
Staff:
Barbara Hawkins - Public Works Department
Barry Bergman - Public Works Department
Andrew Thomas - Planning & Building Department
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Commission agreed to postpone approval of the April 27 minutes until the end of the
meeting.
3.AGENDA CHANGES: None
4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: None
5.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.OLD BUSINESS:
6A.
TMP Sub-Committees Appointments and Next Steps
Commissioner Parker mentioned that it has been a long time since the last meeting and that she
did not get first choice of committees to pick to be on. She wanted to know who is on the
committees.
Chair Knox White mentioned that there are two active sub-committees. The Bicycle Master Plan
Update Committee includes Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and Ratto. The
Circulation sub-committee is made up of Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and
McFarland.",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,2,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White said that this item was brought back to the Commission because of the need to
form a Pedestrian Master Plan Subcommittee. He also noted that he has limited time available
and would prefer not to sit on the Pedestrian or the Bicycle Master Plan sub-committee.
Chair Knox White noted that Commissioner Krueger had indicated that he is willing to serve on
either the pedestrian or bicycle plan subcommittees, and that Commissioner Parker had
expressed her interest in the circulation subcommittee. He also said that he would approach
Commissioner Knoth about serving on the pedestrian plan subcommittee. He stated that he will
send out an e-mail to the Commission the following week after speaking with the other
commissioners.
Chair Knox White mentioned that Commissioner Knoth would be on the Pedestrian sub-
committee. He thought it would be okay to have a two person sub-committee instead of a three
person one. They would be able to cancel any number of meetings. The sub-committee should
be self-driven, so it is important that subcommittee members be prepared to push items forward.
Commissioner Parker wanted to be on the Circulation committee but do not care to be on the
Pedestrian or the Bicycle committee.
Staff Bergman had a draft of the TMP schedule for each of the three plans meetings scheduled for
this year, which were handed out.
Chair Knox White asked that under the Commission Communications that bullets be inserted for
each of the three sub-committees and have the head of that sub-committee give an update.
Staff Hawkins said that Michael Schmitz was selected from the Economic Development
Committee (EDC) to be on the Task Force Committee. Contacted some of the other
commissions and notice that some of their members were not active. She suggested sending an
action item to the chair and have the chair be responsible for selecting someone.
7.NEW BUSINESS:
7A.
Alameda Point Transportation Strategy Report
Commissioner Parker stated that one of the goals of the Alameda Point project is to seamlessly
integrate the development into the rest of Alameda. However, some of the language emphasizes
the separate nature of the project. For example, splitting the 63 Line will serve Alameda Point
and downtown Oakland without serving the rest of the City. The document should not come
across as saying that Alameda Point is better than the rest of Alameda.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Parker's concerns, but expressed support
for the many innovative strategies presented in the report, such as developing a system where
transit is self-supporting. This could serve as a model for other locations in Alameda as well as
the Bay Area.
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,3,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White noted that there is a long-term goal of a transit service connecting to the east
end and Fruitvale BART station, and this would connect Alameda Point to the rest of the main
island. He also stated that it may not be appropriate to address citywide policies in an Alameda
Point-specific document.
Chair Knox White also wants the City to look at trip generation through the rest of the City as
well as the tubes. He noted that the report talks about increasing BART ridership, but it would
be helpful to know how many of the existing transit users drive to BART. If they are driving to
BART, Alameda gets no benefit in terms of reducing congestion in Alameda. He asked how the
queue jump lanes would be implemented, if there is a fund that would be reserved for this
purpose.
Staff Thomas stated that while listed as a mid-term project, they are hoping that queue jump lanes
will hopefully be a ""Day 1"" strategy. He noted that Oakland neighborhoods support this strategy
as well. He noted that the queue jump lanes would make the transit options much more effective,
but that they will be easier to implement from the Alameda side.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Broadway/Jackson project is part of this.
Staff Thomas said that one of the most promising strategies that would work within the
Broadway/Jackson design is to segregate buses in the left lane of the Posey Tube, with cars going
to the freeway directed to the right. The latter group would turn right on 5th Street in Oakland
and be able to get directly onto freeway ramps, reducing the number of vehicles traveling
through the intersection of 7th Street and Harrison Street.
Staff Thomas stated that splitting the 63 Bus route would enable headways to increase on both
portions of the route. He also noted that this was only one option, another would be a privately
funded shuttle from Alameda Point to downtown Oakland. He added noted that staff has had
conversations with AC Transit regarding the EcoPass and have indicated that Alameda Point
would need a minimum of 20 minute headways to downtown Oakland.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if a direct bus from Alameda Point to San Francisco was
considered.
Staff Thomas responded that the transbay buses were very well used, the question is how to get
people to them. He also noted that since there are approximately 2000 residential units proposed
for Alameda Point, there would probably not be sufficient demand to support a transbay bus
route directly to San Francisco.
Commissioner McFarland asked how Alameda Point might be affected in future rounds of AC
Transit service cuts.
Staff Thomas responded that the EcoPass should help protect these routes, as they provide a
stable funding source for AC Transit, but if the City opted for a privately funded shuttle there
would not be the same protection.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,4,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White expressed a concern that AC Transit could start requiring contributions like
the EcoPass to get additional transit service.
Staff Thomas stated that this project could be a model for future development projects in
Alameda. The developer working on the Oak to 9th Street project in Oakland has expressed
interest in some of the ideas being explored for Alameda Point. He also suggested that other
partners are possible, such as Catellus and the College of Alameda.
Commissioner Parker asked if the existing west Alameda neighborhood could be included.
Staff Thomas responded that this would be difficult, since residents would likely be willing to
pay only for services they will use, whereas in an EcoPass program all residents of Alameda
Point can be required to contribute toward transit services up front.
Chair Knox White asked if there had been any discussions with City CarShare.
Staff Thomas responded that they had not spoken specifically with that company, they would
decide how to implement a CarShare program once the funds were in place.
Chair Knox White noted that something that should be considered is that City CarShare has been
removing some of their ""pod"" locations in suburban areas because of low usage and suggested
speaking with them to learn from their experience. He also stated that even if a BART station at
Jack London Square doesn't make sense, we don't want to rule out the potential for a direct
BART station in Alameda at some point in the future.
Staff Thomas stated that the focus was on being able to put some services in place early on.
While the process included a very broad discussion of creative options for transportation, it
became clear that many of the proposed solutions included elements that would require
coordination with other agencies, so the City would have a limited amount of control. These
items will be considered for long-term implementation. In terms of BART, he said that BART is
considering a transfer station in Oakland, so all riders to other east bay destinations would have
to transfer, and it's possible that at that point a BART connection may make sense.
Chair Knox White asked how the $50 million committed to transportation would be used.
Staff Thomas stated that $20 million would be used to fund strategies up front. The $20 million
may be used to subsidize services early on, since many residents won't be living there at first.
The additional $30 million would be the project's contribution to the future long-term strategies.
Chair Knox White requested the following changes to the report:
Page 6 - bus shelters should be a Day 1 strategy, not mid-term
Page 7 - first line should say ""Alameda Point""
He suggested that they should work to incorporate the ferry service into the EcoPass program,
and that the Alameda Point Collaborative residents should be allowed to participate in the
program.
Page 9 - He asked if the bifurcated 63 Route is a Day 1 or mid-term strategy.
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,5,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Staff Thomas indicated that it could be either or neither. He said that the main goal is to have 15-
20 minute headways for service to Alameda Point, however it is accomplished.
Chair Knox White expressed concern regarding the option to pay extra to buy additional on-site
residential parking spaces, he hopes the cost will be sufficient that everyone will not choose to
have the additional parking space.
Commissioner Parker stated that it would be harder to sell units with only a single car garage.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that on Bay Farm Island it's difficult to get people to use transit,
since they moved there when the bus ran infrequently and there was no weekend service. He
hoped they will market the transit options, and use that to attract buyers.
Chair Knox White asked if location-efficient mortgages (LEM) had been considered. These
allow people who live in areas with access to transit to qualify for larger mortgages, since
presumably they would have lower transportation costs. LEMs are available in San Francisco.
Staff Thomas responded that LEMs have not been considered up to this point.
Chair Knox White said that he was confused by the discussion of CarSharing on p. 12, where it
states that the CarShare fleet will be used for the guaranteed ride home (GRH) program, but that
when vehicles are not available users could utilize the county GRH program, which operates
under a voucher system.
Staff Thomas responded that if the transportation coordinator could offer employees use of
CarShare vehicles for GRH if the vehicles were not being used for other purposes; otherwise
employees would rely on the existing county program.
Chair Knox White asked that it be noted in the document that the bus rapid transit (BRT) vehicle
depicted in Eugene is actually a simulation.
Commissioner Parker stated that the meaning of the statement ""Marketing efforts will target
employees regardless of their origins"" is not clear.
Staff Thomas responded that the phrase was referring to trip origins, and that this would be
clarified.
Commissioner Parker noted that the document refers to a 1% increase in transit use as a result of
marketing initiatives, which seems very low for the amount of effort being devoted to this.
Staff Thomas responded that the 1% refers more to some of the traditional transportation demand
management strategies, and that the wording would be revised to clarify this point.
Chair Knox White asked for clarification regarding the City's intention to use the former
Alameda Belt Line right of way for a transit corridor.
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,6,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Staff Thomas confirmed that this is part of the plan.
Chair Knox White stated that a service operated by AC Transit will be better than a privately
operated shuttle, as it will integrate into the larger transit system.
Staff Thomas said that the outcome depends on a determination of what the City will receive
from each scenario.
Chair Knox White recommended that the Mayor and City Council should work with the AC
Transit board members to encourage an arrangement for service at Alameda Point. He stated that
AC Transit may even be willing to offer Alameda a better deal just to get the program off the
ground and serve as an example of what could be done in other developments.
Chair Knox White expressed his strong support for the findings in the report.
Staff Thomas praised the Alameda community and the Transportation Commission for helping
keeping the solutions realistic.
Commissioner Parker noted that the long-term solutions are really projects that affect the entire
island, and asked that the language be changed to refer to travel ""to and within Alameda Point
and the City of Alameda"" to emphasize that.
Commissioner Parker said that many people will oppose light rail.
Staff Thomas responded that transit technologies are improving, and that lighter weight vehicles
or bus rapid transit may have similar operational characteristics to rail but be less invasive to
neighborhoods.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
The Minutes will be discussed at the next meeting.
9.ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0605\062905minutesfinal.doc
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-322)
Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the
Resolution Commending Alameda Police Department Chief Burnham
Matthews [paragraph no. 05-324] prior to the Proclamations, Special
Orders of the Day and Announcements.
(05-323) The Acting City Manager announced that the report from the
Housing Task Force [paragraph no. 05-334] would be continued
because
the Housing Task Force requested 30 more days to report
back to the Council.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-324) Resolution No. 13861, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Chief Burnham Matthews for His Contributions to the City
of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Chief Matthews;
thanked Chief Matthews for his service to the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Chief Matthews thanked the Council for the Resolution; stated that
it has been an honor to serve the Council and the community.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was delighted that Chief
Matthews plans to stay in the community; noted that Chief Matthews
has given a great deal of personal attention to the children of the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Chief Matthews has done a
marvelous job and will leave a legacy.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Chief Matthews for his service;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,2,"stated he appreciates Chief Matthews making the Police Department
an integral part of the community.
Supervisor Lai Bitker presented a proclamation on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors; stated she has enjoyed working with Chief
Matthews and appreciates his work with children.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-325) Presentation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society to the City of Alameda of a Historic Preservation Award for
the adaptive re-use of the City Hall West Building at Alameda
Point.
Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
presented the Award to Mayor Johnson.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Brady and stated that the Award would be
displayed in a prominent place in City Hall.
(05-326) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave an update on the Library Project.
Mayor Johnson stated the Project is progressing very well.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when the cranes would arrive.
The Project Manager responded that the cranes would tentatively
arrive on July 25; street closure would be necessary from 6:00 a.m.
for about four or five hours for two days.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is being environmentally
conscious with the construction of public buildings.
The Project Manager stated the bid received a year ago was
approximately 20% over budget. thanked the Council for the
foresight to allow the Contract to be negotiated.
Mayor Johnson noted that the Pentagon is a LEED certified building.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 21% project completion
was on time.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an
expanded budget and schedule presentation would be provided every
six months; stated that another city received revised bids which
came in 25% over budget.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,3,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( *05-327) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 14,
2005, Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on June 21,
2004, and Special City Council Meeting of June 23, 2005. Approved.
(*05-328) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,377,422,92
(*05-329) Resolution No. 13862, ""Annual Adjustment of the Citywide
Development Impact Fee by the Construction Cost Index. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-330) - Resolution No. 13863, ""Adoption of Resolution Reappointing
Randall S. Miller as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board.
""
Adopted;
(05-330A) Resolution No. 13864, ""Reappointing Edward Depenbrock as
a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals
Board. "" Adopted;
(05-330B) Resolution Nos. 13865 and 13866, ""Reappointing Nancy W.
Gormley and Garnetta S. King as Members of the Housing Commission.
""
Adopted;
(05-330C) Resolution Nos. 13867 and 13868, ""Reappointing Ruth K.
Belikove and Alan D. Mitchell as Members of the Library Board. ""
Adopted;
(05-330D) Resolution Nos. 13869 and 13870, ""Reappointing Rebecca L.
Kohlstrand Parsons and Margaret McNamara as Members of the Planning
Board. "" Adopted
(05-330E) Resolution Nos. 13871, 13872 and 13873, ""Reappointing
Stewart Chen, Karen Hollinger Jackson, and Cynthia Wasko as
Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,4,"The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Gormley, Ms. King, Ms. Belikove, Ms. McNamara,
and Mr. Chen.
(05-331) Ordinance No. 2942, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to Public
Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from Recreation and Park
Commission to City Council, and Transfer Staffing from the
Recreation and Park Department to the Planning and Building
Department by Amending Subsections 30-65.3 (Contribution
Requirements), 30-65. 4 (Public Art), 30-65.5 (Alameda Public Art
Fund) , 30-65.7 (Public Art Advisory Committee) 30-65.8
(Application and Approval Procedures for Placing Public Art on
Private Property) 30-65.10 (Guidelines for Approval), and 30-
65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of Section 30-65 (Public Art in
New Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Municipal
Construction) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the function of the Public Art
Advisory Committee is important and deserves commission status.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(
05-332) Recommendation to accept report on proposed PERS Golden
Handshake Retirement under California Government Code Section
20903.
The Acting City Manager stated the matter was on the agenda to
request approval to contribute funding to the PERS Retirement
System on behalf of employees who are being laid off and are
eligible to retire. employees who retire within 90 days of the
adoption of the resolution would be eligible; savings are created
by reducing the number of positions in the City and allowing some
employees to receive up to two years service credit.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would be a net savings,
to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the last Golden Handshake
occurred, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in 1992
and again in 1995 or 1996.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the savings materialized, to
which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all eligible employees have
signed up for the Golden Handshake, to which the Senior Management
Analyst responded four employees have expressed interest.
Mayor Johnson stated tight fiscal times would continue and that she
appreciates the Acting City Manager's creative and least painful
way of reducing the work force.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be any health
benefit obligation, to which the Senior Management Analyst
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-333) Reconsideration of acceptance of Management Practice #37.
Mayor Johnson stated that restrictions on Council communications
should not go beyond the Charter; inquired whether there was a
previous management practice on communications.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; the previous
practice stated that the Council could ask questions of any
employee; an employee would proceed to respond to the Councilmember
if the response would take no more than 30 minutes of the
employee's time; the employee would notify the department head and
the department head would notify the City Manager questions that
require a lot of research would pull an employee away from their
work; that he has requested staff to advise him if the question
requires more than 30 minutes to respond; Councilmembers may not
realize that the request can turn into direction to do work, which
is not allowed under the Charter the current practice asks for the
Council to make a direct inquiry to a department head rather than
an employee; the department head responds with a copy to the City
Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated that defining an inquiry was inconsistent with
the Charter; an inquiry should be reasonably brief in nature noted
that she prefers the Acting City Manager's previous management
practice.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the request for inquiry is
overly bureaucratic and was not anticipated or defined in the
Charter; suggested that the Council direct the City Manager to
provide a draft of a new management practice; the first action
would be to revoke the current practice in favor of a new one; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,6,"Council should wait to act on the new practice until the new City
Manager is on board to ensure an understanding of the new
management practice.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council should not bore too
deep; he would prefer a modified policy.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council needs to be very conscientious
about requests; the Council should schedule an appointment to meet
with a department head and be courteous to staff.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated
recognition of staff's workload is common courtesy; the Council's
need to dig deep should be directed to the City Manager and raised
at Council meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his experience with staff
communication has been excellent; the Council needs to be
respectful; in-depth inquiries need to be directed to the City
Manager.
Councilmember Daysog stated that improvements should be made when
there is an opportunity to do so; his ability to represent
residents' interests has not been burdened or hindered by the
current management practice; stated he would welcome more
information that addresses what is meant by inquiryi the current
management practice is sufficient and represents the necessary
separation of powers between the City Manager and that of the City
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council direction was to
have a new management practice drafted for discussion and action at
a future date.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the Acting City
Manager would provide some ideas.
( (05-334) Report from the Housing Task Force regarding strategies to
prevent mass evictions and provide for low-income housing. Not
heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-335) - Randy Watkins, Alameda, stated that the cost to build the
garage, renovate the theatre, and build the cineplex is $45
million; there is only $10 million in revenues from the project;
the lease is only $7,000 per month for cineplex and commercial
lease space; the agreement allows the lessor to purchase a site
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,7,"after five years of leasing at a fair market value or prorated
cost; urged the Council to be more fiscally conservative.
(05-336) - Deborah James, Alameda, thanked the Council for the West
End Teen Program; noted that Goodwill offers free on-line computer
training stated there is also a teen center at Alameda High
School.
Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda High School teen center is at the
Veterans Building; suggested information on computer courses be
provided to the Recreation and Parks Department also.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-337) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Lee Perez for appointment to the Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee and John Knox White and Eric
Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission.
(05-338) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure
budget would be presented to the Council, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in August.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the 10-year budget would be
presented to the Council.
The Acting City Manager responded in August; stated he cannot
provide an exact date because the 10-year forecast model is being
prepared in conjunction with the outside auditor; the Public Works
Director is preparing the infrastructure budget for the second City
Council meeting in August.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger,
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 5:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-319) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title City
Attorney.
(05-320) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One.
(05-321) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator:
Acting City Manager; Employee Organizations : Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA) ; Alameda Fire Management Association
(AFMA) ; Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) :
Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF) .
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting
at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 9:05 p.m.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the City Attorney and requested an open session agenda item;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
permission to waive attorney/client privilege on the July 2000
document and produce as part of the subpoena; and regarding
Conference with Labor Negotiator, the Council obtained a briefing
from the Acting City Manager gave direction and requested
information.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Regular Meeting - July 11, 2005
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Kohlstrand
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and
Piziali.
Vice President Cook was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,
Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Douglas Garrison,
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,
2005.).
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of June 27, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that the conditions listed on page 21 should include item 12: ""The
additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.""
President Cunningham advised that page 25, paragraph 7, should be changed to read: ""President
Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned about the
current brick detail design.""
M/S McNamara/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, McNamara)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,2,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A.
DR04-0096 - Appeal of Major Design Review 1024 Chestnut St. (DG). Appeal of Major
Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts Center and
classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St. The zoning is R-4-PD
(Neighborhood Residential-Planned Development).
Planner III Douglas Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of this appeal.
He noted that page 3 of the staff report, under Recommendations, contained an error, reading, ""Staff
recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing.. He noted that should read,
""Staff
recommends that the Planning Board
""
President Cunningham welcomed the City's new City Manager, Debra Kurita, to the meeting.
In response to Mr. Piziali's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the layout of the portion of the site in
question.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison replied that the projected height of the
trees in between the two doors would be 10 to 20 feet.
In response to Mr. Lynch's request, Mr. Garrison displayed the proposed remodeling project, and
noted that the locker room windows would be removed. The only new windows would be located on
the second floor, where the chemistry classrooms would be located, 5.5 feet above the finished floor
of those classrooms to provide additional privacy. The windows in the second floor hallway that had
been proposed were removed. The remaining window by the exit door was changed to a fixed
window to remove noise. The exterior staircases are now enclosed, and will be stuccoed to match the
exterior of the buildings.
Ms. Altschuler advised that she was the original planner on this item, and was available to answer
questions. She described the new orientation of the courtyard to reduce privacy intrusions.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Susan Jaber, speaking for her father, Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, noted that only one item had
not been addressed, and thanked the applicant in working with them to alleviate the privacy
concerns. She distributed a letter provided by Mr. Garrison, addressing the appellant's concerns. Mr.
Jabber had requested a limitation in the hours of the Arts Center, which were adjacent to the
appellant's property. She requested a reasonable time limitation for use of the fire doors (8 a.m. to 6
p.m.), and noted that after an evening performance, the sound of the doors opening and closing
would provide a noise problem for them.
Mr. Lynch suggested that the appellant consider a time limit of 45 minutes after a performance, and
noted that maintenance staff would need to break down chairs, etc. and use those doors.
Ms. Jaber noted that she was concerned about the privacy and noise issues that affected their tenants.
She suggested that the breakdown of chairs may be done the next morning.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 11, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,3,"Mr. Tony Aiello, applicant, St. Joseph's High School principal, noted that the time limits had been
discussed with the appellant in November 2004, and January 2005. He believed the appellants'
requests regarding the Arts Center doors were not reasonable as they apply to a school use. Students
and staff would not use those doors, but would use the main doors Chestnut Street. He noted that the
maintenance staff need to use the doors in question, and added that they would be sensitive to the
neighbors. He noted that the janitorial staff did not commence work until 4 p.m. He noted that the
school had been very responsive to the concerns of the appellants.
Mr. Andrew Reed, applicant, noted that he was the project manager for the renovation, and
emphasized that it was important that the school be able to run in a normal fashion. It had been his
understanding in January that there would be no appeal, but that they hired an architect, made the
requested changes, and met with the neighbors. He did not wish the performance of the school to be
hindered, and added that there were normally two school plays a year for a total of six evenings. The
school did not have total control over the janitorial staff, and would not want to promise something
they could not guarantee. He requested that the Board uphold staff's recommendation, and to allow
the school to exercise common sense. He noted that many accommodations had been reached for the
appellants, particularly the removal of the windows in the boys' locker room.
Mr. Jawad Jaber, appellant, expressed concern about potential noise and privacy impacts on his
tenants. He was also concerned about the items that changed during their negotiations, and had no
issues with the emergency doors. He had been a neighbor of St. Joseph's for 20 years, and added that
his children attended the school as well. He requested that alternatives be found for the janitorial
staff to avoid privacy impacts on his tenants.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham complimented both parties on the substantial work that had been done, and
noted that the applicant had been very responsive to the appellant's concerns. He noted that the
design changes that had been made were extensive and costly.
Ms. McNamara supported President Cunningham's comments. She believed the applicant had
demonstrated meeting the concerns of Mr. Jaber, as well as the community at large.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding noise, Ms. Altschuler replied that staff had
not received any complaints regarding noise. There had been complaints filed previous to that
regarding the parking issues, particularly with respect to basketball championship games.
Ms. McNamara believed the school had been very sensitive to the community's need regarding the
noise level, and had no reason to believe that would change. She believed the 6 p.m. restriction was
unreasonable, and believed the school would continue to be a positive force in the community.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the 6 p.m. limit was too restrictive, and that noise after 10 p.m. would
be more disturbing to neighbors than after 6 p.m. She suggested that a later time limit be
implemented.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,4,"Mr. Lynch was reluctant to enforce a compliance issue when there had been no demonstrated need in
the past.
Mr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and believed that the appellant had done well to get
five out of six items on their list of concerns. He supported staff's recommendation.
Ms. Mariani appreciated the appellants' point of view, and noted that there had been no complaints
until the present time.
Ms. Harryman noted that this was a Design Review application, and if there were to be any problems
in the future, that could be addressed in a Use Permit revocation hearing.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-2_ to deny the
appeal of a Major Design Review allowing remodeling and the addition of a Communications Arts
Center and classrooms to the existing Gymnasium located at 1024 Chestnut St.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani noted there was nothing new to report at this time.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Benoit noted that the Planning Board bylaws normally scheduled elections during the first
meeting of July.
President Cunningham noted that was normally deferred until a full Board was present.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-11,5,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the July 25, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 11, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-11.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-07-13,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
July 13, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Schoenrock moved to APPROVE the Consent Calendar. Board member
Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of July 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of June 8, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of May 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2004-05 Library
expenditures (by fund) through June 05. Accepted.
F.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revised Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy - Recommendation to
Council.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of the Alameda Free Library that the Board
hereby approves the ""Donor Recognition and Named Gifts"" policy as revised, and
recommends its adoption by the City Council of Alameda.
Library Director Hardie stated that there were 2 revisions in the Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy.
Board member Mitchell expressed concerns over leaving the decision solely up to the
City Manager.
Library Director Hardie stated that anyone can appeal the decision of the City Manager to
the City Council. This would avoid having every donation agendized for a City Council
meeting.
Board member Scheonrock MOVED approval of the revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy. Board member Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED
by a unanimous voice vote.",LibraryBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-07-13,2,"NEW BUSINESS
A.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Library Director Hardie attended the meeting and noted that the first half of the meeting
was discussion of the Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy. The second half of the
meeting was a training session on how to solicit funds.
B.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen stated that the Friends of the Library made $13,000 at their book sale. The
Friends feel that having the sale at the ""O"" Club is a good location for everyone. The
next book sale with be the 3rd weekend in October at the ""O"" Club. The Friends will not
meet during the summer so the next meeting will be September 3rd. The Friends are
hosting an author event at the Main Library on July 27th
C.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
Library Director Hardie stated that the next Building Watch newsletter will go out
tomorrow.
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library director Hardie read 1 input/feedback form regarding: Patron request for the
library to purchase more audio books.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Board member Schoenrock discussed the state budget passing and if we would be
receiving Public Library Foundation funding as we did last year. Ms. Hardie replied in
the affirmative.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Library Director Hardie stated that BALIS is starting to work on a common integration
system for all libraries.
Board member Mitchell discussed several Library Hotline articles.
Board member Mitchell asked if there would be a policy developed regarding meeting
rooms at the new main library. Ms. Hardie stated that a policy would be developed
around the first of next year.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie informed the Board that email notification is now working. In
addition, telephone notification has begun. Ms. Hardie handed out samples of the new
library cards and stated that the library would also have key chain cards later this month.
Library Director Hardie noted that the circulation statistics are being counted differently
in the new Horizon system. It looks as if our circulation statistics have dropped by 71/2%.
Supervising Librarian David Hall will be monitoring this information for the next few
months to be sure they are accurate. Staff will be focusing on the West End Branch
library for the next few months. Staff will be weeding books and putting out better
displays of new books to help increase circulation at that branch.
Board member Schoenrock asked the components of the $150,000 Change Order #1. Ms.
Hardie said she would transmit that information to the Board. Board member Butter
asked who had decided on the glass staircase panels. Ms. Hardie replied that a request
was made by Council Members following a visit to the Santa Clara City Library. Board
member Butter said she felt the Library Building Team should have been involved.",LibraryBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-07-13,3,"ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting of the Library Board at
7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Hardie, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-07-13,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CI TY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2005
1.
The meeting was called to order at 6:22 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Members Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, William J. Smith, and Executive
Secretary Karen Willis.
ABSENT: Member Roberto Rocha.
STAFF PRESENT: Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, Donna Mooney, Deputy City Attorney and
Marsha Merrick, Executive Assistant, Human Resources.
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Mary M. Leichliter, Attorney.
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 2005 were presented for approval. Member Rich
asked that one section under agenda item 8. Civil Service Board Communications from Staff be
modified. Staff will revise per Board direction and present for final approval at the October 2005 meeting.
THE MEETING WAS MOVED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:28 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: The Board decided to grant a continuance of
The hearing to October 12, 2005. If the appellant is not present, then the hearing will not be continued. The Civil
Service Board will consider this abandonment.
REGULAR MEETING RESUMED AT 7:52 P.M.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Smith made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented,
seconded by Member Rich, and carried by a 3-0 vote.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2005:
4-A
ELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Associate Civil Engineer - Land Development & Transportation
06/14/05
Community Development Program Manager (Promotional)
04/28/05
Development Coordinator (Promotional)
05/10/05
Distribution Engineer
05/18/05
Electrical Engineer
05/17/05
Emergency Medical Services Education Coordinator
04/13/05
Inventory Control Clerk
06/08/05
Police Officer - Academy Graduate
05/11/05
Police Officer - Lateral
05/11/05
Police Officer - Recruit
05/11/05
Public Safety Dispatcher
06/03/05
Senior Account Clerk
05/19/05
Stock Clerk
06/07/05
Storekeeper (Promotional)
04/21/05
Telecommunications Engineer
05/12/05
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-07-13,2,"City of Alameda
Page 2
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2005
4-B
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Assistant Line Superintendent
11/17/04
CATV Line Technician
11/17/04
City Engineer
12/02/04
Electrical Helper
11/20/04
Executive Assistant
10/22/04
Fire Apparatus Operator (Promotional)
10/01/03
Firefighter/Paramedic - Entry Level
12/14/04
Firefighter/Paramedic - Lateral Level
12/14/04
Intermediate Clerk
04/12/04
Office Assistant
10/17/03
Police Captain (Promotional)
12/08/03
Program Specialist I - Solid Waste/Recycling Services
11/03/03
Program Specialist I - Alternative Modes
11/03/04
Public Works Maintenance Foreperson (Promotional)
11/19/03
Public Works Superintendent
11/26/03
Senior Fleet Mechanic
12/10/03
4-C
ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED:
DATE ESTABLISHED
Administrative Services Coordinator
12/07/04
Associate Civil Engineer - Plan Check Review
12/09/04
Data Technician
11/18/04
Financial Services Supervisor
11/09/04
Lineworking Supervisor
11/09/04
Police Officer - Lateral Level
12/01/04
Police Technician II - Dispatcher
11/04/04
Police Technician II - Dispatcher
12/22/04
Utility Analyst
12/16/04
Video Production Artist
12/07/04
4-D
LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
Animal Control Officer
Inventory Control Clerk
Marketing Specialist
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
The Activity Report for the period of March 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005 was reviewed.
A discussion was held regarding Rule of the List. Member Robles-Wong inquired if
Executive Secretary Willis had spoken with other Department Heads to see if they would be
comfortable going to this method. Ms. Willis expressed a general feeling throughout the City
that for open/competitive examinations this would be an acceptable alternative to the current
procedure, however, it would not be reasonable in the case of promotional examinations.
She went on to explain the additional values of having a Rule of the List method in place,
mainly by giving departments more alternatives in the interviewing process.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2005-07-13,3,"City of Alameda
Page 3
Civil Service Board Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2005
Member Rich expressed reservations on equality to applicants if the departments were to
circumvent normal procedure and interview candidates that may be ranked lower on the list
prior to interviewing the top 5 or 10. He asked if departments are held accountable for fair
interviewing practices i.e., do we require that they go down the list in order. Executive
Secretary Willis explained it is always Human Resources instructions to the departments
that they do that, however, there are no checks in place to ensure this procedure is followed.
Before going forward with the Rule of the List implementation process, it was agreed that
Human Resources would re-survey the cities originally polled in 2002 to see if they were still
using the same methods. Human Resources will also research when rule of the list was
implemented for the Fire Department's open/competitive examinations, and check the
ethnicity stats surrounding that time period.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
None
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
An informational memorandum was presented regarding the reinstatement of an employee
previously released from probation. There were no questions from the Board.
9.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Robles-Wong asked for a motion to adjourn, which was provided by Member Smith,
Member Rich seconded, and carried by a 3-0 vote. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",CivilServiceBoard/2005-07-13.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-07-14,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF JULY 14, 2005
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, July 14, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Commissioners Christine Johnson, and Georg Oliver
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Absent:
Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui and Commissioner Reeves
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of June 9, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/OLIVER
(approved)
In Favor (3) -
Ingram, Johnson, Oliver
Absent (2) -
Reeves, Kahuanui
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
None.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-07-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-07-14,2,"A.
Consideration of Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation regarding
Field use Fees - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that the Field Use Fees were taken back to the Sports Advisory
Committee on Thursday, July 7. The only change was #4 on the Policy; ""Volunteers are
covered by appropriate City insurance"" sentence was added. This is #4 on the Field Use
Fee Policy. All groups signed the agreement.
Fees will be reviewed and updated each year.
M/S/C JOHNSON/OLIVER
(approved)
""That the Field Use Fee is approved as follows:
1. Any organization or non-profit group requesting field time on City owned
facilities for either games or practices will be covered under this policy.
2. There will be a $3 per player fee assessed per organization. The minimum fee
will be $500 per group.
3. Any applicable fees will be assessed on a per player, preseason basis.
4. Organizations will have the option of working off their assessment by
completing field improvements or by providing goods or services equal to
their assessment. The value of these types or credits will be determined by
the Park Manager. Volunteers are covered by appropriate City insurance.
5. All fees collected will be placed in a dedicated account and will only be used
for field improvement projects.
6. Organizations failing to either submit payment or complete the agreed upon
field improvement projects will not be issued permits for future seasons until
the assessment is cleared.""
Approved (3):
Ingram, Johnson, Oliver
Absent (2):
Kahuanui, Reeves
This fee will be reviewed on a yearly basis.
B.
Consideration of Conceptual Drawing for Bay Port Park and Community
Building - (Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard stated that two skinned baseball fields were added to the Bay Port Park. The
park was redesigned to accommodate the baseball fields so that it would not affect the
soccer fields.
The next step is to send the Conceptual Drawing to City Council.
M/S/C
JOHNSON/OLIVER
(approved)
""That the conceptual drawing for Bay Port Park which includes two skinned baseball
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-07-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-07-14,3,"fields as well as soccer field is approved.""
Approved (3):
Ingram, Johnson, Oliver
Absent (2):
Kahuanui, Reeves
C.
Revisions to Long-Term Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
Tabled until next meeting.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
Leydecker Park Playground renovation began the week of July 1. It is anticipated that
the work will be completed by the end of the week of July 11.
Washington Park Recreation Building - ARPD is trying to obtain a plan for a modular
building to replace the recreation building at Upper Washington Park. This will be the next
project to be done once Leydecker Park Playground is complete.
The new rocker play equipment that was installed at Franklin Park Play Area was broken
and vandalized/torn off. It is anticipated that it will be replaced in the next two months. The
new gate was installed and staff has received many compliments.
B.
Recreation Division
The Run for the Parks will be held on Sunday, August 7, and the race begins at 8:30 a.m.
at South Shore. We are doing well obtaining sponsors. Current sponsors are: Safeway,
Trader Joe's, Mizuno, Bladium, Alameda Sun, and Alhambra. Online registrations are
stronger then the walk-in registrations at this time.
Starlight Movie in the Park will be held on Friday, July 29, at Alameda Point Multi-
Purpose Field (1101 W. Redline Ave.). The movie to be shown is Robots. Field will open
at 6:30 p.m. for picnics. Pre-Show Festivities will begin at 7:30 p.m. and the movie will
begin at approximately 8:15 p.m. Sponsors are ARPD and AP&T.
Friends of the Parks ARPD - ""The Place to Be"" Fundraiser will be held on Saturday,
October 8, 2005, at the DeWitt O' Club from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. This fundraiser will
include a night of wine tasting, casino play, and an opportunity to reconnect with ""Friends of
the Parks."" Cost to participate is $30 per person.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-07-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-07-14,4,"There were approximately 400 participants in Bingo over the July 4 weekend. It was one
of their biggest fundraising efforts in a long time.
Mastick Thrives at 25! - Mastick Senior Center will celebrate 25 years of service on
Sunday, September 18, 2005, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Mastick Social Hall. A
Western-style ""Hoedown"" will be offered that will include music, dancing, cards, light
refreshments, and more!
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Chair Ingram stated that the APAC is being honored for all of their hard work. ARRA is
looking at the design report.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
Commissioner Johnson stated that the Committee has not had any recent meetings, but is
scheduled to meet again at the end of July.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
None.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of August 11, 2005 is cancelled.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
-
Long-Term Park Use Policy
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, September 8, 2005.
12.
ADJOURNMENT
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 19, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-342) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating
Special Newsrack Districts [ 105-357] would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-343) Proclamation recognizing Alamedans for Responsible
Transit Shelters (ARTS) and volunteer efforts to install new bus
shelters.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Reyla Graber,
Pat Gannon, Jeannie Graham-Gilliat, Lee Harris, and Mel Sanderson;
stated that ARTS worked very hard to ensure that there would be
unadvertised bus shelters; thanked ARTS and supporters who
contributed money to buy the bus shelters.
Reyla Graber thanked the Council for the recognition.
Lee Harris thanked ARTS; stated that he was impressed with the hard
work and efforts of everyone involved.
Mel Sanderson, President of the Clara Barton Foundation, stated
being available for ARTS was a pleasure.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, thanked the Council and
ARTS for working hard to get bus shelters in Alameda; stated she is
looking forward to new bus shelters on Park and Webster Streets.
(05-344) - Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) on the 21st Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Blake Brydon, Chair of the Art and Wine Faire, invited the
community to attend the Faire on July 30 and July 31 and presented
wine glasses to the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,2,"Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase [05-
348], the recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant [05-349]
and the recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids [05-350] were removed from the consent calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-345) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social
Service Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the word ""scheduling"" be
inserted prior to ""conflict"" in the June 23, 2005 minutes [under
Roll Call] .
(*05-346 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,630.82.
(*05-347) Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall,
Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08-02-
08. Accepted.
(05-348) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and
installation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main
Library.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to see a better
representation of the artwork.
The Library Director introduced Masayuki Nagase; stated Mr. Nagase
has created dozens of public art installations and was the
unanimous choice of the Art and Recognition Team.
Mr. Nagase stated the artwork consists of eight medallions
measuring 4 feet to 7 feet high; the water element theme represents
the City's surrounding bay and beach areas.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,3,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the art would be done in limestone.
Mr. Nagase responded in the affirmative; stated the angle of the
forms would catch the morning and afternoon light.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-349) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a
firefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the
City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves.
Mayor Johnson requested that future reports include on-going
maintenance and operating costs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an order of
magnitude for the maintenance and operating costs for comparison
purposes.
The Fire Chief responded that the maintenance costs are expected to
be low; the majority of the cost would be for propane gasi there
would be an additional cost for moving the trailer out of the area
because a diesel truck trailer would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has a tractor.
The Fire Chief responded that he has not checked with the Public
Works Department; using a City tractor would be the first choice.
Mayor Johnson stated training locally might provide a cost savings.
The Fire Chief stated the closest facility for live fire training
is Livermore, which is too far away for on-duty personnel: the
community was concerned with the smoke generated by the live fire
training at the LinOaks Motel.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-350 - ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,24,"amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks ;
the empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the
matter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he
was asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if
the amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter
obligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if
there is a much larger case.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said
suggestion; $35,000 [could be spent until the next Council
meeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to
hire the outside counsel inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
was making said suggestion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter,
it empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000
to spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can
spend $35,000, notifies the Council by e-mail, etc. and at the next
Council meeting, the Council gets a status report.
Mayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City
Attorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when
the City is sued.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys;
that she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the
City Attorney suggests.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the
attorney has not started work yet.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney
can spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring
of outside counsel comes to the Council for approval.
Councilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City
Attorney's proposal in the staff report stated if the reporting
segment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the
middle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that
he does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City
Attorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to
$20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report the
threshold can be changed if two or three go astray.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,25,"Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement.
Council would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters
the City Attorney is responsible for management once outside
counsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring
litigation and bringing the matter to the Council if
a
Councilmember does not like something; the Charter states the
Council is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel;
Council needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would
handle the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would
work and an example be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the
Charter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel] ; read
Charter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to
the employment of special legal counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the
City Attorney the control is telling the City Attorney to go
forward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire
outside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a
minor matter or accommodate [Council meetings) every two weeks ;
once the [$35,000] threshold is met , then the empowerment has to
come back to the City Council for a vote.
The City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in
excess [of $35,000] the matter would always go to Council under
the proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the
Council desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the
total litigation cost will automatically go to Council for
approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for
larger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would
be placed on the agenda as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed.
The City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the
City Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without
prior Council approval ; for matters estimated to cost less than
[$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ
process.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from
what the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,26,"can spend $35,000 without Council approval inquired whether the
City Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the
total estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case
would have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of
additional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip
and fall i that she could only pick from a pre-qualified panel; if
there is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City
Attorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice,
financial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be
selected from the panel.
Mayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled
in house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out
a
$15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases
in the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for
little cases that should be handled in house; the City has five
staff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the
staffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is
farmed out.
The City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue;
there is a process in place for reviewing performance and
management goals for the utilization of outside counsel going
forward so that the Council establishes performance standards and
expectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the
Council; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's
office will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house
and work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council
wants between five attorneys.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance
and how it would be established; further stated that she would
prefer $25,000 [as the threshold].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000]
is what the City Attorney is proposing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time.
The City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice
within 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial
reports.
Councilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,27,"interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is
reasonable; someone can get started on a case; legal matters go by
case; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do
multiple cases.
The City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue,
subject, attorney, etc.
Mayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the
report the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included
litigation and not other non-litigation issues that outside counsel
handle for the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit
the $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she
estimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the
$35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than
that [20 cases].
Councilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will
hit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time the vast
majority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the
numbers [that will reach $35,000] are low.
The City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational
basis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the
average cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and
half are above.
Councilmember deHaan disagreed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that
shows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases.
The City Attorney responded the report was provided last week.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine-tuned
and should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases
$35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of
the City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he
used the data the City Attorney provided.
The City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median
number ; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,28,"be made if desired.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's
office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the
City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she
saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter
responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money
having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the
limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the
amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from
putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes
if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the
policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the
Council is trying to move towards.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the
Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution.
The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is
a formal Council action in terms of direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the
proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City
Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City
Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside
counsel.
The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the
rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy.
The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by
resolution.
The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back.
Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of
Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to
the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for
AP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public
Utilities Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,29,"The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the
resolution.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should
discuss the matter first.
Mayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought
back and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP&T's legal
counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by
resolution and by motion.
Mayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to
track.
The City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City
Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly
reporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting.
Mayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her,
including the current budget on the status of the overall
litigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but
also AP&T.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for
all of the different entities that are part of legal budget the
Council appropriated.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always
delivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more
involvement in oversight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to
a deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the
Council following what the Charter sets out as its role and
bringing practices in line.
Mayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return
at the next Council meeting.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,30,"(05-367) -
Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a
permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many
companies do business without a permit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile
business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the
affirmative.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space
at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission
is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address
the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal
Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council
desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an
ordinance making amendments to address the issue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the
matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown,
for example merchants might oppose changes.
The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the
matter.
Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could
remain on pubic property would need to be addressed.
The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the
public right-of-way, not standing locations.
Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on
private property.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the
matter.
Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors
that are currently operating in the City without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing
enforcement.
(05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles.
(05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as
bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile
businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,31,"the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.
(05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the
megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;
questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated
parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need
for increased public awareness regarding the project.
Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff
to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet
with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services
Department.
Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed,
if preferred.
(05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
people opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have
been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the
project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown
Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a
mutli-screen - theater were underway
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport
site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;
the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not
match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;
said matters should be considered when other developments are
built.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
31
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-339) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney
(05-340) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Miraglia Enterprises V. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City
Attorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
instructions to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,33,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission
obtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,4,"Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more
detailed Citywide vehicle inventory.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide
policy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public
Works; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities
replace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy
include mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and
explanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage.
The Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile
vehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is
concerned with the idle hours.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are
replaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget
times; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a
policy with input from the Public Works Department i inquired what
would be the impact if a six-month deferral; inquired whether
vehicles have hour meters.
The Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not
installed; a six-month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles
take a beating.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,5,"currently in service, to which the Acting Police Captain responded
in the affirmative
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should review vehicle
replacement in terms of protection and service to the residents;
the Police Department needs the best equipment or there could be
safety issues; six-month deferral is not an option.
Mayor Johnson stated more detailed information on vehicle
maintenance costs is needed; there is no explanation why the
vehicles are to be replaced.
The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought
back to the Council in August with more information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought to
Council with more justification on why the three vehicles need to
be replaced; inquired whether the vehicles have failed in the field
and whether there has been a lapse in service, other problems or
potential safety issues.
The Acting Police Captain responded there have not been significant
problems with the vehicles failing in the field; history has shown
that as mileage increases problems could arise.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested information on trade-in value; stated
the City might get a higher trade-in value now than in a year.
The Acting Police Captain stated that vehicles become inoperable
because of safety reasons; vehicles need to be available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the number of vehicles and the number
of employees assigned to the vehicles, to which the Acting Police
Captain responded 23 vehicles are used by 43 officers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much a police vehicle costs, to
which the Acting Police Captain responded $32,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog
regarding not deferring replacement for six months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many hours per day vehicles are
used, to which the Acting Police Captain responded that the
majority of the vehicles are used 24 hours per day.
Mayor Johnson requested that a written policy be brought back to
the Council at the first or second City Council meeting in August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,6,"Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles
Citywide.
Mayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police
vehicles, not just patrol vehicles.
(*05-351) - Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative
to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted.
(*05-352) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student
Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the
Contract to August 15, 2005. Accepted.
(
(*05-353) - Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative
advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund
reserves. Accepted.
( *05-354) Resolution No. 13874, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8574
(Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road) . "" Adopted.
(*05-355)
Resolution No. 13875, ""Adopting the Findings for the
Non-Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the
State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina
Eradication and Mitigation Measures. "" Adopted.
(*05-356) Resolution No. 13876, ""Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. ""
Adopted.
(*05-357) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda
Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section
22-7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I
Streets) Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) Not heard.
(*05-358) Resolution No. 13877, ""Authorizing Filing of a Notice of
Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. Adopted.
(*05-359) - Resolution No. 13878, ""Accepting the Findings of the
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,7,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-360) - Resolution No. 13879, ""Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted; and
(05-360A) Resolution No. 13880, ""Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the
members of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of
Appointment.
(05-361) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC) more commonly referred to as the Zoning
Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of
stories exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions
to existing residences, the definition for replacement-in-kind
off-street parking regulations and reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures; and
(05-361A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations). Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed
revisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 'replacement-in-kin definition
would apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that
residents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum-sliding
windows.
The Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that
materials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be
used.
Mayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the
Planning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation
of the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits
because they have been told aluminum-sliding windows are not
allowed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,8,"The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff
disallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an
appropriate style for the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that ""appropriate style"" is a very subjective
term; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any
prohibitions when the guidelines were approved.
The Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one-year
trial period to iron out the bugs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with
the understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide
prohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit
anything, but provide direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double-paned
windows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any
expectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.
The Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed
under a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been
given direction to review each case individually.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;
there cannot be one rule that applies to every house.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing
requirements for second story setbacks. noted there have been two
or three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two
years; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story
setback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
referring to the three-foot setback which allows going straight up
or the additional two-foot setback required with an existing five-
foot setback.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining
with the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to
receive an exception.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could
be replicated.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,9,"The Supervising Planner responded as long as the height limit is
not exceeded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that closing down the roof pitch to
stay within the height limit creates architectural problems.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponent : Ken Carvalho, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
direction to review roof pitch and window issues.
Councilmember Daysog requested to have a separate vote on second
story setbacks.
Councilmember deHaan amended his motion to exclude second story
setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance provisions
on second story setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(05-362) Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ( ZA05 -
0002) , amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district,
subject to Use Permit approval. Applicant : Alameda Theatre Project
Inc. Address All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) ;
(05-362A) Resolution No. 13881, ""Adopting a Negative Declaration
for ZA05-0002. "" Adopted; and
(05-362B) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted
by Use Permit within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) . Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,10,"Proponents : David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda: Peter MacDonald,
representing Mark Haskett Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark,
Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda: and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda.
Opponent : Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing
notice to C-2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas]
The Supervising Planner stated the C-2 Zoning District permits
theaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do
not have to go through the use permit process that the proposed
text amendment would require for the C-1 district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater ] use is already
permitted in the C-2 district, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the
matter was before the Council; the normal process is being
followed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open
and public; the public should be aware that the action is not
redundant and is the way business is conducted.
Mayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue
before.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen
areas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards
not all [C-1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater]
location on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding
code issues at the cinema.
The Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is
the projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working
cooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance
around the projector.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety
issues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,11,"issue would be corrected.
Mr. MacDonald, the Applicant's attorney, responded that the
Applicant has all materials ready to be submitted tomorrow; the
Building Official cannot accept the application until after the
zoning change is approved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board does not have the
authority to enact zoning changes and only makes recommendations
to
the Council therefore, the matter had to come before Council the
matter before the Council is not approving the Central Cinema; the
change will affect seventeen zones in the City; other people might
consider a similar business if Mr. Haskett is successful; the
approval is not for just one theater in one location; that she is
concerned that there could be more than one boutique theater in a
neighborhood.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is interested in just rezoning the
one C-1 district [at Central Avenue and 9th Street] noted the
Council was not approving just Mr. Haskett's operation; stated Mr.
Haskett could sell the business and neighbors might not like the
new owner or the types of movies the new owner shows; the Rocky
Horror Picture Show could be shown three times a day seven days a
week; the City can only regulate adult movies; the approval would
allow other cinemas in other areas with other operators; inquired
whether there could be a restriction that if Mr. Haskett sold his
operation, the Use Permit would not go to the next operator.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he was asked to respond publicly as to
whether they would consent to the request; the rule is that a Use
Permit runs with the land and cannot be personalized the general
rule is that there are considerations built into the Use Permit to
allow the Use Permit to be revoked if things happen which are not
consistent with the Use Permit.
Mayor Johnson stated the City can only regulate adult movies; there
might be another type of operator that would want to take over the
business; the neighbors like Mr. Haskett and like what he is doing;
her concern is that he might sell the business.
Mr. MacDonald stated one reason people build up businesses is to
have something that can be sold; not being able to sell the
business means said effort could never be achieved; to regulate the
type of movies or operators are over and above the terms of
reasonably conditioned Use Permit and would destroy the value of
the business.
Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors should understand that if Mr.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,12,"Haskett sells his business to someone else, they might not like the
types of movies the next operator shows.
Mr. Clark stated the issues being raised are valid; there should
not be concern over the type of movies showing, other than adult
movies the use would be revoked if anything caused a public
nuisance, such as being too loud.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would not want a theater in her
neighborhood; that she has concerns with imposing the regulation on
the sixteen other C-1 zoning areas and is not convinced that the
zoning could not be changed for just the one area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the permit runs with the land; basing a
decision on a particular owner is a bad policy; her decision will
be based on the merit of the use, not the owner.
Councilmember deHaan requested staff to address whether the use
could be limited to just one area.
The City Attorney stated the Mayor prefers to deal with the one
case, rather than Citywide; after analyzing the law carefully and
understanding said preference, she has to take responsibility for
the legal opinion that the issue must be dealt with Citywide.
Mayor Johnson inquired why two or three [C-1] districts in more
commercial areas could not be made a different zone; stated there
are C-1 zones in the Park Street and Webster Street areas adjacent
to more commercial areas; some C-1 zones are in very residential
areas; inquired why a few C-1 zones could not be called something
different and boutique theaters could be allowed in said areas,
without changing the existing geographic boundaries.
The Supervising Planner stated staff tried to create criteria for
the C-1 districts; finding a solution is very difficult because the
areas are so diverse; the amount of traffic was reviewed all
districts have adjacent residential areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired why three districts in more commercial areas
could not be renamed and boutique theaters could be allowed in said
areas; stated the geographic area of the zoning district would not
be changed; only the name would be changed and boutique theaters
could be permitted.
The Supervising Planner stated if Council could direct which
districts and why, staff could review the matter; staff was having
difficulty with determining why [the reason for selecting said
districts].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,13,"Mayor Johnson stated the Council could not do so tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether live theater with
unlimited seating is already allowed in all C-1 districts, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated putting a ceiling of 49 seats
restricts risk to and impact on the neighborhood; the same concerns
exist with live theater; some performances might not be wanted in
neighborhoods; allowing a movie theater has less impact than a live
theater ; there is not a huge risk; the existing business would be
legalized; that he would be happy with only selecting several of
the areas as a trial; there is not a great impact on the other
sixteen districts since live theaters with unlimited seating are
permitted.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with Central
Cinema, but would like to restrict the regulation as much as
possible; if the use could be restricted to a small number of C-1
areas or if very residential C-1 areas could be eliminated, the
City should do soi although live theater has been allowed for a
long time, allowing boutique theaters now should be done in a more
restrictive way; that she supports the station business districts,
which are part of Alameda's historyi the stations have to keep
going to create a walk-able community; however, the areas have
conflicts because residences are adjacent to businesses; that she
would like to go forward with Central Cinema, while restricting the
use to as few C-1 areas as possible; the matter of limiting the
areas has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there have been requests for
live theaters in other areas, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the only one she is aware of is the Altarena.
The Acting City Manager stated staff had multiple meetings on how
to reduce the number of areas; there was concern about spot zoning
staff did extraordinary noticing to ensure residents around the
station areas were aware of the proposed change the Council could
move forward tonight and staff could come back at a later date to
undo portions [limit number of districts].
Mayor Johnson stated her goal is to limit the use to as few areas
as possible; one idea is to name several areas a different zoning
districti people do not notice use until there is a problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated [Central Cinema's ] start was high
drama, but has potential to be a feel good story; time will only
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,14,"tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the
ages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;
there is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;
issues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will
submit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity
to move forward with the theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the
boutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the
possibility of having a 200 seat live theater.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;
stated that staff could review both issues.
The City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning
text amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional
amendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to
get into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;
the risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what
is already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,
except for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead
of actors in front of the audience.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward
and bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with
the direction to come back with modifications to provide better
control and planning, including exploring limiting the number of
districts where the activity will be allowed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change
based on the merit of the operator instead of policy the
modifications that will return might address her concerns.
(05-363) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,15,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether name plaques would be placed on
shelves, to which the Library Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the names would remain on shelves
forever; stated $100 does not seem high enough for having a name
remain forever.
The Library Director stated the names remain for the life of the
item, not the life of the library; the name would not remain if a
shelf is replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated $100 does not seem like a large amount.
The Library Director stated setting a reasonable amount could raise
a lot of money; $1 million was raised mostly from $100 shelves in
another library.
Councilmember Matarrese noted shelves, which only cost $100, might
last longer than chairs, which are $500; stated that the policy is
a good way to raise money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is maintenance involved
with the plaques.
The Library Director responded possibly, but problems with plaques
are minimal.
Councilmember deHaan stated plastic plaques could be damaged.
The Library Director stated an inexpensive, but durable and
attractive, shelf tag would be used.
Dr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda Free Library Foundation President, stated
the foundation was formed 6¹/² years ago to raise money for the
library; the foundation has raised $65,000 and is trying to raise
$600,000 for art, branches and collections; urged approval of the
policy.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-364) Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of
September 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding
vehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,16,"The City Attorney stated that she would step down during the agenda
item and the next agenda item [paragraph no. 05-365], which have to
do with her Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has a copy of the legal
opinion; Council can vote to make it available to the public; there
is nothing in the opinion that needs to be confidential.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of waiving attorney client
privilege restrictions on the memos.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the opinion is an interpretation of a Contract
provision; last year, she was informed that the City Manager's
vehicle allowance had increased; in November, she asked the City
Attorney to review whether the City Manager's vehicle allowance had
changed; the response she received back was it had not changed; a
Councilmember then learned that the vehicle allowance for the City
Manager was $372; Councilmembers questioned how the vehicle
allowance was increased because the Contract states that the
vehicle allowance is $250; Council asked the Human Resources
Director to check on the matter; last week, the response back from
the Human Resources Director was that a legal opinion was obtained
from outside counsel that indicated that the vehicle allowance
should be increased because of a change in tax; the reason the
matter is on the agenda is because her response to the Acting City
Manager was that the amount should stay the same and should remain
the $250 in the Contract until the Council agrees to change the
amount; that she requested that the Acting City Manager change the
amount back to $250 and he stated that the Council should give
direction on the matter, which is why she placed the matter on the
agenda; the Council should determine what happened and has wondered
why the amount is higher than the amount in the Contract; the
Council should decide whether the vehicle allowance stays the
higher amount or goes back to the Contract amount; there should be
a Contract amendment ; that she is interested in other
Councilmembers' thoughts that she does not recall seeing the legal
opinion; in 2001, the memo to the City Attorney from Linda Tripoli
states ""You have asked this office for a legal opinion relative to
an issue that has arisen with regard to the car allowance;' the
opinion is dated April 10, 2001; that she understands that the
change in amount did not go into effect until October, 2003; that
she does not recall seeing the opinion in 2001 or 2003; when she
asked in 2004, she was informed that there were no changes that
she is sure the response meant there was no change in the net
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,17,"amount of the vehicle allowance, but there had been a change in the
gross amount; noted the Human Resources Director was present if
anyone has questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that when a salary is provided in a
Contract, Council does not have someone go back later and adjust
the salary so that the net after taxes is the amount stated in the
Contract; that he views the vehicle allowance in the same fashion;
upholding the Contract and putting the amount back to $250 is
simple.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the $250 was net when the
Contract was enacted and something happened, such as a change in
the IRS code, to make the amount no longer net.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount in the Contract is $250; there was
a change in the tax code; the amount became taxable; the benefit in
the Contract was not stated as a net amount ; it is a question of
fact, not laws; the question [of increasing the amount) should have
been addressed to the Council, not an outside attorney.
The Human Resources Director stated that she does not know the tax
Code or if any changes were made to the tax Code; the benefit was
non-taxable when first provided and then became taxable, which is
why the legal opinion was given to the City Attorney; the opinion
was sent to the Finance Director who continued to provide the
benefit as a tax-free benefit for the next year to year and a half;
after said time, it was discovered that the benefit should be
taxable and put into the payroll system as a taxable benefit; the
additional memo came forward to state that if the vehicle allowance
is going to be a taxable benefit, the net amount needs to be $250
per month.
Councilmember deHaan stated the opinion was for the two Contracted
positions of City Attorney and City Manager; inquired how the legal
opinion would apply to the $250 allowance given to other Department
Heads; inquired whether other Department Heads were not entitled to
the adjustment since they are not under Contract.
The Human Resources Director responded that she does not know the
exact language of the Contracts for the City Manager and City
Attorney that she cannot appropriately answer the question; auto
allowance for all other employees is through the payroll system and
is a taxable benefit.
Councilmember deHaan stated there could be a major impact if the
legal opinion was exercised all the way through the system; the
amount of the car allowance would depend on the amount of money a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,18,"person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car
allowance would be.
The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative ; stated
taxes are based upon income.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney
received a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001
something happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have
the car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced
with taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue
of good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith
basis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human
Resources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001,
opined that the amount would have to be increased in order to
remain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the
cost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the
State side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see
the problem.
Mayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the
matter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a
Contract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount
is $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling
that makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to
ask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have
to be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue,
rather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to
change the amount now that there is a tax consequence.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep
the amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted
the amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo
issued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent
with what the Council wanted.
Mayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council
intended would be to ask the Council: Council sets amounts for
salaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of
things, which are always gross, not net; many benefits provided
have tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is a question of process, not
amount ; the process should be that if there is a change that incurs
a higher dollar outlay than what was done before or if there is a
question of intent, the matter, under Contract or Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU) should come to the Council; the issue is not
hugely complicated; that [bring the matter to Council] should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,19,"to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she
questions whether the memo even went to Finance in 2001.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is
that if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter
should return as a Contract or MOU amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not
a way of notifying the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;
the question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all
changes will come to Council for a vote.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy
should be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager
states that the amount is a fixed amount a new Contract is being
negotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;
inquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;
stated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City
reached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a
public document and should call the next agenda item to address the
policy.
( 05-365) - Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and
City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [ under the
previous agenda item, paragraph no. 05-364] hold.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.
Councilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the
direction to have issues come back to the City Council; however,
when he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was
consistent going forward, Council's request for everything to come
before Council is acceptable.
Councilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,20,"the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i
adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable
and done through payroll.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car
allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and
City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive
$160.
Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive
the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other
employees.
Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through
a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not
a vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and
cannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;
the process that was used was not appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that
something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any
Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no
one objected; things are being done differently in the new era.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of
how to handle Contract amendments.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter
will be handled in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be
declared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit
on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past
practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the
amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the
tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about
setting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting
that changes require a vote of the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,21,"Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the
[gross ] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new
Contract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the
clearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to
Contracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired
whether the action should be a resolution.
The Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back
to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a
resolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle
allowance] amounts later.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy.
(05-366) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from
Outside Counsel Appropriations.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at
the last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the
preference was to address the matter in open session.
The City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending,
settlement authority, additional reporting requirements and
limitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP
process, creating four outside counsel panels.
Mayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of
money the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known
ahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the
hiring of outside counsel approving the hiring of outside counsel
can be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is
concern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar
parameters because the other side can be tipped off about how
committed the City is to the litigation; that she does not
understand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating
the attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council
approval could have no dollar information included; the names of
counsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for
ratification; who represents the City is not a secret; the amount
and budget need to be kept confidential the Council has indicated
the City Attorney should be given authority to cover exigent
circumstances; the Council does not want a special meeting every
time the City is sued; inquired whether there would be a problem
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,22,"with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the
authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without
limitation on dollar amounts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for
$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney
or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance
Department.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the
Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the
Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on
vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the
issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what
people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have
problem with a limit if the issue is minor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is
being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how
quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is
hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports
on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel
is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give
approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does
not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a
month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to
Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not
time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the
time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the
Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside
counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000
worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the
Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the
level of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has
been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more
oversight than in the past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is
unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney
provided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be
reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,23,"Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from
the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the
time outside counsel is hired.
The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives
a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days
to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary
injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council
would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the
immediate notification to the Council would include a description
as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be
the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so
the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be
selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for
the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;
there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next
meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of
what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality
is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would
be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect
solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there
could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after
seeing how the proposal works.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two
weeks.
The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost
of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs
and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than
$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter
within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have
the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything
which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go
to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know
[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to
request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's
discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the
competitively selected panels of attorneys.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : ""The Council, or
any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City
Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;"" what is
being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to
make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Tony Santare,
Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill
Schmitz and Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: Chair Sandré Swanson
and Commissioner Jane Sullwold. Also present were General Manager
Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 15, 2005
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the annual Chuck Corica Golf
Complex ""Demo Day"" was held on July 16, 2004. Approximately
$23,000 in sales were reported not counting items sold out of stock.
Eleven vendors participated in the event and it was huge success. The
vendors need to be booked about six months ahead of time. It was
mentioned that the straps on the pull carts need replacing. A compliment
was given to Golf Course starter Tommy Nickerson for exemplary
customer service.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the Jack Clark Course was aerated last",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,2,"week and is healing well. The staff gave out two-for-one coupon, to
tournament groups inconvenienced by the work being done, which seemed
to make the situation better. The area of the new practice putting green
has been outlined and a survey of the underground utilities will be done
this week to eliminate any line breakage during the irrigation trenching.
The tree has been removed on #1 of the Mif Albright Course for the new
hole and the new green on the new #3 hole was mowed out. The practice
area will be opened as soon as possible and Alameda Power and Telecom
has been called to come out and redirect the lights. The Jack Clark Course
irrigation pump's motor broke and has been repaired. The course suffered
minor damage during the replacement period. A problem also occurred
with the Earl Fry Course pump and the repairs are being done. The new
City Manager, Debra Kurita is scheduled to begin on August 1 and is
scheduling meetings with the various departments over the next few
months. The General Manager, Chair Swanson, and Commissioner
Schmitz have scheduled a meeting with the Mayor, New City Manager,
and Assistant City Manager on August 16, 2005 to discuss the new
clubhouse project. The General Manager complimented the Junior Golf
Club on their organization running the tournaments. The club
has
partnered with Junior Golf Resources to have the Junior Pro Shop open on
tournament play days to distribute the golf equipment. The City Manager
received a letter from Legends and Heroes requesting a meeting to discuss
their contract. The comment was made that Legends and Heroes does not
open the snack shack on #9 of the Earl Fry Course until 9:30 am or 10:00
am and it should be opened earlier. The question was raised whether the
dead trees on #13 of the Earl Fry Course have been removed yet. The
General Manager stated that they have not been removed yet. The
suggestion was made to replace the garbage cans at the snack shack. The
General Manager stated that they have been replaced and the restrooms
were power washed. The General Manager also mentioned that he would
be on vacation starting tomorrow and returning on Monday, August 1.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERSI REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
Secretary Gammell gave an overview of the current marketing and
promotions. The promotions include the Silver Club Senior Package,
Early Bird Package, Friday Monthly Ticket rate, Kids Play Free with a
paid Adult, $25 Late Twilight rate, Two for One Green Fees for Affiliate
Clubs and Discounted Range Balls (morning & evening). Advertising
includes the new web site www.golfinalameda.com, an ad at SBC Park for",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,3,"the Giants games, Japan Telephone Guide Web Site, Golf 707 Internet
Specials and the Senior Golf Club upstart. The question was raised
whether a newspaper ad would be a good idea. The General Manager
stated that the newspaper ads are very expensive. The question was raised
regarding updating the web site. The General Manager replied that the
site designer, Infolane, is currently managing the web site. The staff needs
to get training from the company to manage the site in-house. The
suggestion was made to continue to update the website and use it for
advertising because it will save money and people will use it look for
specials and information.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul prepared a report outlining the complimentary pass
play at the Complex for fiscal year 2004/2005. Commissioner Gaul
questioned why the PGA/LPGA rounds averaged approximately 249 per
month. The Head Golf Professional stated that the starters use that sku
code for all of the promotions. The Head Golf Professional will set up
new sku numbers for the promotions to better track the pass play. The
Head Golf Professional will also do a report on how many rounds were
booked through Golf 707 for the last fiscal year.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he was unable to attend the Senior Golf
Club meeting this month but will be sure to attend both the Alameda Golf
Club and the Senior Club meetings next month and report on both.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the clubhouse project is moving
forward. Commissioner Schmitz will be representing the Golf
Commission at the meeting with the Mayor, City Manager and Assistant
City Manager on August 16, 2005. The hope is to have the financial report
by John Ritchie completed for the meeting as well as a preliminary soil
report for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex site. It was stated that there are
areas on the golf courses where the soil is very poor. Commissioner
Wood stated that the soil is generally bored and tested when the footprint
of building is laid out and the weight bearing areas are designated.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Secretary Gammell gave Commissioner Sullwold's report in her absence.
She reported that there are no security issues to report although there was
an incident at the Driving Range when a customer's ball struck the canopy",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-07-20,4,"and it hit another customer. The injured party requested 911 be called and
was taken to the hospital.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
No report due to absence.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that he and the General Manager toured the
fire tower recently and it seemed reasonably clean. The Fire Department
still has items stored in the building. The doublewide trailer adjacent to
the building appears to be easily removed and possibly sold for salvage.
There are no interior walls inside the structure so you can see the studs and
construction of the walls. Commissioner Wood also made a presentation
to the Alameda Golf Club outlining his plans for the structure. It has been
determined that the building will not be habitable and only stand as a
monument. Commissioner Wood met with Greg McFann of the City of
Alameda's Planning Department and Mr. McFann is going to research
what needs to be done to repair the structure.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
None to report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
None to report.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for June 2005 of $16,638.
The year-to-date total is $156,825 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the
General Fund.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
July 20, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 P.M.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Patianne Parker
Robert McFarland
Michael Krueger
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - City Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Krueger had an exception to the minutes of April 27th. page 3. He requested the
removal of the phrase ""a grid should not be introduced where it does not currently exist."" Did
not say that it should never be used in an undeveloped area. He stated that while this may apply
to an existing development, a grid system may be appropriate in a currently undeveloped area.
Chair Knox White noted that he was identified as JKW on page 2.
Hold off on the approval of the minutes until Commissioner Schatmeier arrives.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES - None
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None of thesub-committees oftheTMPhave met. A meeting has been scheduled for July 27th
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Broadway/Jackson Phase 2 Feasibility Study
Staff Hawkins did a presentation on the above. She showed a large drawing of the study and
described the various components of each of the three alternatives being studied, and noted that
she had presented an earlier version to the Transportation Commission. The first part of the study
was a survey that was conducted with council members of Alameda and Oakland to determine",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,2,"their familiarity with the original project study report and proposed improvements. The City of
Alameda had some familiarity with the improvements but was not fully aware of all of them.
They knew about the Martin Luther King exit and knew basically direct access to Alameda was
not provided.
Because Oakland and Alameda could not find a solution for direct to Alameda, a portion of the
funding was set aside and it was decided that at a later time a feasibility study would be
conducted to look at Alameda access. This is the study currently under way. The primary
stakeholders are: the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans and ACTIA. The secondary
stakeholders were: Port of Oakland, Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Chinatown, West
Alameda Business Association (WABA), and developers from Alameda (Catellus and Alameda
Point Community Partners) and Oakland (Signature Properties and another developer).
Staff Hawkins stated that Alameda supports going forward with a proposal so that the
stakeholders would support it. Having the stakeholders support the recommended solution
would be an important step in securing funding. The feasibility study is only looking at the
feasibility as to which ones they can build, which ones are structural impossible and which ones
impact too much on historic sites, etc.
Staff Hawkins noted that currently Oakland does not support the construction of a new Harrison
Street off-ramp. One possible solution that may enable the Broadway off-ramp to meet the needs
of both Alameda and Oakland is a ""Texas U-Turn"", which would allow drivers to exist at the
Broadway ramp, make a U-turn before reaching Broadway, and accessing the Webster Tube.
Staff Hawkins noted that it will be expensive to build all these improvements. The
Transportation Commission could help by providing recommendations regarding priorities or
steps that could be taken to facilitate coordination with other agencies.
Commissioner Parker asked what the life of an elevated freeway would be. She asked how any
other proposed projects could relate to potential phasing of the Broadway-Jackson
improvements.
Staff Hawkins said that Caltrans is currently working on a seismic retrofit down by Oak Street.
Otherwise, Caltrans does not see any additional safety project needs within the next 50 years.
Chair Knox White asked what options have been already eliminated from consideration.
Staff Hawkins said that she couldn't detail all 13 alternatives, but a number of them included
superstructures.
Commissioner Parker asked about project timing. Would it be phased? How would the timing
match up with development in the area?
Staff Hawkins said in terms of funding we have approximately $12 million is allocated to the
project. But in the countywide transportation plan we could get up to $28 million, much of
2",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,3,"which would come from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This has been
identified as a priority at the county level; the next step is to compete for funds at the state level.
Alameda stakeholders have indicated that two of their high priorities are the horseshoe access
ramp onto northbound I-880 and direct access onto southbound I-880.
Commissioner McFarland asked if there is a weave problem at the proposed off-ramp on
northbound I-880 and the existing on-ramp getting onto I-980.
Staff Hawkins answered that the weave distance was evaluated and is not a problem.
Staff Hawkins stated that we will need to weigh congestion relief benefits against the estimated
costs, and this will impact on project phasing.
Commissioner McFarland asked what environmental document is required.
Staff Hawkins answered that the next step would be the environmental analysis and the project
study report, if we go forward with all the project elements. Hopefully this could be done in two
years.
Commissioner Parker asked about the direct route from I-880 down toward the Broadway on-
ramp, how that relates to the existing Jackson Street ramp, and whether it is possible to use the
existing ramp to access the tubes.
Staff Hawkins stated that using the Jackson Street exit would require drivers to travel through the
produce district to get to the tube. They tried to have direct access from the Jackson Street ramp
into the tubes, but that would have precluded access to Jack London Square or Chinatown.
Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit is involved in any of these discussions, as the
transbay buses would be impacted, as well local buses on Broadway.
Staff Hawkins said that the analysis has accounted for the required turning radii of the buses, but
that AC Transit has not been actively involved in discussions of the design. The study team has
talked about identifying queue jump lanes to enhance access to the Webster tube.
Staff Hawkins agreed that it is a good time to involve AC Transit in the project discussions.
Public Comment Opened
Melody Marr from the Alameda Chamber of Commerce asked who the stakeholders are for the
project.
Staff Hawkins responded that the stakeholders included City of Alameda, City of Oakland,
Caltrans, Port of Oakland, Chinatown, West Alameda Business Association, Signature Properties
(which has a project in Oakland), Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority
3",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,4,"(ACTIA), Catellus, Alameda Point Community Partners, and the Peralta Colleges, Congestion
Management Agency,
Ms. Marr asked that the Chamber of Commerce board members and others be given a
presentation on the project in September.
Ms Stieg wanted to know who actually are the representatives that are part of this committee
discussion and who represents Alameda's interests.
Staff Hawkins stated that they were listed on the email that is sent to them.
Ms. Steig mentioned that she and some of other people on the email list are not able to attend the
meetings. She indicated she would like to find out more about why the 13 of the 16 project
design options were eliminated. She also asked if she could obtain a list of the proposals and the
pros and cons of each before the final report is completed.
Staff Hawkins said that it would be presented to the City Council and then the City Council can
open it up for comments. She added that the Stakeholders meeting would be a good place to
express her concerns.
Ms Steig said that she was not able to make those meetings because they are on Mondays. She
asked that the Commission take no actions on this feasibility study until the Alameda business
community has a chance to review and comment on it. She expressed concern that some of the
options would have a negative impact on Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto stated that WABA was a designated stakeholder and understood some of the
scheduling problems. He asked if they have been receiving the meeting packets.
Staff Hawkins said that emails are sent to them along with the information from the meetings.
Commissioner Ratto suggested that since WABA is unable to send a representative to the
stakeholder meetings that a representative from the Chamber of Commerce be identified to
represent the Alameda business community.
Ms. Stieg supported this idea, and asked that the Chamber be added as a stakeholder.
Staff Hawkins agreed.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Parker said that she would like to see which proposals were discarded. She added
that the project's scope of work looks at freeway access from Alameda but does not address other
issues Alameda is concerned with, such as connectivity from Alameda to Chinatown or Jack
London Square.
4",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,5,"Staff Hawkins said that it was a joint effort with Caltrans, Oakland and Alameda. They were not
looking at local street circulation but at access to the freeways and not to preclude access to the
local communities. She stated that the scope suggested by Commissioner Parker could be a
second study.
Chair Knox White suggested that rather than identifying a specific alternative, it would be
helpful to present the Council with the Commission's priorities and concerns. He expressed
concern that there are significant political issues, but that the issues are not being discussed at a
political level.
Staff Hawkins noted that there were two meetings left. One was with the technical group and the
second with the general stakeholders. The general stakeholders meeting would be in September.
There would be a discussion as to any elements that would need to be removed and then move
forward. After that the next step would be the environmental review and the PSR report.
Commissioner Parker said that the focus should be on doing the best job and what we want to
accomplish.
Staff Hawkins stated that the traffic study would include local circulation and a few blocks
beyond the area bounded by 8th, Oak, and MLK.
Melody Marr from the Chamber of Commerce asked to table this until the next Transportation
Commission meeting so that they could have time to review it.
Chair Knox White said that the Transportation Commission has no power to keep the Chamber in
or out of this discussion. The Mayor had asked for the Transportation Commission to review it.
Staff Hawkins said that the September meeting would be the final discussion by the stakeholders
group.
Commissioner Ratto moved to recommend Council that they contact whomever they need to
contact to keep all the options available at this point, and that nothing be taken off the table.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
6B
TMP SUB-COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS AND NEXT STEPS
Chair Knox White stated that he would hold off on committee appointments since Commissioner
Knoth was not present.
Staff Bergman said that the sub-committee would be meeting on July 27th
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White mentioned that the bus stop by Lum School on Otis Drive was removed and
not replaced by an alternative. As a result, there are no bus stops on Otis Drive between Grand
5",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,6,"and South Shore. This was well beyond the 1000 or 1200 feet requirement. There was no
notification of this.
Commissioner Krueger said that he and his wife walked the route and confirmed there was no
bus stop sign posted between Grand and Whitehall.
Staff Hawkins said that the stop was removed at the request of the police department, that there
was a problem with the circulation of students, crossing guards and vehicles. Since it was within
the distance prescribed in the Transit Plan, City and AC Transit staff agreed to remove the stop.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Transportation Technical Team should make that decision.
Staff Hawkins said that the Transportation Technical Team does not deal with the removal of bus
stops. AC Transit deals with the removal of bus stops, not the City, and the TTT has been
dealing with the bus stop issues only when it involves parking spaces. She said AC Transit
should provide notification to the public if a stop is removed.
Chair Knox White asked how the recommendations of the transit plan are accounted for, if AC
Transit has the right to make the decision unilaterally.
Commissioner Parker said that the school should have been involved in these discussions, since
this affects the ability of students to take transit to school.
Staff Hawkins noted that the school was involved in the discussions regarding the bus stop.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that we should try to have some type of public noticing when
bus stops are removed, even if it is not technically required.
Commissioner Krueger said that the re-paint job of the bus shelters on Grand Avenue and Santa
Clara Avenue turned out really well. The City is doing a great job on getting graffiti removed
from the shelters, and praised Public Works regarding the new and existing bus shelters.
Commissioner Ratto noted that PSBA would be having the annual Art and Wine Fair on July 30-
31.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
 G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC/2005/0705/072005-minutes-final.doo
6",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:07 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. McNamara
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara and Piziali.
Board Member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit,
Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Planner II Dennis Brighton, and Executive Assistant Latisha
Jackson.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005 (continued from the meeting of June 27,
2005).
M/S Cook/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cunningham)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Item seven (7) was moved to the end of the agenda as Board Member Mariani was not in attendance
at the start of the meeting.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
This item was continued to the next meeting when a full board is present
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect Lots
1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900
and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a
five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,
maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger than 5.5 acres
and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot coverage allowed on
lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned Development
Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to
10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller
than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. The
proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to
twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The property is zoned C-M - PD
(Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance
to the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,3,"8-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office
and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41
acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel
Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final
map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.) (Applicant requests a continuance to the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
M/S Cook/McNamara to continue this item to the meeting of August 22, 2005.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,4,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
9-A.
Variance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708
Lincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the
partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage
and reconstruction to provide approximately 1, 114-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story,
single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem
vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to
within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is
required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the
maximum permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached
garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback
approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required
front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) Zoning
District.
Staff member Dennis Brighton summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There being no speaker's slips for this item the public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding a discrepancy in the square footage
stated on the public notice, Mr. Brighton responded that staff used the initial application which
requested an addition of roughly 1100 square feet of space. He explained that the proper wording
should have been a total of roughly 1800 square feet. The acting Planning & Building Director,
Gregory J. McFann, was aware of the discrepancy and determined that the item should be able to go
forward with the minor alteration.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the second variance for lot
coverage, Mr. Brighton stated that the difference in lot coverage related to the provision of covered
parking which allowed for a higher lot coverage. He explained that the proposed parking is partially
covered and the building forms somewhat of a carport over the parking area. Board Member
McNamara then asked whether a carport constituted covered parking. Mr. Brighton responded in the
affirmative.
In response to second inquiry by Board Member McNamara regarding the proposed height of this
building relative to surrounding buildings, Mr. Brighton responded that the garages on both sides are
one story structures. The surrounding structures are two stories and one on Pearl Street has a two
story high gable, so they're compatible in story height. The maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone
in 30 ft.
Board Member Piziali advised that the window schedule called for wood and the plans indicated a
fiberglass frame window by integrity, Mr. Brighton responded that either window type is allowed.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,5,"Staff does not make a design distinction between the two materials. Clad wood is preferred, but vinyl
is permissible and only aluminum windows are prohibited.
In response to an inquiry by Vice-President Cook regarding garage requirements, Mr. Brighton
responded that there is no distinction between covered parking, carports and garages. They are all
types of covered parking. Ms. Eliason further explained that there is no City requirement to have
covered parking, as parking can all be unenclosed.
In response to a concern by Vice-President Cook regarding use of parking for storage, Mr. Brighton
responded that in some multiple family homes it has been required that carports or garage doors be
removed in order to restrict the ability to utilize their garage for storage. He explained that
unenclosed parking tends to be used more for parking rather than storage.
Vice President Cook noted that it seems like a really big house for such a small lot. She understands
the constraints of the site, but was concerned there was a potential third story and this addition may
overdevelop such a small lot. She noted the fact that she could see continuing the pre-existing
substandard set backs, but she still didn't see where that requires you to have 51% coverage; you
could make the back of the house smaller and still come in under the required building coverage.
Board Member Lynch requested clarification on the third story item addressed by Vice President
Cook and her concern that the applicant would exceed 30 ft. Vice President Cook responded she
recalled the story requirements had been removed.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Piziali regarding parking in the front yard, Ms. Eliason
noted that the parking in the front yard was a pre-existing condition.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding reduction of the front yard, Mr.
Brighton stated the front yard is not being reduced and the front of the house is not being changed.
The actual parking configuration is not being changed except it's being partially covered now.
