{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "MEETING MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009\n1.\nCONVENE:\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft called the meeting to order at 7:09\np.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Zuppan\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members\nCunningham, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan.\nABSENT:\nVice-President Autorino, Board members Cook\nand Lynch.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of August 24, 2009 (Pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nThe applicant requested that item 9-A be continued to the meeting of October 12, 2009.\nBoard member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to continue\nthe item to the October 12, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Motion passes 4-0.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nStaff provided an overview of the upcoming projects.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nNo hearing was held on September 1, 2009.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Sekhon, owner of the Seven Eleven convenience store at the corner of Lincoln Avenue\nand Oak Street, expressed concern with the addition of another convenience store that\nwould introduce additional competition to existing businesses and have a negative impact\non the quality of the neighborhood.\nMr. Shamar, a youth non-profit organization member, expressed concern that the\nestablishment would sell tobacco products which would have negative consequences for the\nyouth of the community. He urged the applicant to develop a business that would be an\nasset to the community.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A Use Permit - PLN09-0253 - 1623 Park Street - Abdulmalik Harbi.\nThe applicant requests use permit approval to operate a convenience store within 300' of a\nresidential zone district. The proposed convenience store specializes in the sale of\ncigarettes and tobacco products, plus it will offer snacks, beverages, gifts, novelties, candy,\nand printed materials such as newspapers and magazines.\nThe applicant requested continuance of this project to the October 12, 2009 Planning\nBoard Meeting. Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member\nKohlstrand, to continue to the item to October 12, 2009. Approved 4-0.\n9-B Municipal Code Amendment - City of Alameda A Municipal Code Amendment to\namend the Alameda Municipal Codes Sections 30-36 and 30-37 related to Design Review.\n(Study Session).\nStaff presented an overview of the proposed changes.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period.\nMr. Baker, Alameda resident, urged that the proposed Design Review amendments\ncontinue to serve in the capacity as gatekeeper in order to prohibit extensive alterations to\nhistoric and architecturally valuable buildings. He also encouraged the Planning Board to\ncarefully review the proposed exemptions and recommended that an aggressive cost\nrecovery schedule be implemented.\nMr. Rutter, Alameda resident, spoke about the need to maintain the requirement for design\nreview for wireless antennas and solar arrays, so that such features do not negatively\nimpact the aesthetic quality of a building or a neighborhood.\nMs. Matherson, Alameda resident, urged the board to maintain design review requirements\nfor window replacements on buildings built after 1942.\nMs. Hurt, Alameda resident, proposed using the national standard for declaring a building\n\"historic' (50 years or older) instead of 1942 and pointed out the need for window design\nreview on historic homes as windows are an important architectural feature. She stressed\nthe need for public education and outreach on historic preservation.\nMr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member, discussed the submitted\nletter to the Planning Board and cautioned against expanding the exemptions lists. He also\nprovided comment on the need to update the design review guidelines, and public\ninformation handouts on things like window replacements. He wrapped up his comments by\nadding that the Board should carefully review the proposed notification process, consider\nguidance for privacy and shading impacts in the Design Guidelines, and recommended\nmaintaining the Minor Design Review process for minor projects like as signs.\nMr. Hoy, Design Committee Chair of the West Alameda Business Association (WABA),\ndiscussed the letter WABA submitted to the Planning Board: and emphasized the need to\nretain a design review process for awnings, signs, and storefront modifications subject to\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 3, "text": "following the WABA Guidelines and continuing to consult with WABA.\nMr. Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), spoke in\nfavor of the storyboard requirement and would like to see that a provision be made in the\ndesign review process that would require projects within the Park Street Business district to\nalso receive PSBA approval prior to submittal to the City. PSBA also endorses retaining the\nstandards for projecting signs.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Cunningham endorsed the concept that the applicants carry the cost of staff\ntime to review projects and asked for a comparison to other jurisdictions' permit fees and\nnoted support for a public notification process that would be primarily carried out by the\napplicant.