In response to Vice-President Cook regarding the location of the porch, Ms. Eliason stated that the
porch is in a new location, but the parking situation is an existing parking situation. We are simply
allowing them to partially cover the parking with the carport.
Board Member Kohlstrand informed the Board that after visiting the site, she feels that although the
house is big for this lot, given the circumstances of the setting, this proposal is not an unreasonable
request.
Board Member Piziali commented that the front of the building, where the porch is, goes straight up
with flat windows. He would prefer if there was some sort of cutback from the porch or the roof
could be set back to reduce massing visible from the street.
Board Member Lynch agreed that the drawings on the paper don't give it any depth; he noted that
because it's a narrow lot you must go up. He feels that once it is built, it will actually look better than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,6,"the way it's drawn. Secondly, if the landing can continue across the front of the building it might
break up some of the massing.
Board Member McNamara stated on the proposed north elevation drawing, there are two sets of
recessed elevations that the drawing doesn't do justice.
President Cunningham advised the Board that he received a speaker's slip to speak on the item.
M/S (McNamara/Piziali) and unanimous to re-open the public hearing.
Ms. Dian McPherson, 1539 Versailles Ave., spoke in favor of this item. She stated that Mr. Wong
and his family were wonderful neighbors and strongly suggested that the Board approve the Variance
for their home.
The public hearing was closed.
Julie Harryman addressed two questions the Board had. The first one she wanted to clarify with staff
in reference to the parking and if there were two existing legal non-conforming parking spaces already
at the property, so no variances would be needed on those parking spaces to which Mr. Brighton
responded in the affirmative. The second was the discrepancy in the noticing question posed by the
Board, where Ms. Harryman suggested that Board would vote to continue this item until the next
meeting, and have staff re-notice the item with the correct square footage and it would come back to
the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
M/S (McNamara/Kohlstrand) and unanimous to have staff re-notice this item with the correct square
footage and continue it to the next meeting as a consent calendar item.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that this item could be removed from the agenda, as the APAC no
longer exists. Staff noted her request.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,7,"Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this item.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Transportation Sub-Committee Member Appointment.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that even though the APAC will be taken off the agenda, there would
be a need for a Board member for the transportation committee to which Board Member Kohlstrand
volunteered to be the representative.
b.
Discussion of rolling stores.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch on what the definition of a rolling store is, Ms.
Eliason read the Alameda Municipal Code definition and description and stated that at the last City
Council meeting, the Council directed that the Planning Board look at the City's rolling store
provisions even though they are not in the Development Code.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding why this was an issue, Assistant City
Manager Paul Benoit responded that there is a citizen of Alameda who owns a business where he
makes espresso and coffee drinks in a van/truck. The owner approached the city with an interest in
parking the vehicle on city property at the dog park by Washington Park. There was an issue on
whether the vehicle was allowed to use a city park while vending goods. He explained that the owner
filed for a business license and the Finance Department referred to the Municipal Code and explained
to the applicant that this use was considered a ""rolling store"" and the City of Alameda does not allow
this type of business. The matter was further researched and it was discovered that one could obtain
a Use Permit for a ""concession"" in parks and this business could be considered a concession on
wheels. The matter was then referred to the Parks Commission which is now in the process of
developing park rules and regulations for use. They are not considering this item until the rules and
regulations have been established which won't be until approximately 2006.
Mr. Benoit continued that the only other way the citizen could operate this type of business is if the
section of the Municipal Code regarding rolling stores be amended. He also explained that this section
of the code is dated decades ago. The Council referred this item to the Planning Board for their input
on how the City of Alameda should go about amending this section of the Municipal Code and what
items may be of concern if the amendment goes forward. He explained that the applicant has worked
on this issue for a number of months and would like resolution on the matter, but the City has to look
at the bigger picture. He acknowledged that there are businesses that currently operate in this manner
such as catering trucks that operate routinely around the City. Although people appreciate the goods
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,8,"that they vend, technically, these types of businesses are not allowed.
In response to a point of clarification by Board Member Piziali about a vending booth or mobile
building that used to operate in Washington Park that sold different types of consumable items, Ms.
Eliason responded that such a facility would be considered a concession stand which requires a use
permit and is allowed. She explained that rolling stores are allowed on private property with the
property owner's permission and are not allowed to sell goods on city streets. These trucks are
common at Alameda Point, off of the street. The other way these rolling stores are allowed are with
use permits at the parks. She explained that staff is researching how other communities handle these
types of businesses. The City wants to be careful on how these types of uses are permitted, where
these businesses may be permitted to sell their goods. This is a delicate issue, so the City wants to be
clear on what kinds of merchandise can be sold and how this will be approached.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding whether or not there is a time limit on
how long one of these businesses could stay in one location, Ms. Eliason responded not at this time.
Mr. Benoit added that at this point, at least for rolling stores, they would have to respect the
regulations that are posted on the right of way. Beyond that, there aren't any special rules.
Ms. Susan Potter, 1717 5th Street, distributed copies of the proposal that was submitted to the City
for her ""rolling store"" business and pictures of the competition. She explained these types of business
are not all on private property, they are all over Alameda Point and the entire City. She explained
that she was the mother of the gentlemen who wished to open a rolling store. She would like an
answer as to why they could not find a way of changing the ordinance to allow people to legally do
business in the city. She explained that there were numerous trucks coming to the Island to do
business and not contribute any monies to the City. She explained that she was told the mistake her
son made was asking permission to run his business, where other vendors have not been granted
permission, but still does business in the City. She feels the other vendors don't care about the city
and they don't contribute any finances except for purchasing gasoline. She hopes that the ordinance
can change so the people who already have these types of businesses can blatantly stop ignoring the
ordinances and the people who want to run legal businesses in the City won't be told no.
In response to Board Member McNamara's inquiry regarding whether the photo's submitted to the
Board are current examples of these types of businesses, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. Ms.
Potter also explained that these businesses are not solely operating at the base, but also on different
streets throughout the City.
Board Member Piziali acknowledged that he has seen these types of businesses on the base.
In response to President Cunningham's inquiry about whether these types of businesses are at
construction sites as well, Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative.
The public hearing was closed.
Board Member Lynch expressed his concerns on this type of use. He explained that while he
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-07-25,9,"appreciated the comments made by the speaker, he first must focus on the need to enforce the existing
ordinance. This is not a Planning & Building or Code Enforcement Department issue, but a Police
Department issue. He did agree that two wrongs don't make it right. He explained he worked in a
jurisdiction where these types of business are an issue and you have to involve law enforcement to
enforce the ordinance. Secondly he stated that this is a complex issue, in that not all vehicles are
made the same in terms of their waste and water regulations. He felt this was a slippery slope and
urged staff to gather more information to address the current issue but to be sure, if the ordinance is
amended, it must be place specific and time specific.
President Cunningham noted that there are a number of issues related to this item that need to be
addressed and staff should look closely at this ordinance before any changes are proposed.
After much Board discussion Ms. Eliason informed the board that this item would come back to the
Planning Board when all of the research has been addressed and a new ordinance has been drafted.
At that point, the item would be advertised for public comment.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
July 25, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-07-25,1,"OF
of
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA
CONFERENCE ROOM 391
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:35 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees Beverly Johnson, William Soderlund and Karen
Willis. Staff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer and Lelia Faapouli,
Administrative Technician, Human Resources. Absent: Trustees: Nancy Elzig
and Robert Follrath.
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2005 were
reviewed. Member Soderlund motioned to accept the minutes as presented,
member Willis seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4-A.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 256,786.23 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-B.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 250,698.99 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
4-C.
PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2005:
a.
In the amount of $ 258,135.52 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.
b.
In the amount of $ 3,323.61 for the members under
Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-07-25,2,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 25, 2005
Page 2
Member Willis motioned to adopt the consent calendar as presented, Member
Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5.
AGENDA ITEMS:
5-A. The Chief Financial Officer noted the first run on the Financial Report for
City of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for period ending June 30,
2005 is a preliminary first closing and that second closing report will be
presented at next meeting. In a motion by Member Soderlund and
seconded by Member Willis, the Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report
for City of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending
June 30, 2005 was accepted as presented; all were in favor and passed
with a 3-0 vote.
5-B.
Continuation of discussion on purchasing and erecting new flagpoles at
City Hall was not discussed due to absence of trustees. This issue will be
on agenda for next meeting in October 2005.
5-C. Member Soderlund motioned to accept, with regrets, the memo from
Human Resources notifying of the death of 1079 Pensioner, Lee Perry,
widow of Eugene Perry, Fire Apparatus Operator. Member Willis
seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 3-0 vote.
5-D.
Juelle-Ann Boyer, Chief Financial Officer, brought the finalized Report of
Results of Actuarial Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement System
(Plan 1079 and 1082) and the Retiree Health Care Plan to be distributed
to board members, copies to be mailed to absent members.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no oral communications.
7.
PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
There were no communications from the board.
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
PensionBoard,2005-07-25,3,"City of Alameda
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Pension Board - Monday, July 25, 2005
Page 3
8.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis, Human Resources Director
and Secretary to the Pension Board
""Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service""",PensionBoard/2005-07-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-375) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the Planning Board approval of Parking Garage
Use Permit [05-389] and Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the
Planning Board approval of Cineplex design [05-390] would be
continued to August 16, 2005.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-376) Mayor Johnson welcomed the new City Manager.
(05-377) Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing
their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to the Fourth of
July Committee members.
Barbara Price, Committee Chair, thanked the Council for recognizing
the Committee and construction crews; stated that $20,000 was
raised; $10,000 would go to school music programs.
Mayor Johnson thanked Bill Frink, Harris and Associates, for the
extraordinary effort made to get Park and Webster Streets ready for
the parade stated that people thought the parade was wonderful.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many participants were in the
parade.
Ms. Price responded that there were 3,000 participants, 182
entries, 17 bands and 13 equestrian units.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Committee for their time and
efforts.
(
(05-378) Proclamation declaring Brad Kruck to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in
the three or fewer rental unit category.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,2,"Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Brad Kruck.
(05-379) - Proclamation declaring Irene Hanson to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in
the four or more rental unit category.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Irene Hanson.
(05-380) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring
that the project was on schedule and for managing the contingency
fund; requested that the Project Manager thank the contractors.
The Project Manager stated that a second change order, which is a
credit back to the Contract, would be brought to the Council next
month.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hoped that future reports would
be as upbeat as the report presented tonight.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Mayor to send a letter to the United States Postal Service [05-383]
and Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to Employ
Special Legal Counsel 105-386] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( 5-381) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting held on June 21, 2005; and the
Special, Special Joint City Council and CIC, and Regular City
Council meetings held on July 19, 2005. Approved.
( *05-382) - Ratified bills in the amount of $4,913,721.97.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,3,"(05-383) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to
the United States Postal Service regarding the City's interest to
relocate the distribution function of the Alameda Post Office from
Shoreline Drive to another site in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City Manager would revise the draft
letter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is in favor of relocating
the distribution center; that there is no reason for a warehouse
and parking lot to enjoy one of the best views of the entire East
Bay; stated that the City should retain some sway over what would
be placed at the site; there is no need for another carwash or
retail-type enterprise that would not take advantage of the
location; efforts should be made to retain a retail front within
the South Shore Center for mail transactions.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a concern with the
possibility that the Post Office would be relocated at Alameda
Point.
Mayor Johnson stated that the intent was to have the retail portion
of the Post Office remain at the South Shore Center and have the
sorting portion of the facility move to a more appropriate
location.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the relocation of the distribution
center is a great opportunity for the City.
Mayor Johnson stated the relocation is not certain; the matter has
been discussed for years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
( * 05-384) Recommendation to adopt specifications for Vehicle Tow
Contract for abandoned vehicles for the Police Department Accepted.
(*05-385) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Contract with
Signet Testing Labs, Inc., modifying the scope of work and
increasing the Contract price in the amount of $54,000 for the New
Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.
(05-386) - Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,4,"Employ Special Legal Counsel. Not adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed resolution was a
very good start in addressing how the Council would implement its
authority per Section 8-5 of the Charter and to be clear on how the
Council chooses to empower the City Attorney to make decisions at a
lower expenditure level and moving upi the Charter obligations are
met with the concepts in the proposed resolution; the resolution
should be written in said terms; the elements, e.g. threshold, are
included; the direction is in terms of implementation of a Section
of the Charter; reporting details do not have relevance to the
Charter, are more of an expectation and work product rather than an
implementation of the Charter, and should be removed from the
resolution; that he does not recall discussing how the Council
would incorporate Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T). the Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA)
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that there would be a
separate discussion on AP&T; that she was not sure whether there
would be a separate discussion on the ARRA and CIC.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that the discussion would be about
delegating authority to the Public Utilities Board (PUB ) ; the
resolution should be presented in terms of clarifying and providing
the procedure for implementing the Charter further stated that the
proposed resolution should be written as the Council's path on how
it empowers the City Attorney to engage outside counsel.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the proposed resolution starts
with operative clauses; pre-ambulatory clauses are needed to
provide context.
Mayor Johnson stated the language should restate the Charter
provision and state that pursuant to the Charter, the Council has
the authority and is making a delegation of its Charter authority
under the particular circumstances in the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language should state that
the resolution would also apply to the CIC and ARRA.
Mayor Johnson stated that the CIC and ARRA should be separate
because the authority regarding outside counsel for the CIC and
ARRA are under by-laws, not the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a separate action would be needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore clarified that the intent is to have the same
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,5,"apply to ARRA and the CIC.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurred with Councilmember
Matarresei some language should not be included in the resolution;
the purpose of the resolution is to delegate authority under the
Charter; procedural issues should be in a separate document and
should be removed [from the resolution] that she was not clear on
the $35,000 threshold; the resolution states that the City Attorney
has the authority to spend $35,000 on any chase and does not come
to the Council until $35,000 is spent, which was not what Council
intended.
Councilmember deHaan stated the intent was that the City Attorney
would advise the Council of the approximate cost of the case; if
the case would reach the $35,000 threshold, it would definitely
have to come to the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the resolution is not to limit
spending, rather it defines when the Council's Charter authority is
delegated small consultations that amount to a couple thousand
dollars should not come to the Council and authority is delegated;
$35,000 was an order of magnitude when there would be a significant
impact on the City's liability or a significant amount of money
would be spent and the Council's authority would not be delegated.
Mayor Johnson stated that she recalled that if the anticipated
legal costs would be more than $35,000, than the matter would come
to Council, however the City Attorney could spend money on the
interim until the matter comes to the Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that the $35,000
threshold had a couple of caveats; the matter would come to Council
if there were policy questions or if there were potentially large
ramifications no matter how much or small of an amount would be
spent if there were a matter that Councilmembers wanted to ask
questions about, Councilmembers have the option to have the matter
brought to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said directions are work product and
performance issues, not a question of delegating authority the
Council is trying to identify a point when the Council delegates
authority to the City Attorney and when Council retains authority;
something of extreme importance might cost less than $35,000 and
the City Council might want to retain its authority on the
engagement of outside counsel; the question is of delegation, not
limits on spending; the intent is to define the delegation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she interpreted that the intent of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,6,"proposed resolution was that the City Attorney could spend $35,000
and then, once the cost goes beyond $35,000, the matter would come
to the Council for additional authority.
The City Attorney stated that the fourth bullet point in the
resolution includes limitations on spending; that she does not have
the authority to spend $35,000 on a $200,000 case and then come to
Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the fourth bullet point addresses
reporting; the first bullet point states that the City Attorney is
authorized by the Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
the appropriated budget without prior Council approval; the
statements implies that the Councils is giving the City Attorney
authority to spend $35,000 on any matter before coming to Council ;
the fourth bullet point is a reporting requirement the focus
should be on the issue of when the Council is delegating its
Charter authority to the City Attorney, not reporting requirements
the language might just need clarification; inquired whether she
was interpreting the first bullet point correctly.
The City Attorney responded that the first bullet point is in
context of the fourth bullet point, which means that she has
authorization to spend $35,000 per matter without prior Council
approval, however, she must come to Council with the litigation
budget for anything estimated to exceed $35,000 within 35 days.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney would come to
Council for approval of hiring outside counsel or simply to report
to the Council.
The City Attorney responded that she would bring the issue to the
Council similar to the Closed Session tonight.
Mayor Johnson stated the Closed Session tonight was a report the
purpose of the resolution is to clarify when the Council would
delegate its authority to the City Attorney to hire outside
counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council would not delegate
its authority to hire outside counsel if any of the following
apply: 1) if the estimated defense costs were over $35,000; 2) if a
policy question were involved; 3) if there were significant
ramifications to the City; and 4) if requested by the Council; the
Council does not delegate its authority to hire outside counsel if
any of the four apply; the $35,000 threshold allows the City
Attorney to engage outside counsel to get the ball rolling so that
the City would not incur increased liability if there was an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,7,"immediate need and the Council did not meet for two weeks the
reporting [approval of hiring outside counsel] would occur at the
next regular City Council meeting; a special meeting could be
called if the matter was extremely urgent.
Mayor Johnson stated the language in the resolution should be
clarified to reflect Councilmember Matarrese's comments.
The City Attorney stated that she would have to retain outside
counsel in order to start litigation.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council understands said issue, which is
the reason for the $35,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated the $35,000 threshold
allows the City Attorney to do so [retain outside counsel]. ;
inquired whether $35,000 was a reasonable amount to get the ball
rolling on a big case.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interpreting the exercise of
the City Attorney's responsibilities within the $35,000 threshold
in two ways: 1) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to
exercise professional responsibility in evaluating the cost ahead
of time if said evaluation deems that the matter would be less
than $35,000, the City Attorney has the authority to move forward;
2) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to use her
professional background and experience to make the decision to
bring the matter to the Council when the cost would be more than
$35,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is an accountability issue; Council
would have questions if a case were estimated to cost $5,000 and it
ended up costing $80,000; there is a check and a balance; the
reporting requirements, limitations on hiring outside counsel, and
the Public Utilities Board delegation should be addressed separate;
the resolution should not read: ""limitations on spending outside
counsel budget; limiting spending is not the intention the City
will have to spend whatever amount needs to be spent; the
delegation or approval of the hiring of outside counsel under
certain circumstance is what is being addressed; requested that the
matter be brought back to Council; stated the CIC, ARRA and AP&T
issues also need to be discussed later.
Councilmember Matarrese stated once the questions that were raised
are resolved with the next draft, the Council could move forward to
extrapolate the same approach to ensure the language is correct in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,8,"the ARRA and CIC by-laws then, Council could discuss whether it
wants to delegate its authority to the PUB.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether items other than an
estimate over $35,000, policy questions, significant ramifications
or Council questions should trigger that the matter comes to
Council; inquired if there were significant ramifications the
matter would come to Council regardless of whether the cost would
be $35,000.
Vie Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she
does not care how much a matter costs, the matter should come to
Council if there would be significant ramifications.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the four points [over $35,000,
policy questions, significant ramifications or Council questions)
are the conditions under which the Council's authority is retained.
Mayor Johnson concurred; stated the language should be clear that
[under the four conditions, ] the Council retains its authority to
empower the City Attorney to hire outside counsel.
The City Attorney requested that the revised proposal be brought
back to the Council in September since she will not be at the
August 16, 2005 City Council Meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-387) - Ordinance No. 2943, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations). "" Finally passed.
Ken Carvalho, Alameda, urged the Council to pass the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
(05-388) Ordinance No. 2944, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit
within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter
XXX (Development Regulations) . "" Finally passed.
 ouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,9,"Counci lember deHaan noted that reducing the number of districts
still needed to be reviewed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Gilmore
- 1.
(05-389) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board approval of Parking Garage Use Permit (UP05-0008) and Design
(DR05-0028) - ; and adoption of related resolution. Continued to
August 16, 2005.
(05-390) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board approval of Cineplex Design (DR05-0041) ; and adoption of
related resolution. Continued to August 16, 2005.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-391) Richard Scrindy, Alameda, stated that he is selling his
house in Alameda inquired why past permits have not been honored
and why criminal charges were filed against him; invited the
Council to come to his home thanked Mayor Johnson, Councilmember
Matarrese and Councilmember deHaan for trying to help.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-392) - Written communication from the League of California
Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
2005 Annual Conference.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Councilmember Daysog be the City's
delegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore be the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember Daysog
serving as the City's delegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore serving as
the alternate.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-393) Discussion regarding the placement of proposed federal
legislation that would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to
limit casino expansion on the August 16, 2005 City Council agenda
for formal action.
Mayor Johnson stated proposed federal legislation regarding gaming
might be helpful to communities such as Alameda the matter would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,10,"be continued because there was not sufficient information provided
yet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether other legislation was being
proposed.
Mayor Johnson responded that she thought there was proposed
legislation from Senators Feinstein and McCain; stated that all
information would be presented when the matter returns to Council.
(05-394 - ) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed the new City Manager;
stated that he was looking forward to working with the new City
Manager to get a lot done.
Councilmember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager.
Councilmember deHaan welcomed the new City Manager ; noted that
tonight's adjournment time is not the norm.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- - -5:30 P.M.
( (05-373) - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend an electric bus demonstration.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005
-
-
7:05
P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners/Authority/Board
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent : None
(05-374CC/05-036CIC)
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case Operation Dignity, Inc. V. City of
Alameda, Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and
Development Authority and Housing Authority
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commissioners/
Authority/Board Members obtained briefing and gave direction to the
City Attorney/Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-037) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting of June 21, 2005; the Special
Joint CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meeting of
June 28, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
of July 19, 2005. Approved.
Vice Chair Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Commissioner Matarrese abstained from
voting on the June 28, 2005 minutes. . ]
AGENDA ITEM
(
05-038) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $307,414 to provide additional pre-planning
and construction administration services for the rehabilitation of
the Alameda Theater.
The Development Services Director gave a brief report.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the original November 2003 Contract
was for $79,000 and has increased to close to $1 million; inquired
whether the Commission was made aware that additional phases would
be added.
The Development Services Director responded that the November 2003
Contract was for the beginning phase; the Commission should have
been advised that other phases would be added.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a bid package
within the next month or two, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be construction
administration throughout the project.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,14,"The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated that a construction management contract would be presented
at the August 16 CIC Meeting.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the construction manager would
be a contractor.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the construction manager would also manage the parking
garage project.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what the (construction management)
Contract would cost, to which the Development Services Director
responded approximately $1 million.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be additional
oversight, to which the Development Services Director responded not
unless a problem arose with the historic property.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there was a budget for
oversight of architecture and engineering for the parking
structure, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Morgan, Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda, urged that the
Commission continue the matter until after a decision has been
rendered on the project.
Commissioner Daysog inquired what services Architectural Resources
Group, Inc. (ARG) was providing and why another layer of
consultants was providing advice.
The Development Services Director responded that construction
projects involving the rehabilitation of a historic structure
involve changes and modifications architects are needed to draft
up solutions to gray areas.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether said level of services was
always contemplated, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he has a sense of sticker shock
with the increased amount of the Contract; that he understands that
there is a level of complexity in dealing with a historic
structure.
The Development Services Director stated that the construction
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,15,"administration cost is well within industry standards.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the project should move forward;
expert advice is needed because of the project's historic nature.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether ARG would provide services
for the theatre and not the parking structure, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that expert restoration and
preservation advice is needed when restoring and rehabilitating an
old building.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Contract would have any
impact on the Cineplex, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there were extraordinary
circumstances involving the Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) system.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the original HVAC system exceeded noise levels.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether construction administration
would be initiated when bids are in hand to which the Development
Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. Secretary. Eliason called the
roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,
Allen Tai, Planner III, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Jennifer Ott,
DSD, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the Special meeting of March 10, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to continue the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005 due to
lack of quorum. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,2,"ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
CA05-0008, 1305-1311 Park Street, Applicant: Italo Calpestri for Anita Ng. The
applicants request a Certificate of Approval for demolition of previous additions, including an
un-reinforced masonry addition, at the rear of an existing one and two story commercial
building. The demolition is part of a proposal to replace the previous additions with a new two-
story rear addition. The proposed demolition exceeds 30% of the value of the structure
and requires a Certificate of Approval pursuant to AMC Subsection 13-21.7. The building is
listed as a Contributing Structure in the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning
District. (AT) (continued from 7-7-05 mtg.)
Allen Tai, Planner III, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. At the request of the Board at
the last meeting staff conducted further research regarding the addition. Staff found no evidence
that the addition located at the rear of 1311 Park St. was associated with any significant events in
Alameda History. The appearance of the addition does not contribute to the character of the
streetscape nor does it possess unique visual characteristics to be considered an important part of
the Park Street Historic District.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Approval to demolish two additions, including
an un-reinforced brick addition at the rear of the property as stated in draft Resolution.
There are no speaker slips submitted for this item. Chair Anderson opened Board
communications.
In response to Chair Anderson's question if there would be any changes to the Park St. façade,
Mr. Tai answered no. In response to Chair Anderson's question if the tenants and storefronts
will remain as is, Mr. Tai answered in the affirmative.
Board Member Lynch complimented staff for the additional information provided in the staff
report. In response to Board Member Lynch's question if the parking spaces in the rear remain,
Mr. Tai answered in the affirmative.
In response to Board Member Lynch's question of what is proposed at the rear of the property,
Mr. Tai responded that a commercial space is proposed on the ground floor, with two residential
units on the upper floor.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval to remove two rear additions,
including a reinforced masonry addition and a single story addition at the rear of the property
with conditions stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,3,"2.
CA05-0010, 1815 Sherman Street, Applicant: Jules Garabaldi. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the historic
structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of remodeling the existing single-family
dwelling. The site is located at 1815 Sherman Street, within an R-2, Two Family Residence
Zoning District. (EP) (re-hearing from 7-7-05 mtg.)
Ms. Pudell, Planner II, briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. On July 7, 2005 the HAB
denied this application, in part, because they did not like the design of the new construction. Per
the City Attorney Office, the Historical Advisory Board does not have purview over the design
of new construction; however, the Board may provide their comments to staff to consider during
the Design Review approval process.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that the original plans have been revised to maintain the first
fifteen feet of the building. Although this structure does have some local significance, it does not
warrant its inclusion on the State Historic Research Inventory. Staff recommends approval of the
Certificate of Approval for the partial demolition of a single family residence located at 1815
Sherman St. with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the Pubic Hearing.
Jeff Hamon, contractor, informed the Board that the design has been revised according to the
comments made at the July hearing.
Christopher Buckley - AAPS, spoke in favor of the revised design. He stated that AAPS would
like to submit comments during the design review process.
There were no speakers opposing this project. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Board Member Lynch stated that it is important for this Board to see what is being proposed in
order to make an informative decision whether the historical character of the building will be
altered, and the new development will be harmonious with existing buildings and neighborhoods.
Board Member Miller stated that he understands that design issues are not the purview of this
Board, but feels without the knowledge of what is being proposed, he would most likely deny
any application for demolition.
Ms. Pudell stated that currently staff is working with the City Attorney's office on possible
revisions of the Historical Preservation Ordinance, which will be on a future agenda.
The Board may provide any comments on the proposed design to staff for consideration in the
Design Review approval process.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,4,"Board Member Lynch responded by stating that she would prefer to submit her comments during
a public hearing so it can be part of the public record.
Chair Anderson stated she visited the site and is concerned that the structure will be altered more
that thirty percent.
Ms. Pudell stated that there would be very little change to the overall appearance of the existing
dwelling. The demolition and addition will occur at the rear of building. The front façade will
not be changed, and the visibility of the additions would be minimal.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval for the partial demolition of an
existing single family dwelling at 1815 Sherman St with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
3-0-1.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1; Motion carries.
3.
CA05-0015, 862 Cedar Street, Applicant: Donald & Nancy Olney. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak Tree (Quercus
Agrifolia) deemed to be an imminent hazard by a Certified Arborist. The site is located at 862
Cedar St. within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Staff has confirmed that the tree has
already been removed. A Certified Arborist report was submitted and determined that the subject
tree was in close proximity to human activities and items of value and should be considered an
imminent hazard. Staff recommends that although the tree has already been removed, the Board
should still require the standard conditions of approval as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson read a letter submitted to the Board from Mr. Lou Baca, neighbor, in opposition
of removing the tree.
There are no speaker slips submitted for this item. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Board Member Lynch visited the site, and learned that the tree had fallen down prior to this
hearing. She would like the Board to be advised of when and where the replacement trees have
been planted. She would also like information on what happens to the money once it is donated
in lui of planting replacement trees. Staff noted the request.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval to remove one Oak Tree at 862
Cedar St. with the conditions as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,5,"4.
CA05-0016, 1501 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Encinal Real Estate. Certificate of
Approval for structural alterations to be made as part of the rehabilitation of the Del Monte
Building. Review and comment on findings regarding the consistency of the proposed alterations
with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration). The Del Monte
Building is located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue within the M-2 General Industrial District. (AT)
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. The applicant
and building owner, Mr. Peter Wang, is requesting a Certificate of Approval for repairs and
alterations to the building to facilitate adaptive reuse of the structure. The building is currently
being used as a warehouse and trucking facility. Mr. Wang is proposing to modify the building to
accommodate a variety of retail, commercial and office uses, consistent with the existing zoning
regulations for the site and consistent with the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment for the area.
In June 2002, the HAB reviewed Mr. Wang's preliminary proposal for the renovation of the Del
Monte building located at 1501 Buena Vista. At that time the HAB was very positive about the
project and encouraged Mr. Wang to move forward. The current proposal differs from the 2002
proposal in that the work/live component has been eliminated from the project, a large exterior
addition for a restaurant has been eliminated from the proposal, and a proposal to open up the
roof for an interior ""open air"" passageway through the building has been eliminated.
Given the extremely large size of the building and the high commercial vacancy rates currently
in the Bay Area, Mr. Wang is anticipating that the building will transition from
warehouse/trucking to retail/commercial/office in stages over a period of several years. The pace
at which the transition occurs will be determined by the demand for space within the building
and Mr. Wang's ability to attract tenants.
To facilitate the rehabilitation, repair, and preservation of the City Monument and enable the
applicant to make changes necessary to attract new tenants, the applicant is requesting a
Certificate of Approval for alterations to the building to accommodate the desired new uses.
Staff believes that the proposed changes to the Del Monte building are consistent with the
Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of a historic property and that the proposed
changes will facilitate the long term preservation and maintenance of this unique and important
Alameda property.
Staff recommends that the Historical Advisory Board approve the Certificate of Approval with
conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the floor to public comments.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of the project moving forward. He submitted his
comments to the Board in writing at the hearing. Staff noted his comments.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,6,"Lil Arnerich, Elizabeth Krause, Birgitt Evans and Dick Rutter spoke in favor of project. The
main concern was the removal of the canopies.
There were no public speakers opposing project.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened Board comments.
In response to the concerns of the public and the Board Members with removing the canopies,
Peter Wang, owner, stated that the canopies were not part of original building. He feels that the
removal of the canopies will not alter the historical character of the building.
In response to Board Member Lynch's question regarding timeline of this project, Mr. Wang
stated he intends to start as soon as they receive approval from this Board. The entire project
should be completed by 2008.
Board Member Lynch stated that she is in favor of this project moving forward. She feels that
due to the historical significance of this building, this Board should be advised of the progress of
this project periodically.
Chair Anderson stated that it is their duty as a Board to preserve the Historical integrity of all
listed resources. She stated that the removal of the canopies, opening in every bay, and leveling
the loading platform will change the historical character of this building. Not in favor of
approving a ""blanket"" Certificate of Approval She would like this project to come back before
this Board for all exterior changes.
Board Member Miller feels that the three foot gap between the canopies will disappear when you
look at the entire building. Feels for safety reasons the leveling of the loading dock makes sense.
He would also like periodic updates on this project.
Mr. Thomas explained to the Board the ""blanket"" Certificate of Approval makes it easier for the
applicant to get financing for this project. This building is a Historical Monument so any
changes made would have to comply with the Secretary of Interior's standards. If Staff has any
questions regarding any changes proposed in the future they will come before this Board for
guidance.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval with the additional condition that
staff returns for a periodic review so the Board may be advised of the progress of renovations
and be able to provide their comments on such things as replacement window materials,
storefront colors and materials, lighting, signage & landscaping. 2-1-1.
Ayes:
2;
Noes:
1;
Absent:
1.
Application denied.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,7,"(Following the meeting, Staff reviewed the HAB by-laws in the City Charter Sec. 28-6.-B which
states: Three (3) members shall constitute a quorum and a decision of the Board shall be
determined by a majority vote of those members present at the meeting.) Staff informed the
Board that the Certificate of Approval CA05-0016, for 1501 Buena Vista is approved by a
majority vote.
5. Consideration of penalties for unauthorized demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue.
Emily Pudell briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Ms. Pudell stated that an application for
Major Design Review was approved in 2004. The description of work that was provided on
application stated that the scope of work would affect a significant portion of the existing
structure; however demolition of the structure was not specifically called out in the project
description. The applicant felt that he had obtained all necessary permits to ""dismantle"" the
house. Staff feels that there was a miscommunication with the applicant. Although this building
was listed on the Historical Building Study List with an (H) designation, which means that it
may have Historical importance because of it's age or location or similarity to other buildings
done by important architects or builders, staff was unable to find any historical significance to
warrant the inclusion of 616 Pacific Ave. on the list.
Staff has received several letters from the neighbors opposing the 5-year stay in development.
Staff is recommending waiving the 5-year stay in development with conditions stated in draft
Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Birgitt Evans, Kevin Frederick, Nancy Hird, spoke in opposition of waiving the 5-year stay in
development.
Bill Smith spoke on penalties of unauthorized demolition occurring in the City of Alameda.
Paul Rezucha, spoke in favor of waiving the 5-year development stay.
There were no more speakers. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board discussion.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that staff is currently undergoing revisions to the Historical
Ordinance, most importantly the Interim Review section and penalties section. They intend to
bring this to the Historical Advisory Board for public hearing very soon.
In response to Chair Anderson's question regarding the process of modifying a structure on the
Historical Building Study List, Ms. Eliason responded that Staff would evaluate the application
with the Building Official to determine if it meets the criteria for a Certificate of Approval for
demolition. Currently the definition of a demolition is set at 30% of the value. If so, it would
need to have HAB approval as well as Design Review.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,8,"Chair Anderson feels that the Board should have been notified in the beginning of this process.
This is something that the Board seriously needs to look at with staff and reiterate the Boards'
purpose. She spoke in favor of the five-year stay, would like the owner to submit a landscaping
plan as stated in the notice sent to him from Code Enforcement. Although she concurs with the
neighbors regarding the blight of a vacant lot for five years, she does not approve of waiving the
5 year stay in development.
Board Member Miller stated he has difficulty with the term ""dismantled"" He stated the
demolished house does not resemble the new house at all. He was on the Board when they
worked on 5 year stay, and feels if not enforced in this case, then it will send the wrong message
to the public. Board Member Lynch concurred with Board Member Miller's statement.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,9,"In response to Board Member Lynch's question regarding why the landscaping plan has not been
submitted, Ms. Pudell stated that once staff receives direction from this Board, they will know
how to proceed.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to waive the five year stay in development for the unauthorized demolition
at 616 Pacific Ave. as stated in the draft Resolution. 0-3-1.
Ayes:
0;
Noes:
3;
Absent:
1.
Application is denied.
REPORTS:
6.
Review and comment on the final design of the storefront as part of the rehabilitation of
the historic Alameda Theatre including review of a color and materials board. The historic
Alameda Theatre is located at 2315 to 2323 Central Avenue within the C-C-T (Community
Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Jennifer Ott, Development Services Department, reviewed staff report as presented. She
informed the Board that the plans for rehabilitation have been submitted for permits to the
Planning & Building Department on August 3, 2004. There has been inspections done on the
marquee and it is in very good shape. In response to the HAB June 2, 2005 conditions of
approval, the City's architect for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre, Architectural
Resources Group (ARG), has provided a detailed submittal of the proposed storefront designs for
the Historic Theatre for the Board to review. Sample materials and color boards were also
provided to the Board for review.
Ms. Ott began the presentation by responding to a number of issues raised at the June 2, 2005
meeting. In response to the HAB's concern regarding why spandrel glass was used in lieu of
Vitrolite, Ms. Ott stated that there is a very limited supply of this historic material available.
In response to the HAB's concern regarding the visibility of the new structural supports in the
replaced storefronts of the Theatre, the design team has opted to add visual interest to void these
areas by furring out the walls in from of the piers and introducing movie poster cases in these
locations.
In response to the public's concern regarding the idea of ""column jacketing"" to help reduce the
size of the columns, Ms. Ott stated the design team explored this idea with the project engineer
and found that column jacketing is not applicable for this project. Staff would like the Board to
review the sample boards and provide comments on the proposed storefront design for the
rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. There is no action required at this time.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chris Buckley spoke in favor of the material and colors shown tonight.
Birgitt Evans would like the interior structural support to be either painted or stuccoed.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,10,"Dick Rutter, AAPS, brought a picture of a 1943 storefront in San Rafael. He pointed out the
detail on the floor and the ceiling and the use of Vitrolite.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board discussion.
Chair Anderson would like to have more information on the restoration of the ceiling. Ms. Ott
stated she was not sure of the extent of the restoration of the ceiling.
Board Member Lynch spoke in favor of the materials and colors shown tonight. She would like
the storefront doors to be recessed.
Board Member Miller had no comment.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
AAPS has submitted a written request to add Naval Air Station Resources to the Historical
Building Study List. The letter lists several resources which merit consideration for their
historical significance and associations before they are affected by the proposed redevelopment
the Alameda Point or by any other project. The purpose for listing these resources is to give the
HAB and the public an opportunity for future consideration of preservation before the buildings
are proposed for demolition or alteration. In addition, they further request that the City begin
proceedings to add these resources to the City Monument designation of NAS Historic District.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, reviewed the letter that was provided to the Board in their packet which
included a picture and brief description of each resource
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to agenize this item for a future meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like the Board to consider placing two train station sidewalk
markers on the Historical Sign list. She would also like the Board to consider recommending the
nomination of 2320 Lincoln Ave. be considered a Historic Monument.
Staff is aware of the request and has begun research. This will be on a future agenda.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
10",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,11,"Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGIHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
11",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Ms. Mariani
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.
Board Members Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch were absent.
Also present were Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planning Intern Stefanie Hom.
4.
MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005.
A quorum to consider these minutes was not present They will be considered at the next meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Dorothy Reid, Citizens Opposed to SS Target, 2101 Shoreline #276, wished to address
comments made by Elizabeth Humstone, on behalf of the American Planning Association, to the
Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works. She stated that ""planning was essential to
achieving smart growth. Plans help a community establish a common vision of development, and a
means of realizing that vision.
The plan is the foundation of smart growth agenda, various smart
growth policies from open space acquisition to urban revitalization, are only effectively realized in the
context of a plan.' She noted that the City's retail policy had been developed as a result of four public
forums. She believed that any big box retail in South Shore Center conflicted with those goals. She
commended Doug Garrison in working with her. She believed that Harsch Investments had
extraordinary access to planning staff and elected officials that the average citizen did not have. She
believed that some of Harsch's plans were very good, but also that the homeowners deserved
consideration. She urged the Planning Board to keep the residents' interests in mind.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had been on the Planning Board for eight years, and he had never seen a
developer who had any unusual access to himself or any other Planning Board member. He stated that
not one City staff member had mentioned anything to him, or sent any information, about the Target
Store. He advised that he had no more information on that subject than Ms. Reid did.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the project timeline, Ms. Eliason
advised that a public workshop would be held within the next month, which would be a presentation
by the developer about their proposal before the item is heard.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,2,"7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:
(Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
Mr. Brandt advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election, and that it
should be continued until then.
M/S Piziali/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item until a full Board is present.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
Variance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708
Lincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the partial
demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage and
reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story, single-family
residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem vehicles. Variances are
required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to within 3-feet from the
northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is required; 2) The structure would
cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum permitted main building coverage is
48-percent for residences with attached garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and
covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the
minimum required front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence)
Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005; item was re-advertised.)
Ms. Eliason advised that a letter of support of this item was received by staff.
President Cunningham read a letter of opposition into the record:
""Dear Planning Board and Reviewing Board,
""I think it is ridiculous to even consider letting Mr. Wong build his new home. What is the use
of going to the effort of setting limits for size and setbacks, etc., if you are going to let people be
exception to the rule? What makes Mr. Wong so special? Will he be allowed to drive 40 miles an hour
around town? Do the regulations belong to everyone except Mr. Wong? If he wants this house that
he has designed, then let him buy the proper size lot.
Signed, M.B.""
President Cunningham read a letter of support into the record:
""We'd like to say that we support Mr. and Mrs. Wong in their efforts to build a new and
larger home. We have felt that for many years, this home was smaller than all others in the
neighborhood. We would like for Mr. and Mrs. Wong to be able to build in order to increase the
comfort for their family and need that the rest of us in the neighborhood recognize should be fulfilled.
Signed, Lillian and Bob Rolens""
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-30 to approve
a Major Design Review approval for the partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-
bedroom, single-story cottage and reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-
bedroom, two-story, single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for
two-tandem vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,4,"to within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is
required; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum
permitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached garages; and3) The front
porch would be relocated and covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front
property line, where 20-feet is the minimum required front yard setback.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,5,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Appointment of a Planning Board member to the Transportation subcommittee.
President Cunningham advised that at the last meeting, Ms. Kohlstrand indicated she would be willing
to serve on this subcommittee.
Mr. Piziali nominated Ms. Kohlstrand to the Transportation subcommittee.
Ms. Mariani seconded the nomination.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,6,"9-B.
UP05-0010, James & John Costello- 1645 Park Street (AT). The applicants request
approval of a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar
& Grill. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will
be used between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. The site is
located within a C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District.
Ms. Eliason introduced Planning Intern Stefanie Hom, who presented the staff report. Staff
recommended a condition limiting the extended hours of the outdoor dining area to Fridays and
Saturdays only. Staff recommended approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this
application, with the new condition, which the applicant accepted. He noted that the applicant was a
long-time member of PSBA, and was in his opinion the most responsible tavern/bar owner in the
district. He noted that the management staff was exceptional as well. He had no doubt that they
would comply to all conditions of the Use Permit.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham believed this would be a good addition to the Park Street district, which would
take some smokers to the back of the building, rather than the sidewalk.
Mr. Piziali noted that the same use had been allowed with the Island Club, Kroll's, Scobie's and
Lucky 13, and he was not aware of any problems with the other uses. He concurred with staff's
recommendation.
Ms. Mariani agreed with staff's recommendation and noted that the only opponent was not in
attendance.
Ms. McNamara wished clarification that no music or amplified sound would be allowed in the
outdoor areas. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Tai noted that according to the Police Department, most incidents were related to speeding and
other traffic offenses on Park Street. No noise complaints had been received.
M/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-31 to approve
a
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar & Grill. The
proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will be used between the
hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,7,"9-C.
MDR05-0216 - Regency Centers, LLC. - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is located within
a C-2 PD Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and displayed the various signage options. Staff recommended
approval of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired why the signs needed to be so large. She expressed concern about the
lighting of the tower sign.
Mr. Bruce Qualls, representing Regency Centers, stated that good signage was critical to the success
of a retailer. He noted that the size of the monument could be bigger and in a more prominent
location. He noted that the Nob Hill sign was 30 square feet, and that the architectural element added
cohesiveness and an attractive common element to the center.
Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant, gave a brief background of his involvement in this project, and
described his rationale in designing each signage element. He felt that a large panel sign would be
inappropriate for the tower signage; using letters were a better method for this element. He noted that
would be a visible and bright sign; they still appear to be an open-channel letter. He noted that he
used the concept of marine architecture as inspiration for this project. He described each signage
element in detail.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the color of the materials and colors of
the bridge arch figure, Mr. Weiman replied that it would be either aluminum or steel, either powder-
coated or painted with a polyurethane enamel. The width of the monument sign would be
approximately 12 feet wide, and the columns would be two feet thick.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern that the sign placed at the end of the canvas awning ends up
overwhelming the proposed softness, as opposed to putting the sign above the canvas awning. Mr.
Weiman noted that was where the roof started, and that was problematic to the placement of the sign.
Ms. McNamara noted that she would not favor roof-mounted signs.
President Cunningham noted that the Board was very concerned about open visibility with respect to
window signs, and he was concerned that there were no restrictions or criteria to define how much
window signage can actually occur.
Mr. Tai advised that staff included the exact language currently in the latest sign ordinance, specifying
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,8,"that ""signs cannot exceed or cover more than 25% of the glazing area. He added that the glazing
area was defined in the ordinance, and that any window sign cannot exceed ten square feet each.
Ms. McNamara believed that the purpose of a sign ordinance was to control the size of retail signs,
and was very concerned that the size had been doubled and tripled for retail advertising purposes. She
believed the sign ordinance should be adhered to more closely. She believed the current signage was
disproportionate to signage in the rest of the city.
Mr. Piziali noted that the Walgreen's sign did exceed the normal signage in the City, after go to City
Council. He would not support the Nob Hill gasoline sign being the same size as the monument sign.
President Cunningham agreed with Mr. Piziali's sentiments regarding the monument sign.
Mr. Piziali did not see any need for both signs to match physically in height, and added that the
service station sign was huge.
Ms. Mariani agreed that the signs, especially the gas station sign, should be scaled down, and
suggested continuing the item.
President Cunningham concurred with the Board members regarding the gas station sign, and
suggested that the mass be reduced by removing some of the arched elements on top. He would like
further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window coverage contradicted
the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.
Mr. Qualls noted that this center faced Tilden, which was a fairly major thoroughfare, and that there
were not many homes adjacent to it. He did not feel there was quite as much friction as the Board
members perceived. With regard to the window signage, he noted that he respected the Board's
perspective and preferred to focus the in-window signage to the parking lot side, as opposed to the
water side. He would like to see a more open perspective to the water.
Ms. McNamara noted that it would be helpful to have a conceptual drawing of how the signs were
proportional to the buildings that surrounded them; she believed that would put the project more
in
context.
Mr. Piziali would like to see an option with slightly smaller signs, and did not believe that people
would miss the shopping center without them.
President Cunningham would support concentrating the estuary-side signage more to the parking lot
side.
Ms. McNamara emphasized her belief that the bright illumination and very large signs were not
necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,9,"Ms. Eliason advised that staff would examine other sign programs, and present information on South
Shore and Walgreen's signs.
Ms. McNamara requested a summary of the discussion with respect to windows.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of August
22, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-08,10,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Regarding the comments made during Oral Communications regarding big box stores, Ms.
McNamara inquired whether the City had a current definition of a big box store.
Ms. Eliason advised that the General Plan did not have any differentiation, and did not recognize ""big
box"" as a definition, but the retail strategy report may have some definitions that have not been
included in the General Plan. She noted that the definition was usually based on square footage, and
staff would research that issue for the Board.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
City of Alameda Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 8, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-08-10,1,"Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
August 10, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Staff:
Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary
Jane Chisaki, Interim Library Director
Laura Chaquette, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board member Schoenrock had one correction to the Minutes as did President Krongold.
Board member Butter discussed the Horizon circulation statistics and asked if
adjustments to the reports would continue. Library Director Hardie stated that it is
possible we will need to make future adjustments, but for now the problem appears to be
solved.
Board member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar with corrections to
the minutes. Board member Schoenrock SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a
unanimous voice vote.
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of August 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of July 13, 2005.
Approved with corrections.
C.
*Revised Library Services Report for the month of April 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Revised Library Services Report for the month of May 2005. Accepted.
E.
*Library Services Report for the month of June 2005. Accepted.",LibraryBoard/2005-08-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-08-10,2,"F.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2004-05 Library expenditures (by
fund) through July 05. Accepted.
G.
*Bills for ratification. Approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Election of Officers
Board member Schoenrock NOMINATED Leslie Krongold for Board President. Board
member Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Board member Schoenrock NOMINATED Ruth Belikove for Vice President. Board
member Mitchell SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Board member Mitchell passed out Liberry Jam from Humboldt County library. He
commented that they had raised over $10,000 selling jam as a fundraiser and suggested
we consider something similar.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Library Building Team (M. Hartigan)
Mike Hartigan reported that the library project is 27% complete and on budget. Board
member Schoenrock asked how the art was approved for the new building. Library
Director Hardie explained that when the Public Art Committee was not yet a Commission
it had approved five pieces of art for the new main library. The five art pieces then had to
be approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Commission only approved
four pieces and rejected the fifth piece. Since the Art Committee is now the Art
Commission it is no longer required to get Parks & Recreation to approve public art.
Therefore, the fifth previously unapproved piece of art is now being grandfathered in.
Vice President Belikove asked about the glass panels on the staircase of the new building.
Ms. Hardie explained that there would be clear glass beneath the railing. Stained glass
will not be used on the staircase but there will be stained glass opportunities in other
areas of the library.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Vice President Belikove reported that the Library Foundation was still getting organized
after a change in administration. They continue to receive training in fundraising. Lois
Hanna has donated $10,000 to the Foundation. President Krongold asked if the cruise is
still being considered as a fundraiser. Vice President Belikove stated that the cruise has
been cancelled.",LibraryBoard/2005-08-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-08-10,3,"C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
Molly Skeen announced that a volunteer with professional experience will be developing
a new website for the Friends of the Library. The next booksale will be 10/21, 10/22 and
10/23 at the ""O"" Club. The Friends will not meet in August.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that the next newsletter will be issued on 8/17.
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Library Director Hardie read 3 input/feedback forms regarding: patron complaint
regarding the rest room facilities not being updated; patron thanking staff for purchasing
so many large print books; and, patron asking why there are no new titles on the shelves.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
President Krongold thanked Susan Hardie for all her hard work and welcomed Jane
Chisaki as the new Interim Library Director.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Library Director Hardie thanked the Library Board, Library Building Team, Library
Foundation, Friends of the Library and staff. She wished everyone the best in coming
years.
Library Director Hardie asked how many Board members would be attending the
Summer Reading Program ceremony. President Krongold, Vice President Belikove and
Board member Mitchell stated that they would be attending. Board members Schoenrock
and Butter stated that they would attend if their schedules permitted it.
Board member Butter asked about the Technology Plan of Service. Ms. Hardie explained
that Joe Ford had been contracted to analyze the impacts of the new and increased
technology and equipment in the new building. Board member Mitchell asked if the
equipment was paid for. Ms. Hardie answered in the affirmative.
Board member Butter asked about RFID technology and any related issues that may
come up with its implementation. Ms. Hardie responded that RFID is a necessary step in
continuing Library inventory and security. The system currently in place is outdated.
She also stated that the Request for Proposal for RFID should be ready to go out in
October and that the process would be very similar to the process for the ILS system.",LibraryBoard/2005-08-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-08-10,4,"Ms. Hardie assured everyone that concerns over privacy issues would be addressed and
that having patrons continue to use the current ""barcoded"" card system will eliminate any
ability for breaches in individual privacy.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED at adjourn the meeting of the Alameda Free Library
Board at 7:35 p.m. Vice President Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED
by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Secretary",LibraryBoard/2005-08-10.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-08-11,1,"City of Alameda . California
2226 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA 94501 . (510) 747-7529
Fax (510) 747-7566 . E-Mail Address:www.arpd@ci.alameda.ca.u
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
NOTICE OF MEETING
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION
SCHEDULED FOR
THURSDAY, August 11, 2005
HAS BEEN
CANCELLED",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-08-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-396) - Proclamation recognizing John Knowles for his
contribution to the revitalization of the Park Street Business
District.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Knowles.
Mr. Knowles thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-397 - ) Proclamation designating August 26th as Women's Equality
Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dorie
Behrstock, Vice President of Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women.
Ms. Behrstock introduced Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women members Margaret Seaman and Joanne Ainsworth
thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the Council and
public to a reception on August 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Harbor
Bay Community Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating Special
Newsrack Districts [paragraph no. 05-404] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,2,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number) ]
(*05-398) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting and the
Regular City Council meeting held on August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-399) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,127,711.09.
(*05-400) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for
period ending June 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05-401) - Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the period ending June 30, 2005, for sales transactions in the
First Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
(*05-402) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
second amendment to Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates,
extending the term, scope of work and price for services associated
with the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Accepted.
(*05-403) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco
Keller Canyon, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(05-404) Resolution No. 13882, ""Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts as Authorized in the Alameda Municipal Code Section 22-7,
Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article 1 (Streets)
,
Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be aware of
the Newsrack Ditricts, which go along with the improvements on Park
and Webster Streets and increase attractiveness in the business
districts.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged adoption
of the resolution.
Sherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) stated WABA
supports adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to recognize the
efforts of former Councilmember Karin Lucas; requested staff to
review posting signs on historic lampposts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,3,"Mayor Johnson stated a lot of signs are attached to the poles the
signs detract from the attractiveness of the poles and should be
avoided if possible.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-405) - Resolution No. 13883, ""Requiring City Council Approval of
Any Amendment to the Employment Contracts of the City Manager or
City Attorney. Adopted.
(*05-406) Resolution No. 13884, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for
the Position of Senior Combination Building Inspector. Adopted.
(*05-407) Resolution No. 13885, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the positions of Information
Systems Network Analyst and Safety Officer. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-408) Public Hearing to consider Appeals of the Planning
Board's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review for the parking
garage and new Cineplex components of the proposed Alameda Theater
Project on Oak Street and Central Avenue. This site is located at
1416 Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (Video Maniacs site)
within the C-C-T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Applicants: City of Alameda (DSD) and Kyle Conner, Alameda
Entertainment Associates, LP . Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Valerie
Ruma ;
(05-408A) Resolution No. 13886, ""Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR05-0028
and Use Permit UP05-0008 for the Proposed New Civic Center Parking
Garage. Adopted; and
(05-408B) Resolution No. 13887, ""Resolution Upholding the Planning
Board of the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review
DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue.
Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of project) : Kathy Moehring, Alameda (not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,24,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning
Board decision with the conditions outlined].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not
support the motion because he is concerned about the business deal;
charging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million;
charging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the
amount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic
theater are the original colors.
The Development Manager responded the original colors are not
known; however, the original colors were light.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too
much on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to
bring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not
occurring, he would not support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-409) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club,
submitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working
with Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the
Veterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for
Alameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities;
requested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort
plans as part of the upcoming environmental review.
(05-410) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would
include transit opportunities.
(05-411) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a
proposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the
former Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs
for veterans, low income families, college students, and foster
care children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be
funded by the resort development.
(05-412) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,25,"(05-413) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking
Structure Public Hearing : Valerie Ruma, Citizens for Megaplex Free
Alameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary
McNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05 -414) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf
Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code
Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley
to the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to
the Golf Commission.
(05-415) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an
announcement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application
by Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the
Krusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular
does not own the existing site.
Mayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which
Councilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed
the first cell towers at Krusi Park.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that she would
investigate the matter.
(05-416) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry
has exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement
needs to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be
considered in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 2:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005- - -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-395) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator
:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-039) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:
Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties : Catellus
Limited Operating Partnership and Community Improvement Commissioni
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property Negotiators and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,28,"MINUTES
OF
THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17,
2005.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the
Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA
[paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting,
and the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda
Management, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management
Services for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project
and proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted.
(05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, ""Authorizing the Executive
Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community
Improvement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership
(Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From
June 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a
Change from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a
Mixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,29,"would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.
The Development Services Director responded that the amendment
would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing
property.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public
process that would allow people to comment, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware
that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would
be given a year to provide more information.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan
- 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 2:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,4,"Rudenko, Alameda (not present) ; Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita
Dorland, Alameda (not present) ; Alex Helperin, Alameda (not
present) ; Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present) ; Sia Bayat,
Alameda Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,5,"Following Gina Shepard's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at
11:37 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:50
p.m.
***
When the meeting was reconvened, Councilmember Matarrese moved
approval of continuing the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Following Frank Lopez, there being no, further speakers, Mayor
Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the cost for the Cineplex and
historic renovation is approximately $13 million dollars; the
report compares the $13 million cost against $5.9 million in
revenues; there is a negative of $7.1 million; inquired whether
interest is included in the $13 million cost.
Tim Kelly, Keyser and Marston Associates, responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the amount would be if interest
were included.
Mr. Kelly responded tax increment should be included if interest is
included; stated the bonds are already funded; all sources of
income that pay for the City's obligations, including tax increment
used to fund the debt service on the bonds and garage income, are
not included.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was an estimate of how
long it would take for property values to raise in order to recoup
the $7.1 million.
Mr. Kelly responded the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
already has the income to pay for the approximately $15 or $16
million in bonds which have been sold; the $7 million for the
parking garage is not paid for yet; some sources of funds would be
the theater and ground lease rent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the sources of funds would
equal $5.9 million.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated the source of funds
would be $5.9 million in present value against a loan of $7 million
present value.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,6,"Counci lmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the
Cineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back.
Mr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon
the CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not
have to repay the bonds the bonds are financed by CIC's existing
cash flow.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax
increment.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the
existing tax increment the tax increment does not come out of the
General Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General
Fund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used
for certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money
from being used for Police and Fire services.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used
for public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr.
Kelly responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are
used for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be
covered by redevelopment funds.
Mr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing
is to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove
blight redevelopment financing is not intended for public
improvements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically,
redevelopment funds could be used.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment
money cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to
infrastructure.
Mr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment
captured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to
use the funds for remediation of blight.
The Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is
very clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be
used for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law
findings that state there are no other public monies available must
be made to do an improvement, like a street.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is an argument that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,7,"redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure
improvements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital
Improvement Budget inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be
used under certain circumstances.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street
resurfacing; pass-through agreements with the County preclude the
City from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain
projects, such as Estuary Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated
with the $47 million bond issue.
The Development Services Director responded the projects include
the new Library and matching funding for some grant money for
Webster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part
of the construction of the Marina Village Project $13 million went
to capitalize the payments on the long-term obligation to repay the
infrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for
intersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets.
The Development Services Director responded that money for
intersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment
revenues, not bond money.
Councilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results
in a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments
regarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid
from the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not
the project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC
costs against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7
million negative.
Mr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the
historic theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the
theater; the City is buying assets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of edevelopment
is to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect
property taxes if the City owns the assets.
The Development Services Director responded one objective of
redevelopment is to create value; redevelopment also serves to
build the projects which the community needs; the existing tax
increment supports the construction of the parking structure; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,8,"parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new
value; the money is also used for projects that the public has
decided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a
case and is an eligible, legal project i the lion share of the $5. 9
million concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,
stabilization and restoration of the historic theater part of the
expenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the
theater, which was considered of great concern to the community
staff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the
investment the theater did not have a private sector investor all
these years because nobody in the private sector could figure out
what could go into the building to substantiate or support the
investment.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,
to which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net
present value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the
historic theater; Council felt the theater would continue to
deteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the
project cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not
so valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking
garage, without the historic theater the project is running in the
red because so much money is being spent for the historic theater
infrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a
financial albatross.
The Development Services Director responded public entities restore
buildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to
the community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a
building use that could support the project costs would result in
the building being butchered to increase density, such as public
storage; said type of use would not meet the community's
restoration and preservation goals.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure
design/build allows the design to be modified.
The Development Services Director responded that one of the goals
of using the design/build process was to ensure that the project
was built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the
design/build process allows designers and construction to come
together to yield the most efficient garage the exterior design
review is being resolved to prevent the design/build contract from
growing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up
front provides the additional guarantee that there would be no
questions about what the design/build team put together i the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,9,"objective was to have the most efficient, least expensive project,
with an eye on speed; the exterior design of the project needs to
be known before moving forward, otherwise an intolerable budget
situation could be created; design/build should reduce the number
of changes later and create a more controlled process for bidding
the project and getting the best price and product for the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the first tasks was to
review alternate parking areas in 1999 during the visioning
process; inquired what were the alternate areas.
The Development Services Director responded she does not know what
the alternate parking areas were in 1999; subsequent parking
analysis identified alternative sites, including the Elks Club,
Video Maniacs and the Long's site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not recall Video Maniacs
being one of the sites.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Video Maniacs was included as
an option in the 2000 Downtown Vision Report.
The Development Manager stated that six studies reviewed different
sites since 1972; all studies considered Video Maniacs as one of
the top sites.
Councilmember deHaan stated the 2000 parking analysis indicated
that 498 parking spaces were needed for 1,500 theater seats;
inquired whether the Development Services Director was aware of the
analysis.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the analysis was fairly speculative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the analysis indicated that a certain
number would park in the lot and some patrons would park in other
areas; Park Street as been so successful in recent years that the
200 spaces [in other areas) that were going to be used to support
the theater are being utilized now.
The Development Services Director stated the environmental
assessment included completion of a new traffic and parking
assessment to update the information and confirm that there would
be opportunities for shared parking the commercial district
setting of the project means people will have already parked
somewhere else.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,10,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first
study has increased.
The Development Services Director responded the new trip manual
published after parking work was completed has identical numbers on
reverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors
that apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday
position has been improved significantly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been
provided.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that the only manual of record published at the time the work was
completed was used for the [first study; using the new trip manual
staff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was
that, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even
worse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study! ].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow
into other areas because the parking structure would not be able to
handle all parking needs.
The Development Services Director responded said case would only
occur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the
scope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger
project because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed
project is smaller.
The Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic
and parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of
the 1750 seats and did not include cross trips the numbers in the
parking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to
support the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support
peak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman
Auditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school.
The Development Services Director responded that staff did not
factor in that every facility in town could have an event on the
same night. the analysis is based on existing trip data at certain
times of the day.
Councilmember deHaan stated the theater is not used during peak
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,11,"hours; the theater peak time is later.
The Development Services Director stated the parking studies
included a desire for a much bigger parking structure; a 508 space
parking garage was contemplated when the Long's parking lot was
discussed; a long-term parking plan is still needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that existing tax increment covers the
bonds that have already been issued; requested staff to address how
the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan would be paid back,
the developer's buying and selling options, and how much capital
the developer is investing in the project; stated that there has
been a lot of discussion regarding scaling down the theater or just
doing three screens the number one goal of the Downtown Vision
Plan was to restore the historic theater for first run movies.
The Development Services Director stated all except $3.5 million of
public investment in the project would go to the historic theater
and parking garage the developer will provide his own furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) in the historic theater; the
developer will bring $5. 3 million in equity and bank financing; the
developer has met financing commitments outlined in the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) ; the bank financing includes an SBA
(Small Business Administration portion, which has additional
control and rigor because of the examination SBA completes; the
developer would build the Cineplex; the City will own the land
under the Cineplex and own the historic theater and land; the City
will lease the historic theater and the ground under the Cineplex
to the developer ; a $700,000 grant will pay for vertical elements,
such as the elevator, ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
exiting and life safety exiting; the Cineplex entrance will be used
to meet ADA requirements; there are two methods for repaying the
$2.8 million loan in the DDA; $1. 4 million will begin to be repaid
in the seventh year after the developer's FF&E financing would be
retired; the other $1.4 million will be paid in a percentage rent,
which is 17% of the project gross above a certain threshold; DDA
provisions preclude the developer from selling or refinancing
without paying off the loans; the historic theater retail rental
income will be retained by the CIC; the developer has the option to
purchase the the historic theater and the land under the Cineplex
from the CIC after successfully operating for five years; the
developer would have to buy both the historic theater and Cineplex
land; the purchase price would be the amount that the CIC paid.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that there is a lot of concern over the
assumptions about ticket sales; the developer has to sell tickets
to meet his obligations to bankers and the CIC; the concern is that
not enough tickets will be sold and that the project will fail;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,12,"requested staff to address said assumptions.
The Development Services Director stated the assumptions are
extremely conservative; staff assumed the project would gross
approximately $2 million per year in ticket sales and another
$900,000 to $1 million in concessions, for a total of $3 million;
the financial analysis has determined that the project obligations
to the CIC would be met at the achievement of said $3 million; the
percentage rent is based on the business producing $3 million; the
assumption is that 60-65% of the Alameda market will be captured
the Bay Area is an anomaly with respect to theater-going trends;
Bay Area theater attendance is almost twice the national average ;
theaters in the area are doing twice the amount of business that
staff estimated per screen; staff also wanted to ensure that the
project has enough revenue to maintain the facilities; DDA
provisions require that the buildings need be operated in a certain
manner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the square foot rent would be
for the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
calculate the amount; the rent has been $2,000 per month for the
past few years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the square footage of the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded that the entire building is 33,000 square feet, which
includes space that would not be used.
Mayor Johnson requested an overview of the current condition of the
historic theater and the status of the acquisition.
The Development Services Director responded the Council took action
to begin the eminent domain process late last spring; the building
estimate, based on an appraisal, was deposited with the courts; the
owner has picked up the deposit and advised the court that he would
not contest the sale and is only interested in the value; the value
will now be established through the eminent domain processi the
City will take possession of the theater on October 3 or 4; the
City has worked with the owner to gain access to the building and
begin work, such as investigation of the ground water problem in
the basement.
Mayor Johnson noted that the building has been used as a skating
rink, disco, roller rink and gymnastics auditorium.
The Development Services Director stated that the City has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,13,"working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the
building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to
determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code
and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been
done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the
concrete façade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood
posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and
plumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a
combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water
intrusion.
The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;
the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,
and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered
water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer
walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the
auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage
along the alley due to a storm drain.
Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received
from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be
received from the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated
that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing
and would receive the rents from his own retail space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was
significant to the developer to make the project work.
The Development Services Director responded that the funding is
part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from
the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer
will pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new
Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated
150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the
balcony.
The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the
developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if
he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each
and would be used to show boutique films.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,14,"be downsized if one of the theaters and some retail were removed
stated that he is concerned with protrusions going in all different
directions; inquired whether the footprint could be reduced.
The Development Services Director responded the buildings are
linked; eliminating a theater from the Cineplex top level would
impact the value of what remains and the project's ability to
support the additional cost of going to a second floor; some of the
value supports the construction cost.
Councilmember deHaan stated protrusions usually cost more money
removing the 79-seat theater would allow the building to be brought
back; review of other options would allow reduction of mass; that
he has concerns about design.
Kyle Conner, Project Developer, stated more screens are needed, not
less; eliminating a screen on the second level of the Cineplex
would leave only nine screens; that he would like to have more than
ten screens; that he would have a problem with reducing the number
of screens.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Conner's plan would be to go
forward with the balcony eventually, to which Mr. Conner responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the $72,000 in rent for the
historic theater equals per square foot.
Mr. Conner responded the ground floor is approximately 19,000
square feet, including retail; the cinema would be approximately
15,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog stated that movie theater square footage
comparisons are a way to gauge whether the rent is appropriate.
Mr. Conner stated debt service for construction should be
considered as rent because he has a ground lease and does not own
the property; rent would be approximately $1.30 per square foot
when considering all of the components to service the debt and rent
for the facility.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the figure would be if debt
service were not considered, to which Mr. Conner responded $0.40
per square foot.
The Development Services Director stated that the rent is based on
revenues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,15,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats the historic theater
had on the main floor, to which the Development Manager responded
2,000 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats would be accommodated
now, to which the Development Manager responded 484 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all the space would be
utilized.
Mr. Conner responded old seats were spaced 32 inches apart; new
seats will be spaced 45 inches apart.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 484 seats would utilize
all the space.
Mr. Conner responded in the affirmative; noted old seating areas
underneath the balcony would be used for offices and concessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the historic theater lobby
area would be adequate for a concession stand, to which Mr. Conner
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether rent was compared with other
cities or facilities.
Mr. Kelly responded one integrated business is being run in two
buildings rent was run against total gross and was around 15%; the
calculations were run on gross, rather than per square foot; the
rent is based upon the estimated volume of business.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the industry reviews rents on
a square-foot basis.
Mr. Kelly responded typical rent would be $1.35 to $1.85 per square
foot in a suburban area; Alameda's situation is unique; the rent
was based on estimated gross sales to be fair to both sides.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a blended figure
for both the new Cineplex and the historic theater, to which Mr.
Kelly responded that the developer is building the Cineplex
building.
Mayor Johnson stated one of the project goals was to save the
historic theater; theaters built today are not like the historic
theater ; the developer is taking on a lot of space that would not
be taken on for a modern theater; the project would be a lot easier
if preserving the historic theater were not a goal; there are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,16,"obstacles in determining how to go forward with the project and
save the historic theater at the same time.
Mr. Kelly stated the historic theater costs over $9 million for 484
seats; $9 million is enough money to build a 12-plex.
Mayor Johnson stated eight years ago, the Council gave direction to
staff to develop a project that would save the Alameda Theater and
have it used for first run movies.
Mr. Conner stated the percentage rent structure was designed to
help protect the downside and have everyone share in the upside ;
the City shares significantly [in the upside ] more than any other
deal; the amount is three to four times what an average percentage
rent would be in any commercial theater in a suburban setting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City's share of the
percentage rent in net present value terms over 20 to 30 years is
$190,000.
Mr. Kelly responded an aggressive assumption that the theater will
get 100% of the Alameda market would mean the City will have some
significant percentage rents; if the theater does very well, the
City will receive 15 to 17%, will share in that [profit] and
receive what is believed to be a fair rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 15 to 17% was based on gross or net,
to which Mr. Kelly responded gross, including concessions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated everyone seems to agree that the historic
theater should be restored and preserved; the money being spent to
restore the theater could build a 12-plex; money is being put into
the historic theater because it almost becomes a public amenity; a
public amenity is not expected to make a return; the new Library is
not expected to make a return.
Councilmember Daysog noted residents voted for the new Library.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the community has clearly expressed that
restoration and preservation of the historic theater is valuable:
the high cost of rehabilitating the theater makes a financially
neutral project difficult; opinions about the rest of the project
differ restoring the theater does not come cheaply.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been on-going attempts to install
parking in the Park Street area since the 1970 s; there was effort
to save the theater in the 1980's; the project will not solve all
parking problems on Park Street; Webster Street potential parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,17,"problems need to be reviewed; the City has the opportunity to move
forward with the project; the developer is willing; financing is
available; there have been years of public study; that she has not
come across one person in Alameda who has said do not bother saving
the historic theater; saving the historic theater is not easy; no
one has attempted to run the theater for 25 years; that she is
trying to do what she believes is best for Alameda in the long
term.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether adding a multiplex cinema
to the historic theater makes the project economically viable
stated that he is concerned about the movie marketplace. a minimum
of 15 screens seems necessary to make money; seven screens
definitely will not make money that he is emphatic about getting
parking on Park Street; the theater should not overtake the benefit
of having a parking structure; the [Cineplex] design is ugly; the
trouble is placing the structure on a small parcel; there is not
enough money for the project.
Mayor Johnson stated the project would be easier to manage
financially if one of the goals was not saving the historic
theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated one reason for the [financial]
shortfall is because the City is paying for assets that will be
acquired, such as the parking structure and theater evidence
supports the financial feasibility of the project; requested an
explanation of the Planning Board action, including what approval
meant and what changes were made; requested the architect to
explain the basis of the design.
Rob Henry, The Henry Architects, stated that he inherited the
project after Michael Stanton Architectural firm designed the
building, which gave direction as to the massing of the building ;
that he tried to include scale, texture and materials that would be
compatible and advantageous to the downtown atmosphere; the project
was very difficult; the building's constraints cannot be ignored
the building has to have certain proportions in order to be a
successful theater design, which have led to difficult solution
with the building overhangs; that he has tried to cooperate with
the Design Review Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning
Board to address all concerns; the Planning Board placed a couple
of conditions on the design; one condition was to add some
additional texture to the panels on the corner of the building;
many options were studied; the decision was made to enhance the
context of the design, rather than introducing something totally
foreign to the basic design of the building; the established design
for the panels around the corner of the building was carried into
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,18,"more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the
overall design.
The Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long
pre-design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that
the developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to
Michael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process
and the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and
Planning Board established the design criteria addressing the
issues that the community thought were important; the criteria was
provided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for
beginning the project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking
garage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like
the buildings to fit together currently, the two buildings stand
alone.
Mr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two
different buildings with different functions; applying one design
to one type of building and expecting that design to apply to
another type building is difficult; the design comes out of the
internal organization, function and requirements of the project;
there is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex,
which was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does
have a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the
Cineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the
buildings is similar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is
attempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking
structure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having
mostly vertical elements.
Mr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate
whether or not a new building built in a historic context should be
built to look like the historic building or be something of its own
character both sides have pros and cons.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines
prohibit imitation of a historic building.
The Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of
Standards prohibits mimicking or creating a building that would
give the false impression that it was built in 1920 instead of
2005; the Secretary of Standards encourages incorporating historic
features and elements into the design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,19,"Counci deHaan inquired whether or not rounding off the
corner would be considered mimicking.
The Development Services Director responded rounding off would not
be mimicking; stated mimicking would be trying to make people
believe the building is art deco.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Cineplex and parking structure
corners could be smoothed; where the Cineplex steps back from the
historic theater there are funny, square windows.
The Development Services Director stated that she met with AAPS
last week; AAPS feels strongly about the need for a much stronger
vertical element; at a number of different public meetings
addressing design, people liked the glass lobby element.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the long, 20
to 21 inch, protrusions, which do not match the downtown district
and result in an awkward mass; that he would be happy if the
project was one-story; however, more screens are needed to make the
project financially feasible.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for taking the time to voice
opinions; stated that the Council would vote on the appeal of the
Planning Board's decision regarding the project design and other
design related elements tonight that he is troubled by the
business deal aspects of the project and continues to struggle over
what constitutes the proper balance between fulfilling an earnest
desire for a historic movie theater that the community could be
proud of and the wise and prudent use of public dollars; that he is
also troubled by the fact that the cinema project is a negative $7
million and the new information tonight regarding the $0.40 per
square foot [rent] when market is $1.35; that the Council has a
fiduciary responsibility to exercise leadership when the public's
appetite for amenities conflicts with fiscal prudence; that he
understands the desire to restore the historic theater and that
some people want the Cineplex; however, he is struggling with the
rent; $0.40 per square foot is one-third of the market rate.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.35 market rate is
for commercial space or theater space, to which the Development
Services Director responded the rate is for brand new theater
space.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether data on other historic
theaters, such as the Fox Theater in Oakland, was available.
The Development Services Director responded that the Fox Theater is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,20,"non-profit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand
new theater ] is not fair.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because
people are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new
historically restored theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically
restored makes a difference.
Councilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater
is on the City's dime.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is
at least as close to fair market as possible.
The Development Services Director stated that the developer would
be happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to
build the cinemas.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the
downtown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar
figure on how the project will improve the environment and make the
area more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things
happen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John
Knowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr.
Knowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the
merchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set
up an environment to retain businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in
spite of the City and with no public dollars because the
Redevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment
agency part of the project's value is that the City is getting
first run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend
money in town, rather than elsewhere.
Councilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized
at $1.10 per square foot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside
whether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's
decision, which is about design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,21,"Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40
per square foot.
Valerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the
environmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact
report is required by the law before the project can go forward.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative
declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; a letter from the
Appellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been
required if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative
declaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative
declaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated
negative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not
challenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative
declaration was not challenged.
Ms. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided
contradictory information that there was no specific appeal process
and the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design
review could be appealed but that the environmental review is not
being addressed tonight.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss
the matter with Ms. Ruma.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design/build
project; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed
design, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower
opening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a
construction standpoint.
The Development Services Director responded that she could not
answer whether the openings could be made smaller there are a
number of structural issues relative to the parking garage because
of other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns
possible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and
view; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the
outside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be some type of
movement on the long, bare sidewall of the parking garage to give
it a feel other than just a flat wall.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,22,"The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built
on the property line; that she does not have the answer since the
structural piece has not been completed; a process has been started
to provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable
mural.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical
theater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be
replicated, movement can be done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four
ins and outs.
The Development Services Director stated there is some
articulation.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture
presented would not be the final design; the City has a public art
policy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from
local artists to create a design based on the adopted policy.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion
was to reverse the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers
Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning
Board's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design
Review; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is
harmonious in design experts have discussed vertical and
horizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the
historic theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals
to use the historic theater for first run movies and provide
parking in an unobtrusive wayi inquired whether the Council could
attach conditions.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to
see included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,23,"are a condition to have the façade treatment on the Oak Street
portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar
to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment
of the Central Avenue façade of the Cineplex provide a less modern
treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the
corner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is
curved outwards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.
Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was
not the garage in Staunton, Virginia.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with
openings.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of
a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have
the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original
renderings.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
referring to ""less modern"" applies to the overhang that is on the
front of the Cineplex.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that
he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any
direction in defining less modern.
Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping
treatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should
be general : the architect should come back with something less
modern for that window specifically and the architect should
understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.
Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further
requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket
booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used
to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Revised 10/10/05
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson,
Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray
Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz and Commissioner Jane Sullwold.
Absent: Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were General Manager
Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 20, 2005
The following correction was made:
Item 1- - Vice Chair Santare called the meeting to order in Chair Swanson's
absence.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the
aforementioned changes.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of the Golf Complex Policy Board. (Action Item)
The General Manager stated that the policy board was originally slated as an
Action Item although not enough review has been done so it will be a discussion
item only. The Complex has had policy boards over the years on the first tee of
the courses. The current policy board on the Mif Albright Course reads as
follows:
1. All players must check-in at the Pro Shop before starting play.
2. No coolers! Outside food and beverage is not permitted. Please use the golf
course restaurant facility.",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,2,"3. Proper golf attire required. No tank tops or cut-off shorts.
4. Golf or tennis shoes only.
5. No fivesomes allowed.
6. No spectators under 12 years old allowed.
7. Please play ""ready"" golf.
The following are revisions for consideration:
1. All players and spectators must check-in at the Pro Shop before starting play.
2. WARNING! Do not enter water hazards or sloughs.
3. AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop and
Driving Range buildings.
4. No coolers! Outside food and beverage is not permitted. Please use the Golf
Complex restaurant facility.
5. Appropriate attire required.
6. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.
7. Observe all ""Pace of Play"" rules. Please stay within one shot of the group
directly ahead of you.
8. Please play ""ready"" golf.
The discussion ensued and the following additions were made:
All players and spectators must check-in at the Pro Shop 15 minutes before
starting play to guarantee your tee time.
Please use cell phone etiquette.
Please obey course marshals at all times.
Disorderly conduct will result in ejection.
90° cart rule in effect at all times.
Play at own risk.
The suggestion was made to have one policy board in a central location at the
Complex although the concern is not to have a large obtrusive board. The
General Manager mentioned the possibility of placing clocks on the courses to
help with the pace of play. Another suggestion was to have the tee marshal go
over the basic rules with groups before they tee off. The suggestions will be
added to the policies and the decision will be made at the next meeting.
3-B
Approval of the Management Practice for the Practice Area. (Action Item)
The General Manager reported that the new short game practice area is up
and running. The purpose of this management practice is to establish and
clarify procedures regarding the Golf Complex Short Game practice area.
It is required that the Chuck Corica golf professional staff establishes
operational policies and procedures to control and maximize the safe use
of the Golf Complex short game practice area. The Management Practice
established for it is as follows:",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,3,"All customers must register in range pro shop before using the practice area.
Pro Shop staff will log in customers name, start time, and finishing time in the
logbook.
Maximum of four (4) customers are allowed to use the practice area at one time.
Customers may use their own golf balls, limit ten (10).
Premium Titleist Pro V1 practice balls are available. Fee to be determined.
The practice area has been well received by the customers allowing
practice at night. The suggestion was made to place a time limit on the
use of the area if it is deemed necessary in the future. The Golf
Commission approved the Management Practice for the Golf Complex
Short Game Practice Area unanimously.
3-C
Proclamation Thanking the Founding Members of the Chuck Corica Senior Golf
Club, President-Neil Coe, Handicap Chair-Bert Morgan, Treasurer-Ralph
Bertelsen, Secretary-George Humphreys, Coordinator-George Newkirk.
The Head Golf Professional stated that the suggestion to start an associate golf
club at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex was brought to the General Manager by
Commissioner Gammell two years ago. The reason was to enable more golfers to
have the Chuck Corica Golf Complex as their home course. The decision was
made to name it the Chuck Corica Senior Golf Club due to the large amount of
senior golfers that play the course. The club is open to all golfers yet caters to the
seniors. The club currently has 144 members. Commissioner Gammell thanked
the club's Board of Directors, President-Neil Coe, Handicap Chair-Bert Morgan,
Treasurer-Ralph Bertelsen, Secretary-George Humphreys and Coordinator-
George Newkirk for all the hard work they put into starting the club and a job
well done. The Head Golf Professional handed out Certificates of Appreciation
from the Mayor and the City of Alameda.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that Ken Jones has been named
Director of Instruction at the Driving Range. Mr. Jones will be conducting
free instruction clinics every Thursday morning for the Alameda Women's
Golf Club. Additional clinics are being scheduled in the future, which will
have a nominal fee. New range balls and mats are due to arrive soon.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
The General Manager reported that the Complex is in the process of",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,4,"reviewing proposals for new maintenance equipment. The current
equipment is seven years old and in need of constant costly repairs. The
goal is to have the new equipment in the next few months. The City
Manager met with the General Manager and toured the Golf Complex last
week and she was very supportive of the new clubhouse project. Also
reported was that the General Manager is working with the City Manager
and the Human Resources Department to allow the Golf Complex to hire
employees under the age of eighteen years old in entry level positions. It
has been hard to find employees to fill the lower paying positions in the
past and this will alleviate the situation.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
Mrs. Arnerich reported that a tree planting is scheduled for Sunday. Also
reported was that the Junior Golf Club's tournament season ended today
with a field of about 90 participants. The club has increased in
membership over the years. Mrs. Arnerich thanked all of the volunteers
and staff who helped through the season.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
No report given.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul reported that the new codes designated to better track
complimentary rounds were put in place on July 21, 2006 so the figures
are still skewed. It was determined at last months meeting that the
financial report did not contain enough codes for the complimentary
rounds to correctly track them. Many complimentary rounds were being
entered as PGA/LPGA, when they were actually Golf 707 or other
promotional rounds. Also reported was that the Golf 707 program has
been very successful earning $46,000 in the first 6 months. The Complex
gives Golf 707 ten rounds of golf a week, many which are not used.