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft endorsed a time and material charge for all projects, regardless of\nits scope.\nSeveral Board members provided comment on the notification process and indicated\nsupport for notification proposal # 3 listed in the staff report. Staff was also encouraged to\ndevelop guidelines for erecting story poles and netting, which would reduce the need for\nextensive notification on some projects.\nThe Board asked staff to return with window replacement guidelines, and an updated list of\nexempt projects and criteria for the replacement of architectural elements and features.\nThey also recommended that the department initiate an online permit submittal process to\nminimize additional demands on staff time and resources.\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested that online notification and posting of public hearing\nnotices be considered and asked that staff evaluate the technological requirements and cost\nimplications that would be involved with the online posting of these notices.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand requested that the design review process include the PSBA and\nWABA organizations, as well as other organizations that would like to be included.\nBoard member Cunningham asked that staff clarify which projects would be subject to\ndesign review by the Planning Board.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that projects over a certain size, or in a specific zone\ndistrict, such as the Park Street Business District, be automatically sent to the Planning\nBoard for approval.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand requested that solar arrays and antennas not be exempt from\ndesign review, unless State law exempts them from design review consideration.\nBoard Member Zuppan requested that all design guidelines be written as clearly as possible\nand that they consider the economic impact so that Alameda can attract desirable\nbusinesses and encourage homeowners to invest in improvements.\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 4, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:15 p.m.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 1, "text": "NOTICE OF MEETING\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, September 10, 2009\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRoom 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak\nStreet, Alameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola\nBrown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, ARPD Director\nJackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)\nPatrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Gina Mariani\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApproval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting\nMinutes.\nM/S/C\nBROWN/RESTAGNO\n\"That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of May 14, 2009 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (3):\nBrown, Kahuanui, Restagno\nAbstention (3):\nCooper, Sonneman\nAbsent (1):\nMariana\nApproval of August 13, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting\nMinutes.\nM/S/C\nCOOPER/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\n\"That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of August 13, 2009\nbe approved.\"\nApproved (5):\nRestagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman\nAbstention (1):\nOgden\nAbsent (1):\nMariani", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nReview of FY 2009-10 Budget for the Alameda Recreation & Park\nDepartment- (Discussion Item Only)\nDirector Lillard provided an overview of the FY 2009-10 Budget for the Recreation &\nPark Department. This new budget is in a different format. Budget is much more\ndetailed/clear by breaking out all of the budget categories. This will be a much more\neffective tool to monitor the budget. Budget has been approved by City Council.\nPat Bail, Alameda resident, asked if there will be any more loss of staff. Director Lillard\nstated not at this time. We will have to see what the State does for FY 2010-11.\nPlanning for FY 2010-11 will begin soon.\nB.\nStatus of East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW monies -\n(Discussion Item Only)\nDirector Lillard provided the Commission information on the request from the Alameda\nBoys & Girls Club for $2 million of the Measure WW monies for the construction of their\nnew facility. This item went to the City Council at their meeting on September 1, 2009.\nThere were a number of speakers and questions that came out of that meeting. There\nare a number of questions regarding the eligibility of the project, cost, etc. Council has\nasked staff (Interim City Manager & ARPD Director) to meet with East Bay Regional\nPark District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and come back to Council\non September 15, 2009 with answers to some of their questions.\nThis item will be on the September 15, 2009 City Council Meeting Agenda. There will\nbe EBRPD representatives at the meeting to answer any additional questions. The\nInterim City Manager will provide answers to the original questions that the Council\nasked at their meeting on September 1, 2009. Discussion will be opened and then\nCouncil will take whatever action they choose.