Commissioner Gaul also mentioned that the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
has proprietary rights to the customer information to use for additional in
house marketing. To date over 4,000 customers have visited the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex page at Golf 707. Also reported, the rounds for July
2005 were down 677 rounds compared to July 2006.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he would attend the Chuck Corica Senior
Golf Club meeting tomorrow and the Alameda Golf Club meeting on the",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,5,"last Tuesday of the month.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the General Manager, Chair Swanson
and himself met with the City Manager to discuss the new clubhouse
project. The meeting was to bring the City Manager up to date on the
history and progress concerning the project. The City Manager has visited
the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and agreed that the project was
worthwhile. The General Manager presented the City Manager with
photos of the Poplar Creek clubhouse in San Mateo and she was impressed
with the facility. The General Manager presented a preliminary project
schedule and the first step is to get Phase I and Phase II environmental
reports to gain the hazardous material and soil information for the site.
The reports will be used to determine the feasibility of using the Poplar
Creek plans. Work is being done on securing a company to perform the
tests and a contract is being prepared. Another meeting will be set with
the Mayor and City Manager in November once the financial projections
and environmental reports have been completed. The desire is to go to
City Council in early 2006 with a complete project package. The project
manager will need to look into any modifications needed for the entrance
and parking lot. Bob Han of the Public Works Department mentioned that
it would be beneficial to go out to bid for construction in the winter
months when contractors aren't as busy and are looking for work. Once
the financial projections are completed the Golf Commission will need to
consider ways to service the debt, possibly through fee increases.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Commissioner Sullwold reported that there are no security problems to
report. Also reported was the need to clean the men's bathroom on #9 of
the Earl Fry Course.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
Chair Swanson stated that the major factor in getting approval for the new
clubhouse is the financial report. Most people agree that a new facility is
necessary although the concern is that not too much of the burden be
placed on the golfers by way of fee increases.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
No report given.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-08-17,6,"The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.",GolfCommission/2005-08-17.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-08-22,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
August 22, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook, Moore,
Absent/Excused: McGaughey, Seffens
Guests: Audrey Lard-Hausman
MINUTES: The minutes of May 23, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commissioner Toby Berger commented on the draft standards for pedestrian access during
construction projects and suggested several changes. These changes included stipulating that surfacing
be non-slippery when wet. The Commission agreed to present comments on the draft standards to the
secretary to incorporate into the final version. The secretary will check with other Cities about their
notification procedures.
2. Alameda Theater:
The acting secretary presented the proposed access plans for the renovated theater. There was
unanimous consent that the renovations are not adequate for a wide range of disabilities. The acting
secretary proposed that the Architect for the theater renovation attend the next meeting to discuss
accessibility issues.
3. Handicap Parking Spaces for Park Street Farmers Market:
The acting secretary stated that vehicles with handicap placard or plates can park at any metered
space. Temporary signs designating handicap spaces are available for events, such as the Farmer's
Market. Secretary to follow up. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that the current
Farmer's Market is not accessible friendly.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-08-22,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 22, 2005 Minutes
Page 2
4. Disability Awareness Month:
The acting secretary read the proposed proclamation to be read by Mayor Beverly Johnson at a City
Council meeting next month. A commissioner suggested that a press release be issued about the Alameda
Hospital Health Fair scheduled for October 15th
OLD BUSINESS:
5. Abilities EXPO:
Vice-Chair James Gwynne updated the Commission on the upcoming abilities EXPO on November
18th in Santa Clara. The Chair informed the vice-chair that there needed to be a clarification as to who
would get transportation to and from the EXPO. The Mastick Senior Center was prepared to provide
transportation only for members of the commission. Any misunderstanding or miscommunications
should be clarified as soon as possible.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Guest Audrey Lard-Hausman said the members of the Police Academy ticket illegally parked vehicles
in spaces designated for handicap parking as well as vehicles parked on sidewalks. They will respond
to calls.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore volunteered to prepare handout information on disability issues for
children.
3. A commissioner suggested an award for construction projects that provide good accessibility.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 26th in Room 391,
City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Robert Claire
Associate Civil Engineer
RC:lc
G:\pubworks\LT\MCI Disability Committee/2005/0822min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand,
Lynch, and Piziali.
Board members Mariani and McNamara were absent from roll call. Board member
Mariani arrived during the Board discussion of Item 8-D.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie
Harryman, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis
Brighton.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
August 8, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to approve the minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that page 10, paragraph 8 should be changed to read, ""He
would like further discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window
coverage contradicted the intentions of the Design direction ordinance.""
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next
meeting.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an
election, and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,2,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
proposes a Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business
Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203.
This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574.
These lots are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The
proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%)
increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres. Currently,
maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger
than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The
maximum lot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be
affected. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would also decrease
the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on
lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots smaller than 5.5
acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping
requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The
property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned
Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,3,"8-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The
applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new
flex warehouse, office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from
13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000
North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These
facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is
approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing -
Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to September 26, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,4,"8.C.
Variance, V05-0006, and Major Design Review, DR05-0063 - Mary Claire &
Robert Neumann - 2504 San Jose Avenue (DG). The applicants request a
Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot detached
accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed
detached structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and
rear property lines, where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the
structure would be located less than 75-feet from the front property line. The site
is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-32 to
approve a Major Design Review approval for the construction of a 117-square foot
detached accessory structure and an approximately 180-square foot deck at the rear of the
single-family residence. A Variance approval is requested because the proposed detached
structure would be built to within 6-inches from the westerly side and rear property lines,
where minimum 5-foot setbacks are required because the structure would be located less
than 75-feet from the front property line.
AYES - 5 (Mariani, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,5,"8-D. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under
Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review
DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG).
Vice President Cook advised that she had questions about this item.
Ms. Mariani arrived during the discussion of this item.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board had been asked for an extension of construction
until 2010, which seemed to her to be a very long time. She understood that the
construction would proceed with all due haste.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Walgreen's was in plan check. She noted that it was unusual
to have a completion requirement, and that a vesting requirement was usually part of the
conditions. Staff attempted to pick a date in the future so that all of Phase I could be
completed, rather than bringing this item back to the Board every year.
Vice President Cook noted that the Board did not want construction to go on forever.
Mr. Lynch noted that he had some suggestions regarding this item, and remarked that it
should be placed on the Regular Agenda.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to remove Item 8-D from the Consent Calendar and
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and reviewed the history of this item. She noted
that because of the hazmat cleanup and mitigation, it had taken longer than anticipated.
Mr. Lynch noted that the goal was to have less construction disturbance for the least
amount of time, which led to the completion condition. Given the complexity of the
construction, given with the staff resources required, he suggested that the Board look
forward on a timeline, versus backwards. He noted that the vesting in the planning
terminology was the using of the permit. He believed the applicant could demonstrate
that, which would address the first hurdle. He noted that the second hurdle was the
submittal of building plans, which must be reviewed by staff. When the permit is to be
pulled, the Code requires the diligent exercise of the Building Permit to keep it active. He
requested that the Board receive a bullet point list of every phase of this project, and that
the significant milestones be attached to specific dates based on staff resources. He
inquired whether the plan checking could be outsourced in order to keep the project on
track.
Ms. Eliason advised that there was only on plan checker on staff, and that they were
using outside resources as much as possible. She noted that Walgreen's submitted their
plans in June, and she could check with the Building Official to confirm the length of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,6,"time that plan checking would take. She noted that it depended on whether there were any
issues or problems.
Mr. Lynch suggested continuing the item so the Board could hear from the Department in
terms of a realistic timeline.
Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about a jump in the extension from six months to five
years without any background.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board
meeting of September 12, 2006.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,7,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
MDR05-0216, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant
requests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is
located within a C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
(Continued from the meeting of August 8, 2005.)
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report and displayed the proposed signage designs on the
overhead screen.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Mr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant,
described the lighting and channel letter identification of the signage.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application and
noted that he recently moved to Alameda from Antioch. He hoped the project could be
completed quickly so the sand dunes could be replaced.
Mr. Dave Needle, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in support of this application, and was
happy that the signs were smaller. He had not heard any objections from the neighbors.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team. She noted that representatives from Raley's, Regency Centers and
Foothill Partners were also in attendance.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and agreed with the
staff report.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali recalled that the Board did not want the view of the water from inside the
stores to be blocked by window signs. He suggested creating a clear band of a certain
height to allow the water view.
Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion, and noted that the clean lines should be
maintained.
In response to Mr. Lynch's question, Mr. Piziali confirmed that he did not want to see
additional signage by the merchants blocking the view. He noted that the developer's
signage was fine.
President Cunningham cautioned against placing the signs so high that they could not be
read without stepping back, or so low that they interfere with merchandising.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,8,"Ms. Kohlstrand requested a presentation to clarify the location of the signs. Mr. Tai noted
that the four signs applied to Buildings B, C, D and F, and that individual standards were
established for the market (Building A) and the gas station (Building E). He noted that
page 6 in the Revised Sign Program contained the standards for the gasoline station signs.
M/S Kohlstrand/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-
33 to approve the sign program for the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,9,"9-B.
PD03-0004; DR03-0108, Regency Centers - 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT).
Review of waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for
compliance with project conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping
Center per Planning Board Resolution PB-04-64. The site is located within a C-2
PD, Central Business Planned Development District.
Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and displayed the revised project site plans that
addressed the Planning Board's previously stated concerns. Staff recommended approval
of this item.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether the transformers had been
previously approved by the Planning Board, Mr. Tai replied that previous discussions did
not involve transformers, nor the details of their appearance. They were shown as
symbols on the plans, and the approximate locations were approved. Vice President Cook
stated that she did not believe she approved any transformers before, and inquired why
they could not be placed underground.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hadi Monsef, PO Box 1355, spoke in support of this application and noted that the
staff report indicates the Board's requirements were met. He noted that he served on the
Public Utilities Board for eight years, three years as president, and stated that it was very
difficult to place transformers underground.
Mr. Matthew Hoffman, 2800 Marina Drive, spoke in support of this application. He
noted that the transformer in this project would not bother him or some of the neighbors
that he had spoken with. He looked forward to the completion of the project.
Ms. Barbara Price, PK Consultants, 1047 Tahiti, noted that she was speaking on behalf of
the development team, and would be available to answer any questions.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook commended Mr. Tai for presenting such a detailed report. She noted
that she had some concerns that made it difficult for her to support this item.
President Cunningham noted he was generally happy with the responses made by the
applicant following Board discussions. He believed the seating area of the amphitheatre
could be improved by introducing some earth berms.
Mr. Piziali was pleased to see a new handrail would be placed all the way across the front
of the project. He liked the two steps in front of the Nob Hill stores, where the tables
would be placed, which would separate the area from the walkway. He was generally
pleased by the project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,10,"Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented
Raley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice
transformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred
them to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by
landscaping.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns.
Vice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not
made, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of
two front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the
orientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few
amenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities,
and would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go
shop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the
pavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the
waterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide
tables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that
would be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted
to see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to
create a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the
transformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that
the grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had
requested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did
not adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique
site.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since
the staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments
regarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not
have specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff
received the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown
on the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and
more lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back
end of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the
amphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back
and create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage.
President Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a
grade.
Mr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring
additional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties;
there was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,11,"they cannot get permission from Union Pacific to fill on their property. There is a fixed
elevation along the boundary. The developers may make public health and safety
improvements to Corps property, but not other improvements (under the moratorium of
the Army Corps of Engineers). They cannot get permission from the Corps to lower the
grade on the waterfront edge, and they cannot get permission from the railroad to raise
the grade on the railroad edge. The project planner did not have any other workable
design solutions other than those included in the plan.
Vice President Cook did not believe the space should be called an amphitheatre if it
cannot function as such, and suggested that the space be may be used for chess and picnic
tables.
Mr. Lynch noted that the value of this space may not be known until the project has been
completed. He suggested that since the space would be landscaped, that a condition be
placed that one year after the Final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, the issue of
the public space be revisited.
Ms. Eliason stated that staff could look at the landscape maintenance agreement, and
could require that this part of the project be brought back to the Board as a condition of
that agreement. Mr. Lynch agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Eliason stated that she was
aware of several locations that had flat spaces in front of the amphitheatre; people would
bring their own chairs if there was a concert or other performance.
Mr. Lynch would like to see some drawings to accompany the text document of the
landscape maintenance agreement.
Ms. Eliason suggested that a condition be added, stating that prior to Final Occupancy of
the last building, to have that space reviewed for its use.
Mr. Weile noted that the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
now calls that space a ""glade"" instead of an amphitheatre because it was not sloped.
Mr. Lynch suggested that it be called ""open public space"" that is landscaped. He did not
believe the specific activities needed to be itemized.
Vice President Cook advised that her vote against this project was primarily based on the
interrelationship of the buildings with the waterfront.
Ms. Mariani noted that she was not excited about the transformers, and noted that they
had not been specifically presented previously. She believed the present transformer
placement was the lesser of two evils.
President Cunningham advised that he had spoken to a representative at Alameda Power
& Telecom, and they did not recommend placing the transformers underground given its
location. The transformer would require more maintenance when placed underground.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,12,"Vice President Cook noted that this site was a clean slate, and believed that the
transformer placement could have been thought out more carefully. She strongly believed
the transformer placement treated the waterfront side as a back door.
M/S Mariani/Piziali to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-34 to approve the
waterfront design, landscaping, and building elevation plans for compliance with project
conditions of approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center per Planning Board
Resolution PB-04-64.
AYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,13,"9-C.
Presentation to the Planning Board concerning proposed 49,650 sq. ft.
expansion of retail floor area, allowing the construction of a new 145,000 sq.
ft. Target Department Store, construction of a new parking structure and
improvements to the southeast corner of the South Shore Shopping Center
under Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 (DG). The purpose of
this meeting is for discussion purposes only. No action to approve or deny
PDA05-0004 will occur at this meeting.
Ms. Eliason advised there would be no staff report, and that the applicant would provide
a presentation. No action would be taken at this time.
Mr. Randy Kite, Harsch Investment Properties, 523 South Shore Center West, reviewed
the history of this project, and made a slide presentation to give the Board some
perspective on the progress of the project, the current status and the future plans of the
project.
Mr. Jan Taylor, project architect, Field Paoli, displayed the site plan and described the
proposed phased improvements to the site. He noted that the use of stained wood would
add a unique look to the property. He displayed current photographs of the site, and
added that the use of unique and colorful signage, as well as awnings, would enliven the
center. He noted the design changes would be a radical departure from the current
appearance, and that the buildings would not appear to be cookie cutter buildings seen in
other retail centers. He noted that the creation of the three beachfront restaurants would
take advantage of the views across the Bay. He stated that one of the center owners,
Jordan Snitzer, was very interested in implementing an art program that would exceed the
City's mandates, such as a commemorative bronze statue of Alamedan Nell Schmidt, the
first woman to swim across the Bay. He noted that a strong commercial western end that
would activate the walkway between Mervyn's and the back of Albertson's would be
desirable. He advised that Target was a tenant that paid attention to its surroundings, and
created its architecture to suit. He noted that was the subject of a recent article in the San
Francisco Chronicle. The firm believed that Target would be able to fit into the desired
look and feel. He noted that the loading dock behind Safeway facing the apartment
building to the south would be relocated to face the retail to the north. He displayed the
proposed elevations of the Target store. Most of the building would be 37 feet high, with
an additional six feet at the raised corner element. He stated that this Target would not
look like the typical store, and would be tailored to this center.
Mr. Mike Corbitt noted that from a leasing point of view, Target would present an
opportunity to build a unique store. He stated that Target was the number one tenant
attractor in the retail marketplace.
Mr. Taylor noted that the majority of the parking would be underneath the store, and that
the bottom floor of the store would be approximately ten feet above grade. He stated
there would be a small additional surface-level parking lot adjacent to the store. They
would investigate narrowing the street between the Willows and Target, providing a 20-
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,14,"foot wide landscaping buffer. There could be a one-way-only entrance to the center to
reduce traffic along the northern edge of the Willows.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a garden center would be
included, Mr. Corbitt noted that he did not know, but would find out.
President Cunningham called for a five-minute break.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hector Medina, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #258, spoke in opposition to this item. He
noted that the new bus route generated more noise near his home, and he was concerned
that this development would bring even more noise. He believed the design was
beautiful, but that it would bring more traffic congestion, crime and noise to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive,
spoke in opposition to this item. He believed the design and plans through Phase 7 were
attractive, and he was pleased with them. He expressed concern that the there would be
less control over the site after the developer sells the land to Target. He was very
concerned that the underground parking would attract crime and require more security.
He agreed with Mr. Medina's concerns about the negative impact on the neighborhood
following the bus route change. He wished to address traffic congestion and noise
impacts.
Mr. Jon Spangler noted that he was speaking as a private citizen, and inquired whether
access to all of the stores would be as convenient, or more convenient, for transit patrons
and bicyclists as it will be for automobile drivers. He inquired whether Harsch would be
willing to include mitigations such as shuttles running between the bridges, across the
Island and from the tubes to South Shore up Doolittle. He suggested that the developer
fund electric shuttles so that the noise to the adjacent residents would be reduced. He
noted that AC Transit had discussed that option, and that it was in the Transit Master Plan
for the City. He noted that equivalent access would be necessary, and those mitigations
cannot be accomplished on a one-way street. He inquired about the impact Target would
have on Mervyn's, and what would happen to that space once its lease is over and moves
out. He believed the City was not doing enough to have effective and intelligent transit
and transportation on the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,15,"Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino Del Valle, spoke in support of this application. He
believed the design would enhance South Shore, and that the addition of Target would be
a benefit to the community. He believed that it would add diversity in shopping and retail
that the Island did not have at this time.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, spoke in opposition to this item. She
expressed concern about delivery trucks. She stated that all large, modern retailers used
delivery of goods sold, which would increase the volume and impact of truck traffic, as
well as noise and air pollution. She expressed concern about seismic safety of the
underground parking structure, and believed that a building built on landfill in a major
earthquake would be a hazard.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed
concern about traffic congestion and impacts from off-Island traffic.
Ms. Vivian Leigh Forde, 2101 Shoreline Drive #148, spoke in opposition to this item.
She noted that she was generally happy with the progress at South Shore and the
amenities being realized. She was strongly opposed to a 145,000 square foot edifice. She
noted that this use would lead to more construction and pile-driving to support the
structure, and that the lights and traffic noise would have a negative impact on the
neighbors.
Ms. Joan DiStefano, 2101 Shoreline Drive #145, spoke in opposition to this item. She
believed narrowing the space between the Willows and the shopping center would create
more traffic jams. She noted that three residents of the Willows had been hit by cars in
the last year in that area. She estimated a community of 70,000 people would not support
this kind of retail use, and that 200,000 people would support it; the store would rely on
people driving to Alameda via the tubes and the bridges, leading to gridlock. She was
concerned that the independent merchants in town would be negatively impacted, and
that sense of community would be eroded.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive, #276, spoke in opposition to this item and
noted that she represented over 300 citizens who had written letters or signed petitions
against this Target store. She noted that the Target profiled in the newspaper article was
located in a mall, not in a smaller shopping center with limited access. She was
concerned about the height, width and proximity of this building to the nearby homes.
She believed there should be a full Environmental Impact Review performed on this site,
and that this project would affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the
area. She did not agree that this project met with the terms of the agreement, which stated
that the buildings in the center should be low profile. She added that this store would
need intensive outside services. She believed there should be an economic impact review
as well. She did not believe this project should disrupt the lives of the area homeowners.
She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was for an additional 49,650
square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this building was
approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway'.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,16,"building's height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings
presented by the applicant.
Mr. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and thanked
Mr. Garrison for meeting with him. He believed South Shore should submit a separate,
detailed landscape and signage plan, based on the developer not complying with Trader
Joe's landscape plan. He added that Trader Joe's has been open 35 months. He inquired
how an Occupancy Permit can be issued without signoffs. He believed Alameda deserved
better landscaping and signage than what was approved 40 years ago. He believed there
should be five to eight feet of landscaping provided on each of the building walls,
especially parking structures and Walgreen's. He believed the Master Plan, landscaping
and signage plans should be submitted and approved before any additional permits are
issued, and Trader Joe's landscaping should be completed.
Mr. Keith Wells was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted
that the drawings were shown out of context, and that the convalescent homes or Willow
Street were not shown. She believed the Target store was too tall, and that it would be too
massive; its proximity overwhelmed the Mervyn's building. She was concerned that
when Mervyn's closed, it would be replaced with an even larger building. She would like
to see its replacement moved back and built smaller. She was concerned about traffic
congestion. She believed smaller stores would serve Alameda better.
Ms. Alice Cleveland, 2101 Shoreline Drive #484, spoke in opposition to this item. She
was concerned that the placement of this big box store would negatively impact her
quality of life. She noted that the large tractor-trailers trucks currently drove past her
home while servicing Safeway, and that they were noisy and dirty. She was very
concerned about the potential truck traffic if Target were to open, and the traffic
congestion surrounding the center. She saw Alameda as an upscale community, and did
not see why it would want a Target store; she suggested that it be placed near the freeway
or on Alameda Point.
Ms. Kris Murray, 1738 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and added
that, as a business owner herself, that public comment regarding businesses was generally
from the opponents. She noted that she had spoken with more than 100 people in the past
48 hours who supported the idea of a Target store in Alameda. She acknowledged that
Alameda was an upscale community, and that she had disposable income that she would
like to spend in Alameda. However, she found that she often shopped off the Island to
visit a Target store specifically. She believed a Target store would provide a shopping
experience that's appropriate for the community's diversity, and that there were many
residents who do need a discount marketer. She would like to spend her tax dollars in the
community.
Ms. Jan Young, 2101 Shoreline Drive, noted that she was pleased with the progress at
South Shore, and that it was beautiful. She did not like the idea of a Target in her
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,17,"backyard. She liked the idea of the small storefronts. She lived across from the Safeway
loading dock, and was concerned about the current and future noise and air pollution. She
was concerned about her property value, and agreed that Alameda did not need a big box
store.
Mr. Jon Brooks, 2101 Shoreline Drive #230, spoke in opposition to this item. He had not
heard anything from City staff about the requirement for an EIR in this circumstance, and
believed there would be a cumulative effect from the traffic and air quality. He did not
want Alameda to become homogeneous, and would rather see a mixed use retail store,
perhaps with lofts upstairs from smaller boutiques.
Mr. Brian McDonald noted that he lived at the Willows, and that he agreed with his
neighbors regarding traffic, noise and pollution. He did not like the prospect of having
a
Target in his back yard, and found the overall size and footprint of the store to be
excessive. He believed the developer employed bait-and-switch tactics in seeking
approval for this store. He was concerned that the traffic impacts would put the entire
East End into gridlock.
Mr. Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that this store was
gigantic and would interrupt the flow of traffic. He believed the Target store would create
urban sprawl, which he was strongly opposed to. He hoped the Board would listen to the
majority in this matter.
Ms. Aulette Floris noted that she was a business owner, but was opposed to a big box
store. She was very concerned about traffic congestion and noise. She noted this was so
close to a residential area, and was concerned about a potential increase in crime and
decrease in the quality of life.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Mariani would like to see the approval for the 90,000 square feet with the conditions.
Ms. Eliason noted that staff would provide a copy. Ms. Kolhstrand concurred with the
request.
Ms. Eliason advised that the last Planned Development Amendment performed in 2003
was adopted on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff would provide a copy of that
document to the Board. No environmental review had been circulated for this project yet;
a new environmental review would be done for this project, updating the traffic numbers
and other areas of concern.
Vice President Cook would like to look at this project more closely, especially in view of
the City's work in retail strategy and increasing its tax base. She realized that there was
considerable retail leakage off the Island that could be captured for the benefit of the
schools, police and fire departments. She would like to have a better understanding of the
typical Target patron. She believed that many residents did want more retail
opportunities, and acknowledged that environmental review was a huge concern. One of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,18,"her continuing concerns about the Center was the lack of pedestrian connections, as well
as bicycle access. She believed that the pedestrian and bicycle environments in the center
must change. She was concerned about the cumulative impacts of the piecemeal nature of
the center. She believed a parking structure would not only break up the expanse of
pavement in front of Mervyn's, and would also be more attractive if landscaped properly.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would like to see this item come back before the Board in the
form of a workshop before any action is taken. He was concerned about the large amount
of square footage, and while he did not want retail leakage going off the Island, he did
not want floods of people coming from off-Island to shop, either.
Mr. Lynch noted that he agreed with the comments made by the other Board members.
He would be interested in examining the environmental documents. He was interested to
hear comments about a possible mixed use at the center. He would like to see a larger
view of the City operation as a whole, from an economic development perspective, as
well as other perspectives. He noted this was not a stand alone issue, and that it should be
integrated into other commissions.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and
believed that scale was an important consideration. She noted that the safety of sidewalks
and bicycle paths near Safeway were paramount.
President Cunningham noted that some parts of the policy document fit with the Target
store, and other parts are in opposition to what the community wants. The report
acknowledged that the leakage data would present opportunities to bring retail solutions
into the community. It also went on to say that it was up to the community and the private
sector to decide what kind of retail should be included, as well as what type of retail did
not fit the community character. He noted that Target did respond to the community
needs, and are serious about providing a store that would fit in with the community; he
applauded those efforts. He noted that other Target stores have demonstrated the
company's willingness to buy into sustainability. He was very interested in possible
traffic mitigations. He would like further insight into the impact that this store would
have on the existing tenants in the community, particularly the smaller stores.
Vice President Cook noted that she spoke with a woman who managed a small retail
shop, who did not object to the Target store. The manager stated that she would shift the
items in her inventory to carry what Target did not.
President Cunningham recalled that Ms. Mariani requested a definition of a big box store,
and agreed with Mr. Piziali's suggestion of holding a workshop. He recommended giving
the matter more time before making a decision.
Ms. Mariani inquired how the square footage increased from 90,000 to 145,000 square
feet. She expressed concern about the direction the City is taking, given the approval of
the Cineplex and the consideration of this Target store. She did not believe the addition of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,19,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised there had been no further meetings.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that she did not have any further information. She noted that she
would speak with President Cunningham and the City Council because she was having
some trouble making all of the meetings; there is no backup replacement at this time. She
noted that Ms. McNamara had been the backup, and is no longer; in addition, the WABA
representative is no longer on the Committee.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board
member Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she was not in attendance at the meeting due to her vacation.
She noted that the meeting date was set with very short notice.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Eliason advised that there will be a Transportation Master Plan meeting of the Task
Force on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting would address streets
and circulation plans.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:10 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-08-22,20,"Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 12, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
August 22, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-08-25,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, August 25th, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Present were Hanna, Flores-Witte, Bonta via phone, with Hollinger Jackson and Wasko arriving a
few minutes late. Absent was Vice-President Chen. Staff present were Beaver and Brown.
Taken out of Order
CO-SPONSORING A UNITED NATIONS 60TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
IN
OCTOBER - Mr. Herb Behrstock was present and gave an overview of the celebration being
planned. In addition to the traditional regional United Nations (UN) event at Jack London Square
in Oakland, they are partnering and promoting an event in Alameda. They have so far had a
surprisingly wonderful response from agencies and organizations in Alameda and new
organizations are joining all the time. The main concept involves a 90-minute event at Kofman
Auditorium on October 21, 2005. There will be choirs, children groups, and some local artists to
perform/speak. They are asking for a Proclamation from the Mayor that will be read at a
September City Council meeting and at the event. This event is to encourage involvement and to
promote peace, a healthy environment, to open hearts, and to raise awareness. The planning group
is also discussing activities to follow the event, such as Trick or Treat boxes for UNICEF at
schools and having an information booklet with all agencies and organizations listed for contact
information. This planning group meets every Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Behrstock asked the
Board to co-sponsor this event and said he hopes that someday Alameda will be a UN City.
Sponsorship does not have to include financial commitment. M/S (Bonta/Hanna) for the Board
to be a co-sponsor of the event and for a member of this Board to attend the Tuesday meetings and
report back was unanimously approved. Member Wasko volunteered to represent the Board on
the planning group. Mr. Behrstock thanked the Board for this time and the help in making this
event a beneficial one for the people of Alameda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes for the May 26, 2005 meeting were approved with
two corrections, M/S (Wasko / Hollinger Jackson) and unanimous. The minutes from the June 1,
2005 Special Meeting were approved M/S (Bonta/Flores-Witte) and unanimous.
CO-SPONSORING A FAIR HOUSING WORKSHOP IN SEPTEMBER - Member Wasko stated
she is very much in favor of this and similar activities, especially in view of the Sentinel audit and
the Board's subsequent recommendations to the City Council. During discussion, members
expressed concern regarding the rapidly approaching date and wanted to know more about the
specifics of the presentation since the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County is
not known to the Board. Staff was directed to inform the Housing Authority that the Board
wholeheartedly supported the concept, but didn't want to hold up the process while they were
getting more information. If the date was set, the Board preferred to wait for another workshop to
co-sponsor and would in the meantime learn more about the RHANAC.
CO-SPONSORING ALAMEDA SERVICES COLLABORATIVE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER
AND NOVEMBER - President Franz motioned for the Board to co-sponsor the ASC meeting on
September 21, 2005 to discuss the Needs Assessment Survey, and to also co-sponsor the
November 16, 2005 ASC meeting which will be a joint meeting with the Alameda Collaborative
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-08-25.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-08-25,2,"Minutes of the Regular SSHRB Meeting, August 25, 2005
Page 2
for Children, Youth and Families. Meetings are from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. at the Immanuel
Lutheran Church social hall. Lunch is provided and no financial support is requested. M/S (Franz
/ Hollinger Jackson) and unanimous to co-sponsor the September 21 and November 16, 2005 ASC
meetings.
NOMINATION OF OFFICERS - President Franz explained that Board elections are held
annually when the Board is fully constituted. Nominations are taken at one meeting and voted on
at the next. Franz stated as much as he and Vice President Chen have enjoyed their leadership
roles on the Board, they feel it is time for new leadership. Franz then nominated Member Bonta
for President and Member Wasko for Vice-President. Member Bonta graciously accepted the
nomination, as did Member Wasko. There were no other nominations. M/S (Franz / Hollinger
Jackson), and unanimous. Franz stated the elections would take place at the September 22, 2005
meeting.
WORKGROUPS PROGRESS REPORTS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - President Franz reported they have had good response
from the faith-based community, but still need more surveys to be completed. Member Wasko
stated she is working to get the survey into the school newsletters, and is also getting them
translated. Staff reminded the group that having the surveys done on-line is important because
there are limited resources for date entry. The AA workgroup is meeting September 7th to continue
discussing the survey process and possible resources for producing the report.
Family Services Workgroup - Member Wasko reported this workgroup is on a small hiatus.
Beaver stated there had been several recent incidents of domestic violence and reminded the Board
that they had convened and were members of a Domestic Violence Task Force in Alameda.
Member Wasko indicated that the FS workgroup would consider possible awareness activities to
acknowledge Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.
Sister City Workgroup - President Franz reported that Vice President Chen sent greetings from
China. There were several letters and e-mails back and forth regarding the delegation going to
Wuxi, and the end result being that because Wuxi has moved their Festival again back to
September it would be very difficult to make the trip. Mayor Johnson sent a letter to the Mayor
of Wuxi graciously declining the invitation. The plan still is to send a delegation in Spring 2006.
Beaver reported on the International Sister City Conference in Spokane, WA. There were over
500 people present from around the world, although most were from the U.S. She met with the
representatives of Chattanooga, Tennessee. They have a long-standing Sister City relationship
with Wuxi, China and Alameda will have to get their permission to officially register the
Alameda/Wuxi relationship with Sister Cities International.
Alamedans Together Against Hate - Member Hanna reported a meeting date will be set when
Member Chen returns in September. The Mayors 4th of July Parade Trolley efforts went very
well, and Mr. Werner has suggested banners for both sides of the Trolley next time. The stickers
were well received and there are enough left for another event. They had a great meeting with
Chief Ojala, Captain Noonan and Lieutenant Cranford and passed along ATAH outreach packets
for their command staff. Member Hanna stated that he had received a draft letter to the editor of
the Alameda Sun via Ken Werner. It was decided to not act unless this letter ran in the newspaper.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-08-25.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-08-25,3,"Minutes of the Regular SSHRB Meeting, August 25, 2005
Page 3
There was a brief discussion as to getting the ""No Room..' message out into the community and
City buildings.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ADJOURNED - President Franz adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
 G:SSHRB\Packets\2005\August\MinutesReg082505.doc
F:SSHRB\Agenda Packets 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-08-25.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice-Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the
roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Dennis Brighton,
Planner II, Recording Secretary, Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005. (continued from the 8-4-05 mtg.)
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of June 2, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005. (continued from the 8-4-05 mtg.)
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of July 7, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005.
A quorum to consider these minutes was not present. They will be considered at the next
meeting.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,2,"ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee.
--
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to continue this item until there is a full board. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
2.
Certificate of Approval CA05-0024 - Applicant: Mark Haskett - 1715 Encinal Avenue.
(DB). The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for demolition of more than thirty
percent (30%) of a residential structure built prior to 1942, located at the above address, for the
purposes of remodeling the existing single-family dwelling. The site is located within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton presented staff report. He informed the Board that this structure is not listed on the
Historical Building Study List, but was built prior to 1942, so a Certificate of Approval for
demolition is required. The building consisted of several different architectural styles and had
been severely altered over the years. None of the alterations appear to have improved the
architectural characteristics of the structure.
Mr. Brighton also stated that on February 23, 2005, the applicant had received Major Design
Review approval. This application received extensive coordination with members of AAPS
throughout the review process including a public meeting with the architect, neighbors, members
of AAPS, and City Staff. Plans were submitted to the Planning and Building Department that
incorporated the requested design alterations from the January 11, 2005 public meeting.
Mr. Brighton concluded by stating that the structure did not represent the work of a master or
possesses high artistic values. There are no events or persons of historical interest associated
with the property. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve the Certificate of Approval
with conditions stated in draft Resolution.
In response to a question from Board Member Tilos, Ms. Eliason stated that since this is a pre-
1942 structure, that is not on the study list, the Board can either approve the Certificate of
Approval, so the applicant can move forward with project, or they can deny the Certificate of
Approval, and applicant will have to pay a fine and the investigative fees for doing work without
proper permits.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Joanne Gibson, Ellen Gomez, Ruth Tillman and Rosemary McNally spoke against this
Certificate of Approval.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,3,"Bill Smith spoke about the demolition process and the fact that the public is unaware of the
penalties stated in the Ordinance.
Peter McDonald spoke on behalf on applicant. He informed the Board that the applicant was
unaware of the requirement for a Certificate of Approval. He informed the Board of the steps the
Hasketts went through to obtain the permit.
Dave Teeters, architect, spoke in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. He reviewed
the pictures of 1715 Encinal Ave, which were provided to the Board in their packet.
There were no more speaker slips. Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to board discussion.
Board Member Lynch stated that the entire process should be amended. She would like to deny
this Certificate of Approval so it will get up to City Council level. She also stated her concerns
with the staff report regarding maintaining the historical integrity of the building.
Board Member Tilos is in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. Currently, there are
too many requirements involved with getting an approval.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that the applicant should have had the proper permits prior to
demolishing the structure.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0024, for the partial demolition of
an existing residence at 1715 Encinal Avenue as stated in draft Resolution. 1-2-1.
Ayes:
1;
Noes:
2;
Absent:
1;
Motion is denied.
3. CA05-0018, 812 Paru Street, Applicant: John Miller/Kathleen Egan (EP). The applicants
request a Certificate of Approval to remove a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus Agrifolia) located at
the rear of the property. The tree is greater than 24"" in diameter and is only 5' from the main
building. Per an Arborist, the tree is in poor health and has structural flaws. The site is located
at 812 Paru Street, within an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. The applicant is requesting removal of an Oak Tree to
eliminate the potential damage the tree may cause to the site and neighboring properties. An
arborist report was submitted which states the tree should be removed at the earliest possible date
due to its close proximity to the property owners home, its failing health, and structural flaws.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions as stated in
draft Resolution.
There were no speaker slips for this item. Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor for Board
discussion.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,4,"Board Member Lynch feels that tree is in poor health and should be removed.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0018, for the removal of one
Coast Live Oak tree at 812 Paru Street with conditions stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
4.
CA05-0020, 1415 Union Street, Applicant: Julie Cowell (EP). The applicant requests a
Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus Agrifolia) that was
located along the left side of the driveway. The tree was promoting hazardous conditions due to
its proximity to the leaves of the building. The site is located at 1415 Union Street, within an
R-5, General Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. The tree was removed in July 2005 because it posed a health
and safety hazard to the apartment building located on the property. A six foot tall portion of the
stump still remains. Typically staff would require two replacement trees be planted, but a
landscape plan was submitted by the applicant indicating that there does not appear to be a
suitable location for the replacement trees. Staff is requesting that the applicant pay fees equal to
the cost of the two replacement trees to be collected by the Recreation and Parks Department.
There were no speaker slips submitted for this item. Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Vice-Chair Miller is in favor of approval, but would like staff to notify the Board when the fees
are collected.
Board Member Tilos feels there should be a penalty for removing an oak tree without proper
approval.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that Staff is currently working on revisions to the Historical
Preservation Ordinance and can include a section on penalties for removing Oak trees without a
permit. As it is now, the only way to impose penalties would be if the application came in as a
code enforcement complaint, then investigative fees would apply.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0020 for the removal of one Coast
Live Oak Tree at 1415 Union Street with conditions as stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1.
Motion carries.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,5,"5.
CA05-0021, 1705 Eagle Avenue, Applicant: Gregory & Anna Sanford (EP). The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus
Agrifolia) that was located on the property. The tree was promoting hazardous conditions due to
its proximity to utility wires and the roof of the building at 1705 Eagle Avenue. The site is
located at 1705 Eagle Avenue, within an R-2, Two Family Residence Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. A large Coast Live Oak tree that was located between the
property line and the back of the sidewalk in front of 1707 Eagle Avenue was removed in late
July 2005. According to the applicant, the tree posed a hazard to the house and the utility lines.
It is unclear whether the applicant knew the tree was located on City property. Given that this
tree was not removed from the applicant's property, staff is recommending that fees, equal to the
cost of two replacement trees be collected from the Recreation and Parks Department. Staff
recommends approval of CA05-0021, with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 812 Paru St., stated that the current Ordinance should be rewritten. There should be
penalties imposed when an Oak tree is removed without a permit.
Greg Sanford, applicant, informed the Board that he did have permission from the adjacent
property owner. He was not aware that Oak trees were protected.
Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0021, for the removal of one
Coast Live Oak tree at 1707 Eagle Ave with conditions as stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
6.
CA05-0022 and CA05-0023, 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue, Applicant: City of
Alameda (EP). Review proposal to designate two signs as historical signs. The signs,
completed in 1891, were cast into the concrete to mark the locations of the train station waiting
rooms. These sites are located in the sidewalk in front of 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue within
the R-4 and C-1 (Neighborhood Residential and Neighborhood Business) Districts.
Ms. Pudell reviewed staff report. This item is being brought to the Board at the request of Board
Member Lynch at the July 7, 2005 meeting. Staff is asking the Board to review the Historical
Sign checklist and evaluate each sign for inclusion on the Historic Sign List.
The Board evaluated each sign and found that both signs at 818 & 1706 Lincoln Avenue were
eligible for placement on the List.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,6,"M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0022, for the designation of two
Historic Train Station Waiting Room signs at 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue as stated in draft
resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
7.
Replacement of Historic Entrance Lights at the Posey Tube.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. Staff is asking that the Board review the photographs and
specifications, and give their comments. Staff will forward the comments to the Public Works
Department.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Richard Rutter & Chris Buckley spoke in favor of restoring the lights to look like the original
fixtures.
Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion.
The Board submitted the following comments to staff:
1. Caltrans should restore the lights to the original style.
2.
Caltrans should investigate recasting as an economic option. One suggested company
was the ""Spring Company"".
3. Caltrans should consider to piggyback with other communities such as San Leandro and
Oakland on replacement lighting.
4. The new lights should be adequate to meet lighting needs.
5. The cobra heads should be removed.
6. HAB requested to see the final design.
Ms. Eliason stated that this is a Caltrans project, but staff will request them to return the final
design to the HAB for final approval.
Staff noted the Board's comments and will forward them to the Public Works Department.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Ms. Eliason noted an Off-Agenda report and Resolution approving handicapped ramp addition to
351 Corpus Christi Road, Alameda Point.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,7,"STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that the City Council will hear the appeal of 616 Pacific on
September 6, 2005.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that all pre-1942 plans submitted to the Planning & Building
Department will be stamped in big red letters that says:
NOTE:
BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1942 SHALL NOT HAVE MORE THAT 30% OF
THE VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
Staff feels that this should help control any future unauthorized demolitions.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that staff has not received an application for 500 Central Ave.
She has been in contact with the applicant and hopes to have something for the October meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to adjourn meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-421 - ) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she continually receives positive
comments from the public.
(05-422) Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association,
announced that the Peanut Butter Jam Festival would be held on
September 10 and 11, 2005 between Webster Street and Pacific
Avenue. presented wine glasses to the Council; thanked the City and
Alameda Power & Telecom for sponsoring the event.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Mayor to send letters to federal legislators [paragraph no. 05-425]
was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-423) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-424) Ratified bills in the amount of $11,953,915.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,2,"(05-425) Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send letters to
federal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter) S. 113
(Feinstein), H.R. 2353 (Rogers) , and H.R. 3431 (Dent ) which amend
federal legislation to further restrict the establishment of tribal
gambling casinos.
Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) thanked the
Council for the efforts to stop the gambling casino proposal at
Martin Luther King Park; encouraged continual vigilance; stated
that the Tribe's application has not been withdrawn; there has been
no response to EBRPD's communications to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a true partnership between all
the affected cities, EBRPD, and the County; the public should be
informed of federal representatives actions; read a portion of the
proposed legislation: stated local control at the federal level
means the Governor that she would prefer local control be more
local; the Governor does not have much control over casinos there
is a lot of important work being done that will help the community.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a slew of legislation
pushing back on casinos' efforts to enter urban areas; H.R. 3431
would ensure local governments within 15 miles of a proposed site
have a say ; encouraged H. .R. 3431 be strengthened.
Councilmember Matarrese moved to approval of the staff
recommendation
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-426) Recommendatior to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk,
Inc. for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 25, No.
P.W. 05-04-06. Accepted.
(*05-427) Recommendation to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Restaurant and Bar Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-428 ) Resolution No. 13888, ""Commending Alameda Free Library
Director Susan H. Hardie for Her Contributions to the City of
Alameda. Adopted.
Counci lmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,3,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Ms. Hardie thanked the Council for the resolution; stated that it
has been her pleasure and privilege to be involved with the new
library project.
( 05-429 - ) Resolution No. 13889, ""Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
as a Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted
(05-429A) Resolution No. 13890, ""Reappointing Robert F. Kelly as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; and
(05-429B) Resolution No. 13891, ""Reappointing Anthony M. Santare as
a Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
[Note: Councilmember deHaan was away from the dais when the matter
was voted upon. ]
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Ashcraft and Mr. Santare.
(05-430) Public hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
""Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building
and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section 13-4 - (Alameda
Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I,
Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004 California
Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
Introduced.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,4,"(05-431) Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized
demolition. The site is located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the
R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin
Roxas and
(05-431A) Resolution No. 13892, ""Granting the Appeal and
Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Decision to Uphold the
Five-Year Stay in Development for the Property Located at 616
Pacific Avenue. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the site's historic designation is
Level H; inquired whether Levels A through G are before Level H.
The Supervising Planner responded that designation ""N"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the National Register, ""S"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the State Register, and ""H"" is
the lowest level for potentially historic buildings that require
further investigation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Kevin Frederick, Alameda.
Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Paul Rezucha, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she could not tell from the drawings that
24 studs were retained; the neighbor mentioned that studs from the
north and west walls were being retained; inquired whether parts of
the walls would be used in the interior of the house.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any of the exteriors walls would
remain, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director
responded that the sidewall and part of the front wall would
remain.
Mayor Johnson stated that the west and front walls appear to be
completely new.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,5,"The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the walls on
the right-hand side of the house and most of the front wall would
remain; a number of the back and left side walls would be inside.
the ordinance addresses demolition of more than 30% of the value of
a home enclosing an exterior wall is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent of the ordinance was to
preserve the historic structure; questioned how retaining some of
the studs preserves a historic structure.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the
ordinance was intended to preserve the historic structure; the
first floor, sidewall, and front wall would remain; the roof would
be raised; determining that the demolition would be less than 30%
was reasonable.
Mayor Johnson stated that the front and west walls look like new
walls.
The Acting Planner/Building Official stated that the front wall
would be changed; the original house had 45 degree angles at the
corners ; the new house would be squared off; the side walls would
remain; moving doors and windows is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue is deconstruction versus demolition;
the owner believes that deconstruction is not demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he truly
believes that the owner understood that the Planning Department
gave permission to dismantle or deconstruct, stack the pieces in
the backyard, and put the pieces back when the dry rot was
repaired; the ordinance needs to be reviewed; interpretation is
somewhat vague.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance is not doing what was intended,
is not protecting the historic assets, and could result in more
damage than protection; inquired what are the options under the
ordinance; stated that she did not understand how the 3,400 square
foot structure got through the design review process; the houses in
the area are smaller, one-story craftsman style homes; a 3,400
square foot home is gigantic for the neighborhood.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the lot is one of
the biggest on the block; there are 21 residential structures,
including 10 two-story homes and 11 one-story homes ranging from
792 to 4,480 square feet; 17 of the structures are single-family
dwellings, 3 are duplexes, and one is a 5-unit apartment building ;
three buildings are between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet each
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,6,"directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings
are owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period
ranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix
[of houses]
Mayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be
reviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the
area; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired
whether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded not
necessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if
demolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be
placed on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's
(HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a
pre-1942 - home.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think
that deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed
independently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and
build a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a
50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic
look; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from
the design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what
is being protected.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls
and roof percentages are reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic
character of the building.
ouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction
issues would be addressed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues
would be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to
review other jurisdiction's process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the
existing ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to
move forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ;
staff and the Appellant have different interpretations; suggested
moving forward with the project and, at the same time, move forward
with resolving the larger issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the dry rot issue should be handled
from a construction standpoint.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that rotted
wood needs to be removed; new members could be attached if termite
damage has been repaired; termite repair can be more than 30% of a
house.
Mayor Johnson stated the Appellant should have been referred to the
HAB to get a demolition permit when the rot was discovered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the implication in
upholding the five-year stay.
The Supervising Planner responded the Appellant would need to
provide a landscaping plan and maintain the site for five years
with no building on it.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are other dynamics occurring;
inquired how many similar projects there are in the City.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are three
projects subject to the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one project was resolved, to
which the Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bubble has been lost in the
interpretation of the ordinance; he is concerned with retaining the
architectural design; the scale seems to be imposing on the
neighborhood; inquired what the adjacent houses look like.
Mayor Johnson responded that the adjacent houses are both two-story
structures; that she does not recall the houses being close to
3,400 square feet.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the adjacent
houses are approximately 1,500 square feet each.
Councilmembei deHaan stated that there are multiple dwellings that
are expanding and becoming disproportional to the adjacent housing;
inquired whether the HAB reviews the issue.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the HAB
would address the issue if a historical structure were involved.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what floor area ratio was being
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,8,"employed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he was not
sure; stated that the floor area ratio falls within the lot
coverage requirements.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what was the maximum lot coverage.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded 40%; stated the
lot is deceiving because of the area behind the neighbor's garage.
Mayor Johnson stated the portion that goes around the corner is not
visible; the house would be very large on the lot; inquired whether
a fine could be imposed instead of the five-year penalty.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there would be
increased fees based on the valuation of the construction, for work
without permit, and for investigation.
Mayor Johnson stated other people should not be allowed to
deconstruct and reconstruct until the ordinance is revised.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the staff is
erring on the cautious side and referring people to the HAB.
Councilmember Daysog stated the lot would be roughly 9,450 square
feet if the dog run was not included, which would be a .37% floor
area ratio; housing should be viewed in terms of adjacent homes as
well as appropriate lot size; the home fits the lot size; there is
not a monstrous home affect.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the direction has been
given to refer people to the HAB, to which the Acting Planning and
Building Director responded that people are being referred to the
HAB if demolition appears to be close to 30%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that 30% could be a calculation
based on the structure of the building and not necessarily in
context with the intent of the ordinance; there should be some
discretion applied or guidance adopted allowing 25% or 30%
demolition to the front of a building and roofline would not meet
the real intent of the ordinance; inquired whether there is any
refinement on the plan check level that ties back to the issue of
design review.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he makes the
30% determination during design review; that he always gives more
weight to the removal of exterior walls, particularly front walls,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,9,"versus interior walls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was any guidance
being given now to prevent misinterpretation.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there are
no new guidelines i staff would be looking more closely.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to know that the intent
of the ordinance will be carried out; the drawings do not show any
resemblance to the original house.
Councilmember deHaan stated 30% is hard to interpreti inquired
whether the percentage should be more.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded a method other
than percentage should be defined.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is no need to wait for an ordinance
revision to carry out the intent noted that a defacto demolition
of a historic structure will not be allowed because of a badly
drafted ordinance.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the matter is
being addressed; there should not be any similar issues in the
future.
The City Manager stated that there have been many internal
discussions regarding the lack of direction in some parts of the
ordinance; inconsistencies need to be address guidelines would be
handled internally.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether deconstruction and reconstruction
would be addressed, to which the Acting Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated that HAB input would be sought.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some structures have the potential for
historic designation but have not been certified; home owners
should not have to jump through hoops if the house is not truly
historic; many houses are old, but not historic; she does not want
to preserve old, non-historic houses inquired how the issue could
be balanced.
Mayor Johnson stated that owners could apply to have their houses
removed from the historic study list.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ""H"" designation is for old
houses that may have the potential to be historic, but need to be
studied more; houses may not be worth further study; a withdrawal
process for non-historic houses may be necessary; the project's
character issues can be addressed in design review.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 500 Central Avenue is a historical
structure.
The Supervising Planner stated that 500 Central Avenue has an ""S""
designation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 30% demolition for 500 Central
Avenue was unrealistic and should have been at 80%; stated that he
has concerns with how tonight's decision would impact the two other
outstanding projects.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that tonight's
decision would only affect 500 Central Avenue; the other property
was not a listed building; there is another set of criteria for
ore-1942 houses; there was a whole different set of facts regarding
500 Central Avenue; the owner was aware of what he was doing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the owner's awareness was a
distinction that could be used.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he thought
so; the owner tore down a house on the same property last year
without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated not setting precedents is important; inquired
whether the Appellant would have been successful in removing the
property from the historical list at either the HAB or Council
level.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that staff
believes that the Appellant would have been granted a certificate
of approval for demolition if sought prior to demolition; the house
has been significantly remodeled in the past 100 years; the house
is very similar to a building that received a certificate of
approval for demolition from the HAB; the Appellant was denied
after the fact.
Mayor Johnson stated that contributing factors are part of the
ordinance.
The City Manager stated that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in
terms of options and penalties each project will be reviewed and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,11,"determinations will be made based upon the circumstances of the
building.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether hold harmless clauses are standard
on planning and building resolutions.
The City Attorney responded the clause is not standard; the clause
is requested to be included in certain cases.
Councilmember deHaan stated that much of tonight's discussion is
based upon interpretation; stated that he is comfortable with the
staff's recommendation based upon what has been provided.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is very active. AAPS
regularly advises him when there is any hint of activity.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether residents are advised about the
process to have their houses de-listed; some ambiguity could be
cleared.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there is not a
current process.
Councilmember Daysog stated many issues suggest the need to
strengthening
the
ordinance
with
regard
to
demolition/deconstruction of historic properties the project
should move forward; the Appellant was working in good faith; there
appears to be strong reasons for moving forward with the project
while the ordinance is improved.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approval of the staff recommendation.
[Adoption of the resolution Granting the Appeal and directing the
City Manager to review provisions of Section 13-21 of the Alameda
Municipal Code related to the demolition of historic structures and
develop, with input from the community and HAB, recommended
amendments and penalty options. ]
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the design issue could be re- -
examined.
The Supervising Planner stated that the design review has already
been approved; the Appellant has been acting under the approval.
Mayor Johnson stated that 3,400 square feet is too much for the
neighborhood.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Appellant could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,12,"requested to consider re-design; noted the Appellant has already
pulled permits and has vested the construction.
Mayor Johnson stated people would question why the project was
approved in ten years.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands Mayor Johnson's
concern with the size, but that the footprint is appropriate for
the parcel.
Mayor Johnson stated lot coverage cannot be dealt with in a vacuum;
the rest of the neighborhood needs to be addressed. requested that
staff inquire whether the Appellant would be willing to look at the
design review issue.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she sympathizes with Mayor Johnson's
concern about the size of the house; Alameda property owners have
certain rights if the structure fits within the box of the zoning
code; zoning for every other property in the City would be changed
unless the zoning code is changed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the issue should be re-examined; lot
coverage is not an entitlement there is a design review standard
for neighborhood compatibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the house would be architecturally
the same if cut back by 800 to 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the neighbors thought about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there was
a ten-day notice and no comments were received.
Mayor Johnson inquired who received the notice, to which the Acting
Planning and Building Director responded the property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated renters would not be informed about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the
neighborhood is predominately owner occupied; County records
indicate that 15 of the 21 buildings are owner occupied; 6 of the
buildings are rental.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to address the possibility of
redesign with the Appellant.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,13,"***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:10 p.m
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Applicant
is unable to redesign the house; the house is designed for an
elderly person in a wheelchair; the hallways are 5 feet wide;
several bathrooms have a turning radius for a wheelchair.
Mayor Johnson stated redesigning the sidewall would make the house
look better noted the wall looks like a factory wall.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson stated that an
architectural separation between the stories would not be that
costly.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Appellant
could be requested to consider a different exterior sidewall
design.
The Appellant agreed.
Mayor Johnson stated the building could look a lot better than the
drawings; less detailed work is easier for an owner-builder; making
the building look better is worth the effort; the larger issue of
design review needs to be addressed; awareness of neighborhood
compatibility needs to be addressed in the design review process.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( 05-432 - ) Resolution No. 13893, ""Empowering the City Attorney to
Employ Special Legal Counsel. "" Adopted and
(05-432A) Recommendation to approve Policy regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel.
Councilmember Daysog extended his appreciation to the City Attorney
for addressing some of the Council's issues; stated that the
resolution is not just for the Council but for the City for many
years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,14,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-433) Former Councilmemer Lil Arnerich, Alameda, discussed
disaster preparedness; stated that the Council should take charge
in working with the Police, Fire, Public Works Departments, and
schools to ensure that there is a detailed plan to provide
emergency services and information to the community in case of a
disaster submitted a list of the Alameda County Fair's response
team.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the tabletop exercise was performed
once a year.
Mr. Arnerich responded in the affirmative; stated that the exercise
is different from the City's exercise; noted the responsible
parties should be identified before a disaster occurs; the table
top exercise has been conducted every year for six years and works
very well.
(05-434) Bill Smith, Alameda discussed work/live studios, 500
Central Avenue, and fast boats.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-435) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, Public Art Commission and Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg for
reappointment to the Public Art Commission, and Terri Bertero Ogden
for appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
(05-436) The Fire Chief provided information on Hurricane Katrina
Disaster Relief and the City's Emergency Operation Plan and
upcoming exercises.
Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of communication has been received
regarding Hurricane Katrina and the City's disaster preparednessi
noted that the Fire Chief would provide information on how the
community could help the hurricane victims.
The Fire Chief stated that Hurricane Katrina is a challenging and
unique type of disaster; continual flooding waters have delayed
infrastructure repair; financial contributions are needed; provided
contact information for the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army
and the United Way, Bay Area; stated that the City's Emergency
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,15,"Operation Plan is very comprehensive and outlines who is in charge
and the responsibilities of each individual; the Mayor and the
Council are the policy makers; the City Manager is in charge of the
Emergency Operations Center ( EOC ; the City Manager would provide
information on key decision points to the Council; EOC staff would
work 12-hour shifts throughout the duration of a disaster; the City
has a siren and warning system to effectively alert the community
in an emergency; the system keys the community to tune into Channel
15 or 1280 AM on the radio; there are over 100 people trained
through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) ; some teams
have been organized in specific areas; there will be a series of
table top exercises in October and a functional exercise in
November the EOC would be activated during the table top
exercises; the City Manager and staff would be present and would be
given a complex scenario; logistical issues such as shelter, lost
power and water, and accesses to the City are addressed; the
emergency responders would work through a City-based scenario
during the functional exercise, while the Council would be making
policy decisions.
Mayor Johnson stated that it would be good for Councilmembers to
attend the exercises; part of the exercise should address which
issues are policy orientated; Councilmembers need to know where to
report and what their responsibilities are when a disaster occurs;
the phones and cable channels might not work during a disaster.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would report to the
Chambers.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not sure that the Council should
report to the Chambers if the electricity and cable are not
working; the issue needs to be addressed.
The Fire Chief stated that the first process would be for the
Council to report to the Chambers; another building would be
specified if the equipment in the Chambers was not working.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to better understand the
intent of having the Council report to the Chambers.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would be involved in the
planning process.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to be better informed
and confident that plans are in place; stated that the Council
needs to know the worst-case scenario; there is a lot of sandy soil
and fill throughout the City; more than the bridges could be lost
in the event of an earthquake; some issues that the Council needs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,16,"to
address are : how people would be evacuated, whether helicopters
would be available, and what would happen to the water supply;
people need to know how to turn off gas lines; stated that cable
communicatior would most likely be out during a disaster.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a current copy of the City's
Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter be placed on an agenda
for discussion; stated that questions have been raised regarding
the placement of people and the use of public facilities including
the schools; that he would rather not wait until the exercise is
performed in October; the matter needs to be addressed as soon as
possible; recommendations could be made and policy direction could
be given on what is in place now.
The City Manager stated that the Council would be provided with a
copy of the Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter could be
placed on an agenda for future discussion; issues that need
direction would be identified; sheltering questions could be
answered through the City's relationships with other agencies;
tonight's intention was to ensure that the audience knows where
contributions can be made to the current disaster victims and that
the City has a plan in case a disaster occurs.
ouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone has a heavy heart right
now; the gas surge was a best-case scenario; resources were
available to handle the situation; the liquefaction was monumental
(particularly at the Naval Air Station) during the earthquake
tonight's discussion is timely; noted that he was sorry the
discussion had to be within the current circumstances; stated that
the comments are worthwhile and appreciated; the Council has
responsibilities; stated that he takes the responsibility
seriously; he is concerned with communication and support resources
in the City; the Fire and Police Departments are on 24-hour shifts,
but other departments are not; stated that he looks forward to
further discussion.
( 05-437) - Councilmember Daysog requested: 1) an update on the
status of the live/work issues, 2) a timetable outlining when the
matter would be addressed, and 3) an update on the court issues.
(05-438) - Councilmember Daysog requested a review of current and
future developments occurring in the City of Oakland that could
have impacts on the City of Alameda; stated that a recent cable
television show mentioned a project that would be occurring at Jack
London Square.
(05-439) - Councilmember Daysog stated that there seem to have been
a number of accidents at the intersection of Constitution Way and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,17,"Pacific Avenue ; there was an accident yesterday around 4:00 p.m. ;
the Police and Fire Departments responded quicklyi there was a
death at the location last year and another death one block upi
requested the area be reviewed such as the possibility of bushes
being too high.
(05-440) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was glad that
disaster readiness was on the minds of everyone; the next disaster
or terrorism strike is not a matter of if, but when; planning ahead
benefits the community.
(05-441) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a
communication from the town of Asuchio, El Salvador in response to
a request from the Social Service Human Relations Board's (SSHRB)
Sister City Committee; requested the response be conveyed to the
SSHRB for consideration.
(05-442 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a proposed
development between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue below International
Boulevard in Oakland for 800 to 1200 units of housing the two
streets feed into the Fruitvale and Park Street Bridges; the City
should keep an eye on development that occurs on both sides of the
Estuary.
(05-443) Councilmember deHaan stated periodic updates on the
budget are supposed to be provided to Council. inquired how often
the updates were to occur.
Mayor Johnson responded quarterly.
The City Manager stated that an update is scheduled for next month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the ten-year forecast would be
presented, to which the City Manager responded November, along with
the infrastructure budget.
ADJOURNMENT
(05-444) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of the Hurricane
Katrina victims.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-417 - ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiator
:
Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney.
(05-418) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
(05-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One.
(05-420) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the City Council Meeting at
7:25 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:05 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed labor negotiations; regarding
Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council did not discuss
the matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council
directed that the matter be further researched and brought back on
September 20, 2005; and regarding Conference with Real Property
Negotiators, the Council directed that a response letter be sent.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Mariani was absent.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt,
Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of August
22, 2005.).
M/S Piziali/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.
A quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005.
President Cunningham advised a member of the public, Ms. Dorothy Reid, requested that page 15,
paragraph 6, re the Target store, be changed to read: ""She did not believe this project should disrupt
the lives of the area homeowners. She asked why the public notice to this request only stated it was
for an additional 49,650 square feet, and asked when an additional 90,000 square feet for this
building was approved. The current Safeway is only 34,000 square feet, so the additional square
footage is actually 111,000 square feet. She presented pictures that showed the Safeway's building 's
height, which she believed is misrepresented in the architectural drawings presented by the
applicant.' He did not have any objection to entering this additional language into the minutes.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (McNamara)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,2,"5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A. Mr. Piziali
requested that Item 8-C be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to remove Items 8-A and 8-C from the Consent Calendar, and
to place them on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -
0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,
and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned
Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at
2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). (Continued from the meeting of
August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that while the applicant has met all the vesting
requirements, they have not completed the construction. The applicant requested two additional
years to complete construction.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, distributed a chart to illustrate her comments, and
noted that there was confusion over what PDA-02-A2-03 was for. She noted that PDA-02 only
approved the four yellow highlighted buildings, as well as the July 2003 site plan; Trader Joe's was
already built. She was concerned about approving construction for two more years on one-and-a-half
buildings, and that whether there would be a clear understanding regarding the PDA. She believed
there was confusion between building square footage and GLA, which were two very different
numbers. She noted that the current construction did not expire until January 28, 2006, and would
like to wait to approve this item until there was more clarity regarding the entire site. She believed
that specific numbers should be cited, and was also concerned about the proposed amendment to
Paragraph 2: ""Any substantial alteration will require a new PDA and Design Review."" She believed
that the word ""substantial"" should be clarified. She did not understand the purpose of Paragraph 21,
even in the original PDA. Rather than modifying this paragraph, she believed it should be struck
entirely.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that the only language addressed by staff specifically dealt with the construction
timeline; the other comments are outside of the scope addressed by staff at this time. In terms of the
square footage questions and the map, the construction was approved for the area where Walgreen's
and Beverly's are located. He would have to look at the current Safeway building permit plans to
clarify the apparent square footage discrepancy.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison noted that the reason the entire PDA
proposed at that time was not approved. The Planning Board wanted to get additional information
on the shoreline area, as well as some other areas. The applicant was directed to return with a
proposal for a new gas station and to redo the shoreline area; that was where the current PDA
application was relevant and is being reviewed by the City. He noted that it was not critical to the
resolution, and could be deleted.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason replied that the Walgreen's was in plan check.
Mr. Lynch noted that the timeline was created with the expectation of a certain type of performance.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,4,"M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to
approve an extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment
PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore
Shopping Center.
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,5,"8-B.
Applicant requests approval of a Use Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary
uses are similar to other uses permitted in the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing
District (CL). C-M Districts are located City-wide. Applicant: City of Alameda.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-36 to approve
a
Use Determination that coffee roasting and ancillary uses are similar to other uses permitted in
the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District (CL).
AYES - 6 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,6,"8.C.
Use Permit No. UP-05-0009 - Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority/Area 51
Productions, Inc. - Northwest Territories, Alameda Point (ATh). The Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority requests an Interim Use Permit revision to allow the lease of
the Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show festivals, for up to two weeks in
length. The site is located in the M-2-G, General Industry (Manufacturing) Special
Government Combining Zoning District.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. John Walker, applicant, noted that he had worked with these shows for the last eight years, and
that the City requested that he revise his Use Permit because of the success of the shows. He noted
that his client base was largely composed of Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had gotten the impression that the Planning Board was handing over the
choice of what type of shows would be there to the ARRA, and that he was concerned about that
possibility. He did not have a problem with Area 51 Productions.
Ms. Eliason noted that the Board should consider this a Master Use Permit for the Northwest
Territories for the temporary trade shows, so that each trade show did not have to come back to the
Board each time. Staff has found that over the years, the conditions placed on the trade shows were
fairly standard, and that it was often difficult to hold the hearings in time for the trade show.
Mr. Piziali noted that the resolution states that the Board members examined maps, drawings and
documents, and noted he did not have those items. He was aware that the events were fine, but
would like more information. He emphasized that he did not want to micromanage these events, and
relied on staff to ensure that ARRA did not allow events that would upset the residents.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that the only events would be trade shows in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Walker noted that he has managed events all over the world since 1967, and that he was a San
Francisco native. He added that he was very protective of the Base, and noted that for every show he
produced, he turned down ten.
Vice President Cook noted that Use Permits ran with the land, rather than the tenant, and noted that
while the applicant was an excellent tenant, future tenants may not meet that standard. She was
concerned with the breadth of the types of uses and the potential length.
Ms. Eliason advised that Interim Use Permits were different than regular Use Permits because this
was an agreement between the ARRA and Area 51 Productions in this case. This Interim Use Permit
does not grant anyone else the ability to hold trade shows, and they would still have to go through a
separate Use Permit process. This temporary Use Permit expires after five years, which was the
reason this permit was brought back to the Board.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,7,"Mr. Walker advised that the trucks used for loading were generally staged the evening before so they
did not impact peak traffic. He added that there were very few venues for public trade shows in the
Bay Area, and that the Cow Palace was antiquated and inadequate.
Ms. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager, noted that the City had a contract with
PM Realty Group, which acts as the City's property management agent. PM Realty Group collects
leases on behalf of the ARRA. The revenue went directly to the ARRA, and the master developer is
not involved in the ARRA's interim leasing program. She added that PM Realty Group was strictly
the ARRA's agent; all of the funds collected by them on behalf of the ARRA are deposited into the
ARRA's account.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Piziali noted that he was largely interested in the appropriateness of the event, rather than
the economics of how the Base was run. He noted that his question had been answered.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-37 to approve an Interim Use
Permit revision to allow the lease of the Northwest Territories to hold temporary trade show
festivals, for up to two weeks in length.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (Cook); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,8,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
Nomination of two Planning Board members to the South Shore Shopping Center working
group.
There was no staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, supported going forward with this process and
believed it would help everyone understand the history and process of this project. She hoped that
solutions could be reached.
Ms. Susan Pieper, 2101 Shoreline Drive #299, applauded the City for establishing the workshop
process, and noted that she had considerable experience in dealing with land use issues, from
different points of view. She noted that the best results came from putting the interested parties
together to listen to each other, to try to negotiate a win/win situation in their recommendations. She
urged the Board to take this process seriously.
Mr. Tim Erway, President, Willows Homeowners Association, 2101 Shoreline Drive, thanked the
City for establishing this workgroup, and reviewed the background of their involvement in this
project.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the makeup of the group, Ms. Eliason replied
that two Board members would be included, which would not be a Brown Act issue.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about too many cooks ruining the soup, and inquired about the size of
the working group.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Mr. Garrison noted that the idea was to accomplish project goals, so a manageable size was
essential. The immediate neighbors have been contacted, as well as the medical facilities. He
believed that a couple of representatives from each group would be ideal. He believed that
representatives from Public Works may be included to answer specific questions about traffic, and
anticipated several representatives from the applicant as well. He noted that a representative from
Target may be included.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the objective of the group, Mr. Garrison
replied that immediate neighbors had raised concerns and the City hoped to get them together with
the applicant to address those issues before decision was required from the Board.
Mr. Lynch believed that the workgroup would be productive if the individual groups could exchange
ideas and come to a common understanding. He supported this idea.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,9,"President Cunningham supported this kind of dialogue, but was concerned about potential
circumnavigation of the public process.
Ms. Kohlstrand thanked staff for the information, and noted that she believed that this kind of
working group was important to understand the concerns. She recalled concerns expressed by Board
members during the Bridgeside workgroups that they felt as if they had to buy into a decision before
it came back to the full Board. She believed that a smaller group would be more doable. She
believed it would be better without a Planning Board representative on the committee.
Ms. Eliason noted that the full Board and public workshops and hearings would be still be held.
Vice President Cook supported a workshop model that was more open and interactive. She had
found the Bridgeside process to be very frustrating, and added that members of the public spoke in
different capacities. She wanted to know who was accountable to whom. She was hesitant to start a
new workgroup model without more information and consensus.
Mr. Garrison did not anticipate this process to be a lengthy one.
A discussion regarding time commitment and workgroup structure ensued.
Mr. Piziali believed it was very important for the public to attend these workshops, but was not sure
it was necessary for Board members to attend. He would be willing to have staff, the applicant, and
representatives of the neighboring properties to attend these workgroups.
Vice President Cook was concerned about the notion of participants believing they would be
negotiating during these meetings, and added that there was no accountability.
Mr. Lynch noted that these meetings dealt with the City Council' constituency, and that for the
Board to take an active role at this stage would be problematic.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Mr. Lynch's concerns, and emphasized that while it was important for
staff, the applicant and the public to meet, she did not believe the Planning Board needed to sanction
it at this point.
Vice President Cook requested more information about specific workshop details, such as number of
workshops, accommodation for different schedules, and what kind of facilitator would be used.
Mr. Piziali agreed that a neutral facilitator was crucial to the success of these workgroups.
Ms. Kohlstrand suggested that staff also meet with the members of the Willows Homeowners
Association to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Lynch noted that it was important to redefine what the applicant wants, and added that not every
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,10,"point would have agreement.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Board's concerns had been noted, and that they would be passed on to
the applicant.
No action was taken.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,11,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that a meeting had been held on August 17, 2005, and noted that it was led
by the Chair of the Transportation Commission. She believed he was trying to establish a new
classification system for the roadways in Alameda. A very useful discussion was held, and people
leaned toward a recommendation of using a more multimodal type of classification system; both
vehicles, buses, bicycle and pedestrian use would be included. They anticipated presenting a
proposal for street classifications at the next meeting.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that a special meeting would be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 to hear
the Use Permits associated the Alameda theatre and Cineplex. Staff wanted to ensure that everyone
could be accommodated, and that the Elks Club was secured for an overflow crowd.
13.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION:
8:31 p.m.
13-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to (b) of section 54956.9 number of cases: 1
14.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-12,12,"Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the September 26, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 12, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-09-14,1,"CHT
OF
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
September 14, 2005
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Leslie Krongold, President
Ruth Belikove, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Mark Schoenrock, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Acting Library Director Jane Chisaki, Secretary
Laura Chaquette, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the
month of September 2005. Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of August 10, 2005.
Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the month of July 2005. Accepted.
D.
*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2004-05 Library expenditures (by
fund) through August 05. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for ratification. Held over to the meeting of October 12, 2005.
There was a brief discussion regarding two unfunded budget items in the Finance report.
Board member Butter asked if the library statistical report is back on track. President
Krongold asked when the move to the new building would start. Acting Library Director
Chisaki stated that the move would begin in September 2006.",LibraryBoard/2005-09-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-09-14,2,"President Krongold asked about the new library cards and if there was a favorite design
picked by patrons. Circulation Supervisor Chaquette stated that patrons were not
favoring one card more than the others. President Krongold asked why the graphics for
the new library card design was not given to an Alameda designer. Ms. Chisaki stated
that it was an open competition but in the future consideration would be given to an
Alameda company.
Board member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member
Butter SECONDED the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of Materials Security and Inventory System. (J. Chisaki)
Acting Library Director Chisaki led a discussion on the Materials Security and Inventory
System (RFID). The Request for Proposal (RFP) has been completed along with the staff
report that will go before the City Council on October 4, 2005. If accepted by the City
Council the RFP will be released for bid on October 5, 2005.
Board member Butter asked if there would be changes to the Express Check equipment.
Ms. Chisaki stated that it would depend on what vendor was chosen. Ms. Butter asked
about the cost of the new equipment. Ms. Chisaki stated that it would cost approximately
$300,000 and the funds were already budgeted. The maintenance costs would run about
15-20%.
Board member Butter asked if the public would receive information about the new
technology. Ms. Chisaki stated that library publicity would emphasize education of the
public about RFID. It would also stress the fact that patrons would keep their existing
card, no ""smart cards"" are in the plan. RFID is just a new way to read the barcode
information on library materials.
Board member Schoenrock asked about the conversion process. Acting Library Director
Chisaki stated that it would again depend on the vendor that is chosen, but that it could
take place in conjunction with circulation of the items. New materials would have the
tags added as part of the processing for shelf ready materials.
President Krongold asked where the processing would be done. Ms. Chisaki stated that
new materials would include processing with RFID tags. David Hall and Laura
Chaquette are having conversations with various vendors about opening day collections
that include complete processing.",LibraryBoard/2005-09-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-09-14,3,"Acting Library Director Chisaki explained that since the agenda item stated that a
""discussion"" would take place rather than a ""recommendation"", a vote of support for the
Materials Security and Inventory System could not be taken. Ms. Chisaki stated that
Library Board members may state support of the idea, but that it could not be a formal
recommendation. The Library Board agreed to support the recommendation made by the
Acting Library Director.
Board member Butter stated that she felt that the Board should be part of future actions
taken by the Library.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)
Board member Belikove reported that the Library Foundation did not meet in August.
Ms. Belikove stated that there were Board vacancies due to term limits.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)
The Friends of the Alameda Free Library did not meet in August. President Krongold
stated that the next book sale is in October and that the Friends were looking for
fundraising ideas.
D.
Library Building Watch (L. Krongold)
President Krongold stated that the next newsletter will go out the week of September 19th
E.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Acting Library Director Chisaki read one input/feedback form regarding; purchasing the
audio recording of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
Mark Perlin from the College of Alameda asked what warranted $300,000 in
expenditures for a new security system. Acting Library Director Chisaki explained that
all libraries have security systems. This upgrade is needed due to the fact that we can no
longer purchase parts/maintenance contracts for our current outdated system. Board
member Butter added that this particular system includes inventory capabilities.
Mr. Perlin asked about the decrease in material checkouts. Board member Butter
explained that the drop represents a comparison between July of 2004 and July of 2005.
The significant statistics are better understood when looking at the overall trend that
shows a steady increase over an extended period of time.
Mark Lambert stated that the BALIS Advisory Committee will meet next week.",LibraryBoard/2005-09-14.pdf
LibraryBoard,2005-09-14,4,"LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
There will be a Bookies by the Bay dinner hosted by the Literacy Departments from
Alameda County, Alameda City, Berkeley and Oakland.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Acting Library Director reviewed her report with the Board. In addition, she mentioned
that she received approval to hire two part-time librarians, one for branches and Adult
Reference, and one for the Children's Department. Ms. Chisaki announced that Spooky
Night will take place on 10/27/05.
ADJOURNMENT
Board member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Vice President
Belikove SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki
Acting Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board",LibraryBoard/2005-09-14.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,1,"MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2005
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, September 15, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine
Johnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)
Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)
Absent:
None
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Minutes of July 14, 2005 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.
M/S/C
OLIVER/JOHNSON
(approved)
In Favor (3) -
Ingram, Johnson, Oliver
Abstain (2) -
Reeves, Kahuanui
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.)
David Peterson, dog park user, asked when there would be water at the Main Street Dog
Park. AD Lillard stated that there used to be water at the park but it was not potable water.
At this time, it would be cost prohibitive to run the line for potable water and the Main St.
Dog Park.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
-
E-Mail from Sara Zehnder-Wallace, Alameda resident, regarding placement of cell
towers in Krusi Park.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,2,"-
Letter from Miriam Sundheim, Alameda resident, regarding construction of cell
phone towers at Krusi Park.
-
E-Mail from Carol Wallace regarding construction of cell phone towers at Krusi Park.
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Washington Park Recreation Building Conceptual Drawing -
(Discussion/Action Item)
AD Lillard provided to the Commission the conceptual drawing for the new recreation
Building at Washington Park. Several years ago the old recreation building burned down
and a temporary building was installed. The temporary building has deteriorated and we
are unable to run programs at the park.
The new building will be funded with Prop 40 monies and will be a modular building. This is
the first modular building to be built in the City.
M/S/C
REEVES/OLIVER
(approved)
""That the conceptual drawing for the new modular building at Washington Park be
accepted.""
Approved (5):
Ingram, Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
B.
Request to Install Cingular Cell Tower in Krusi Park at the Tennis Courts -
(Discussion/Action Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, presented to the Commission plans for installing a
Cingular Cell Tower in Krusi Park at the tennis courts.
Approximately two years ago the tennis court lights on the left side of the court (facing the
tennis courts from Otis Dr.) were replaced with new lights that have cell towers inside the
new light poles. With this proposal, the three old tennis court lights on the right side of the
tennis courts would also be replaced with additional cell towers inside the new light poles.
Cingular is making this new proposal.
Mr. Knopf provided the Commission with a map of Alameda showing other cell tower sites
(e.g., Alameda Hospital, top of former Alameda Drug, College of Alameda, Christ Episcopal
Church, Wood Middle School, Washington School, etc.) located in Alameda. There are a
lot of other places that do not go through the process that the City does for City owned
property and do not go through the City-wide public notification process that the City uses.
The City has collected approximately $91,000 over the last two years from the current Krusi
Park cell tower carrier. An initial deposit of $25,000 went to the Recreation and Park
Department with an additional half of the monthly lease revenues also going to the
Department.
2
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,3,"Staff has gone through the draft Long-Term Park Use Policy and feels that the proposal
falls within all the criteria and that the proposal is consistent with the criteria. It does not
displace any park programs, effect use of active park space; have any detrimental impact
on the use of the tennis courts or use of the grounds. This also generates revenue for the
Recreation and Park Department and replaces the old lights which need to be replaced at
the tennis courts.
Commissioner Reeves asked how much it would cost the Recreation and Park Department
to replace the tennis court lights. AD Lillard stated that it would cost approximately $25,000
to replace the three old lights. The lights on that side of the tennis courts are the original
lights and one light pole has fallen before. Regardless of accepting the proposal or not the
lights will need to be replaced in the near future.
Commissioner Reeves asked if the creation of a tower was subject to FCC regulations. Mr.
Knopf stated yes. The sites have to comply with FCC regulations and the study/evaluation
that the City received is well within the FCC regulations.
Commissioner Reeves stated that FCC regulations would supercede any City, County, or
State restrictions so that any private entity that gets permission from the FCC to build a
tower would not have to go through the approval process that the Commission/City is doing
now. In fact, there is no ability to restrict a private citizen from putting up a cell tower if the
FCC approves it. If the Commission does not approve this proposal any other entity (e.g.,
church, school, private business, etc.) could go ahead and build a tower right next door to a
park without any approval from the Commission or City. The Commission would not be
able stop it.
Mr. Knopf stated that the proposal is consistent with the bequest by the Krusi family.
Deeds were reviewed and the stipulation in the Deed was that if the City were to use the
premises for public park and playground purposes and for other municipal purposes which
will not materially interfere with the operation of the area as a public park or playground.
The City's evaluation of this proposal is that it will not effect/interfere with use of the park or
playground.
Chair Ingram asked if Mr. Knopf was reading from the actual Krusi Deed. Mr. Knopf stated
yes.
C.
Request to Install Sprint Cell Tower at Mastick Senior Center in the Corner of
Parking Lot - (Discussion/Action Item)
Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, presented to the Commission the proposal for
installing a Sprint Cell Tower at Mastick Senior Center.