\nCommissioner Kahuanui asked for clarification that the priority list from the November\n2009 meeting still existed. Director Lillard stated that the list is still active. The list of\npotential projects that we have far exceeds the $3.4 million we would receive from the\nMeasure WW funding source.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n2\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Ogden asked if Council has any idea how ARPD will maintain the parks if they\ntake the $2 million of funds away? Is that any part of their consideration? Director\nLillard stated that he is sure it will be, but has not asked them that question directly.\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND\nPARK DIRECTOR\nA.\nPark Division\nNo report at this time.\nB.\nRecreation Division\nNo report at this time.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nNo report at this time.\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcements\nNone.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nNone.\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nNone.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nNone.\n11.\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE:\nThursday, October 8, 2009\n12.\nADJOURNMENT\n7:14 p.m.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n3\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 4, "text": "NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING\nSPECIAL MEETING MINUTES\nDATE:\nThursday, September 10, 2009\nTIME:\n7:15 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRoom 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak\nStreet, Alameda, CA 94501\n1.\nCALL MEETING TO ORDER\nTerri Ogden, Recreation Commission Chair, called meeting to order.\n2.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola\nBrown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, ARPD Director\nJackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)\nPatrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nAbsent:\nCommissioner Gina Mariani\n3.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion of Measure WW Funding - (Discussion/Action Item)\nChair Ogden opened the discussion for the speakers.\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda resident and Estuary Park representative, stated that the\nEstuary Park Committee has come before the Recreation & Park Commission before to\ndiscuss the need for funds to develop/purchase Estuary Park. At that time the\nCommission told the Estuary Park Committee that the projects on the Measure WW list\nwere so important that they had to come first. Now we go to the City Council Meeting\nand find out that the Measure WW project list is not so important and that we have to\nspend funds on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Nobody is at this meeting to say\nanything against the Alameda Boys & Girls Club, but they are a private organization and\nour parks need the funds. There are parks all over this State that are crying for money.\nThe Council has no business even considering giving this money to a private\norganization when this money was voted for by the people to serve all of our citizens. If", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 5, "text": "we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for\nparks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks\nthe money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look\nforward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda\nBeltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because\nwe want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization.\nJoseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD\nprotesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at\nthe Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys\n& Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club\nmanaged to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members.\nThe people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private\ncitizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks.\nYou have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very\nimportant. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda\nBeltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now\nmoney is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is\nunconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in\ntheir power to oppose it.\nBarbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to\nEBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant\nmanager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She\nexpressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen\nwas basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys &\nGirls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends\nthat the EBRPD, through whatever process, needs more cross communication from the\nCity and citizens. Ms. Kerr stated that what bothered her at the last Council Meeting\nwas the aggressive attempt to bypass the Recreation & Park Commission. She does\nnot feel that any Board or Commission should ever be considered insignificant the way\nthe Recreation & Park Commission was at the last Council Meeting. The Council needs\nto hear from staff and the public about all projects that are worth while and need to be\nheard together on an equal basis. We need to let the Council know how we feel about\ntheir just trying to bypass one of our Boards and Commissions, meaning the Recreation\n& Park Commission.\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda resident, provided the Commission with the text/definition of\nMeasure WW. Ms. Lipow stated that she was amazed at the galvanized Alameda Boys\n& Girls Club at the Council Meeting on September 1. When you look at the Measure\nWW language it talks about protecting creeks, wild life, purchase and save open space,\nwetlands, bay shorelines, acquire, develop and improve local and regional parks, trails\nand recreational facilities. She was trying to figure out what justified doing anything for\nthe Boys & Girls Club, and the only thing that she could see that would apply was\nrecreational facilities. When you look at the other needs, new parks - Estuary Park and\nBeltline, they cover so many other factors in the initiative itself. These projects would\nencompass improving local parks, trails, open space, etc. People went to the ballot box\nto vote, they did not vote to put money into the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Lipow\nwas really disappointed and thinks that this is an unfair process. She encouraged\neveryone to go to the next Council meeting and speak their mind.\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n2\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 6, "text": "Rebecca Redfield, Alameda resident, stated that her son attended the Alameda Boys &\nGirls Club until they recently closed. She has moved to where the potential park was\ngoing to be in the warehouse area on Clement Avenue and had moved there based on\nthe planning map and hopes there will be a park in that area. We have been working\nhard and putting energy toward acquiring funds toward this park and now suddenly the\nAlameda Boys & Girls Club thinks they should get the money. This is a step backward\nin the dream for a park in that area.\nJean Sweeney, Alameda Beltline representative and Alameda resident, stated that she\nwas one of the participants in the meeting with Mr. Rasmussen and the Ecology panel.\nThe people on the Ecology Panel were a little dismayed that Mr. Rasmussen would\nsend an e-mail favoring a Boys & Girls Club project. They did not seem to think that it\nwould fit within a category. The Panel stated that the process is not to have it referred\nby City Council. The process is to have an open meeting where everybody can discuss\nwhat they want to do with the funds. This is City money and a City decision and a\ndecision to be made by the City Council. The projects are sent to the Council, the City\nthen takes them to Mr. Rasmussen who then consults with EBRPD lawyers to find out\nif\nthe projects are eligible. To short cut them/the process by having a communication\nbetween George Phillips and Mr. Rasmussen based on Mr. Phillips own material is\npatently unfit. Mr. Rasmussen sat there and stated that anybody can go to the Boys &\nGirls Club, it is free.\nMs. Sweeney stated that we all know that is not true. He (Mr. Rasmussen) did not even\nknow where the Boys & Girls Club was located until she showed him the location. He\ndid not know that the building does not include a field for recreation and that they are\ngoing to depend on Woodstock Park for their outdoor field and activities. He did not\nknow that the Boys & Girls Club was really a social development organization and not a\nrecreation organization. He did not know that they were going to have room for family\nservices to do counseling, a room for medical screening, etc. Mr. Rasmussen did not\nunderstand the mission of the Boys & Girls Club. It is not a recreation program; it is a\nprivate organization and is not free. It gears itself to school-age children; it is closed on\nSundays, closes early on Saturdays, and closes every day at 6:00 p.m. He told me that\nChipman does not have a gymnasium, but she remembers that there was someone\nwho had a special program to keep the Chipman gymnasium open for activities. She\nlooked into the Boys & Girls Club itself and they said they had a program, when she\nsubstituted at the school (Chipman) they had activities in the Chipman gymnasium. Mr.\nRasmussen stated that now Chipman will have a gymnasium through the Boys & Girls\nClub. Ms. Sweeney stated that he (Mr. Rasmussen) needs to have a more biased\npresentation of where this money should go. It should go to our parks. In talking with\nDirector Lillard, the number of people who participate in the City's recreation and park\nactivities during the year is in the tens of thousands. Ms. Sweeney would not be upset if\n$1 million went to the Alameda Beltline, $1 million to Estuary Park, and $1.4 million went\nto recreation and parks. She does not understand why the Boys and Girls Club wants\nto apply for a couple of hundred boys that use a big building and deserve to have the\nMeasure WW bond funds. The Boys and Girls Club does a wonderful job with kids but it\nis not a recreational facility.\nPat Bail, Alameda resident, stated that a similar agreement was done with the College\nof Alameda but the difference was that the City was in control of the project and 25-year\nagreement with the option to reevaluate when the 25-year agreement was up. With the\nBoys and Girls Club request they are talking about handing over $2 million to a private\norganization; we have no control, no input, we will never get the money back. Passive\nparks are great, but when she thinks for recreation she thinks of kids playing on fields,\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n3\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 7, "text": "in the park, on the play apparatus in the parks. She has talked with the Director about\npark improvements and the list is extensive. It should be a priority in all of our minds\nthat our greatest asset is our children. While she thinks that the Boys and Girls Club is\na great program, they have the ability through their non-profit to raise funds. She\nunderstands that they are in threat of losing their grant if they do not receive the $2\nmillion. Ms. Bail suggested possibly loaning the Boys and Girls Club the funds with\na\ndecent interest rate (this does not mean she is in favor of the suggestion) to be paid\nback. To give the Boys and Girls Club the $2 million out-right is just not in the books.\nWe need the money for our parks and for recreation. Someone had said that Ms. Kerr\nhad written an initiative for potentially more park monies. But, in all the years that Ms.\nBail has worked with parks and recreation the ARPD has been the ugly step child. All of\nthe City monies have gone to redevelopment, none has gone to recreation and parks\nwhich in her mind is one of the more important things we can do in this community.\nWhen you receive funds it is important to keep it in our hands because we do not know\nwhen we will receive any more funds. For recreation and parks it is very questionable\nthat they will ever get any more funds. Ms. Bail urged the Recreation and Park\nCommission to write a very strong worded letter to Council.\nMs Bail stated that she will be doing her lobbying against their proposal. She feels that\nthe Boys and Girls Club has the ability to go out and raise their own money, hit up their\nown sources, and/or go to their national club. Ms. Bail also feels that the City should\nnever support the School District's problems with their recreation monies. They have\ntheir own ability to raise their taxes. We are all paying additional taxes for the Schools.\nThe City of Alameda, particularly the Recreation and Park Department, needs to protect\ntheir resources and funds. We need to make it very clear to City Council that there will\nbe a lot of very unhappy people if they turn this money over to the Boys and Girls Club\nwithout any consideration for the kids in this town that have a great recreational need.\nJim Sweeney, Alameda resident, reiterated what other speakers have said that the\nBoys and Girls Club is a good organization and we all believe in the good that the Club\ndoes. That is not the issue. The issue is a short circuiting of park money needed for\npark purposes. In looking at all of the 2008 voting materials they are always talking\nabout shorelines, trails, and parks, etc. There is not one word about funneling money\nover into a private entity no matter how worthy it is. We know that the General Plan has\nboth the Beltline and Estuary Parks in it. They have been in it for quite a while. We\nneed the funds, particularly in this economic crisis that our City is in at this time. It is\nsuch a sensitive time. In Mr. Sweeney's mind there is no question of the purpose of the\nfunds. Also, this request/issue came before City Council in a very short time. There\nwas a lot of rushing at the last minute and getting the City Council to make rush to\njudgment. Mr. Sweeney asked about the application timeline. Director Lillard stated\nthat the application period is January through March with the awarding of the project in\nApril or May of each year.\nMr. Sweeney stated that what we have here is a claimed emergency by the Boys and\nGirls Club to get the shovel in the ground now. Do not worry about the City of Alameda\nand what the people want to do. Don't worry about a lot of discussion that is just\ntroublesome.\nMs. Helena Lengel, teacher at College of Alameda, has been working with the\nSweeney's for a long time for the Alameda Belt Line area. She is against giving the\nMeasure WW funds to the Alameda Boys and Girls Club.\nMs. Freeman stated that requests for grant monies from Proposition 84 are due March\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n4\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2009-09-10", "page": 8, "text": "1,2010.\nRecreation and Park Commission discussed the Alameda Boys & Girls Club project and\nwhether they felt it qualified to be on the list of Measure WW funded projects.\nCommissioner Brown suggested sending a letter to City Council with the Commission's\nrecommendation.\nM/S/C\nKAHUANUI/RESTAGNO\n(approved)\n\"That the Recreation and Park Commission will send a letter to Council stating\nthat the Commission strongly urges the City Council to respect the directive of\nthe voters who supported Measure WW. The voters approved (with their votes)\nthe allocation of funds (through Measure WW) to maintain, acquire and improve\nthe city's Recreation and Parks facilities and grounds.\"\nApproved (6):\nOgden, Restagno , Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman\nAbsent (1):\nMariani\n4.\nADJOURNMENT\nRecreation & Park Commission Special Mtg.\n5\nMinutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf"}