Mr. Knopf stated that Sprint proposes to lease approximately 400 square feet within the
southwest corner of the Mastick Senior Center parking lot to install a 45-foot high, slim line
monopole with new parking lot lights, and with antenna panels hidden within the top five
feet of the monopole. Equipment would be located within a fenced enclosure, with fencing
3
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,4,"to match the existing parking lot fencing.
Don Oransky, Mastick Advisory Board President, stated that the Advisory Board was in
favor of installing the cell tower in the corner of the Mastick Senior Center parking lot.
Chair Ingram asked where Mastick would spend the revenues from the cell tower rental.
SSM Krause stated that the Council recently cut the part-time secretarial position at
Mastick so the revenues would go toward paying for that position.
M/S/C
REEVES/KAHUANUI
(approved)
""That the proposals to install cell towers at Krusi Park tennis courts and at the
Mastick Senior Center parking lot be approved.""
Approved (4):
Johnson, Kahuanui, Oliver, Reeves
Opposed (1):
Ingram
Chair Ingram stated that he supports the cell tower for Mastick Senior Center but wishes
the City would have a more long-term plan, rather than just popping them up all over the
City.
D.
End-of-Summer Report - (Information Item)
AD Lillard stated that the ARPD Summer programs went very well this summer.
RS Russi provided the Commission with an End-of Summer Report. Attendance in all of
our summer programs increased. The Council put back in to the budget our free parks and
playground programs and attendance in these programs increased over prior years.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Revisions to Long-Term Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)
AD Lillard provided the Commission with a Draft Long-Term Park Use Policy for review.
There is a policy section and an application process section and a process for an appeal to
Council.
SSM Krause stated that Council wanted the Commission to specifically define what long-
term was (staff came up with 72 hours), emphasized private use and concessionaires.
Also, Council placed an emphasis on placing cell towers in parks.
AD Lillard stated that staff felt that that using 72 hours as defining long-term would be good
because there are some events that the City and non-profits do that could expand to two
days.
Suggested revisions to the Long-Term Park Use Policy were discussed by the Recreation
4
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,5,"and Park Commission with staff.
Another draft will be brought before the Commission at their October 13, 2005 meeting.
7.
REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK
DIRECTOR
A.
Park Division
AD Lillard stated that the Dog Park drainage project should begin within the next 60 days.
This will eliminate the standing water problem during the winter and a water line for a dog
and human water station will be installed.
Soccer and Football season has begun. All Park Maintenance Workers are mowing their
own parks since we have lost the Equipment Operator position due to budget cuts.
Leydecker Park Playground Renovation is almost complete. We are waiting for the
installation of two benches.
B.
Recreation Division
See the 2005 End-of-Summer Report.
AD Lillard stated he will be meeting with the College of Alameda regarding use of their
fields within the next week.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
SSM Krause stated that the Flu Shot Clinic will be held on Monday, October 31, at the
Mastick Social Hall.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
1.
Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair
Reeves)
No report at this time.
2.
Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)
Group has been sunsetted and item will be removed from the Agenda.
3.
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
Commissioner Johnson stated that an informational meeting was recently held. There
5
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
RecreationandParkCommission,2005-09-15,6,"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",RecreationandParkCommission/2005-09-15.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005-7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-447) - Proclamation declaring October 2005 as United Nations
Month
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Herb Behrstock
and Mark Weinstein, Board Members for the East Bay Chapter of the
United Nations Association, and Michael Yoshi, Minister of the
Buena Vista United Methodist Church.
Mr. Behrstock thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the
Council to attend a celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the
United Nations on October 21, 2005.
Cynthia Winton-Henry provided a handout regarding the October 21
event and urged attendance.
Mr. Yoshi thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated that the
October 21st event is the beginning of bringing communities together
in Alameda for the long term.
Ms. Carol Robe, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) stated AUSD
is happy to be a co-sponsor for the October 21 event.
(05-448) Proclamation declaring September 18-24 as Pollution
Prevention Week in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sam McClymont
with RyNck Tires.
San McClymont, RyNck Tires, thanked the Council for the
proclamation; stated that the Alameda facility would be accepting
tires and oil at no cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,2,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 05-450] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-449 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on September 6, 2005. Accepted.
(05-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,807,630.92
Mayor Johnson stated that improvements are being made for buying
within Alameda; a lot of office supplies, tires, and auto supplies
are purchased outside the City and outside the County; the check
register changed to make City versus non-City purchases more
apparent ; requested staff to examine how other communities program
to buy within the community; spending tax money outside of Alameda
should not be done unless necessaryi the Council could adopt a
resolution to formalize buying and hiring in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that a Buyer position be
reviewed; stated there are multiple sources for the same type of
materials; the check register shows two places for tire purchases,
with one in Oakland; a Buyer position may pay for itself by the
money saved in buying in bulk and negotiating contracts.
Mayor Johnson stated there are multiple providers for phone service
and copy maintenance and repair; some items are bought through a
County contract supporting jobs, creating tax revenue, and
supporting Alameda businesses are some of the benefits from buying
in Alameda.
The City Manager stated that all processes are being reviewed;
staff is working to have Alameda businesses meet the prices of
businesses outside Alameda; bulk purchasing would encourage meeting
the prices elsewhere.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should be hesitant to have COSTCO
memberships; items should be bought in Alameda questioned whether
money is really saved when residents' tax money is spent outside
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,3,"Alameda; $6,000 in stationery supplies was spent out of Alameda;
requested that the check register include totals for goods
purchased both in and out of Alameda and totals for services
purchased both in and out of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that various vendors have secondary
buyers; vendors should be encouraged to buy in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that a $6,000 purchase would generate
$60 in sales tax; bulk purchases may save more money.
Mayor Johnson stated that jobs and support for Alameda
organizations and non-profits are benefits in addition to the sales
tax; all factors need to be balanced.
Councilmember Daysog moved ratification of the bills in the amount
of $3,807,630.92
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-451) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the Period Ending June 30, 2005 (Year-end) Accepted.
( *05-452 ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for three marked police vehicles. Accepted.
(
*05-453) Recommendation to reject the Bids, adopt the modified
Specifications, and authorize a second Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(*05-454) Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with
Ghilotti Brothers by increasing the contingency amount by $120,000
for the Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, No. P. W.
10-02-13. Accepted.
(*05-455) Recommendation to approve a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement with FOCIL-BP, LLC . Accepted; and
(*05-455A) Resolution No. 13894, ""Approving Final Map and Accepting
Certain Dedications and Offers of Dedication and Easement Vacations
for Tract 7512. "" Adopted.
(*05-456) Resolution No. 13895, ""Approving Parcel Map and Accepting
Dedication of Easements for Parcel Map No. 8725 (Bridgeside
Shopping Center) . "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,4,"Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Norton's skill, leadership, and
experience enabled handling a tough situation; read the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that working with Mr. Norton has been a
privilege; she appreciates Mr. Norton's willingness to give of his
time and self, and for listening to the Council and community;
stated Mr. Norton did a terrific job in reaching out to the
community in some very difficult times.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has enjoyed Mr. Norton's
leadership; noted that Mr. Norton leads by example; stated
accomplishments were enjoyed; curveballs were tackled; Mr. Norton
recognized staff's skills; the ship was put back on course after a
difficult time; he has never seen such incredible leadership.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Norton; stated he appreciates
Mr. Norton's skills, professionalism, and enthusiasm; everything
was handled with a unique and successful approach.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Norton for his enthusiasm and
leadership; stated that the City Manager's work is set because of
Mr. Norton's work.
Mayor Johnson noted that former Councilmember Kerr was instrumental
in bringing Mr. Norton back into service.
Former Councilmember Kerr stated that the Council handed Mr. Norton
a disastrous budget ; the community thanks him for getting the job
done.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,5,"Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson presented Mr. Norton with the resolution, a pewter
plate, and an Alameda Point print.
(05-459) Resolution No. 13898, ""Reappointing Karen Lee as a Member
of the Public Art Commission. "" Adopted
(05-459A) Resolution No. 13899, ""Reappointing K. C. Rosenberg as a
Member of the Public Art Commission. Adopted; and
( 05-459B) Resolution No. 13900, ""Appointing Terri Bertero Ogden as
a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Lee, Ms. Rosenberg, and Ms. Ogden.
(05-460) Ordinance No. 2945, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section
13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New
Article I, Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004
California Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
""
Finally passed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-461) Recommendation to authorize the submission of an
application with the California Film Commission to enable City
participation in the Film Liaisons in California, Statewide (FLICS)
Program; and
(05-461A) Resolution No. 13901, ""Establishing the Alameda Film
Commission and Granting It the Formal Designation to Serve as Its
Film Liaison In California, Statewide (FLICS) with the California
Film Commission. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,6,"The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that establishing a Film Commission is a great
idea; a number of movies have been filmed in Alameda; inquired
about commission memberships in other communities.
The Development Services Director responded the memberships have a
strong industry representation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether half of the membership should be
from the industry and whether three marketing memberships should be
included.
The Development Services Director responded other communities'
experiences and selection process would be reviewed and provided to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Civic Light Opera has an
apprenticeship program; connecting the apprenticeship program with
filmmakers would be good.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis of other Film
Commission success rates to determine what membership works best.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some very unique assets;
Alameda Point is a great marketing tool; a Film Commission would be
helpful; consistency in the community is important; neighborhoods
have had short notification; consistency would come from Commission
and Planning Department guidance; positive steps are being taken.
The Development Services Director stated that sometimes the City
receives very little notice.
Councilmember deHaan stated that movie making would spill over into
the City; the City is a friendly community.
The Development Services Director stated that the community has fun
with filming activity; opportunities are available to engage the
community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the closure of the High Street Bridge for
filming was handled well / there was little traffic; people were
cooperative; no complaints were received since the filming; filming
can be accommodated, if handled properly.
Kappi Hommert, Alameda, submitted handout. stated that she helped
to start the Oakland Film Commissioni Alameda has not been able to
take advantage of the benefits associated with having a Film
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,7,"part of the Film Commission; noted a small city does not really
need a Film Commission; the City Council should be aware of what is
happening within the community.
Mayor Johnson stated a Film Commission should hopefully pay for
itself and create other benefits for the community.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair inquired whether $9,000 was for website
development
Mayor Johnson responded $9,000 was for initial marketing materials
and the website.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair encouraged hiring local residents for
background acting.
Liam Gray, Alameda, stated that he supports a Film Commission; the
Film Commission could dovetail on San Francisco's efforts to be a
digital Hollywood; the bridges, beach, and quaint streets are
perfect locations for productions.
Mayor Johnson directed the City Clerk to send applications to the
speakers.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approve the staff recommendation and
adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-462) Transmittal of Task Force report concerning strategies to
prevent mass termination of tenancies from large apartment
complexes and to create additional affordable housing
opportunities
Former Acting City Manager Bill Norton provided an overview of the
Task Force Report.
Mayor Johnson stated changing codes would encourage more
condominium conversion; subsidies for affordable units need to be
paid; inquired whether the units could be retained as rental units.
Mr. Norton responded that currently the condominium conversion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,8,"ordinance allows the Planning Board to make decisions on what is
required; there are costs to improve properties; large complex
units are selling for $150,000 to $200,000 per unit; condominiums
are going for double the amount or more; property owners have some
room to make improvements, provide for inclusionary housing, and
still make a profit; the report states that discretion would be at
either the Planning Board or Council level when economically
feasible.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council was being
requested to adopt concepts such as changing rules to allow for
condominium conversion or whether more analysis would be provided;
stated reviewing the analysis first might be better.
Mr. Norton responded that each property would be different; some
buildings are pre-1900 and the conversion and inclusionary housing
would be prohibitive; buildings constructed later meet a lot of the
current codes but still would command a significant value if
converted to condominiums; generalizing each piece of property is
difficult; the Council could direct staff to provide additional
review of the concept more time would be needed to get more detail
on condominium conversion upgrades and what the condominiums would
command if sold; minimum lot size, setback requirements, parking,
and some code compliance issues would be somewhat compromised;
staff would be relied upon to decide whether a specific case made
sense.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a deeper level of
analysis; profile case studies should be done before approval of
the condominium conversion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council gave the Task Force two
specific charges 1) review how to prevent mass evictions, and 2)
review more affordable housing opportunities; the original
timeframe was to return with an answer to the Council in 90 days;
the Task Force did not return in 90 days because both charges were
very large; a very broad brush set of recommendations is presented;
the intent is to receive some Council feedback indicating whether
there is an interest in pursuing condominium conversions ; staff
would provide an analysis and bring the information back to the
Council, if there is an interest.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a real concern with health and
safety compliance and code enforcement there are some concerns
with landlords who are not properly managing property; inquired
whether there are other [code] issues on the horizon.
Mr. Norton responded that there is concern that the same situation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,9,"could happen at the same property in 5 or 10 years with the new
property owner; there are buildings in Alameda that are beautifully
maintained and others are not; the Task Force felt there should be
a more proactive approach when two or three complaints are
received; the Code currently allows people to complain to the City;
the City determines whether the property is in compliance; the Code
does not allow the City to go onto private property and force an
inspection unless there is probable cause.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was any evidence that a
Harbor Island Apartment type situation exists.
Mr. Norton responded that he was not aware of any large complex
problems; stated the Acting Planning and Building Director would
know better.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was critism that the City
was the last to know about the Harbor Island Apartment situation;
the City needs to be the first to know about problems so that
action can be taken.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that there are no
major complexes that have anywhere near the number of complaints as
the Harbor Island Apartments.
Councilmember deHaan stated that ensuring the situation does not
reoccur is important; mechanisms addressed tonight would provide
reassurance.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Speakers : Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern
Alameda (submitted handout) ; *Lorraine Lilley, Housing Task Force
(submitted handout) i Barbara Kerr, Northside Association (submitted
handout) ; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Thomas Cook, Bonanza Apartments,
LLC; *Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope *Joel Rubenzahl; *Delores Wells
Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association; *Eve Bach, Arc Ecology
(submitted handout) i Bill Smith, Alameda; Carol Martino, Realty
World Martino Associates; *Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Don Grappo, Alameda; *Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope ;
Bruce Carnes, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Michael Yoshi,
Housing Task Force (submitted handout) Spoke in favor of the
Minority Report.
]
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mr. Norton stated that Mr. Yoshi provided him with a copy of a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,10,"Minority Report tonight and has requested to speak; some Task Force
members wanted to present recommendations that are not part of the
report; there are three recommendations that could be summarized by
Mr. Yoshi.
Mr. Yoshi presented the Minority Report.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the dust should not gather on
the work of the Task Force; he appreciates everyone's work; a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson is a good idea to ascertain intentions
and to work towards a goal of restoring the fabric of the
community; the Harbor Island Apartments are unique because of the
size; the thrust of preventing mass eviction has the most impact on
said complex; the advantages or disadvantages of controlling the
management by placing the property in a redevelopment area should
be reviewed; he supports going after code enforcement, fair housing
laws, and tenant-landlord laws; federal laws on fair housing and
inti-discrimination need to be enforced; the City needs to send a
message that there will be maximum enforcement of the laws; he is
disappointed with Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair Housing for not
stepping up to help the City advocate for the tenants; Legal Aid
sent lawyers to a City Council meeting advising there was no money
to help people file claims against the Fifteen Group; he would like
more time to review the Minority Report; the affordable housing
goal and the relationship of condominium presence or absence is
peripheral and at odds with the notion of preventing further mass
evictions; reviewing an alternate condominium conversion ordinance
is not appropriate at this time reviewing the possibility of
affordable housing for home ownership is in the back drop of
reviewing what eventually will be at Alameda Point; he would not
want to play into any intention that Kennedy Wilson might have to
convert the units into condominiums; the City and Task Force should
examine the matter; a combination of affordable ownership housing
and rental housing within the complex might be possible; the matter
would require a very detailed and specific discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated condominium conversion should be reviewed; the
impacts are unknown; reviewing the matter allows further
evaluation; condominium conversion is a way to achieve affordable
housing, which is a shortage in Alameda. many people prefer to buy
a house and others prefer renting; both should be accommodated a
limit can be placed to ensure too many units are not removed from
the rental stock; the Task Force Report is for discussion and
information; inquired whether the committee voted on the Task Force
Report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore responded the recommendations in the report were
arrived at through consensus.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,11,"Mr. Norton stated ideas were presented at each meeting; the ideas
were incorporated in the report if the majority of the Task Force
agreed; the Task Force had to weigh the value of more changes
versus providing a report to the Council within a certain period of
time; the Minority Report ideas were not presented to the Task
Force and could not be incorporated in the report.
Mr. Yoshi stated that there was discussion on whether there would
be a Minority Report because there was not a consensus.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the missions of the Task
Force was to develop potential strategies that may be considered in
the areas of code compliance, legislation, education, and new
initiatives to provide affordable housing the Task Force covered
the issues well; background information is important, particularly
in talks with Kennedy Wilson; the Task Force provided what was
requested.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Vice Mayor Gilmore for representing
the Council on the Task Force as well as the Task Force Committee
members; stated the bullet points regarding the health and safety
compliance and code enforcement are good he questions whether
bullet point #1 [ Increased Code Compliance and Enforcement
activities was meant to be open-ended or was meant to be targeted
towards instances as they arise on a case-by-case basis; requested
clarification; stated having rules in place and enforced at either
the State or local level is important someone needs to be held
accountable for the rules; questioned what needs to be done to make
the Council more accountable to ensure that a Harbor Island
Apartment situation does not occur again; stated housing issues in
Alameda are broken off into different areas such as the Rent Review
Advisory Committee, Housing Authority, Alameda Development
Corporation, and Code Compliance; bringing the areas together under
one roof to ensure that issues raised by one area are not
overlooked by others should be reviewed; the Council should be more
involved; improving the system of accountability is necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the Council better informed has
been the emphasis in all areas; the Council needs to be involved in
establishing any Task Force in the future; any Task Force formed
should report back to the Council all information needs to come
together at a central location.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese's total disappointment in Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair
Housing nothing was done to help the tenants; moral outrage does
not get the attention of a morally bankrupt property owner; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,12,"City tried to get the former property owner's attention by filing a
lawsuit; some of the tenants could have filed lawsuits if Legal Aid
stepped up earlier to help the tenants and provide support.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Task Force was
discharged; recommended that a meeting be scheduled with Kennedy
Wilson to provide background information, advise what the Council
wants, and to determine what Kennedy Wilson wants; requested that
staff outline a plan for how to put all the pieces together with
multiple City department involvement directed the City Manager to
put together a plan on how to enforce the Code, as well as State
and federal laws; stated a conscious direction should be given to
all players to provide a warning light before a melt down; he would
like to review the Minority Report before making any condominium
conversion comments.
Mayor Johnson inquired how tenants know where to complain about
property conditions.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are
complaint forms on the website; departments refer complaints to
Code Enforcement; outreach is not currently available.
The City Manager stated that people coming to the counter are
referred to the Planning and Building Department; changes will be
incorporated on the forms to ensure that people are not discouraged
to report a complaint.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to review
prioritization of code compliance cases to ensure that resources
are correctly targeted; conditions at the Harbor Island Apartments
were raised by the Council for the past three years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Kennedy Wilson is somewhat aware of
the Harbor Island Apartment history; the City and either the Task
Force or the Harbor Island Tenant Association members should meet
with Kennedy Wilson sooner rather than later; Kennedy Wilson would
be more conscious in the beginning to put their best foot forward
and would be more amiable to meet with members of the community;
scheduling a meeting with Kennedy Wilson should be a priority.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated
Kennedy Wilson should be advised about the City's expectations.
Councilmember deHaan stated that quite a few recommendations have
been made ; many of the recommendations should be adopted;
recommendations are not major policy decisions; he is concerned
that accepting some of the recommendations would be considered a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,13,"cure all : ; safeguards should be put in place to ensure that
apologies to the community will not be necessary because the boat
was missed; recommendations are a small example of the direction
that has been taken to ensure that matters will be addressed in a
proactive manner.
Councilmember Daysog stated improving the system for Council
accountability should be reviewed; ouncilmembers can learn a lot
from the Hurricane Katrina disaster; various levels of government
were involved, but the accountability rested with the President for
what went wrong; Kennedy Wilson's purchase of the property
represents a substantial investment in a part of the City that is
being redeveloped; Kennedy Wilson communications seem to be open
and receptive; he cautions moving the project sideways; the
condominium conversion ordinance is not ready to be modified, but
should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the direction recommendation could be to
request a study of the condominium conversion ordinance to examine
different methods.
The City Manager summarized Council's directions: 1) set up
a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson and Task Force representatives to
discuss the City's expectations, and how to avoid a similar
situation, 2) outline internal operations to ensure that the pieces
are put together to inform each other that all enforcement issues
are being communicated across department lines, and 3) study the
potential impacts of a condominium conversion ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to include
revising fine violations for boarded up buildings to a per-unit
basis with prosecution to the fullest extent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-463) Richard Neveln, Alameda, discussed establishing a tourist
bureau; inquired when bus shelters would be installed on Park
Street.
Mayor Johnson responded that the bus shelters should be installed
by the end of next month.
(05-464) Don Grappo, IOOF, discussed sidewalk damage and tree
trimming issues at the corner of Park Street and Santa Clara
Avenue; stated that street repaving has caused an obstruction in
roof drainage; noted that the cell sites need to be raised.
(05-465) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,14,"(05-466) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, submitted a handout regarding the
November ballot from The Alliance for a Better California.
( 05-467) - Delores Wells Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association,
stated that a tenant at the Santa Clara Avenue fire informed the
manager that her fire alarm did not work a year ago; annual
inspections for rental properties are important.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department does annual
inspections, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-468 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission. Not addressed.
(05-469) Councilmember deHaan stated that there was excellent
action at the Santa Clara Avenue fire; the Red Cross moved the
families into a local church and was working with the last family
to determine where the family would spend the night the landlord
and manager of the unit had a listing of all the tenants; tenant
relocation was being considered to other units owned by the
manager ; the situation gave a strong feeling of being able to react
when necessary.
(05-470) Councilmember deHaan requested a traffic control update on
Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street.
(05-471) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she received a phone call
regarding the morning traffic situation at Island Drive and
Doolittle Drive and the length of time to get off Bay Farm Island
traveling both ways; the citizen noted that he had formally
contacted the Public Works Department about the problem a year ago;
requested staff to follow up on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated that the traffic situation has worsened
recently; inquired whether there has been a change in the timing of
the signals; noted the traffic backs up on Island Drive; the
southbound traffic on Doolittle Drive is not as bad.
Councilmember deHaan stated the morning traffic going out to Harbor
Bay is also bad.
(05-472) Mayor Johnson requested further information on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,15,"proposed athletic facilities at Bayport prior to finalizing the
agreement with the school district.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the information should be provided
in
conjunction with all field allocations and should address how the
process works, facility location, and the greatest needs.
(05-473) Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Modesto's cable
channel provides a lot of information such as employment
opportunities, City programs, and history; suggested that the
information scrolling on the City's cable channel be expanded to
provide more information to the public.
(05-474) Mayor Johnson stated that she would like staff to review
Oakland and San Leandro's Emergency Operation Plan; requested that
staff review the City's Emergency Operation Plan prior to the
workshop to see whether the Plan needs improvement.
The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of updating
the Plan; there have been some organizational changes staff will
review other cities' plans.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005- -6:20 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-445) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator:
Craig Jory; Employee Organizations International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(05-446) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and gave directions to the agency negotiatori
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave direction
to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 - - - 7:27 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:44 p.m. .
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-044) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
meetings of August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-045) Recommendation to approve a Contract with LPA, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $148,500 to provide design development,
construction documents, coordination with the Department of the
State Architect, bid negotiations and construction administration
services for development of the Alameda Recreation and Parks
Department 4-acre community park at Bayport. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Tony Santare called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room
#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Tony Santare,
Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill
Schmitz and Commissioner Jane Sullwold. Absent: Chair Sandré
Swanson and Commissioner Bob Wood. Also present were General
Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.
1-B
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 17, 2005
The following correction was made:
Item 1-A, line 4
Commissioner Sullwold was present and
Commissioner Wood was absent.
Item 3-A, line 33
90' should be 90°.
Item 3-C, line 9
Cooridinator should be Coordinator.
Item 5-D, line 15
Omission of the word ""to"" before City Council.
The Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the
aforementioned changes.
1-C
Adoption of Agenda
The Commission approved the agenda unanimously.
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3.
AGENDA ITEMS:
3-A
Approval of the Golf Complex Policy Board. (Action Item)
The General Manager stated that the policy board was originally slated as an
Action Item at the last meeting and was changed to a discussion item. Decided at
the meeting was to have the policy board in the Pro Shop instead of on the first
tee of the courses so that customers can read them while checking in to play golf.
The question was raised as to whether the Risk Manager has seen the policies and
approves of them. The General Manager stated that he has reviewed the policies
Page 1 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,2,"with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that
people might not know what the phrase ""pace of play"" represents. The General
Manager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play
policy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex
is
looking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of
play. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when
the golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are
playing at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers
who play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to
include the phrase ""keep up with the group in front of you"" in the golf carts.
After discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:
To make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:
1.
All players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before
starting play.
2.
Do not enter water hazards or sloughs.
3.
AED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop
and Driving Range buildings.
4.
Please cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.
5.
Observe all pace of play policies. Please play ""ready"" golf.
6.
90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.
7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.
8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or
have approval of professional staff.
9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.
10. Proper golf attire required.
11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.
12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.
13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.
14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your
removal from the facilities.
The Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.
3-B
Approval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy
Allowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)
The General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2
regarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on
November 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag
to identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is
as follows:
Purpose
Page 2 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,3,"The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify
procedures regarding the use of a medical/disability flag for golf car
access to the Golf Complex courses (excludes Mif Albright).
Policy
It is required that the Golf Complex provide to customers with a valid
medical disabilities card a rental golf car to reasonably access the golf
courses.
Procedures
Unrestricted access when weather and/or maintenance conditions
permit.
When maintenance conditions restrict golf car access to cart paths
only, customers with valid disability cards may access the golf course
under the 90-degree restriction. (Drive parallel to fairways from cart
paths and rough, then perpendicular across fairway to ball.)
Recipients of Medical/Disability flags will be identified by staff
writing the word ""medical"" on the golf car liability acceptance form
and the golf car windshield. Recipients will also be issued a blue flag
to be attached to the golf car.
When it is no longer safe to traverse fairways, areas near sloughs,
lakes, tees, and green banks due to inclement weather conditions, no
access to fairways will be permitted.
The Commission approved the amended the Management Practice #2
unanimously.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A
Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional
Matt Plumlee.
The Head Golf Professional reported that the Complex recently hosted a
Taylor Made Demo Day at the Driving Range that went very well. Ken
Jones is conducting free instruction clinics every Thursday morning for
the Alameda Women's Golf Club. Also reported was that on Sunday,
September 26, 2005 the range balls will be replaced with new ones.
4-B
General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and
operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.
Page 3 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,4,"The General Manager reported that he has been given authorization to hire
employees that are 16 years old. Employees previously had to be 18 years
old. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Restaurant Services was
completed and 19 RFPs were sent out. The General Manager has spoken
to many of the recipients. The team consisting of Chair Swanson,
Commissioner Gammell and Commissioner Sullwold will review the
proposals along with the General Manager to decide which one is best for
the facility taking into consideration various criteria. Once the proposals
have been reviewed and ranked the General Manager will meet with the
City Attorney to negotiate with the concessionaire. The General Manager
met with the General Manager of Alameda Power and Telecom, Val Fong
to discuss producing and running some commercials on various cable
channels. The General Manager will be meeting with Dan Bieber of
Sports Restaurant, Inc. to go over the particulars of winding down their
contract and vacating the premises.
4-D
Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.
No report given.
5.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
5-A
Marketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.
Commissioner Gammell reported that Ken Jones started the Ladies Clinics
on Thursday mornings before the weekly tournament. Although the
participation is low it should pick up. The ladies are very happy about the
two for one coupon that was sent to the membership recently. New
promotions being considered for the winter months include offering
monthly ticket holders the option to hit a bucket of balls instead of golfing
during inclement weather.
5-B
Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul
Commissioner Gaul reported that the rounds on the Mif Albright Course
were down 22% from last month. Commissioner Gaul thanked the
Maintenance Crew for fixing the rubber on the bridge on #5 of the Earl
Fry Course. The suggestion was made to contact past tournament groups
to encourage them to reserve times for next year. Also mentioned was the
possibility of renting a corporate tent to set up for large events to
accommodate their banquet on site.
5-C
Men's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.
Vice Chair Santare reported that he attended the Chuck Corica Senior Golf
Page 4 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,5,"Club Board of Directors meeting on August 18, 2005. The meeting
consisted of the nominations for 2006. The nominees were President-
George Humphreys, Secretary/Handicap Chairman-Marty Martinez,
Treasurer-Ralph Bertelsen and Director of Weekly and Tournament play-
George Newkirk. The ballots were sent to the membership on August 28,
2005. Other items discussed were the tournament format and revisions to
the by laws. Commissioner Santare also attended the Alameda Golf Club
general meeting on August 30, 2005 at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The meeting included the results of the putting tournament and club news.
Also discussed were the Alameda Point Golf Project and the Front
Entry/Tower Project. A representative from the Golden State Warriors
stating that the Men's Club could qualify for group discount tickets to the
basketball games.
5-D
New Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.
Commissioner Schmitz reported that the next step in the project is the
completion of the Financial Projection Report from John Ritchie, CPA.
The report will not be distributed in DRAFT form and will not be
presented until it is completed. The General Manager reported that he is
looking at ways to increase revenue while cutting expenditures to pay the
debt service. Some of the ideas being considered are increasing fees and
reducing the amount contributed to the General Fund yearly. Should the
report show no changes in the revenue and expenditures over the next 5
years it would show no way to repay the debt. The final report will
include suggestions and projections with changes to the fee structure and
expenditures. Also reported, the proposals for the Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Report have been received and work on that should start
soon.
5-E
Maintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,
Commissioner Sullwold.
Commissioner Sullwold complimented the Maintenance Crew for the
repair on the bridge on #5 of the Earl Fry Course. She inquired on the
status of the men's restroom on #9 of the Earl Fry Course. The restroom
is tied into a clogged sewer pipe and numerous attempts to clear it have
been made but it continues to clog.
5-F
City Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.
No report given.
5-G
Front Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.
Commissioner Wood reported that he is moving forward with plans for the
Page 5 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
GolfCommission,2005-09-21,6,"Fire Tower. He toured the building recently and found it structurally
sound, although there are windows stuck open that need to be closed due
to potential moisture damage.
5-H
Golf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.
No report given.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)
No report given.
7.
OLD BUSINESS
None to report.
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance
Department showing the surcharge payment for August 2005 of $16,219.
The year-to-date total to the General Fund is $36,637 for the fiscal year
2005/2006.
9.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Page 6 of 6",GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-09-22,1,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, September 22, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:40pm.
Present were Members Wasko, Hollinger Jackson, Bonta, and Hanna. Absent were Vice-President
Chen and Member Flores-Witte. Staff present were Beaver and Brown.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the August 25th meeting were approved with two
corrections, M/S (Wasko / Hollinger Jackson) and unanimous.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS - At the August meeting Member Bonta was nominated for President
and accepted the nomination. M/S (Franz / Hanna) and all in favor. Member Wasko was nominated
for Vice-President and accepted the nomination. M/S (Franz / Hollinger Jackson) to elect Wasko as
Vice President was approved by unanimous voice vote. M/S (Franz, Hanna) to elect Bonta as
President was approved by unanimous voice vote. President Bonta took the seat and thanked Jim
Franz for all his work over the years, and stated he is looking forward to continuing the work he
started as well as working with Vice-President Wasko.
ACKNOWLEDGING LOCAL SPIRIT OF GIVING FOR HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF
EFFORTS - Staff explained this item was carried over from August. President Bonta mentioned we
shouldn't forget about local organizations that need our help. Member Franz handed out a Katrina
relief flyer for a fundraiser at Grand View Pavilion on October 7, and stated that 200 volunteers have
already gone to the area to help. Franz also mentioned local children having a lemonade stand and
with the Bank of Alameda matching their effort. It was proposed to continue the item to the October
meeting, and to consider sending a letter to the media commending all those who helped with the
relief effort. Member Franz will compile Alameda Red Cross efforts, Hollinger Jackson will watch
local newspapers for relief articles and Vice President Wasko will draft a letter using that
information.
ADOPTING DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS 60TH
ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION - Vice-President Wasko is the liaison for the upcoming event she passed out a
proposed Declaration for all to review and comment on. There are currently 35 Co-Sponsors and
every one will have a brief write up in a booklet which will be handed out at the event. The bulk of
the fundraising will go toward printing this booklet. The efforts are focused on the event happening
October 21st. Discussions at the Tuesday meetings have included UNICEF Trick or Treat boxes in
effort of kids-helping-kids, as this will be the first time in UNICEF history that 50% of funds raised
will be given to children in the United States. There were several suggested changes to the
Declaration that Wasko will take back to the UN meeting. No action taken.
WORKGROUPS PROGRESS
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup - Member Franz stated the goal of 500 survey entries has not
been met, but they are close. The survey will be translated in Spanish to gain more information from
that group. The survey is also available in Chinese. The next step is to establish focus groups for
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
F:SSHRB\Agenda Packets 2005",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-09-22.pdf
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard,2005-09-22,2,"Minutes of the Regular SSHRB Meeting, Sept. 22, 2005
Page 2
long-term project preparation. The next meeting is October 7th and there will be more to report after
that meeting.
Family Services Workgroup - Vice-President Wasko reported this group is discussing a 2nd Annual
Festival of Families in the spring. Also they will be looking at childcare services and what deficits
exist locally.
Sister City Workgroup - Member Franz reported this group hasn't had a meeting, but added that a
representative hand carried a Mayoral Proclamation on a recent trip to Wuxi. Beaver noted that a
spring trip is being discussed and will be scheduled when Wuxi provides possible dates. The
workgroup will also be discussing a letter received, via Council member Matarrese from Asuchio, El
Salvador.
Alamedans Together Against Hate - No report.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - Vice-President Wasko reminded the Board of Alameda
Hospital's Health Fair on October 15th The Domestic Violence Task Force has fallen by the wayside
along with Cindy Lamdin leaving the Hospital. Perhaps the Board can ask the Mayor to read a
Proclamation. Wasko also asked staff about inviting all Board members to a get together. Beaver
will check and report back Member Franz reported ARC had a lot of community phone calls for
people wanting to help regarding the fire at 2020 Santa Clara. There are 34 units and repairs for
reentry will take about four months. The owners have provided all security deposits back to tenants
within a few days. President Bonta reported he would be talking with Member Flores-Witte
regarding her schedule and ability to attend Thursday meetings. Member Hollinger Jackson wanted
everyone to know she hasn't a computer at work, so in cases regarding immediate response, people
should call instead.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ADJOURNMENT - President Bonta adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Beaver, Secretary
CB:sb
G:SSHRB\Packets\2005\Sept\MinutesReg092205.do
F:SSHRB\Agenda Packets 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service",SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-09-22.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara, and
Piziali.
Vice President Cook was absent from roll call.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Planner III Douglas Garrison, Bruce Knopf, Development Services.
4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005 (continued from the meeting of
September 12, 2005.).
M/S Mariani/McNamara to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 8, 2005, as presented.
AYES - 4 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Kohlstrand, Lynch)
b.
Minutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that page 9, paragraph 4 should be changed to read, ""She believed that a
smaller group would be more doable. She believed it would be better without a Planning Board
representative on the committee.""
M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 12, 2005, as corrected.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 8-A.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and to
place it on the Regular Agenda.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,2,"7.
2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS
(Continued from the meeting of September 12, 2005.)
President Cunningham advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election,
and that it should be continued until then.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,3,"8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8.A.
DR05-0030, UP05-0013; Italo Calpestri III for Anita Ng; 1305-1311 Park Street (AT).
The applicants request approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two
story 3, ,115 square-foot addition to replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear
of a commercial building. The proposed project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of
ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-feet on the second floor. The second floor,
ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area, will contain two (2) residential units
each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is required for the dwelling units
pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not comply with off-street
parking requirements. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community
Commercial Theatre Combining District.
Ms. Eliason presented the staff report, and staff recommended that of the six existing spaces on the
site, two of the spaces be marked for the two new dwelling units. The other four spaces would be for
the four existing commercial spaces on the ground floor.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Virginia Chabre, 2420 Marti Rae Court, noted that Ms. Eliason's clarification of the parking
space configuration addressed her concerns. She suggested that parking stickers be used in this
neighborhood, such as those used in San Francisco. She was very pleased that Park Street had
become revitalized, but was very concerned about further competition for parking spaces during the
weekends and evenings.
Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, spoke in support of this project, and believed
it implemented a policy in the 1990 City General Plan that supported the development of residential
above retail in the downtown commercial districts. He believed it added to the mixed use character
of the area, represented a substantial new investment in the district, and would add to the district's
vitality.
Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that he would be able to answer any questions from the
Board.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. McNamara inquired whether the one-story unreinforced masonry structure in the back would be
demolished in preparation for this project. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case, and that the
applicant had received approval from the Historical Advisory Board to remove the two structures in
the back.
President Cunningham echoed Mr. Knopf's comments regarding this project, and supported the
residential plan as a strategy. He agreed that parking was in demand in that business area, and did
not believe all development on Park Street should be stopped because of parking. He added that was
a problem for the City to wrestle with, and that a compromise should be reached.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,4,"Mr. Piziali suggested that a parking garage would help.
Ms. Kohlstrand inquired about the possibility of stacked parking. Ms. Eliason noted that because the
Use Permit process allowed the amount of parking to be varied, that neither a Variance process or
in-lieu fees were included with this application.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported this type of use on Park Street, and would like the City to benefit from the
in-lieu fees when able.
Ms. McNamara inquired about the nature of the retail businesses, and whether those spaces could be
used at a reasonable hour by the residents.
Mr. Calpestri noted that the present tenants operated during normal business hours (approximately
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). They planned to change tenants, but expected that the parking would be
available to the apartments in the back. He added that the bar on the corner did not use those spaces.
President Cunningham advised that another speaker slip had been received.
M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was reopened.
Ms. Karen Backowksi, 2421 Marti Rae Court, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she
recently moved to Alameda. She believed that more apartments would worsen the parking situation,
and was concerned that the employees of the businesses would park in the residents' parking spaces.
She was also concerned that the property values would be negatively impacted. Her unit did not have
off-street parking.
Mr. Knopf noted that he sat on the City's Transportation Technical Team, which is charged with
examining parking issues. The difficulty of finding parking in residential areas has been a significant
topic of discussion, and the Director of Public Works, Matt Neclario, has spoken about residential
parking permits as being a long-term solution for this type of problem. Parking permits do not
generally cover their costs, which would be a budget issue for the City. The Committee does see the
permit plan as being a priority for residential neighborhoods. The planned parking structure for
Central and Oak was intended to address parking shortfall for the existing businesses in the
downtown area, in addition to the parking demand generated by a theater renovation project.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
President Cunningham noted that parking permits would contribute to the quality of life for the
neighborhood residents.
Ms. Kohlstrand had spoken with business representatives and downtown employees, who expressed
concern that there was no long-term parking in downtown Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,5,"Mr. Lynch had experience with parking permits and would not support them. He believed that it
pushed the issues further out, and noted that the primary issue was to balance the economic vitality
of a particular area. He noted that people preferred the ability to walk and congregate in downtown.
He strongly suggested that the City not pursue the parking permits, and believed that other solutions
would work.
Ms. Mariani expressed concern about the possibility of receiving many more similar requests.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-38 to
approval of Major Design Review to allow construction of a two story 3,115 square-foot addition to
replace existing additions of 1,300 square feet at the rear of a commercial building. The proposed
project results in a net gain of 515 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 1,300 square-
feet on the second floor. The second floor, ultimately comprising 1,500 square feet of floor area,
will contain two (2) residential units each approximately 750 square feet in size. A Use Permit is
required for the dwelling units pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1(s) because the units do not
comply with off-street parking requirements.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,6,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a
Planned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and
lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect
Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly of
1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would
allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots larger
than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot
coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to
ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is
required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels
larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the
landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size. The
property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)
(Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report for Items 9-A and 9-B. Staff noted that approval of 9-B
was contingent upon approval of 9-A. Staff recommended approved of this item.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding overlandscaped parcels, Mr. Garrison
confirmed that one parcel fronting on North Loop Road was proposed to have 38% landscaping
where a 30% minimum landscaping was required.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that a Parking Management Plan was required, and that there were presumably
TSM requirements they must comply with. Mr. Garrison believed that was a standard condition by
Public Works.
M/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-39 to amend the
Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and lot coverage provisions as established in Resolution
1203. This Amendment would affect Lots 1-6, 8 and 12 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots
are fronting on or southerly of 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels
larger than 5.5 acres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for
lots larger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum lot
coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed Planned
Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by five to ten
percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage is required on lots
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,7,"smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for parcels larger than 5.5 acres.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would decrease the landscaping requirement to
twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of size.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,8,"9-B.
FDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant
requests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,
office and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on
6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative
Parcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until
the final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -
Planned Development.) (Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison presented this staff report with the report for Item 9-A.
M/S Lynch/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-40 to approve a
Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse, office and light
manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on 6.41 acres adjacent to
and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8574). These
facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until the final map is approved.
AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-26,9,"10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Mr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board
member Mariani).
Ms. Mariani advised that the next meeting would be held Thursday, September 29, 2005.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board member
Kohlstrand).
Ms. Kohlstrand advised that there had been no meetings since her last report.
12.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason advised that the packets for the Special Meeting on Thursday, September 29, 2005, were
placed at the Board members' chairs.
13.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 10, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 26, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
September 28, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:37 PM.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robert MacFarland
Patianne Parker
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes for the July 20
Transportation Commission meeting. Commissioner Ratto seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Multimodal Circulation Plan Subcommittee - The
Subcommittee has been working on a revision of the City's street classification system
and met with the Task Force. A follow-up Task Force meeting is scheduled for October
12.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,2,"6A.
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Priorities
Staff `Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that since the original timeline for the
TMP was approved, that circumstances had changed; as a result, staff is recommending a
revision to the planned order of some of the mode-specific plans of the TMP.
Specifically, the City had received a grant for the Pedestrian Plan, and recently the
Council has expressed an interest in several activities that would fit into the discussion
for the Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management
(TSM/TDM) Plan. Since the Multimodal Circulation Plan is well under way, and would
serve as the framework for the entire TMP, staff views this as the highest priority.
Commissioner Parker stated that is would be easier to keep track of the progress of the
TMP if staff could prepare a chart illustrating the TMP schedule.
Commissioner Parker also noted that the proposed ECO Pass program is specific to
employers and asked why it could not be expanded to a larger population across the City.
She also noted that there is a proposed pass program for the Alameda Point development.
Staff Bergman responded that AC Transit is in the process of developing a standardized
formula for calculating the costs of these types of programs. Currently they only have
three programs in place, all in Berkeley - for City of Berkeley employees, University of
California staff, and University of California students. Because of the different
characteristics of these populations, the costs for these programs need to be calculated
separately.
Public Comment Opened
Bill Smith recommended the use of benefit assessment districts to develop funding
sources for needed transportation improvements.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, stated that she was wary of further delaying the
bike plan update. She noted that it has been six years since the initial plan was
completed, and that there is a need for many changes to the current plan.
Jon Spangler expressed his concern about the feasibility of collecting all of the required
data for the pedestrian plan by the end of the school year. He reiterated Ms. Gigli's
concerns about the bike plan, and indicated that he would like to see it made a higher
priority.
Public Comment Closed
Chair Knox White recommended that once the bike plan update begins that a second
bicycle plan update workshop be held due to poor attendance from the public at the initial
meeting. He asked that the workshop be held at City Hall instead of City Hall West to
encourage improved attendance.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,3,"Commissioner Parker moved to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Ratto
seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
I-880 Access Issues
Chair Knox White noted that there are projects being undertaken in Oakland which could
have a significant impact on Alameda's access to the regional transportation system, and
he is concerned that there have not been sufficient opportunities for input in the early
stages of project development. Specifically, he mentioned the Broadway/Jackson
interchange project, and the Park Street Triangle project, both of which will impact on
connections between Alameda and I-880.
Chair Knox White stated that the process for providing input into a project can be
confusing, and that it would be helpful for elected officials and citizens to have a better
understanding of how it works. He distributed a handout suggesting the development of
a task force to discuss these issues. Specifically, Chair Knox White suggested that the TC
recommend a process whereby staff from the cities of Alameda and Oakland, elected
officials and the public would develop an agreement which would define what projects
would be of mutual concern as well as a process for soliciting input on these projects
early on. He suggested that this approach would be proactive and would enable ideas to
be circulated early in the process before design decisions are made.
Chair Knox White emphasized that the proposed task force would have a limited life
span, meeting perhaps three or four times, to develop this agreement.
Commissioner Parker asked what has already been done and what is being done to
coordinate efforts between the two jurisdictions.
Open Public Comment
Jon Spangler stated that Chair Knox White's handout does not address emergency
preparedness issues, and that consideration of these issues at a regional level is important.
He suggested that a task force be established for the long term, so that the cities of
Alameda and Oakland could continue to coordinate their efforts on projects that affect
both jurisdictions.
Bill Smith expressed his support for Mr. Spangler's comments regarding emergency
preparedness, and noted the importance of enhanced access to I-880 for Alameda.
Close Public Comment
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC),
which the City of Alameda and AC Transit use as a way of addressing transit issues,
could serve as a model.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,4,"Chair Knox White acknowledged that the staff of both cities does communicate, but his
concern is that the concerns of the public are not aired early enough in the process, and
that important decisions are made before the input is solicited
Commissioner Parker stated that she did not know enough about current coordination
efforts between Alameda and Oakland. She moved that this item be tabled until the next
meeting.
Staff Hawkins stated that there are a number of ways in which the two cities currently
work together. She noted that there is the ??? which meets quarterly, including staff
representation from Oakland, Alameda, Caltrans, the Coast Guard, and Alameda County.
She suggested that emergency response may be a good topic for this committee??? and
noted that the City is currently developing an emergency response program. She also
noted that several years ago, there were periodic meetings between the city managers and
assistant city managers from both cities. She asked what are the most appropriate levels
of government that should be getting together, since at the higher levels, the exchange is
more general
Staff Hawkins stated that the Park Street Triangle project was developed as part of the
estuary plan, which had a significant amount of public input. The current effort is
carrying forward a capital project that was identified in that plan.
Staff Hawkins also noted that sometimes early input can be difficult for the public,
because they are not familiar with the issues, and it is helpful to have some analysis done
to give the something to respond to.
She noted that the ILC is somewhat different than dealing with Alameda/Oakland issues,
since AC Transit is a transit agency that operates in Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept Chair Knox White's recommendation. No one
seconded the motion.
Chair Knox White tabled the discussion of the proposed task force to address input into
selected Oakland projects until the October meeting.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The TC had requested updates regarding the status of the Commission's
recommendations on three projects.
Broadway-Jackson: Staff Hawkins stated that the TC's recommendations on the
Broadway-Jackson interchange project will be forwarded to the City Council along with
comments from other stakeholder groups. She noted that additional presentations on the
project will be made to the League of Women Voters and the Alameda Chamber of
Commerce, and that others may be interested in presentations as well. She indicated that",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,5,"the recommendations should be presented to the Council in November or December, and
that December is also the scheduled date for the final stakeholders' meeting.
Alameda Point Transportation Study: Staff Hawkins stated that the Alameda Point
Transportation Study would be presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) on October 5, but presentations are not scheduled for any City boards
and commissions. She indicated that the intent is to clarify issues for the developer and
that ARRA will hopefully accept, not approve, the study.
Theater/parking garage: Staff Hawkins stated that a use permit hearing is scheduled for
September 29. She noted that issues to be discussed include the conversion of angled
parking to parallel parking on Central Avenue between Oak Street and Walnut Street and
installation of a bike lane along this block once the main library building has been
completed. To address the needs of bicyclists on Oak Street, the proposal is to add shared
lane markings (or ""sharrows"") and signs. She stated that there will be discussions with
the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to address their parking needs in the area.
Staff Hawkins also noted that the environmental document for the project has gone
forward.
Chair Knox White said that the TC recommended the installation of sharrows from
Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, not just to Central Avenue. Staff Hawkins responded
that this would be addressed in the implementation process.
Chair Knox White suggested that when the Commission makes recommendations to the
City Council, that it might be easier for the Council to review the recommendations if
they were presented in a different format. Currently the Council receives a copy of the
TC minutes. Chair Knox White suggested preparing and sending to the Council a brief
summary of the main recommendations in addition to the minutes. Commissioner
Parker supported this recommendation.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,1,"CITT
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
the
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
(Revised 2/7/06)
DATE:
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present:
Chair (C) Huston, VC Lee, Committee Members (CM) Cecilia
Cervantes (late), K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe
Staff:
Christina Bailey, Secretary, Public Art Commission
Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager (A2CM)
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on June 23, 2005
On page 2, Section 5A, paragraph 2, CM Wolfe wished to make clear that
his understanding was that the Development Services Department was
going to allot Public Art funds for the restoration of the theater and that it
should be done at a publicly accessible area.
M/S/C
Rosenberg/Cervantes
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on June 23,
2005 be approved with changes.'
Approved (4) - Huston, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
Abstain (1) - Lee
3.
Oral Communications
(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which
the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is
not on the agenda.)
Secretary Bailey stated that the Public Art website would be moved from
the Recreation & Parks website, to the Planning & Building Department's
website. She asked whether members wanted to be recognized as
PAC Meeting
1
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,2,"Commission Members on the site. PAC members agreed that they should
be listed. CM Cervantes asked that her e-mail could be included as well.
4.
Written Communications
None.
5.
Old Business
A. Update on South Shore Shopping Center - (Oral Presentation)
-
Tad Savinar, Art Consultant, Harsch Investment
Properties
Before Commission's conference call with Mr. Savinar, they discussed
the project. CM Rosenberg asked whether they can place additional
pieces after they have met the Ordinance's requirements. C Huston
answered in the affirmative. CM Rosenberg went on to ask if Mr.
Savinar could bring in only those projects that meet the funding
threshold. The process would be streamlined if he could be more
specific. Secretary Bailey suggested that they address the issue when
they spoke with Mr. Savinar. CM Wolfe inquired as to whether or not
the artists have considered where their art will be placed in the mall.
During the call, Mr. Savinar explained two goals for this
presentation/discussion. First, that everyone understands what has
been presented to date with an opportunity for further comments.
Second, the ability to move forward with the actual application process
and obtain the correct forms.
He went on to explain that South Shore Shopping Center will be in a
Craftsman style, indigenous to the area. One cause for the delay in
bringing the project before the PAC was that new alleyways and
circulation paths have been devised.
Mr. Savinar stated that the developer is interested in using local artists
whenever possible. He went on to speak about three artists whose
work will be featured throughout the center; Ake Grunditz and JaYing
Wang of Alameda, and John Laursen from Portland, OR. The works
will carry regional or Alameda-specific imagery. The Public Art will be
featured throughout the center.
C Huston stated that she was hungry to see the artists' own style, while
CM Rosenberg emphasized being able to see the artists' voice in their
pieces.
CM Rosenberg expressed her desire to see how the art will relate to the
setting. Mr. Savinar stated that the landscape artist has been charged
PAC Meeting
2
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,3,"with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale,
not a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery
or museum, not a plaza or square.
Mr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is
one of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The
client wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and
appealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has
rejected some pieces with ""edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for
originality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for
innovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for
instance.
After the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM
Johnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art
piece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately
$97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that
transportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount.
CM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a
positive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to
see how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center.
B. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July
Agenda Packets that gave further background information on the
ongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and
City Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the
background of the Public Art process, including the approval process
carried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004.
Secretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight
medallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions
have the highest priority, because they are required to be installed
during construction. She also shared that an article had been featured
in the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki
carving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library.
C. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department
received a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship
& Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art
Ordinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their
PAC Meeting
3
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,4,"project was an improvement. He requested a credit for the amount
already paid for the Administrative Fee.
The Building Official and Deputy City Attorney reviewed the Ordinance
and the project, and found that the construction effort does trigger the
art fee imposed. The project was deemed a major improvement, which
included the construction of a new building. The term ""Tenant
Improvements"" is commonly used in leases and entails interior
improvements performed or installed by the tenant. The City's
response was sent to Mr. Craft on September 8, 2005.
D. Update on Bridgeside Shopping Center - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey explained that she has spoken with Bruce Qualls from
Regency Centers, contact person from Bridgeside. Doug Wiele is no
longer the contact person, and he did not make Mr. Qualls aware of the
Ordinance. A Public Art packet, including Guidelines and Ordinance,
was sent to Mr. Qualls.
On September 23, Secretary Bailey spoke with Barbara Price, CEO of
PK Consultants, who is representing Bridgeside Shopping Center. She
expressed her desire to submit an application for Public Art soon.
According to initial permit valuations, $40,000 will be required for Public
Art at the Nob Hill store ($10,000 administrative fee); $23,000 will be
required for Public Art at the Fueling Station ($5750.00 administration
fee).
CM Rosenberg asked if there were still plans to create an amphitheater.
Secretary Bailey stated that the issue had been brought up. CM
Rosenberg went on to express that the applicant be made aware that
not all nautical items should be considered public art.
VC Lee asked where all the imagery of the shipping industry came
from. She was under the impression that Alameda had been settled as
a residential community. CM Rosenberg stated that unique moments in
history should be incorporated into the projects.
E. Status of Annual Report, Next Steps - (Oral Report)
A2CM Johnson stated that an Annual Report is given to the City
Council when there is money in the Public Art In-Lieu Fund. If there is
no money, no report is needed. At this time, the fund has collected no
money.
F. City of Emeryville Artist List - (Oral Report)
PAC Meeting
4
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,5,"Secretary Bailey explained that C Huston obtained the list from the City
of Emeryville. C Huston stated that it is a viable list, which is strong on
individuals and weak on organizations. CM Rosenberg stated that
organizations can be added as they are found. CM Wolfe stated that
art organizations are important, since they broadcast opportunities to
individuals.
Secretary Bailey explained that the program does not have the required
funds to keep all the artists for every project's mailing list. Call for
Artists can still be sent to large publications and art organizations, or the
list can be drastically reduced from over 1000 artists. C Huston now
states that the list could be edited to art organizations, art publications,
and Alameda/Oakland artists.
6.
New Business
A. Reappointment for Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg - (Oral Report)
Secretary Bailey stated that the Mayor reappointed VC Lee and CM
Rosenberg to another term. They were appointed at the City Council
meeting on Tuesday, September 20. They were previously appointed
to a two-year term in November 2003.
7.
Subcommittee Reports
-
Theater & Garage Project - CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg
CM's Cervantes and Rosenberg explained the process that went into
selecting the three finalists for the Civic Center Parking Structure Art
project. CM Rosenberg stated that it was a competitive process, with a
stylistically diverse pool of applicants. She was impressed that the artists
were interested in using the technology requested, and they knew to what
they were responding.
Secretary Bailey stated that six (6) applications were submitted. C Huston
stated that there should have been more applicants. She asked how much
advance notice was given to publications. Secretary Bailey stated that
notices went out a month in advance. C Huston stated that at least four (4)
weeks are needed to be published, and six (6) weeks to run in order to
generate more applications.
CM Cervantes asked when the Request for Proposals would be sent out.
Secretary Bailey stated that Development Services has been busy and the
RFP has yet to be sent out. The artists will have about a month and a half
to submit their conceptual design.
PAC Meeting
5
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2005-09-28,6,"8.
Commissioner Communications
None.
9.
Upcoming Meeting Dates
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
CM Cervantes suggested that the November meeting be moved to
November 30. C Huston suggested canceling December date due to the
holidays.
""That November meeting date be changed from November 23 to
November 30, and that the December meeting be cancelled be
approved.'
M/S/C
Huston/Rosenberg
(approved)
Approved (5) - Huston, Lee, Cervantes, Rosenberg, Wolfe
10.
Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
PAC Meeting
6
Minutes
September 28, 2005",PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Piziali
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Ms. Kohlstrand was absent.
Also present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,
Development Services Director Leslie Little, Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Bruce Knopf,
Jennifer Ott and Dorene Soto all of Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Irene Dieter wished to discuss parking in the downtown area, and noted that consultants were
hired by the City to study a parking structure. She recounted the background of that study, and stated
that the Elks Lodge was the first choice for a site, followed by Long's Drugs. After the Long's deal
fell through, the City did not reinvestigate the Elk's site but instead chose to develop a parking
garage, which she did not believe was the best land use in the downtown area. She believed this
garage promoted parking in the garage, seeing the movie and driving away. She would like to
encourage walking through the neighborhood by using smaller parking lots, dispersed through the
City. She believed that shared parking would be economical, and listed several sites. She identified
265 spaces that were not used in the evening hours, and encouraged the City to approach those
companies. She requested that the Planning Board to encourage the City to vacate its Negative
Declaration and reconsider dispersed parking.
Mr. Richard Bangert noted that he was not a critic of the theater project, but would like to obtain
more facts from the City; his concern was growing due to the lack of facts. Midway through the
development process, the theater and garage projects had combined into one project and that he had
not seen any public notice stating they had combined. He believed that contributed to the level of
public controversy.
Ms. Victoria Ashley strongly objected to the theater project, and added that she had degrees in
architecture and psychology. She believed there was a social impact of this project on the
community. She was disappointed with the last several meetings, and that of 70 people, there was an
approximately five-to-one ratio of speakers opposed to the project. She believed their opinions had
been ignored.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,2,"Ms. Alice Ray and her husband Lew Brentano spoke on child safety and the importance of not
building the parking structure to breed criminal activity towards and by children. She implored the
Board to look at solutions to keep children safe to help the community.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,3,"6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
6-A.
UP05-0018 - Kyle Conner/Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. - 2305, 2317
Central Avenue (JO). The applicant requests a Use Permit approval for the following: 1)
multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty-eight (58') foot building height for the Cineplex pursuant
to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00 AM for the
theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1( for occasional special events and
screenings. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community Commercial
Theatre Combining District.
Ms. Eliason summarized this staff report.
Mr. Kyle Conner, developer, gave a presentation. He was aware of the public feedback, and stated
that he was willing to make changes in order to get the Use Permit approved, including retracting the
game room. He noted that he requested the extended hours in order to play blockbuster films such as
""Star Wars"" to be screened at 12:01 AM according to the licensing agreements.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the average number of blockbuster films
released each year, Mr. Conner replied that there may be 15-18 blockbusters this year. On average,
there may be 15-30 films with licensing agreements that would allow a 12:01 showing.
M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Linda Hansen, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She suggested that story
poles be erected to show the size of this building. She displayed pictures on the overhead screen to
illustrate the views that would no longer be visible if the building were to be constructed. She
believed the 58-foot height limit was excessive.
Mr. Karva Sales, 1719 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He agreed with Ms.
Hansen's opinion of the garage's appearance and believed that it was out of character with the rest of
the neighborhood. He agreed that dispersed parking would be a good idea.
Mr. Rick Tabor, 1821 Santa Clara Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He believed this was
a good use for an underused site, and added that he was associated with the Alameda Civic Light
Opera, which has a youth internship program. He was offended by the previous speaker's statement
that the parking garage would invite gang rapes. He believed that with the proper judgment in
finding appropriate and rewarding youth activities, this project would be a positive influence.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,4,"suggested restoring the theater to only three screens.
Ms. Kristi Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the proposed
Cineplex would overwhelm the parking garage capacity, and cited the parking study that projects the
garage capacity being up to 200 spaces short of satisfying peak demand. She noted that the study
recommended parking capacity of 450-550 spaces, and expressed concern about a parking nightmare
during blockbuster openings. She believed the planned parking capacity would violate the Alameda
Municipal Code, and urged the matter to be sent back to the City Council.
Mr. Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he submitted
a letter to the Board, and that he had no objections to Item A, proposing a Cineplex on the site.
Regarding Item C, extended hours of operation, he understood the applicant's reasoning for the
extension. He understood the game room had been pulled from the Use Permit. Regarding Item B
(height and bulk considerations), he believed the building height should be dropped as it gets farther
away from Park Street. He noted there was a legal loophole for height limits for the parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,5,"structures, and that they were not as stringent. He believed the 40-foot height limit on this parcel was
justified. He believed the height and bulk restrictions were being ignored on the Oak Street side.
Ms. Jasmine Tokuda was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Mr. Ron Schaeffer was called to speak, but was not in attendance.
Ms. Hanna Fry, 1507-A Chestnut Street, spoke in support of this application, and believed it would
be beneficial to Alameda.
Mr. Court Summerfield, 1507 Park Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was
a merchant on Park Street and would be happy to see additional parking in the district.
Ms. Jan Schaeffer, 1184 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had
previously been the Director of Theater Operations for Alan Michaan's Renaissance Rialto Theaters.
She disagreed with those who believed that a smaller house would not be financially feasible, and
noted that the Grand Lake Theater, a four-screen house, was very successful because of low
overhead and a quality project. She noted that people traveled long distances to attend that theater,
and believed that a scaled-down theater could be successful without eight screens. She urged the
applicant to restore the interior of the theater.
Ms. Pat Payne, 2121 Alameda Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that the
surrounding neighborhoods were already short of parking, and did not believe the City needed this
theater.
Mr. Vern Marsh, P.O. Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the cineplex
should be built at all. He believed that a majority of people did not want it, and that the Planning
Board and the City Council passed the project through despite their wishes.
Mr. Anders Lee, PO Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned about the series
of events that led to this meeting. He believed the building was too massive for Alameda. He
believed the parking demand would exceed the capacity.
Ms. Carol Fairweather, 920 Walnut Street, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she
and her husband would be able to walk to the theater.
Ms. Pauline Kelley, 1121 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this application. She did not wish to
go out of town to attend movies.
Mr. Frank George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was a Park
Street merchant and a member of Property Owners on Park Street (POPS), which had approximately
100 members. He noted that there were approximately 400 merchants on Park Street, and has spoken
with many merchants who strongly supported this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,6,"Ms. Debbie George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the current
Alameda Theater was 58 feet height, and that this project would balance that building out with a 58-
foot building. She noted that the developer would allow the community to use the theater 12 days a
year for community events, and looked forward to those events.
Ms. Irene Dieter spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project ran counter to the
Downtown Visioning process, and added that the theater restoration and parking garage had been on
separate tracks until summer 2004. Following the demise of the Long's deal, they coalesced into one
project, and she did not believe there was any publicity in the local newspaper for the November
2004 scoping meeting. She expressed concern that the balcony will not show movies, and asked why
it was not included. She was concerned that if the developer backed out of the deal, the theater may
never be restored. She encouraged the Board to maintain the goal of a fully restored theater. She
believed that full restoration should be a requirement, not an option.
Mr. Robert Gavrich, Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda, 1517 Fountain Street, spoke in
opposition to this item. He opposed the height and the extension of the hours. He expressed concern
that the theater attendance would overwhelm the parking capacity, and noted that this ran contrary to
the City Ordinance requiring that parking is sufficient for the use. He believed that the proposed
project, regardless of height, violated Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior's standards for
rehabilitation according to the City's hired consultant, Robert Bruce Anderson. He quoted Tony's
Daysog's concerns about financial feasibility vis-à-vis incoming revenue.
Ms. Deborah Overfield spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned that the Planning Board
had already made up its mind regarding this project. She believed the mix of apartments around the
theater was tacky. She did not believe a six-level parking structure on this site was a good idea, and
that it did not comply with the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Sally Rudloff, 1828 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She believed it would
be a good diversion for the youth of Alameda.
Ms. Judith Altschuler, 3015 Bayview Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the
City had worked on this project since 1994 with a considerable amount of public speaking and
outreach. She noted that the cineplex carried all the ADA requirements for the Alameda Theater. She
believed the restoration of the Alameda Theater would be more magnificent and significant because
of that; any intrusion of an elevator would diminish the restoration of the theater. She noted that
some speakers had referred to the theater as a façade, and she did not recall that on the plans at all;
the Alameda Theater would be a fully integrated part of the project, and the main lobby would be the
lobby for the entire theater.
Mr. John Rossilon, 1525 Park, spoke in support of this application. He did not believe there would
be investors for two movie theaters, and added that it would not be reasonable to put kids on a bus to
Jack London Square. He strongly believed that kids and families should have a theater on the Island
they can attend easily.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,7,"Mr. Dwayne Watson spoke in support of this item, and echoed Mr. Rossilon's comments. He noted
that he had worked on the Parking Committee, and believed this was the best arrangement that was
feasible. He believed the design for the two theaters was fantastic, and that it had been falling apart
for years.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed it was contrary to
the City's General Plan because it did not fit into Alameda's small-town character. She believed the
City's historic architecture should be preserved. She urged the City to start again with the design.
Ms. Michelle Misino deLuca, 1506 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She disagreed
with the characterization of this project as a megaplex, and supported the benefit to Park Street
businesses. She said it would be a good source of revenue to the City.
Ms. Monica Pena, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the 3 AM
closing time would be a safety hazard, both on the streets and in the parking garage; it would also
place a burden on the City's law enforcement officers. She expressed concern that Board member
Piziali had signed and circulated a pro-theater petition.
Mr. Harvey Brook spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was a consultant who worked
with other theater restorations in the state. He disagreed with the opponents' assessment of the
parking capacity, and noted that there were approximately 578 spaces available, which would be
sufficient for a busy Saturday night.
Ms. Pamela McBride, 909 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. Gail Wertzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this item. He believed this was a
marquee project for the City, and noted that he had been involved with this project since its
inception. He had spoken to many small business owners surrounding Park Street whose customers
had a difficult time finding a place to park. He believed the parking garage would be a benefit to the
City.
Mr. Fritz Mayer, 146 Purcell Drive, spoke in support of this item, and believed it would be critical to
the vibrance of the City. He read into the record a letter from Walt Jacobs, president of the Chamber
of Commerce.
Ms. Kathy Shaughnessy, 619 Willow Street, spoke in support of the Use Permit and the extended
hours of operation.
Ms. Barbara Marchand, Marchand and Associates, 1212 Regent Street, spoke in support of this item,
and believed that it would help the City's economic condition.
Mr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino del Valle, spoke in support of this item. He supported the multiple
screens, height requirements and the extended hours of operation for occasional special events and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,8,"screenings. He believed the multiple screen configuration was the only way to make the theater
financially feasible. He did not believe the height was out of scale to other, taller nearby structures.
He believed the extended hours of operation would be appropriate for special releases or community
events.
Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this item. He agreed there would be
some mitigation with this project, and believed the quality of life in Alameda would be enhanced by
this theater.
Mr. Robert McKean, 46 Steuben Bay, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he had published
Alameda Magazine for the past four years. He believed this project would be an enhancement to
Alameda.
Ms. Angela Lazear, President of Board of Directors, Alameda Civic Light Opera, spoke in support
of this item.
Mr. Burny Matthews, 556 Kines Road, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the City
should be run like a business to enhance the use of the retail tax revenue to benefit the City as a
whole. He noted that well-staffed police and fire departments, and other staff positions are
dependent on tax revenue. He believed that visitors would be drawn to the theater, which is located
in a safe community. With respect to the concerns about crime connected with the theater, he noted
that the Alameda Police Department can handle any crowd situation generated by the theater.
Ms. Doree Miles spoke in support of this item, and noted that she has always wanted to walk to a
restored Alameda Theater. She believed this project can make that dream come true, and believed
the design would blend well with the historic theater.
Ms. Jackie Green, 1109 Park Avenue, indicated she was in favor of this project, but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Kathleen Woulfe, 3208 Monte Vista Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She looked forward
to walking to the theater, having dinner and attending a movie.
Mr. Lars Hansson, PSBA President, spoke in support of this item and noted that PSBA completely
supported this project. He believed the restoration of the theater and use of the theater for first-run
movies was a worthy goal. He recalled the closure of the Lafayette Theater and the impending
closure of the Orinda Theater, and emphasized that financial feasibility was essential for its long-
term success. He believed it would act as an economic catalyst for downtown Alameda.
Ms. Janice Gatewood, 2029 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She believed that the
young people of Alameda would benefit from this project, including employment. She recently
moved from Southern California, and looked forward to attending a movie with her granddaughter in
town.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,9,"Mr. Lew Brentano expressed concern about the business plan of the development, which had not
been revised since 2003 to reflect current trends in the movie industry. He did not have any
problems with an elevator in the historic theater, and noted that would prevent him from attending
the restored theater. He encouraged the Planning Board to reject this Use Permit because the current
ADA plans did not meet the spirit of the ADA.
Mr. Daniel Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Debbie Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, spoke in support of this item. She noted that she had been
a planning professional for 20 years, and generally had to travel outside Alameda to attend a movie.
She supported the extended hours and height limit, and noted that the theater could bring social and
economic benefits to the community. She believed this building was in context with its surroundings
with a cohesive visual pattern and sense of place. She supported the limited late-night showings,
allowing City oversight. She noted that if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of
approval, or unforeseen problems arise later, the City always has the option of reviewing the Use
Permit, and either adding additional conditions of approval or revoking it. She agreed with the
withdrawal of the video game component, and that in the city where she works, that is a constant
enforcement issue with respect to loitering regulations.
Mr. Bruce Reeves, 2527 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was the past
chair of the Housing Commission and currently on the Recreation and Parks Commission. He noted
that the Board had the benefit of 27 years of meetings, consultant reports and other information
regarding this project. He believed that this was the best alternative for the crumbling theater.
Ms. Pat Colburn, 1340 Park Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was the
founder and former president of the Alameda Arts Center. She believed the current project was out
of scale in Alameda, and hoped the City would consider the installation of solar panels on the roof of
the building.
President Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.
Ms. Minnie Patino, 1513 Paris Street, Alameda Taqueria, indicated she was in favor of this project
but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. John Grigsby, 1566 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and drew a parallel
between the theater complex project in San Jose and this project. He noted that the San Jose theater
closed down four years later, and inquired why City money was needed if it was a good economic
idea. He urged the Board to reject the Use Permit and the subsidy.
Ms. Dawna Dondell, 960 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Mr. John Jacobs, 2130 Otis Drive, did want wish to speak, but indicated his support of this item.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,10,"Ms. Ana Rojas, 1129B Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and recalled the last City
Council hearing of this item. She did not wish the small-town character of Alameda to drastically
change with the addition of a Cineplex and parking garage. She noted that the view of the Twin
Towers Church would be lost. She expressed concern that this would be a white elephant.
Mr. Douglas Mitchell, 2922 Gibbons Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in
attendance to speak.
Ms. Abigail Wagg spoke in support of this item, and noted that she was a Park Street merchant. She
recalled the small downtown theaters in Sacramento during her youth, and would like to see a
similar small-town community unifier in Alameda. She believed that theaters were an asset to any
community, and would be a good tax benefit to the city. She did not wish to go off the Island to
attend a movie.
Mr. Mel Waldorf, 1715 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this item. He noted that he had to work
outside the city, and would like to attend a movie with his family in town. He noted that there were
many busy families in Alameda who supported this project.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He wished to protect
the small-town qualities of Alameda, and would like to see a three-screen theater. He did not believe
this theater would generate revenues for the City, and that it would lose its historic status as a
building.
Ms. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not agree with
the height of the building, and was concerned that if the theater failed, the garage would turn into a
skateboard park. She would like to see a three-screen theater instead. She did not agree with the
proposed site, and suggested that Harbor Bay Parkway would be a better site.
Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She recalled seeing the
massing model and was immediately concerned with the mass of the building. She was pleased that
the game room had been deleted, and hoped that it was not reintroduced. She was concerned that the
video game idea was introduced at the last minute, and that a late-night permit 45 nights a year
would invite customers from off the Island, contrary to the developer's letter to the newspaper. She
did not believe this use would be compatible with the General Plan.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that this was not
the result of a unanimous agreement of the Visioning process. She preferred to the see the complete
restoration of the historic theater without a Cineplex. She noted that the movie business was
declining already, and would rather see a smaller, three-screen theater.
Mr. Joe Cloren, 1245 Tahiti, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Alameda was a unique
city, and did not want to add more cars to the traffic mix. He was concerned about the impact on
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,11,"traffic if there was a fire, or even if the drawbridge went up with an extra 500 cars on the street. He
expressed concern about emergency vehicle access in such an event.
Ms. Karen Bay, 2911 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that she had taken part in
the Downtown Visioning process.
Mr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he frequently
walked and biked within Alameda. He recommended that a projectionist technician be required to be
available within 15 minutes of a failure. He suggested that a website complaint number within an
onsite kiosk be available for feedback. He would like to see the number of days with allowable after-
hours operation reduced from 45 to 24 days.
Ms. Reyla Graber, 3120 La Cresla Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project
was wrong for Alameda, and added that the scale of the garage and footprint of the project was too
large. She was not confident of this use of public funds, and did not agree with the 3 AM extension
of hours. She would not like to see the developer return with a request for a game room and for 15
screens. She noted that the Marina Theater was being restored in San Francisco, and suggested that
be a model for Alameda.
Mr. Douglas Mitchell submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.
Ms. Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Street, spoke in support of this item
on behalf of the Board of Directors. She asked that the 45 days of extended hours be reduced to 24
days. She supported the live theater proposal, and did not want to see dollars leaving Alameda for
movies and associated activities. She read the following names of members who supported this
project, but could not attend: Debbie McBride, Barbara Johnson, Allison Bliss, Pamela
Christiansen, Cathy Leong, Kevin Leong, Kathy Moehring, Terrence Brewer, Cathy Brewer, Chuck
Bianchi, Julia Park, Lorre Zuppan, Josh Lipps, Jennifer George, Renee Tripprudeen of 3235 Central
Avenue.
Mr. Bill Smith, PO Box 2009, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed concern about parking
and traffic congestion.
Ms. Norma Henning, 1361 Park Street, spoke in support of this item and noted that she was a Park
Street merchant.
Ms. Lorna Dowell submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Mr. Harry Singh, 12 Shepardson Lane, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he would like to
keep his dollars on the Island.
Ms. Lisa Jasper submitted, 117 Chinaberry Lane, a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,12,"Ms. Jasmine Tokuda, 867 Cedar Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would support a
smaller-scale theater similar to the Grand Avenue Theater in Oakland. She noted that market
changes in the oil and the movie businesses may not point to off-Island business coming to this
theater. She believed the size of this project would be an issue following those changes.
Mr. Elijah Moore noted that he had been a resident of Oakland and Alameda, and had been stationed
at the Coast Guard base.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed there were
many flaws in this project. He encouraged the Board to present their opinions frankly and clearly.
He believed the business owners were presenting their support of this project in an emotional
framework, and would like to see a logical presentation. He encouraged the widening of Oak Street,
and suggested that the Elks Lodge location would be a better location for the parking garage.
Ms. Alice Ray, 2808 Bayview Drive, believed there could be a solution to bring the community
together to meet the goals of community safety and keeping Alameda dollars on the Island.
Mr. Ivan Rudenko, 727 Haight Avenue, #7, submitted a speaker slip in opposition to this item but
was not in attendance to speak.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook proposed that the Board discuss each issue separately.
Ms. McNamara requested that the developer address the live theater portion of the project, and
added that she supported a live theater component. Mr. Conner explained the alterations that would
take place to accommodate live performances, and added that he planned to return the auditorium to
its original condition.
Ms. Ott noted that the old orchestra pit was not standard in a movie theater, but that it could be used.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani's regarding the balcony, Ms. Ott noted that there were no
seats in the first balcony at this time, and that the second balcony had already been compromised and
turned into two additional theaters. The old theatre walls would be demolished per Building Code
requirements, but may be rebuilt some time in the future.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the renovation cost, Ms. Ott advised that it was
projected to cost $9.6 million.
Regarding Item A, Vice President Cook believed that this use was consistent with the General Plan's
goal of revitalizing the downtown district, as well as the Downtown Visioning process. She believed
this use was consistent with the General Plan, and would be adequately served by the City's
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,13,"transportation system. She believed the traffic impact would be staggered because of the theater
show times, and did not believe there would be 500 cars pouring in simultaneously.
In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding ADA access, Ms. Eliason replied that
the historic theater restrooms would not be ADA accessible, and that the new theater would be fully
accessible. The movie theater itself would be accessible and ADA compliant. The women's restroom
in the historic theater would be able to accommodate a handicapped stall, but the men's room would
not. There would also be a unisex bathroom on the first floor.
Mr. Lynch noted that the suppositions put forth by some speakers opposing the project that this
project was not legally consistent with the General Plan were incorrect. He noted that the General
Plan was a statement of goals and policies, but in order for the Board to take an affirmative action,
there must be findings created. He believed there was consistency, and that the findings may be
made to support those policies and goals.
Mr. Piziali agreed with the comments made by Vice President Cook and Mr. Lynch.
President Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's statements. He believed the new theater
would revitalize the historic theater and conformed with uses elsewhere in the district.
Regarding Item B (Extended Hours of Operation), President Cunningham inquired about the criteria
and plans for blockbuster showings. Mr. Conner noted that there were many factors involved,
including staggering show times to minimize traffic congestion occurring at one time. He added that
was also the benefit of having multiple screens. He added that the historic theater would be the
catalyst for those showings, unless it was a major blockbuster release such as ""Star Wars.""
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether he would agree with a condition that only the
blockbuster releases be shown at 12:01 AM, Mr. Conner replied that would be limiting, but it would
be acceptable to him.
Mr. Piziali expressed concern about police coverage when a show lets out at 3 AM, and inquired
whether the Police Department had weighed in on this issue. He believed that extra staffing should
be borne by the theater.
Ms. Eliason noted that no comment had been received by the Police Department, but that the Use
Permit could be conditioned so that the applicant paid for extra police services.
Ms. McNamara inquired about queuing control in the event of a major blockbuster, and did not want
people camping out for tickets days in advance. Ms. Eliason advised that the operator must provide a
queuing plan, including provisions for crowd control and police coverage.
Mr. Piziali believed there were City ordinances against camping overnight.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,14,"Vice President Cook noted that she often bought her tickets online in order to avoid long lines. She
suggested that camping be restricted.
Mr. Lynch acknowledged that people may line up for tickets at 10 AM, but opposed people sleeping
over in front of the theater. He suggested that the applicant hire a private security guard for such
events.
President Cunningham noted that St. Joseph's was required to hire private security to monitor excess
parking for special events.
Mr. Piziali wished to ensure that there was no additional taxpayer expense on police services for
such an event.
Vice President Cook suggested the following language: ""The queuing plan shall be viewed by the
Public Works Director, Planning & Building Director and the Chief of Police, and shall specifically
address overnight queuing, and the cost of extra police services, if and when necessary, shall be
borne by the applicant.""
Mr. Lynch and President Cunningham agreed with that language.
Ms. Mariani inquired about inside and outside surveillance, and the specifics of the security.
Ms. McNamara believed that 10 extended hour events per year would be sufficient, and added that
after the first night, it was no longer a special event for a blockbuster movie. She was also concerned
about the impact on the neighborhoods by attendees leaving the late movies at 3 AM
Vice President Cook noted that if the 10 days per year went well, the Board could consider adding
more dates.
Mr. Lynch suggested reviewing the extended hours every six months, rather than projecting a
negative.
Vice President Cook suggested making that interval slightly longer to accommodate a learning
curve, but supported the general idea. She suggested 24 events in a year, and reviewing the extended
hours after a year.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook believed it would be useful to cap the number of theaters being used on a late-
night showing.
President Cunningham did not want to place unreasonable economic restrictions on the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,15,"Mr. Conner suggested using only the ground level theaters on those evenings. He noted that there
may be 400-500 people on a very full night.
Mr. Lynch would like specific information on impacts on public services.
Regarding Item C (Building Height), Vice President Cook noted that had always been her greatest
concern. She had preferred the Long's parking lot project, but that project did not go forward. She
noted that there were not many opportunities for the City to find a developer willing to take on such
a project. She noted that public funds were often used for projects with a public benefit. She was
willing to strike a balance and approve the height limit.
Ms. Mariani had no comment on this item.
Mr. Lynch noted that the cost of a project was the overall driving factor for this project, and
appreciated and respected the passion of the public speakers. He noted that $10 million of debt to
restore this building must be offset by revenue generated by the business. He was comfortable with
the discussion regarding the design and operations, and added that the financial aspect of this project
was the driving factor for him. He noted that a three-screen theater cannot satisfy a $10 million debt.
Mr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and noted that this project was necessary to support
the restoration.
Ms. Mariani noted that she would like to see a movie theater in Alameda, and added that she would
prefer the three or four-screen idea.
M/S Cook/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-41 to approve a Use Permit
approval for the following: a) multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C
T district pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty eight (58') foot building height for the
Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00
AM for the theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1 (a) for occasional special events and
screenings. The following modifications will be added:
1. Additional queuing shall be specifically addressed. The cost of extra police service and
security, if and when necessary, shall be borne by the applicant.
2. The third paragraph will be revised from ""45 days"" to ""24 days per year,"" and a
provision will be added for a report back to the Planning Board after one full year of
operation. The late-night showings will be limited to screens on the ground floor of the
theater.
AYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)
7.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-09-29,16,"9.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg McFann, Acting Secretary
Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was
audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
September 29, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf