{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-27", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinute of the Regular Meeting Thursday, January 27, 2005\nCALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL - President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:40pm.\nPresent were Vice President Chen, Members Wasko, Flores-Witte, Bonta, Hollinger Jackson.\nStaff were Beaver and Brown.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES - The December 8, 2004, special meeting minutes were approved.\nM/S Flores-Witte, Bonta, and unanimous with Hollinger Jackson abstaining.\nThe January 6, 2005 Special Meeting minutes were approved. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte and\nunanimous with President Franz abstaining.\nAn introduction by Member Hollinger Jackson. She gave a brief description of her background\nand work experience.\nCITY COUNCIL REQUEST TO REVIEW SENTINEL FAIR HOUSING SURVEY AND\nREPORT - Executive Director of Sentinel Fair Housing (SFH) Mona Breed, provided an\noverview of her agency, and gave a presentation regarding the testing process, including training,\nuse of forms, questionnaires, etc. Sentinel Fair Housing is a private Fair Housing agency that\nwas started 20 years ago by the Urban League and civil rights leaders. Breed has been the\nDirector for the past 10 years. Sentinel was selected to monitor Denny's Restaurants under\nconsent decrees of the U.S. Court, and was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment to train testers for a national discrimination study by the Urban Institute. Breed\nstated that the standards and competencies of Sentinel are uncontested, and described the basic\ncharacteristics of discrimination testing:\nTesters: Testers are private citizens and members of various protected classes (race, religion,\nsexual orientation, disabled, etc.) Testers come from a variety of places, for example, Sentinel\njust trained 40 University of San Francisco law students as testers. Applicants are screened prior\nto training, including a criminal background check and credit check; then Ms. Breed personally\nreviews all applicants. Testers must be able to be recognized as the protected class they will\nrepresent in the test, e.g. if testing for discrimination against people with disabilities, the tester\nmust have a visible disability. Testers must go through Sentinel's HUD-approved training\nprocess prior to acceptance. Testers are never told what issue they are testing and the only time\nthey would ever learn more about a test case is if they are required to testify pursuant to a fair\nhousing lawsuit. Testers are paid a stipend of $35 per test, which usually takes from 1-1/2 to 3-\n1/2 hours per test.\nThe Testing Process: When Sentinel receives a discrimination complaint, paired testers are sent\nto find or disprove a discriminatory housing practice. Two people who are as similar as possible\nexcept for the single variable being tested are sent out with various specific instructions\nregarding their housing application. In response to a question, Breed indicated that testing is not\nentrapment and that testing is deemed legal by the courts, indeed it is one of the only ways that\ndiscrimination testing can be fairly done. She noted also that more often than not they find no\ndiscrimination has occurred in reported incidents. Sentinel had participated in a statewide study\nof discrimination in 2000-01 and found some instances of differential treatment in Alameda.\nF:SSHRB\\AGENDA & MINUTES\\2005", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-27", "page": 2, "text": "SSHRB\nMeeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005\nPage 2\nHowever, since it was not complaint-based, they had no basis to conduct specific testing. . Later,\nwhen they heard fears and concerns from Harbor Island Apartment (HIA) tenants seeking\nhousing in the wake of the HIA terminations, they felt it was important to follow up to see if\ndifferential treatment was taking place.\nAll testers participate in a practice test before going out on a paired test. When a test is\nconducted, the \"protected\" tester goes to tested unit first, followed by the \"unprotected\" tester.\nThe testers are not told why they are going or what they are testing; they do not know each other\nnor do they ever see or communicate with each other. Following the rental application/interview\nboth testers fill out their respective forms and are interviewed separately by Sentinel staff to\ndetermine if the protected tester got negative, discouraging information/feedback while the\nunprotected tester got positive and encouraging feedback. If a test involves a different agent or\ncontact at the rental unit, the test is invalid and the responses are eliminated. Based on results of\nthe test, Sentinel asks the client if they would like to pursue further action. The client will then\nfile an administrative complaint with HUD Fair Housing and Employment Office (FHEO) and/or\nfile a lawsuit. Less then 1% of all complaints get to this stage.\nA sample test was provided and Ms. Breed went over the sample, explaining the differences in\nquestions, availability of units, and mannerisms when dealing with each tester, and differences in\nthe terms and conditions of the lease. The sample demonstrated how a minority (protected)\ntester had been asked many more questions than the majority (unprotected) tester being asked\nonly \"when did she want to move in?\"\nIn the Alameda study, 25 complete tests and 25 complete analyses were conducted. Sentinel sent\neducational letters to owners/agents of units where discriminatory practices and/or differential\ntreatment were found. The response from the rental property owners was good, and several large\nrental agencies including Gallagher and Lindsay and Harbor Bay Realty sponsored fair housing\ntraining for their own and other agents. About 50% of the individual rental property owners\nresponded directly to Sentinel re: the education letter.\nIn response to questions: Breed stated that:\nThe methodology is not exactly the same across the U.S. but HUD approves each and\nevery fair housing testing protocol;\nFair housing training in response to a complaint is voluntary, except when it is required\nthrough a conciliation agreement or other order;\nMany people came to the trainings because they really weren't sure if/what they had done\nthat was discriminatory;\nIt has only been since 1988 that it is illegal for a landlord to say they won't rent to\nsomeone with children.\nAn owner of a single-family home renting a room to one tenant is exempt from state fair\nhousing law.\nIn 2004, Sentinel dealt with 450 households, provided education for 10 property\nmanagers, and sponsored 12 education events.\nHUD does a \"best practices\" conference every year and Sentinel has been nominated for\ntwo awards.\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-27", "page": 3, "text": "SSHRB\nMeeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005\nPage 3\nIf more funding, Sentinel would expand training for property owners in the Section 8\nVoucher Program to provide at least 3 hours of fair housing training.\nSentinel would follow up on a suggestion to ask local papers to publish fair housing\ninformation and a referral number in the Rentals section of the local newspapers and\nasking realtors to publish similar inform in their office handouts.\nOnce the study was publicized in the papers the responses from various property owners\nincreased.\nThe finding of differential treatment in Alameda (44% of the tests) is higher than the\nnational average of 26%. However, it should be looked at in the context of what was\nhappening, e.g. the HIA terminations.\nThe protected tester is always slightly more qualified that the unprotected applicant,\nthereby making the differential treatment easier to spot. Board.\nMr. Richard Rudloff, a local owner of several Section 8 units in Alameda for 35 years addressed\nthe Board. He stated he has not read the rental study being discussed but wanted to address the\nquestion \"what could the City Council do to assist landlords in providing fair housing? He stated\nthat landlords are required to have a business license and because Sentinel has great pamphlets,\nhe suggested sending appropriate mailings for landlord training if funding is available. He went\non to suggest a way to obtain funding would be to require a business license on all single-family\ndwellings that are rented out. They are currently exempt from the ordinance. He stated that the\nHousing Authority will give Section 8 termination notices to landlords for 30 days, yet give\nSection 8 tenants 60 days. There are misperceptions about Section 8 tenants as renters. He\nhasn't ever had a late check from a tenant, or no check from Housing Authority. Anything this\nBoard could do to assist the landlord situation would be appreciated. He hasn't ever attended a\nworkshop, but would for Section 8 specifically.\nUnder discussion, Wasko stated the methodology appears to be excellent and the criterion that is\nused is the same as the national process that has been developed. Hollinger-Jackson stated that\nthe report was detailed, appeared to follow a solid method and the statistics appear to be reliable\nFranz noted that while the results may be slightly skewed due to the extenuating circumstances\nof HIA, there was a solid basis for Sentinel's concerns. M/S Wasko/Flores-Witte to report to the\nCity Council, with members from ATAH & AAWG (Franz & Chen) reviewing the report. The\nreport should state the Board's evaluation of the Sentinel study as noted above, and recommend\nincreased substantive training for landlords and tenants, funding for mailing to all landlords,\npress and realtors, the possibility of Sentinel preparing a tape or DVD on Fair Housing practices\nthat can be accessed through the Library / Cable systems, working with the media to get a listing\nin the rental classifieds regarding fair housing rights and sources for information and assistance,\nand suggesting they look at adding the single-family rentals to the business licenses to increase\nfunding for fair housing activities. The motion was adopted 6/0. President Franz will present the\nreport to the City Council at an upcoming meeting.\nPLANNING FOR JOINT SESSION - Reviewed last years agenda and Off-Agenda report.\nSuggested staff poll (through the Clerk) for attendance at the regular April or May meeting. M/S\nFlores-Witte, Wasko, 6/0.\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2005-01-27", "page": 4, "text": "SSHRB\nMeeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005\nPage 4\nWORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS\nAAWG - Nothing to report, has not had a meeting.\nFSWG - Member Wasko asked about a menu for distributing the needs survey, and is there a\ntimeline? She reported about the Festival of Families to partner with Southshore for a Spring\nevent in early May. And using this event to get survey's filled out could maybe work. The event\nwill have community performers (kids), and parent education. Southshore will donate raffle\ncertificates, maybe use those as fill out a survey & get a raffle ticket. They are exploring the\npossibility of a shuttle bus during the hours of 1pm - 4pm from the West End. Volunteers will\nbe\navailable.\nFriendship City - Vice President Chen reported there is still no contact with Sweden and Japan\nregarding connecting those Sister City ties. We are expecting and inviting a group and delegation\nin late February or mid-March. He is working on formalizing a response team to handle\nadministrative work and to also forming a Subcommittee who have ties to Wuxi, 30 persons to\nhandle the logistics and responses. A fundraiser dinner raised on Saturday, January 9th raised\napproximately $4,000. This group has an opportunity to participate in a Chinese New Year\nevent on Bay Farm Island in mid-March. He asked everyone to think about Alameda type gifts\nfor visitors of China.\nRECOMMENDATION TO RENAME FRIENDSHIP CITY WORKGROUP AND APPROVE\nEXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PENDING WORKGROUP ACTIVITIES - There are\nsubstantial requirements for becoming a sister city and the Board would like to know what they\nare. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte, 6/0.\nBOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - Member Wasko reported the vouchers for childcare\nwill decrease to poverty level due to budget constraints (federal). President Franz - The VITA\nsite at Chipman needs volunteers. Flores-Witte will volunteer on Feb. 5th, Feb 12th and Feb 19th\n,\nMarch 5th, and April 9th & April 12th. Beaver - The ACCYF had asked the Mayor for support\nwith Season Non-Violence on Feb 1st, and extended the invite to the Board to attend and speak\nfrom past support.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none\nADJOURNED - President Franz adjourned the meeting at 10:15pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver, Secretary of SSHRB\nCB:sb\nG:SSHRB\\PACKETS/2005\\JAN05\\MINUTESJAN27\nF:SSHRB\\AGENDA & MINUTES\\2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006--7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-029) - Mayor Johnson encouraged the Alameda High School students\nand Troup 73 Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local\ngovernment; stated the City has good job opportunities.\n(06-030) Proclamation declaring February 3, 2006 as \"Wear Red for\nWomen\" Day in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation; stated the proclamation would\nbe forwarded to the American Heart Association.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *06-031) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nJanuary 3, 2006. Approved.\n( *06-032) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,585,271.93.\n( *06-033) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment\nPolicy. Accepted.\n(*06-034) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nthe fifth amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and fourth\namendment to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement by and\nbetween the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 2, "text": "Authority, the Port of Oakland, and the City of Oakland for the\nCross Airport Roadway Project (Ron Cowan Parkway) Accepted.\n( *06-035) - Recommendation to accept and authorize recording a Notice\nof Completion for the Bayport Stormwater Pump Station System\nImprovements. Accepted.\n(*06-036) Recommendation to authorize execution of a lead-based\npaint hazard reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead\nPoisoning Prevention Program. Accepted.\n(*06-037) Resolution No. 13920, \"Approving the Application for\nCalifornia Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) under the\nCalifornia Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and\nCoastal Protection Act of 2002. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-038) Resolution No. 13921, \"Appointing Michael B. Cooper as a\nmember of the City Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and\n(06-038A) Resolution No. 13922, \"Appointing Dora J. Dome as a\nmember of the City Social Services and Human Relations Board.\n\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Dome.\n(06-039) Resolution No. 13923, \"Commending Alameda Police\nLieutenant Bob Cranford for his contributions to the City of\nAlameda. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson read the Resolution.\nThe Acting Police Chief accepted the Resolution on behalf of\nLieutenant Cranford and expressed Lieutenant Cranford's\nappreciation for the Resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 3, "text": "(06-040) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Bayport Alameda Community Building and\nPark Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director presented drawings\noutlining the schematics for the proposed park site.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the restrooms would be separate\nfrom the community building.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the\nrestrooms would be separate for park access.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the adjacent school property area has\nasphalt; inquired whether the area would be accessible at all\ntimes, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed trees are\nappropriate for the climate, to which the Acting Recreation and\nPark Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be adequate drainage.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated adequate drainage has been stressed throughout\nthe design process.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether sprinkler systems would cover the\ninfield area.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the\nspecifications would address specific sprinkler systems for the\nsite.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the older parks have a lot of tree\nroot issues; inquired whether root guards were considered.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative stated the design team was very conscience of tree\ntype and placement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage of the\nmulti-purpose room, to which the Acting Recreation and Park\nDirector responded 1,700 square feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms\nwere comparable in size.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed\nmulti-purpose room would be larger than most.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for\nthe baseball and softball fields.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would\ndepend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could\nbe held at the same time for age groups under 12.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from\nproject revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit\nparticipation, and tax increment.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great\nsuccess; the City and School District benefit when resources are\npulled together.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be\nthe first park built since Tilden Park in 1993.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II\n(Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and\nPrescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief report.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business\ndistricts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in\nthe past, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with having only\none neighborhood representative; he would prefer to have two at- -\nlarge neighborhood representatives neighborhoods are impacted\nbusiness district representatives might not be Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson stated that she understood the Commission's role to\nbe marketing, not daily management.\nThe Development Services Director stated the permitting process\nwould not change deposits are provided for police services.\nMayor Johnson stated that times were restricted when filming was\ndone on the bridge; police officers were present; pedestrians were\nnotified of detours; the Commission's role should not be\ncoordinating the activities.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the Business\nDevelopment Division Coordinator would work as the staff liaison to\ncoordinate various activities; the Commission would help with\ninquiries and marketing; the State has developed a program to\neducate neighborhoods and raise awareness.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated filming has been done on her street over\nthe last few years; the film production company sent someone out to\nexplain the filming process; stated that the experience was\npositive.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his neighborhood had mixed reviews\nwith the filming processi the neighborhood needs to be involved\nwith handling location requests.\nMayor Johnson stated having someone familiar with the historical\nareas of Alameda is important.\nThe Development Services Director suggested reducing the number of\nmembers with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three,\nadding a resident with knowledge of historic districts, and\nchanging the \"neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation\nSociety representative\" to \"neighborhood member\"\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested all members be Alameda residents,\nexcept business representatives.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated some film industry people work for\nemployers in town and should be able to be considered; the bulk of\nthe Commission should be Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson stated that the majority of the Commission should be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 6, "text": "Alameda residents.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the initial terms\ncould be shortened to no longer than two years.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services\nDirector; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the\nnumber of business representatives could be reduced; he would\nprefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative.\nThe City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be\nrevised.\nMayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two\nyears.\nThe Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and\ntwo years.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought\ndown to nine members.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the\nproposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working\nknowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the\n\"neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society\nrepresentative\" to \"neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood\nmember with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the\nmajority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten\nterms to one and two year staggered terms)\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief report.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he\nsupports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the\ncommunity; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a\ngrowing issue.\nJim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 7, "text": "net services special consideration should be given to\norganizations that provide education along with services; a\ndisaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income\nfamilies.\nRobert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on\nthe public service needs employment, transportation, and child\ncare are needed in addition to improving access to affordable\nhousing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S\nfour focus areas guide in the decision making.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance\nissues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the\nfinal Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather\ninformation about extraordinary maintenance.\nMr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the\nfocus information on proposed improvements is provided to\nresidents; resident input is requested.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding\nwas available.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative;\nstated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for\nhousing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted\nand approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of\nimprovements needed over the next 20 years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in\ndeveloping criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance\nof the organizations receiving the grants should align with the\nSSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and\ngoals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing\nshould include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need\nto be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the\nproper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into\nthe measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is\nexpected.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback was available on\nthe Sentinel issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 8, "text": "The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a\nnew scope of work and information would be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to\nreceive more than the $1.3 million grant.\nThe Development Services Director responded next year's total\nbudget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds\nfrom loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million;\nprogram revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately\n$200,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care\nof the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services\nDepartment's funding portion takes care of housing over and above\nthe Housing Authority.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental\nrehabilitation.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority\nhas used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does\nnot plan to use the funding this year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out\nwith the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are\nreviewed periodically.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net\nprovider participation is unbelievable.\nMayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 9, "text": "(06-043) Brien Burroughs, Glass Eye Media, stated that he is\nproducing an independently financed television pilot at City Hall\non Thursday and Friday barriers sometimes come up when filming at\ngovernment sites; all his contacts in Alameda have been great ;\nstated he appreciates the support.\n(06-044) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated there is corruption in the\nPlanning Department a resolution was passed by the Council on June\n21, , 2005 which required the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to his\nhome to conduct a specific soil test prior to receiving design\nreview; the testing was submitted; the design review was approved\nand has been appealed to the Planning Board; he is unable to get a\nfair hearing with the Planning Board; staff refuses to provide\naccurate information; the City denies using the wrong section of\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the\ndevelopment; he received a $100 invoice to file a new form with the\nState; he received a $1600 invoice, which includes over five hours\nto discuss the project with City Attorney's office; the facts are\nundisputable; urged members of the Council to appeal the decision\nof the Planning Board.\nMayor\nJohnson stated that Mr. Lynch should communicate his concerns\nwith the City Manager.\nMr. Lynch stated that he spoke with the Acting Assistant City\nManager on Thursday and has not received a reply.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated that he spoke to Mr.\nLynch, the Planning Department staff, and City Attorney's office\nlast week; he still has one more person to contact; he will get\nback to Mr. Lynch.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-045\n-\n)\nConsideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Economic Development Commission. Continued.\n(06-046) Councilmember deHaan stated streetscape funding was\ndiscussed at the last Council meeting he hopes that electrical\nprovisions have been included to allow for embedded pedestrian\nlights [ on Park Street] between Central Avenue and Santa Clara\nAvenue when funding is available.\n(\n(06-047) Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of homes have been fire\ndamaged over a period of time; inquired whether remediation is\nrequired within a certain amount of time; stated areas are an\neyesore and a nuisance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at\nthe corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down,\nbut nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are\nneeded to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain\namount of time.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on applicable\nordinances.\nThe City Manager stated that information would be provided to the\nCouncil.\n(06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory\nwas discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider\nestablishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City\ncan set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are\npurchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as\nnatural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number\nof single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought\nback to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles\nshould follow.\n(06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is\nimportant ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to\nindicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned\nover the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no\nlonger usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs\nshould be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely\nimportant.\nThe City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being\nreviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided\nto Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for\nusing hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established\nvehicles should be replaced in a logical manner.\n(06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use\npolicy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution\nor ordinance; the current policy is not compliant.\nThe City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting\nthe policy.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council\nresolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 11, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(06-051) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. in a moment of silence for City\nEmployee Matt Plumlee's family loss.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006- -6:05 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(06-025) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda.\nRosemary McNally stated that she was not a party to the lawsuit,\nbut had followed the Cineplex project since the Historical Advisory\nBoard meeting in 2005; cited the Indemnificatior Clause in the\nDisposition and Development Agreement with the developer, Kyle\nConnor questioned why the City is paying for Mr. Connor's defense\ncosts when the City says it does not have enough money for\nservices.\nThe City Attorney responded that the developer has his own\nattorney; the City has a large investment risk in the project and\nchose to retain its own counsel in order to best protect its own\ninterests in the project.\nMs. McNally thanked the Council for clarification and submitted\ncopy of her statement for the record.\n(06-026) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:45 p.m.\n(06-027) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney. .\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nSpecial Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 13, "text": "and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal\nCounsel, the Council discussed the case and stated staff would\nprovide an Off-Agenda Report on the upcoming process; regarding\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators;\nregarding City Attorney, the Council gave direction to labor\nnegotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006 -7:29 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent :\nouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent : None.\nAgenda Item\n(06-028) Resolution No. 13919, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Repair\nof the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike, along Shoreline Park, and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. \"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requested funding was\nfor interim repair, to which the Public Works Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when full repair would be\ncompleted and what the plan was for preventive maintenance.\nThe Public Works Director responded the schedule for the full\nrepair was being reviewed; larger ripraps would be added to\nstrengthen the armoring of the slope; the design process would take\napproximately two to three months because a lot of surveying is\nrequired; funding is the big issue; the estimate is approximately\n$2 million for the riprap.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether information has been provided to the\npublic.\nThe Public Works Director responded the area has been barricaded,\nand warning signs have been posted.\nMayor Johnson requested that additional signs be posted along\nShoreline Park to provide information on the seawall restoration\nand to thank the public for their patience.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the damage occurred because of high\ntides ; inquired whether further deterioration was evident.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 15, "text": "The Public Works Director stated the entire length of the seawall\nhas been inspected; the interim repair would take care of\nsignificant deterioration; the intent is to beat the high tides\nforecasted for the end of the month.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether erosion occurred in other\nareas.\nThe Public Works Director responded the $500,000 should cover all\nareas that need repair.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether periodic inspections are conducted.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated future\nperiodic inspections are being considered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Governor added Alameda\nCounty to the disaster list; inquired whether funding would be\navailable for the repairs.\nThe Public Works Director responded that staff was working with the\nCounty and Office of Emergency Services (OES) to secure Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the deterioration was\nstandard or the result of circumstances.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the current situation is\nextremely accelerated; a resident raised the issue in March; staff\nexamined the area in April and determined that immediate attention\nwas not needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated hopefully budget issues would not\nprevent performing a temporary fix if the City witnessed some\ndeterioration.\nMayor Johnson stated that issues should be called to the Council's\nattention if something similar arises.\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked the Public Works Director for planting\ntrees in front of Alameda College on Appezzato Parkway.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 16, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nCITY OF ALAMEDA\nCalifornia\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:43 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Trustees: Beverly Johnson, Nancy Elzig, Robert Follrath, William\nSoderlund and Karen Willis. Staff: Amy Ho, Supervising Accountant, Finance.\nAbsent: none.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004 were reviewed. Robert\nFollrath motioned to accept the minutes as presented, Nancy Elzig seconded; all\nwere in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRobert Follrath asked to pull the consent calendar for discussion on an error he found\nunder 4-A a. The dollar amount shown on the agenda ($262,255.28) did not match the\ndollar amount shown on the December 27, 2004 \"Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending\nDecember 31, 2004\" memo from the Chief Financial Officer. After a brief discussion, it\nwas determined that the CFO's memo had the correct dollar amount of $264,255.28.\nWhile reviewing the Pension Payroll memo, it was also noticed that under the\nDecember-04 heading, the total figure had an extra digit ($268,1218.91) and should\nhave been $268,218.91. Amy Ho will correct the \"Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending\nDecember 31, 2004\" memo, ask the CFO to sign off, and then redistribute.\n4-A.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 264,255.28 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n\"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005\nPage 2\n4-B.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 261,681.79 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-C.\nPENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2004:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 264,960.47 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\nRobert Follrath motioned to adopt the consent calendar with the corrections as\nnoted, William Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. On a motion by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig, the\nChief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and\nFire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31, 2004 was\naccepted as presented; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote.\n5-B. In the absence of CFO Juelle-Ann Boyer, Member Willis spoke to the\nissue of erecting new flagpoles at City Hall. She stated that during a\nconversation with the Interim City Manager, he indicated that due to our\ncurrent budget shortfall, timing was not good to consider purchasing new\nflagpoles. Member Follrath, being an active participant in varied\ncommunity groups, said that he would put out feelers, and maybe help to\nraise the money for the new flagpoles, but would need a cost estimate as\na\nstarting point. Member Willis will follow-up with the Public Works\nDirector to obtain a more definitive figure. This item is to be continued at\nthe next Pension Board meeting.\n5-C. Member Follrath motioned to accept, with sincere regrets, the memo from\nthe Human Resources Director notifying of deaths of 1079 Pensioners.\nMember Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0\nvote.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005\nPage 3\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no communications from the board.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:59 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nSecretary to the Pension Board\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service\"", "path": "PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-047 - ) Proclamation declaring January 30, 2005 through April 4,\n2005 as A Season for Nonviolence in the City of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Pat Dilks\nof the Children's Learning Center representing the Youth\nCollaborative.\nMs. Dilks thanked the Council for their support.\n(05-048) - Update on the new main library project.\nThe Project Manager submitted a timeline and provided an update on\nthe project.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the construction budget would be\nsubmitted, to which the Project Manager responded that the\nconstruction budget was set by the $17.4 million contract.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the spending schedule would be\nprovided, to which the Project Manager responded that a schedule\nwould be provided this month.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the steel prices were locked in\nbefore the end of 2004, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe affirmative; stated the rebar subcontractor withdrew because of\nbankruptcy.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 05-049],\nand the Resolution Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission [paragraph no. 05-054] were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings\nheld on January 18, 2005.\nMayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not\nabsent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council\nMeeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61.\n(*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted.\n(*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half\nMoon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas\nGeneration. Accepted.\n(*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, \"Authorizing the Application to\nCalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for\nImprovements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach.\nAdopted.\n(05-054) Resolution No. 13813, \"Authorizing the Application to the\nMetropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and\nPedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I.\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of-\nway for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property,\nto which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "involves the exercise of the right to purchase the entire Alameda\nBelt Line property, not just the 22-acre site.\nMayor Johnson stated that the purchase of the right-of-way for the\nlinear park was separate from the down zoned area [Measure D,\n2000].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the curb on Ralph Appezzato\nMemorial Parkway was under the City's jurisdiction, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded the street from curb to curb is\nwithin the public right-of-way\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether improvements have been made\nto the area, to which the Public Works Director responded that\nthere were no improvements on the south side of Appezzato Memorial\nParkway because the City only owns the area to the curb; the\nAlameda Belt Line property runs from the back of the curb to the\nfence line.\n ouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-055) Resolution No. 13814, \"Approving Submittal of a Revised\nApplication, Incorporating a Flat Parking Lot and Budget\nAdjustments, to the Office of Library Construction Under the\nCalifornia Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library\nConstruction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( 05-056) - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300\nsquare foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to\nreplace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,\nwith a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related\nresolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the\nC-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning\nDistricts. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. Applicant : Park Centre\nAnimal Hospital.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief overview of the project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether rezoning from R-5 to C-C would\nmake the existing property conform to the General Plan designation,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "4\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "receive notification live within 300 feet regardless of the Everett\nStreet or Central Avenue address.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether someone would be unaware that\nCentral Avenue was involved if they did not review the plans, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether use permits run with the\ncurrent proprietor or with the property, to which the Supervising\nPlanner responded that use permits run with the land; stated use\npermits do not change the zoning.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the notice is valid, to which the\nCity Attorney responded that the notice complies with the\nrequirements of the Municipal Code and the current practices of the\nPlanning Department.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on the dog walking\npractices.\nMr. Busse stated that currently the dogs are walked on the existing\nbank property as well as in the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether dogs are boarded, to which\nMr. Busse responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is design latitude on\nthe Central Avenue side, to which Mr. Busse responded enhancements\nhave been made; additional latticework is being added.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with trees covering\nthe sign.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether landscaping was one foot\nfrom the lot line and five feet from the edge of the sidewalk.\nMr. Busse responded that there would be a five foot two inch\nlandscape buffer from the existing sidewalk.\nMayor Johnson stated that she supports the project Design Review\nis the only issue before the Council; good improvements have been\nmade.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the\nnotification.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project should be re-\nnoticed, and Design Review should be sent back to the Planning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Board.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as\nliking the design, especially the changes the architect has made\n;\nshe is concerned about the noticing issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not\nincluding the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have\ncaused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the\nproject delay.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design\ndoes not fit the residential character of the neighborhood;\narguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the\nexisting structure; the project is a positive step.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the\nPlanning Board for proper notification.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went\non record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to\nthe Planning Board was to allow proper notification.\n(05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to\nrezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett\nStreet, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community\nCommercial; and\n(05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning\nCertain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning\nOrdinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that\nProperty Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not\nintroduced.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital.\nOpponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the\nPlanning Board for proper notification.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m.\n*\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City\nManager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be\nheard before the discussion regarding options for relocation\nassistance [paragraph no. 05-059].\n(05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an\nordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX,\nDevelopment Regulations.\nLars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that\nPSBA supports establishment of the ordinance.\nMayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor\nbut would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade,\nRegency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton,\nDog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting\nthe staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue\noperating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(05-059) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance\nlegislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,\ndemolition and condominium conversion in the \"West End Atlantic\nCorridor Area\" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific\nAvenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).\nProponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham,\nAlameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association\n(HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael\nJohn Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre,\nAlameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette\nLee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista\nUnited Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold\nFong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda.\nNeutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig\nMiott, Alameda.\nOpponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property\nOwner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green,\nAlameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO;\nMerle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors;\nHarry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former\nCouncilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management\nDon Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and\nLindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda\nAssociation of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO;\nHanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident\nand RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha\nErdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident\nand RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke,\nBonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates;\nKathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental\nHousing Association of Northern Alameda County.\n(05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese\nmoved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on\na project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and\nSanta Monica; in both cases, rent control laws did not help the\npeople; he is concerned that someone would use the proposed\nordinance to file a lawsuit for reasons having little or nothing to\ndo with the Harbor Island Apartment situation; the emphasis of the\nproposed ordinance is wrong by focusing on landlord/tenant\nrelations; involvement in landlord/tenant relations is done\ninformally via the Rent Review Advisory Committee; requested that\nstaff, landlords and residents work together to develop something\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "other than an ordinance that speaks to short notice mass evictions\nand voluntary relocation assistance.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to determine how local and State\nstatutes could be put to better use; stated the maintenance and\nquality of life issues at the Harbor Island Apartments could have\nbeen handled better.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has not met one person who\nhas defended the 15 Asset Management Group's action; requested\nstaff to review whether there is a hole in the condominium\nconversion ordinance and whether there is an attempt to circumvent\nthe ordinance; the proposed ordinance does not address the impact\nof not providing a reasonable, fair amount of public notice for\nvacating the complex completely; the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict is trying to close a gap of over a million dollars ;\nperhaps the 15 Asset Management Group should pay an impact fee; the\nHarbor Island Apartment issue will not be resolved soon; encouraged\ninvestment and improvement in the West End; stated process should\ninclude social impacts.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the goal should be preventing a Harbor\nIsland Apartment situation from happening again; the question is\nhow to go about it; the City needs to work to enforce current laws\nthe former residents suffered greatly; West End residents need to\nknow that they are just as important as residents in other sections\nof the City; landlords have stated that the proposed ordinance will\nnot work from their standpoint i challenged the landlords to work\nwith the City and the residents and come up with a way of\npreventing the situation from happening again; stated steps need to\nbe put in place to have it happen sooner rather than later.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that redeveloping the West End will\ncause displacement; a good social eye is needed for what is\noccurring the City knew that something was going astray; a wedge\nhas been driven between the landlords and tenants; the size of the\nHarbor Island Apartments makes it difficult to manage; the property\ncannot afford to be kept out of the rental market; that he does not\nbelieve the ordinance or moratorium are the answer.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the concerns that people had regarding\nmandatory relocation assistance could be the same concerns\nregarding mandatory impacts; the City needs to be creative in\nfollowing through with a voluntary relocation program.\nMayor Johnson stated that she had no expectation that the Council\ncould create an ordinance tonight ; she does not think the drafted\nordinances are the answers; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work\ntogether and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been\noffended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of\nquantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a\nhalf, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the\ncomplex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were\nbeing decertified because standards were not being met; requested\nthe City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code\nEnforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-\ncertification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to\nreact should there be another large complex that is spinning in the\nsame fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation.\nMayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not\nbeen strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on\nenforcement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island\nApartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3\nMayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to\nAlameda, whether State or local.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other\ncities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities\nhave been effective.\nMayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a\npolicy utilizing existing ordinances.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft\nvoluntary relocation assistance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised\npublic\nawarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord\nrepresentatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and\ndiscuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants'\nideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in\ndeveloping ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again.\nMayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the\ncommittee be brought back to Council at the next City Council\nmeeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved that staff follow up on direction provided\ntonight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "Counci lember Matarrese clarified that the motion was to direct\nstaff to: 1) provide a compilation of indicators relating to crime,\nCode Enforcement, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-certification\nwhich would enable the Council to develop a policy on how to react,\nand 2) provide a framework for a committee which would include\ndefining what happened at the Harbor Island Apartments and how to\nprevent the situation from happening again.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog's voluntary relocation\nassistance draft should be included.\nCounci lmember Daysog stated the proposed committee could review his\nsuggestion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote -5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-061) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated the\nCity Attorney received a copy of the State law on rentals two years\nagoi noted Committees, except those she has chaired, often do not\nsunset on time; stated landlords would get together to respond to\nCouncilmember Gilmore's challenge [to come up with a something to\nprevent a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again]\n.\n(05-062) Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda, thanked Councilmember\nDaysog for returning property he left in the Chambers at a previous\nmeeting.\n(05-063) Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that\nhe could provide Council with copies of the rental housing laws.\n(05-064) Arch Woodliff, Alameda, noted that he chaired the\ncommittee which dealt with rent in 1974 and first founded the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board. [Partial term expiring June\n30, 2007]\nMayor Johnson nominated Dennis Hanna for appointment to the SSHRB.\n(05-066) - ) Vice Mayor Gilmore request staff to provide information on\nthe cost for filing an appeal; stated Mr. Barni indicated his\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 -6:45 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n( 05-044) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Younger-Wunar, Inc. V. City of Alameda.\n(05-045) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case: Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Younger-Wunar Inc. V.\nCity of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions\nwere given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Gallagher & Burke, Inc.\nV. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions\nwere given to Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members\nDaysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nJOINT ACTION:\n(05-046CC/05-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that the report\nshows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the\nFiscal Year and recommended adjustments.\nThe Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view;\nmatters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8\nmillion deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented\nat the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated\nrevenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget\nthe estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and\nappropriations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired how much of\nthe projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which\nthe Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether\nthere would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that a budget\nadjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of\n$4.8 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious\nproblem.\n  ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of\nthe staff recommendation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/BoardMember Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION:\n05-006CIC) Resolution #05-133, \"Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First\nAmendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS,\nInc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of\nAlameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs) Adopted.\nLars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the\nresolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic\nAlameda theatre.\nDuane Watson encouraged building the parking structure.\nDebbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in\nmoving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the\nAlameda theatre, and the new theatre complex.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre\nproject has been a long time coming.\nChair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the\ntheatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be\ntaken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nspecial meeting at 8:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary,\nCommunity\nImprovement\nCommission\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 16, "text": "Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC\nIMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nBoard Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(05 5-01) - Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement\nCorporation Meeting of February 3, 2004.\nBoard Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Board Members Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions : Board Member deHaan -\n1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual\nMeeting at 8:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Alameda Public Improvement\nCorporation\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nAnnual Meeting\nAlameda Public Improvement Corporation\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n2-A\nWednesday, February 2, 2005\nThe meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBeverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nDoug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent:\nMarie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.\n2-B.\nApproval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.\n2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of\nCalifornia's Closed Military Bases.\nChair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was\nseconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;\nAbstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.\n3.\nPRESENTATION\n3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.\nStephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance\nprocess. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy\nand got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first\nphase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a\npresentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the\nNavy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let\nthem know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a\ndraft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal\ncounsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.\nElizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board\non Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the\nactions that were underway relative to the historic district.\n1\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "On\nSaturday,\nJan\n22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group\ncame out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We\nhad an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.\nTwo upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that\none we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our\nfirst two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation\ncommission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and\nspecifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.\nOur goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can\nreally study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on\nthat issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.\nMember DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation\nSociety on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that\nthey were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments\ncame through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments\nindependent of those workshops.\nMember Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what\nthey might have said.\nStephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5\nmillion that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on\nNavy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent\n@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.\nCouncilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud\nreplied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a\ncouple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see\nanything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up\nin any extraordinary way in the near future.\nMember DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this\nbudget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre\ndevelopment period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A. Oral report from APAC\nThere were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives\nfrom APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening\ntherefore there were no members available for an oral report.\n2\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2005-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nRAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility\nstudy was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.\nThis would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of\naction on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation\nactivities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February\n3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community\nworkshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March\n23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development\nincreases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February\n18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss\ntransportation with a BART liaison committee.\nChair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may\nneed council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.\nStephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would\nbe hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but\nthat the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed\nfor a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission\nhost the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already\nbeen done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well\nattended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Frankel\nARRA Secretary\n3\nY:\\Comdev\\Base Reuse& Redevp\\ARRA\\MINUTES\\2005\\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nVice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. Secretary Altschuler called\nthe roll.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nChair McPherson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nVice-Chair Anderson, Boardmember Tilos.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nSecretary Altschuler, Leslie Little Development Services\nDirector, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nRemove Item 1 from agenda per the City Attorney's office. (see below.)\nMINUTES:\nM/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005 with\ncorrections. 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)\nNone.\nACTION ITEMS:\n(Discussion/Action)\n1.\nCertificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant\nrequests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential\nstructure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design\nReview (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued\nfrom 9-9-04)\nMs. Altschuler advised the Board that the City Attorney's office contacted the State Historic\nPreservation Office for guidance regarding the listing of the property and procedure of\nprocessing the Certificate of Approval. We were advised that it was inappropriate for the\nHistorical Advisory Board to list the site on the Historical Building Study List, or consider a\nCertificate of Approval for demolition because the building was already demolished and no\nlonger meets any of the criteria for being considered as a historic resource. Thus, rather than\nbeing a historical preservation issue for Historical Advisory Board consideration, the scope of\nwork permitted under the issued building permit is in question. Staff requests that the Board\nremove this item from the agenda.\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "M/S (Miller, Lynch) to remove this item from the agenda. 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.\n2.\nStudy Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7\nscreen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located\nat 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned\nDevelopment Districts.\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, informed the Board that Staff would like direction\nfrom the Board regarding the proposed rehabilitation and construction of the 2 story multiplex\nand the 352 space parking structure. She expects the project should be ready for a Planning\nBoard public hearing in mid March.\nMichael Stanton, consultant, gave a presentation which included a brief history of the theater\nand showed the Board what is proposed. He informed the Board that the lobby and auditorium\nof the Alameda Theater will be restored to look as it did in 1939 when it opened for the first\ntime. The second floor of the lobby, will also be restored. The balcony area is not included in\nthis first phase. The marquee will be restored as well.\nIn designing the new Cineplex, it is noted that, according to the guidelines from the Secretary of\nInterior, new construction should be clearly differentiated from the existing historic building.\nThere will be retail on the street level corner of Central Ave. and Oak Street. There are four\ntheaters proposed on the second level and three theaters proposed for the ground floor.\nThe proposed 352-parking garage will not only serve the Theater, but all of Park St. It is\ndesigned so that it can be easily expanded in the future.\nChair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.\nRichard Rutter, AAPS, felt that the design should emphasize a vertical articulation, not\nhorizontal. The materials used should be high quality such as pressed brick or terra cotta. The\nparking garage should not look like a parking garage. AAPS felt that the previous parking\ngarage proposal prepared for the Long's Drug Store site was headed in a better direction.\nAlthough windows are probably not possible on the upper floors of the new theater at the\nOak/Central corner, it should not be treated as a blank wall. Some suggestions include surface\narticulation (such as on the existing Alameda Theater), and false windows. The design should\nnot be too modernistic. He also showed the Board pictures of other projects including the\nLivermore Theater which might be good prototypes for the new Alameda Theater annex. He\nfeels that the corner of Central and Oak St. should be set back from the corner as the Twin\nTowers Church across the street is.\nBirgitt Evans, AAPS stated that the corners should be rounded to mimic the original structure.\nChair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened the floor for Board\ncommunication.\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 3, "text": "Leslie Little stated that the DDA would be ready for hearing sometime in March. The City\nCouncil has taken action to allow staff to purchase the Video Maniac's parcel.\nMs. Altschuler informed the Board a request for Certificate of Approval for the structural\nalterations relating to the seismic strenghthening of the front fa\u00e7ade, the new openings between\nthe theatre and the new Cineplex, and the new opening for the concession stand. Ms. Altschuler\nalso noted that the community would also have chance to speak at the Planning Board hearings.\nThe Board thanked Leslie Little and her team for a nice presentation and they all look forward\nfor this project to begin.\nREPORTS:\n3.\nReview and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal\nCode regulating Work Live Studios.\nMs. Altschuler informed the Board that the City Council directed staff to agenize a review of the\nWork/Live Ordinance by the Planning Board, the Historical Advisory Board and the Economic\nDevelopment Commission. The Council asks the Historical Advisory Board to review the\nOrdinance in general, with specific focus on whether the ordinance protects historic buildings,\nand whether the Ordinance should be changed to expand the geographic limitations on work/live\nstudios to include other portions of the City such as the Park Street or Webster Street\nCommercial Districts, more of the Northern Waterfront area, or Alameda Point.\nChair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.\nDick Rutter, AAPS, feels that the Ordinance should state that the kitchens should not be located\nnear the work area. He feels that this Ordinance is a good tool in preserving Historical\nBuildings, and that it should be extended to include the former Navy Base. He also stated that\nMeasure A is an issue that the community should be educated on.\nChair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened Board discussion.\nBoardmember Miller feels that the Work/Live Ordinance is not a threat to Measure A, and has\nno problem expanding this to Alameda Point.\nChair McPherson stated that Board needs to ask themselves if there is anything that the\nWork/Live Ordinance could do to threaten Historic Preservation. She does not feel that the\nBoard should recommend that the area be expanded to any commercial buildings on Park St. or\nWebster St. Chair McPherson also feels that the current ordinance may have too many\nlimitations on developers. She would like to see this item on a future agenda so that Staff can\noutline all of the current limitations for the Board.\nMs. Altschuler agreed that Staff can create a list or a table listing all of the limitations such as\nzoning, density, parking and specific uses. Staff will try to have this ready for the April meeting.\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Lynch asked staff to find out how much the Work/Live permit would cost, how\nthe permit would be enforced and would the occupant be advised of any limitations.\nMs. Altschuler informed the Board that the Work/Live permit fee has not yet been determined.\nThere would be an individual use permit required for each project, as well as a business license\nfor each use. A deed restriction would also be required. If an applicant is in violation of the\nconditions of their use permit, it can be revoked by the Planning Board.\nM/S to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. (Miller/Lynch) 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n2.\nMotion carries.\n4.\nConsideration and possible recommendation to the City Council to revise the definition\nof demolition in the Historic Preservation Ordinance.\nMs. Altschuler began by informing the Board that it has become more difficult for Staff to\ndetermine whether a project meets the Historic Preservation Ordinance's definition of demolition\nwhich states that demolition occurs when 30% of the value of the building is removed. This\ndefinition has been challenging to administer because the meaning of \"value of the building\" can\nhave many interpretations, thus there is no clear indication when a proposal includes a\ndemolition and when it does not. For example, if the value of the building is based upon\nassessed value, two identical buildings could have a different assessed value (depending upon\nwhen it was last sold or whether it has Proposition 13 protection), and a larger portion of a\nbuilding with a higher assessment could be removed before a demolition would occur. If value\nwas dependent upon the cost of the work or materials, then more of a well-maintained, well-\nconstructed property could be removed than a deteriorated one before the removal would meet\nthe definition of demolition.\nStaff has reviewed the definition of demolition for a number of jurisdictions. Most have\nlanguage similar to that for the City of Davis which states:\n\"Demolition\" means for the purpose of this article, any act or failure to act that destroys,\nremoves, or relocates, in whole or in part a historical resource such that its historic character and\nsignificance is materially altered.\nThis approach depends upon the discretion of staff rather than a qualitative method to determine\nwhen demolition has taken plan. The current Alameda definition is a better attempt at providing\na more objective determination. However, even this definition is not sufficiently clear to allow\nboth staff and the property owner to know when a structure is proposed to be demolished\naccording to the Code. The Cities of San Jose and Los Gatos take a very objective approach. In\nSan Jose, demolition is defined as\" the removal of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls\nof a building.' In Los Gatos the definition is the \"removal of more than twenty-five (25) percent\nof a wall(s) facing a public street(s) or fifty (50) percent of all exterior walls.\"\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 5, "text": "Staff has prepared two Alternatives for the Board to consider. Ms. Altschuler informed the\nBoard that this would require a recommendation to City Council to change to the Historic\nPreservation Ordinance\nAllen Tai, Planner II, presented two different examples of projects for the Board to review and\ndetermine which they feel should be considered a demolition under the current definition.\nChair McPherson wished to remind the community that this Board is not saying no to all\ndemolitions, but would like applications to come before the Board so they can have the chance to\nlook at it prior to demolition.\nChair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.\nBirgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that she feels that as a result of 1025 Fair Oaks and 1104 Oak St; the\n30% (of the value) rule is not fair to anyone involved. 30% of a home worth $800,000.00 is\n$240,000.00 which could be a huge demolition. She is in favor of Alternative #1.\nRosemary McNally stated that she is leaning more towards more that 5% of the front of the\nbuilding. She also stated that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis.\nFrancie Farinet. AAPS, is in favor of Alternative #2. She is not sure what the solution should\nbe.\nChuck Miller stated that it is obvious that there needs to be clear guidelines. He feels that the\nfront should be separate percentage from the rest of the house. In most houses the front fa\u00e7ade is\nonly around 20% of the house. He also feels that the roof is very important architecturally and\nshould be taken seriously.\nChair McPherson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.\nBoard member Miller asked which alternative would be best for staff.\nMs. Altschuler stated that the purpose of either alternative is to have a better discussion with the\napplicant regarding if a demolition permit is necessary.\nChair McPherson stated she is leaning towards Alternative #1 but would like staff to add\nverbiage to include roof removal as part of the definition.\nM/S (Miller/Lynch) to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n2.\nMotion carries.\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-02-03", "page": 6, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoardmember Lynch informed the Board that she received an e-mail from Elizabeth Johnson\nregarding the Alameda Point Community Workshop that will be held on March 3, 2005, which is\nthe same time as the Regular HAB meeting. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this\nmeeting will be hosted by the Planning Board and that Staff will look for an available night to\nhold a Special HAB meeting.\nChair McPherson stated that she spoke to Bill Norton, Interim City Manager, regarding specific\ninterests that the Historical Advisory Board might have. She would also like to staff to agenize\npermit fee'e relating to Historic Preservation for a future meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Altschuler informed the Board that her last official meeting as their Secretary would be\nApril 7, 2005. She also stated that we are currently in the process of interviewing for the Planner\nIII position and hopes that it will be filled prior to her leaving. Ms. Altschuler will be devoting\nmost of her remaining time to working on the Development Code revisions and completing the\nGuide to Residential Design. Ms. Altschuler also thanked AAPS for helping with the graphics\nfor the Guide. She stated that Allen Tai would most likely be the \"Interim\" Secretary to this\nBoard until the Supervising Planner position is filled.\nADJOURNMENT:\nM/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 pm.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nJudith Altschuler, Secretary\nHistorical Advisory Board\nG:\\PLANNING\\HAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc\nMinutes of February 3, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2005-02-09", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD\nFebruary 9, 2005\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nRuth Belikove, Vice President\nKaren Butter, Board Member\nMark Schoenrock, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nAbsent:\nLeslie Krongold, President\nStaff:\nLibrary Director Susan Hardie, Secretary\nJenna Gaber, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nBoard member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member\nButter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonth of February 2005. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 12, 2005.\nApproved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of December 2004. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures\n(by fund) through January 2005. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for ratification. Approved.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nMain Library Project Update and Ground Breaking\nBoard member Butter asked about the budget for the Main Library project. She was\nconcerned about the negative $569,044 shown in the Revenue/Expenditures column. She\nalso said, and other Board members agreed, that this budget format is difficult to\nunderstand. Library Director Hardie agreed that this budget is not easily understood, and\nsaid she would speak with the Project Manager to see whether the format could be\nimproved. She also assured the Board that the project is not overspent.\nOn the subject of reports to the Board, members are disappointed that Mr. Haun is not\nreporting directly to them. Library Director Hardie explained that the Library Board is\nreceiving exactly the same information as the City Council gets each month from Mr.\nHaun. She said that this is the reporting format that the City has decided on, and\nmentioned that the presentations are broadcast on City cable. Dr. Mitchell asked what\ninformation is contained in the presentations, and Library Director Hardie replied that\nMr. Haun simply reviews the information in the Construction Report, which the Board\nalso receives. She said that she attends all of the Project Manager's presentations and\nwould be glad to take notes and report to the Board if anything of significance occurs.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2005-02-09", "page": 2, "text": "Library Director Hardie handed out invitations to the groundbreaking ceremony. She\nstated that the Library is spending a minimal amount of money on this ceremony. The\nState Librarian and Wilma Chan have agreed to speak at the ceremony.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nLibrary Building Team (M. Hartigan)\nThe building team did not met this month.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove)\nVice President Belikove stated that the Foundation had their second dinner party with the\nfundraising consultants. Their goal is to raise $500,000.\nC\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)\nMolly Skeen reported that there will be a clearance book sale at the \"O\" Club on the\nPresident's Day weekend.\nD.\nLibrary Building Watch (L. Krongold)\nLibrary Building Watch did not meet this month.\nF.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nMarc Lambert asked if there would still be money to upgrade the branch libraries.\nLibrary Director Hardie answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lambert handed out an\ninvitation for a library support event on Friday in San Francisco.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Belikove commented on the newspaper article regarding the Berkeley\nLibrary's purchase of a $650,000 RFID system to track their books.\nBoard member Butter commented on Unique Management Services. She wonders if it is\nvery beneficial to the library. Library Director Hardie stated that it is teaching patrons\nthat they need to return their books. She feels that it is a very useful in having library\nitems returned in a timely manner along with their unpaid fines. UMS promises that their\ninvoices will always be less than the money we collect. If at anytime invoices exceed\nrevenues, the balance of invoices which exceed revenues will be waived by UMS.\nVice President Belikove commented on another article regarding banning gay books in\nAlabama.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nLibrary Director Hardie reported on Day in the District to the Board. Vice President\nBelikove, Marilyn Ashcraft and Marc Lambert also attended.\nADJOURNMENT\nBoard member Mitchell MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Board member\nButter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSusan Hardie, Secretary", "path": "LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nALAMEDA\nRECREATION & PARKS\nMEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2005\n1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501\n(510)747-7529\nDATE:\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine\nJohnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves\nStaff:\nSuzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director\nDale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM)\nFred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS)\nAbsent:\nNone\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApprove Minutes of December 9, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nREEVESIJOHNSON\n(approved)\n\"That the Minutes of December 9, 2004 be approved with the addition that the cell\ntower container should be reduced in height.\" (on page 2, paragraph 7)\nIn Favor (4) - Ingram, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nAbsent (0) -\nAbstention (1) - Kahuanui\nApprove Minutes of January 13, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting.\nM/S/C\nJOHNSON/KAHUANUI\n(unanimously approved)\n\"That the Minutes of January 13, 2005 be approved.\"\nIn Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\n1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "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 agenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nAnnual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard provided the 2005 Fee Schedule and Surveys for the Recreation and Park\nCommission's review.\nRon Matthews, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and Alameda High School\nrepresentative stated that the groups he represents donate a lot of time and materials to\nhelp keep the fields that they use in good condition. Charging a per player charge may\ninfluence the Boards of the different organizations as far as how much they will be willing to\ndonate. He commented that what extent will the Boards be willing to invest grant monies,\nif they are paying the per player charge. The Commission needs to keep their registration\nfees in mind.\nNino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer representative, stated that Alameda Soccer has invested\nover $350,000 to date. Conceptually the group understands what is driving the fee, but\nfeels that the Sports Advisory Committee needs more information and better research.\nQuestions raised were: What is the operating budget? What are the groups bringing in?\nAnd, how does that offset the budget? A lot of the youth play multiple sports. Will they be\ncharged multiple times for the different sports they are playing? Conceptually the group\nunderstands the fee and is not opposed to it, but want to make sure that there is equity\nconsideration. They groups would like to see more research done before the fee is\nimplemented.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that between soccer groups represented by Mr. Borsoni and\nbaseball teams represented by Mr. Matthews that is approximately 98 percent use of the\nfields. So assuming Mr. Reeves wanted to go out and play baseball with a group of friends,\nhe would not be able to because the fields would be in use by these groups. These groups\nare the only ones using the fields and they need to be maintained. These fields are being\nmaintained for these organizations. The Commission is open to alternatives. Your groups\nare using the fields and they need to be maintained. Fields are being maintained for their\n2\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 3, "text": "use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative.\nMr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see\nsome long-term planning.\nMr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has\nsignificant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups\nhave supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing,\netc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play\ncharge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the\nbudget.\nPhil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr.\nBorsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and\nthe concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance\nthat these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only.\nDave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr.\nBorsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all\ngroups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the\nmaintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is\nestimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the\ngroups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups\nvolunteering time and funds.\nJean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for\novernight camping in a Beltline Park.\nChair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with\nvolunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if\nthat was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in\nother cities.\nMr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500\ntoward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissioner Oliver asked if the group would\nbe willing to provide volunteer help in addition to their donation. Mr. Johnson stated yes.\nChair Ingram suggested that this item be turned back over to the Sports Advisory\nCommittee to get a consensus on the per player fee.\nCommissioner Reeves stated that he is concerned about meeting the budget and\nsuggested tabling this item for a month until alternatives can be reviewed.\nM/S/C\nREEVES/OLIVER\n(approved)\n3\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 4, "text": "\"That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. \"\nApproved (5):\nIngram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nM/S/C\nREEVES/KAHUANUI\n(Approved)\nThat the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:\nBASKETBALL\nAdult\n$610.00 Resident Team Fee\n$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSOFTBALL\nAdult\n$620.00 Resident Team Fee\n$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nFLAG FOOTBALL\nAdult\n$598.00 Resident Team Fee\n$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSWIM LESSONS\n$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident\n($50 for two-week session)\n$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident\n($60 for two-week session)\nSWIM TEAMS USE FEE\nHourly Rate:\n$5/hr./youth & adult\n(currently)\n$11/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./adult\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)\nTENNIS\nAdult Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nJunior Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nPrivate Lessons\n$ 42/hour\nYOUTH\nDay Camp\n$120/week - Hidden Cove\n$135/week - Trails End\n$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care\n$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care\nPreschool\n$ 4/hour\nYOUTH SPORTS\nFall, Winter, Spring\n4\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 5, "text": "- Football\n$ 75/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n- Basketball\n$ 65/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n- Soccer\n$ 60/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee)\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nContinued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City\nCouncil to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item)\nRSM Lillard reviewed the draft proposal that was included in the Commission packet.\nCommissioner Johnson commented that the document was very well done and addressed\nthe items that the Commission had identified. Commissioner Ingram stated that the\ndocument was good but added that he wanted to make sure that the finished product\nincluded wording similar to #4 in the City of Seattle example regarding recovery of\nassociated costs. RSM Lillard agreed to incorporate the item and to bring the next revision\nback to the Commission in April.\nB.\nDiscussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council -\n(Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard informed the Commission that the City Clerk's Office had contacted staff with\nregard to scheduling the Annual Joint Meeting with Council. It was originally proposed to\nmeet on a Wednesday evening in March, but the Council is unable to attend any of those\ndates. The Clerk's office is now attempting to schedule a date in April.\nC.\nDiscussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments\nIncluding Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item)\nRSM Lillard reviewed the draft copy of the Commission Goals and Objectives with the\nCommission. After discussion the following items were included under Accomplishments\nand Goals:\nAccomplishments\nCompletion of the Marina Water Front Park\nRenaming of the former Officers' Club in honor of former Vice-Mayor Albert H. Dewitt\nApproval of the Public Art pieces for the Library Project\nInclusion of the Water Station in the Drainage Project at the Dog Park\nOpened discussions for use of Alameda Point fields by local youth organizations\nContinue growth towards increasing cost recovery through introduction of new\nPrograms\nGoals\nNote that SB2404 related to equality for girls and women's sports.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\n5\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 6, "text": "A.\nPark Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\nB.\nRecreation Division\nSee attached Activity Report.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nSee attached Activity Report.\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcments\n1.\nStatus Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver)\nThe Northern Waterfront Committee has been disbanded.\n2.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair\nReeves)\nNo report at this time.\n3.\nStatus Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram)\nChair Ingram stated that on Thursday, March 3rd, , at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall there will be an\nAlameda Point Community Workshop. The presentation will focus on the four most\nfrequently raised issues in the previous two workshops: historic preservation,\ntransportation, Measure A, and financial feasibility.\n4.\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo report at this time.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nRSM Lillard stated that in the Fall 2004 staff completed preliminary work on drainage for\nthe Dog Park. There is a second Phase which is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to\nput in some extensive drainage. The project is in the design phase at this time. There is\n$30,000 allocated for the drainage portion of the project.\nCommissioner Johnson stated that there were some funds donated for agility equipment for\nthe Dog Park. RSM Lillard stated that the agility equipment is custom built and is pending\nstaff gathering information.\nHarry Hartman expressed concern about having fresh water stations. RSM Lillard stated\nthat fresh water stations are included in the drainage project. It is hoped that the project\nwill be completed by the summer. Any communication that can be given to the Dog Park\nusers would be helpful.\n6\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 7, "text": "9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\n11.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, March 10, 2005\n12.\nADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.\n7\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, McNamara and Piziali.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David\nValeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein,\nDevelopment Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as\npresented.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized\nfor the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the\nBoard members to provide written comments sooner.\nMr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing\nrequirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments.\nHe noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 2, "text": "invite communication and participation from the public.\nVice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting\nmaterials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the\nresolution and on the agenda.\nMs. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed\ndue to the discrepancy.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 4, "text": "7-B.\nUP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central\nAvenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall\npainted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole\nalong the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground\nequipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground\nequipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure\nand above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from\nthe meeting of January 24, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on\nthe Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the\nMarch 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach\non the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did\nnot approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed\npublicly.\nMr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was\nspeaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted\nthat since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired\nwhether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped\nthat American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the\nsoftball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of\nthe public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual\nimpact.\nMr. Jason Peary, project manager, American Tower, noted that they would address the suggestions\nmade in the comments and that they would work with Mr. Arnerich and Mr. Ingram.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that he spoke with Mr. Ingram the previous week. He agreed that the building's\nvisual impact should be minimized.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the visual impact of the container.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various\ntechnologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to\nknow why this site is critical to the applicant's operation.\nMs. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the\nnext hearing.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda\nTheatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video\nManiac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal\nwith the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined\nparking garage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted\nthat the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had\nthree components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new\nseven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352-\nspace parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design\nelements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to\nshow the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components\nworking in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the\nmembers of the development team.\nMr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the\nproposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a\nvariety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles.\nMs. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history,\napproach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and\nlayout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the\ntheater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades.\nMr. Stanton noted that this would be one of the most important buildings in town, and added that the\ndesign guidelines included a clear differentiation between the historic portion of the building and the\nnew construction. He described the layout of the theater and the disabled access, as well as the\nsupporting functions of the project. He requested Board comment on five principle aspects of the\ndesign guidelines as sent by staff:\n1.\nBulk and massing;\n2.\nArchitectural form and articulation;\n3.\nLighting;\n4.\nSignage; and\n5.\nMaterials and colors.\nThe design team believed that the massing should be oriented toward Oak and Center. They believed\nthat both facades were equally important in terms of design significance. While the ground level\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 7, "text": "retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater\nshould be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to\nread as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street.\nThe design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and\nArticulation:\n1.\nThe second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to\nbring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street.\n2.\nThe strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in\nthe new design;\n3.\nThe design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter\nthe pedestrians in the street;\n4.\nThe frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should\nbe left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street;\n5.\nAll mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and\n6.\nThe individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the\nproperty line to improve the general massing of the theater.\nThe lighting recommendations were:\n1.\nThe overall lighting should be subdued and indirect;\n2.\nThe canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the\npublic sidewalk;\n3.\nConcealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section;\n4.\nExterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and\n5.\nLighting will be available in a vacant retail space.\nThe signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent\nwith the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels,\nglass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be\navailable to the developers.\nMr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at\nthe next meeting. He noted that gates should not be necessary; there will be six levels, with the\ngreatest massing in the middle of the block.\nPresident Cunningham advised that seven speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 8, "text": "Page 8\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 9, "text": "speak.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main\nauditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to\naccommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be\nevoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for\nthe renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for\nconstruction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of\nacquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had\nintegrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable\noriginal fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on\nthe exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of\nthe big box and emphasizing the vertical elements.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards\nthe library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become\navailable to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby\nwith a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage\nexits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls.\nRegarding public art, Ms. Little noted that the historic theater itself would be an art piece; she\ndescribed the \"phantom gallery\" program, in which community artists rotate displays of their artwork\nin a single venue. Vice President Cook believed the north side of the building would be a good\nlocation for a mural or similar art piece. Ms. Little noted that staff was concerned about a mural\nbecause the project may be expanded and the mural would be blocked.\nPresident Cunningham believed the blank wall should have some modulation.\nVice President Cook did not object to the horizontal nature of the new theater; she liked the idea of\nthe interior public space along Central Avenue being part of the street scene; she did not like the\nlarge square edifice on the corner. Mr. Stanton suggested that the Board direct the developer's team\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 10, "text": "to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft\nprotection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers\nChurch, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden\nopportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the\nexisting community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.\nMr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot\nfunction without the historic theater.\nVice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she\nsuggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it \"shall project two feet over the sidewalk\"; Mr.\nStanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that\nthe false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice\nPresident Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of\nthe exterior materials.\nPresident Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions\nas they pertain to the project.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware\nof the signage requirements in Alameda.\nMr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used\nmore often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket\nqueuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.\nMr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return\nfor another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;\nNo action was taken.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nBoard members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 11, "text": "8-B.\nTheater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt\nan ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the\nTheater Overlay District designation.\nMr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff\nreport. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the\nzoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft\nResolution.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet.\nMs. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nFebruary 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 12, "text": "8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank\nMulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement\naction on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling\nunit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances\nto legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include:\na. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is\nrequired for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story.\nb. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty\nfeet is required.\nc.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between\nthe main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required.\nd. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot\nlandscaped separation is required.\ne.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is\napproximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum\nof ten feet.\nf. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped\nseparation is required.\ng. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where\na minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units.\nMr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major\nDesign Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code\nEnforcement.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was\nsurprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was\nnever a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage\nwas intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been\nthere. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial.\nMr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his\nneighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a\nworkshop.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a\ngarage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 13, "text": "President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they\nconform to the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMs. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr.\nPiziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized\nthat the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required\nfindings.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and\nMajor Design Review.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 14, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the\nworkshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly\nencouraged.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nPresentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop.\nMr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of\nthe issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop\nto be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised\nthat the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated\nhaving a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by\nsummer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial\nfeasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end\nof March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the\nEstuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's\nGeneral Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run.\nMr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints,\nchallenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues to be covered during the March 3\nworkshop, including the Officer's Club, Big Whites, BOQ, historic preservation, transportation\nconstraints.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 15, "text": "M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use\ndiscussion.\nMr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note:\nMayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02\np.m. to travel on City business. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-072) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to\ndesignate the City of Alameda as an official \"Coast Guard City. \"\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef\nand Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy\nLeague. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast\nGuard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral\nBreckenridge.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with\na correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n( *05-073) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 1, 2005. Approved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular\nmeeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead\nof p.m.\n( *05-074) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 2, "text": "(*05-075) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.\n( *05-076) Resolution No. 13815, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. \"\nAdopted.\n(*05-077) Resolution No. 13816, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) .\nAdopted.\n(*05-078) Resolution No. 13817, \"Amending the International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control\nClerk. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-079) Resolution No. 13818, \"Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a\nMember of the Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nHanna with a Certificate of Appointment.\n(05 -080 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five\nto Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created;\nComposition), 2-9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2-9.3\n(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced.\nMayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase\nbecause there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course,\nincluding the new clubhouse; having two more members would help\nwith the workload; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large\noperation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major\nchanges at the golf course that require financial overview in the\nnext few years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was\nlowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park\nCommission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 3, "text": "Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are\nestablished by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make\nchanges boards established by Charter would be difficult to\nchange.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides\nflexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard.\nMayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-081) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for\nPark Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P. W.\n10-02-13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the\nMerged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the new\nstreetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but\nare state-of-the-art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete\nAlameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the\nContract.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster\nStreet Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any\ncomplaints.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire\nsidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made\nregarding Park Street.\nThe Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park\nStreet is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending\ninto the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street\nsidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which\nwould be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 4, "text": "money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin\nearning interest to mitigate the reduction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired\nhow the liability would be covered.\nThe Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 5, "text": "the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover\nany State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state\nthe bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the\nState.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no\nimpact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to\ndeal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year.\nMayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was\nvery interesting and a good strategy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue\nand appropriations.\nThe Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget\nadjustments.\nMayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the\nAlameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing\nemergency medical coordination.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance\noverview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS,\nwhich is the medical authority responsible for administering\nlicenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and\nquality assurance.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS\nbudget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives\na copy of the budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which\nthe Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to\nwhich the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCounty reviews compliance with protocols and licensing.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to\ndetermine why it is so expensive to be part of the system.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with\nmore detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in\nmutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual\naid assistance from outside agencies.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to\nenter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response\n(AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and\nAlameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided\nand received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in\nOakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often\ntimes it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR\ntakes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the\nAdvanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money\nback from the County contract.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for\nambulance service is set by the County contract the City should\ncharge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher\nthan the cap set by the County the City should review the rates\ncharged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to\ncharge more to recover service costs from users.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum\ncharge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to\ncharge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not\npay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not\ncharged more and only charges a prevailing rate.\nThe Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased\npermit fee could be charged for providing premium service since\nthere is such a high demand, the Interim City Manager stated there\nis an expedited permit fee and some developers have paid for an\noutside contract service that the City administers.\nThe Interim City Manager continued his review.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 7, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors\nwould remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total\nreduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions\nin non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the\nbudget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on\nthe General Fund reserves for the fiscal year.\nMayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December;\ninquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million.\nThe Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had\nexpenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased\nanother $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes\n(PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council,\nresulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate\nfunds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager,\nChinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately\n$256,000 impact.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional\nFirefighters would have an impact on overtime.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would\nstart the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in\nsalaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not\nbe a net benefit for the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in\nfuture years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was\nrequired to be set aside.\nThe Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside\nfor accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the\ntotal accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10\nmillion.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5\nmillion required in set aside and removing loans to other funds,\nthe amount remaining is $8.9 million; if action is not taken, the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 8, "text": "reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State\ngovernments have deficits other cities are making staff\nreductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per\nmonth; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is\ndue to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in\nthe PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments\nhave not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be\nraised significantly.\nKevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being\nmade without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has\nbeen a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be\nbrought in line with economic realities; the City might face\nequally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City\nneeds to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will\nbe integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow\nthe City to postpone dealing with the situation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to\nimplement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next\nfour or five years; the City needs to be prepared.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were\nneeded; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent\novertime and short staffing issues.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two\npositions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but\nhe is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is\nabsolutely required.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in\npolice and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the\nstreets.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced\nin a department without recognizing that there will be an impact;\nboth the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort\nto have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay\nin processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill\nfollowing officer promotions, there will be an impact.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the\nimpacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters\nwould be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies\nare projected in the Fire Department.\nThe Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 9, "text": "9\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City\nhas to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service\nlevels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed,\ninformation should be brought to Council before the situation is an\nemergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its\nservices; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft\npriorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library\nservices are intangibles that prevent the need for additional\npolice officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to\nensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole.\nActing Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity\nof the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of\nthe issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the\nbest decision given the resources available; the City needs to\ncontinue to get out the word because sooner or later the average\ncitizen will be impacted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider\ndirection to review terminating the police boat water services;\nstated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay\nproperty taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as\nwell; that he would like to have options to help find an\nalternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or\nsome other service levy that can be presented to the public; the\nmatter should be brought back to the Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million\nbudget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time\nexpenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole\nin the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA\nbudget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is\nreviewing alternatives.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the\nARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development\nServices Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA\nbudget as much as possible, as soon as possible; the current ARRA\nbudget cannot be sustained; one or two months into the next fiscal\nyear, keeping the operation going will be problematic.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated problems in the ARRA budget could seep\ninto to General Fund budget.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a review of\nthe ARRA budget shortly, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 11, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-084) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop\nwould be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held\nFebruary 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around\nthe West End.\n(05-085) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged\nresidents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda stated sales\ntax revenues need to increase.\n(05-086) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone\nto attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event\nFebruary 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-087) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area\nGovernments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos\non the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend\nthe meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen\nto the discussion.\n(05-088 ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to\nthe League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been\ninvolved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he\nwould be willing to be the City's representative.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a\nfuture agenda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M.\nActing Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at\n6:20 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmember/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor/Chair\nGilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(05-070CC/05-007CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation Name of cases Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,\nAlameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.\nAlameda Belt Line.\nPrior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore\nadjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-071) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators:\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations:\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association, International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non-\nSworn.\nPrior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced\nthat the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to\nLabor Negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nmeeting at 7:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF MEETING\nWednesday, February 16, 2005\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Sandr\u00e9 Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room\n#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandr\u00e9 Swanson,\nVice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner\nAnthony Corica and Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: None. Also\npresent were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional\nMatt Plumlee.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 19, 2005\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe Commission approved the agenda unanimously.\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nApproval of Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program\n(Action Item).\nThe item was tabled until the next regular meeting.\n3-B\nUpdate on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP).\nThe General Manager reported that he has met with Interim City Manager, Bill\nNorton, to discuss the project. Back in November 2004 the approval of the\ncontract for design services for the project with the Dahlin Group was pulled off\nthe City Council Agenda. The possibility of purchasing the plans from the City of\nSan Mateo's Poplar Creek clubhouse have been discussed as a cost saving effort.\nThe building is smaller than originally desired for the Chuck Corica Golf\nComplex, although it is very functional and aesthetically pleasing. It would still\nbe advisable to have the Dahlin Group oversee the Master Plan for the project.\nThe General Manager has contacted the City of San Mateo and they are willing to\ndiscuss the purchase of the plans although no price has been determined and", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 2, "text": "Dahlin Group who actually designed the clubhouse at Poplar Creek is still\ninterested in doing the Master Plan. Definite savings would be seen by\npurchasing the plans although other factors exist. The sites are different and that\nneeds to be taken into consideration. Minor changes would be made to the plans\nto give it originality and personalize it to the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, but to\nchange the plans too much would not take full advantage of purchasing the plans.\nThe purchase of the plans would also help with community support due to the fact\nthat the building is constructed and functioning removing the concern over how it\nwould look and function. The feasibility of the underground cart storage has been\nremoved from the plans due to the instability of the soil and the cost involved.\nThe General Manager has also been in contact with Bob Haun of the City of\nAlameda's Development Services Department. Mr. Haun is currently overseeing\nthe new library project and the General Manager is hopeful that he could be\nbrought on to help with the clubhouse project. The General Manager at Poplar\nCreek, Tim Heck has mentioned he is more than willing to meet with the Golf\nCommissioners and answer any construction questions they may have.\n3-C\nDiscussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range.\nThe General Manager reported that over the past month the Golf Commissioners\nhave gone out to the Driving Range and the Mif Albright Course to visualize the\npotential plans for a new practice area. Commissioner Wood drew up a design\nand gave it to the Golf Commission. He explained the plan is to use the first and\nninth holes on the Mif Albright Course and redesign that course. A new tee\nwould be placed east of the current 1st green and trees along the slough would be\nremoved to open up the area and the 2nd green would become the 1st green.\nA\nnew tee would be placed on #5 and that hole would be cut in half, the hole is\ncurrently 191 yards and represents the greatest hazard on the course. A new green\nwould be placed on #9 also and that hole would be shortened. The area would be\nlit up at night by redirecting lights at the Driving Range and a synthetic putting\ngreen placed in the area. The area would be able to be open at night, which is a\nfeature the competitors (Metropolitan and Monarch Bay) do not offer. Another\narea being researched is to place heaters above at least ten (10) of the covered\nstalls at the Driving Range. The General Manager has been in contact with a\nvendor that is responsible for setting up radiant heating elements at Driving\nRanges throughout the Pacific Northwest. The cost of the project is\napproximately $5,000. The concern was voiced that electric power was much\nmore expensive than natural gas and that should be considered. The desire is to\ncapture a nighttime clientele at the Driving Range and Practice Area. Another\nidea being considered was possibly building a family fun center on the par 3\ncourse, including a miniature golf course and batting cages. The City of Alameda\nhas no facility fulfilling these needs currently. Although through discussion, the\nGolf Commissioners voiced opposition to the idea. The revenue from these\nservices could pay the debt service on the new clubhouse project. The current\ntrend with stand-alone driving ranges across the nation is to incorporate these\nfeatures into their facilities to increase revenues. The suggestion was made to\nplace trees behind the covered hitting stalls to block the wind. The General", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 3, "text": "All of the tee areas have been aerated and top seeded and should be in good shape\nfor the spring. The tee renovations will be done in house by the Maintenance\nDepartment.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional\nMatt Plumlee.\nThe Head Golf Professional reported that the Pro Shop has been\nredesigned to make it more inviting for the customers and it flows better.\nThe large double doors behind the counter will now be open for customers", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 4, "text": "and there will be three ways to enter.\n4-B\nGeneral Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and\noperational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.\nThe General Manager reported that the Golf Complex is working to\nimprove customer service in all areas. The reorganization of the Pro Shop\nand staff are being done to provide a friendlier atmosphere. Also reported\nwas that the Mayor has proposed an ordinance to increase the Golf\nCommission from five (5) members to seven (7) members. The ordinance\nwas approved by the City Council at their meeting last night. The\napproval still needs to go through another approval and then a 30-day\nwaiting period prior to the appointment of the new Golf Commissioners.\nThe meetings will need to be held in a larger area, possibly the City\nCouncil Chambers. The Senior Golf Club has about 120 members and\nheld a General Meeting this month, which was well attended. The Golf\nComplex is looking into additional advertising and is considering an ad in\nthe Japanese Yellow Pages and Golf Today magazine. Another\nadvertising avenue being sought is at SBC Park in San Francisco. The\nadvertising will be in a partnership with Poplar Creek Golf Course and\nwill be seen by 7 million people over the spring and summer. The cost for\nthe advertising is approximately $8,000 for the year.\n4-D\nBeautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nMrs. Arnerich reported that three groups are waiting to schedule tree\nplantings. Also reported was that the local television station that televises\nthe City Council meetings has the Golf Commission meeting listed at 7:30\npm not 7:00 pm. The General Manager will see that it is corrected.\n5.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n5-A\nLong-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.\nChair Swanson stated that in reference to some of the long range plans\ndiscussed that the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is an institution and we\nneed to maintain the character of it. Customers may need to pay a bit\nmore to secure that experience. Chair Swanson also reported that he has\nmet with the Mayor and Interim City Manager and discussed having\nregular joint meetings between the City Council and Golf Commission to\ndiscuss issues and exchange ideas and information.\n5-B\nBuildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary\nGammell.\nCommissioner Gammell reported that there was an incident on Sunday,\nFebruary 13, 2005. Between the hours of 5:30 am and 6:30 am an", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 5, "text": "individual entered the maintenance yard on a bicycle and stole a pickup\ntruck and some tools. One of the maintenance works had left the keys in\nthe truck and since it was the weekend and a limited crew was working, no\none was in the yard. The vehicle stolen was a 1993 Ford pickup and a\npolice report was filed. The vehicle has not yet been found.\n5-C\nMaintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice\nChair Santare.\nSecretary Santare stated that he is please with the schedule of work to be\ndone on the tees.\n5-D\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica.\nCommissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3)\ncourses was down 31% for the month of January 2005 as compared to\nJanuary 2004, with play also down by 31%. The large decrease in play is\nin part due to the increase and severity of the rain days (14) during the\nmonth. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is down 12% and revenue from\ngolf is down 3%, as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. Most Bay Area\ncourses have experienced similar or larger declines in play. All ancillary\nservices were slightly below from last January with the exception of the\nsale of monthly and annual tickets. The Golf Complex showed a loss for\nthe month of $117,318 for the month and a net profit of $94,255 for the\nfirst seven months of fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $195,000 from\nthe last fiscal year. The City of Alameda has included a charge for Return\non Investment (ROI), which goes into the General Fund.\n5-E\nNew Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction\nIssues, Commissioner Wood.\nCommissioner Wood stated that the financial state of the Golf Complex\ncould very well delay the approval of the Clubhouse Project. The General\nManager stated that the Mayor, City Council and citizens really want to\nsee the project proceed. The project needs to be scaled down to fit into the\nbudget of the Golf Complex for the project to succeed. The additional\nimprovements bundled into the CIP could be done over time and not all at\nonce. The positive aspect is that the Golf Complex has been self sufficient\nfor many years and has a proven record of making money and paying its\nown way.\n5-F\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.\nNone to report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-02-16", "page": 6, "text": "None to report.\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone to report.\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for January 2005 of $7,483.\nThe year-to-date total is $99,494 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the\nGeneral Fund.\n9.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the\nBrown Act.", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nFebruary 23, 2005\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJeff Knoth\nPatianne Parker\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nEric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50)\nStaff Present:\nBarbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works\nBarry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works\nCarol Beaver - Division Manager, Development Services\nAndrew Thomas - Supervising Planner, Planning and Building\n2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Parker moved approval of the December minutes, which was seconded by\nCommissioner Knoth. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n3.AGENDA CHANGES\n4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n4A.\nTMP Subcommittee Appointment: Grid System and Strategies for Implementation\nChair Knox White proposed that the existing subcommittee that developed the draft TMP\npolicies remain in place for the implementation portion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The\nCommissioners supported this recommendation.\n5.ORALCOMMUNICATIONS-NON-AGENDIZEDI - ITEMS\nNone.\n6.OLD BUSINESS\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 2, "text": "6A. Updated TMP Schedule\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report and described staff's recommended revisions to the\npreviously approved TMP schedule. He noted that the bicycle plan update would be the first of\nthe modal plans to be undertaken, and suggested that the effort be coordinated with the Alameda\nCounty Congestion Management Agency (CMA) effort to update the countywide bicycle plan.\nHe stated that CMA staff have indicated that the City's project recommendations for the\ncountywide plan would have to be submitted by the summer, so it would not be possible to\ncomplete the City's plan update in time. Therefore, staff recommended that the bicycle plan\nupdate proceed on two tracks: 1) identify projects to be recommended for inclusion in the\ncountywide plan, and 2) undertake the complete update of the plan. This would enable the\ntimely submittal of the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan, which would\nhelp enhance Alameda's efforts to compete for grant funds.\nChair Knox White indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee of two commissioners to\noversee the development of the bicycle plan update. He also requested that staff prepare the new\nTMP schedule in a revised format, so that all tasks would be in chronological order. Staff\nBergman responded that this would be done.\nCommissioner Parker moved approval of the staff recommendation to revise the TMP\nschedule, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by a unanimous voice\nvote - 4.\n6B. Task Force Recommended Draft TMP Policies\nStaff Bergman stated that the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies had been prepared\nby the TC subcommittee - consisting of Chair Knox White, Commissioner Schatmeier, and\nCommissioner McFarland. The subcommittee received input from the TMP Task Force and City\nstaff. Staff comments were listed in the draft document, below the subcommittee's\nrecommended policies. Staff Bergman stated that the draft document is now being brought to the\nfull TC for additional input and approval of a final set of policies.\nCommissioner Schatmeier arrived.\nChair Knox White asked that the final version of the draft policies be brought back to the\nTransportation Commission after other boards and commissions have had a chance to comment,\nprior to being forwarded to the Planning Board and the City Council.\nThe Commission reviewed the policies and staff comments. Staff was directed to make the\nchanges to the draft document as recommended by the Commission.\nChair Knox White Opened Public Comment\nJon Spangler recommended a modification to Policy C-3.2. Rather than making improvements\nonly to routes identified in the bicycle plan, the City should look to promote equitable access for\nbicyclists on every street in Alameda. Mr. Spangler also recommended that the TMP process be\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 3, "text": "enhanced by providing more opportunities for the public to voice its comments, rather than have\nit be an agenda item at a single Transportation Commission meeting.\nChair Knox White stated that this issue would be addressed as part of the bicycle master plan.\nPublic Comment Closed\nCommissioner Parker moved acceptance of the TMP policies as modified by the Commission.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n7.NEW BUSINESS\n7A. Alameda Point Land Use Impacts on Transportation\nStaff Thomas gave a presentation on the anticipated transportation system impacts of the\nproposed land uses at Alameda Point. He noted that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee\nwould be hosting two upcoming meetings: 1) on March 3, which would focus on land use issues,\nand 2) March 23, which would be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and would focus\non transportation issues. Both meetings will be televised. Two additional workshops will be\nscheduled before June.\nStaff Thomas noted that if the conveyance process with Navy goes smoothly, that starting in the\nsummer of 2005, the City will enter an 18-month entitlement and environmental review process\nfor Phase lof the project.\nStaff Thomas noted that the policies for Alameda Point were established in the mid-1990s in the\ncommunity reuse plan. The policies were incorporated into the General Plan in 2003, but in\naccordance with the housing element and concerns about transportation through the tubes, a\ngreater proportion of the project now consists of housing. The revised development concept also\nreflects the improvement in the residential housing market.\nStaff Thomas cited two major policies driving the Alameda Point project: 1) reintegrating\nAlameda Point into City; 2) the project would not rely on General Fund, so the development\nneeds to pay for itself. He noted that the costs of the development would be considerable, for\nexample, there is an estimated $300-350 million to upgrade or replace infrastructure. There will\nalso be significant environmental remediation required, due to soil and groundwater\ncontamination.\nStaff Thomas summarized the preliminary development concept. Some of the major features of\nthe project are:\n1.2 million square feet of adaptive reuse, not including civic buildings\n662,000 square feet of new non-residential development\n615 affordable housing units (out of a total of approximately 1900 total units\n159 acres of open space\nstreets would be laid out as a grid system\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 4, "text": "the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined\nThe transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of\nthe project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered:\nshuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute\nheadways during peak hours\n\"eco-pass\": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be\nable to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge\nwater taxi service to Oakland\nqueue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes\ntransit barge\nCommissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit\nnetwork, rather than being stand-alone services.\nStaff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of\nOakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include:\nBART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda\nLight rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly\navailable, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not\nserve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco.\nAerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San\nFrancisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram\nconnects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be\ndifficult getting this option approved.\nStaff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and\nalignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best\ncandidates by June and study the feasibility of those options.\n7B. Work/Live Regulations\nCommissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation\nfor work/live development as opposed to purely residential\nStaff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data.\nCommissioner Parker stated that the work/live regulations have been in place for several years,\nbut no such projects have actually been implemented. She indicated her support for keeping the\nregulations in place to enable the City to see the impacts of project implementation.\nChair Knox White stated that the regulations seem to support the City's transportation goals.\nChair Knox White Opened Public Comment\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 5, "text": "Jon Spangler expressed his support for the work/live regulations, and urged the TC to support\nmaintaining the current policy.\nPublic Comment Closed\n7C. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study\nStaff Bergman provided an overview of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, which was\nfunded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Rails-to-Trails\nConservancy received separate funding for work on this project, and has been taking the lead on\nthe public outreach component. Staff Bergman noted that the Trail would consist almost entirely\nof facilities identified in the General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed Trail\nwould be largely located within the corridor formerly served by the Alameda Belt Line railroad,\nextending from Main Street to Tilden Way, and include the following features:\nserve a variety of users by utilizing both on-road and off-road facilities\nenhance access to key destinations, including planned development at Alameda Point,\nformer FISC (Fleet Industrial Supply Center) site, proposed development in the Northern\nWaterfront area, and the renovated Bridgeside Center\ndesign would permit the potential development of a rail corridor\nland acquired and bike lanes constructed in conjunction with extension of Clement Avenue,\nwhich the City hopes to develop as a continuous route from Tilden Way to Atlantic Avenue\nCommissioner Parker asked if the proposed routes would undermine the ultimate goal of\nshoreline route. Staff Bergman responded that the\nStaff Bergman noted that the City has applied for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation\nCommission for funding for the first phase of the Trail, from Main Street to Webster Street.\nStaff Bergman stated that Lucy Gigli of BikeAlameda had expressed concerns regarding the\nproposed striping and lane widths on Clement Avenue. He distributed the letter from Ms. Gigli\nto the Commissioners.\nMr. Spangler noted that there is an additional former railroad right-of-way east of Constitution\nWay that connects to the former FISC site, which could potentially connect to the Cross Alameda\nTrail.\nChair Knox White suggested that the Commissioners e-mail comments to staff prior to the April\nmeeting, and the comments would be brought to the Commission at that time for approval.\n7D. West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan\nCarol Beaver of the City's Development Services Department introduced the West Alameda\nNeighborhood Development Plan, which addresses the area bounded by Appezzato Memorial\nParkway, Main Street, Pacific/Marshall/Lincoln, and Webster Street. She noted that in February\n2004, the City began discussions with neighborhood stakeholders regarding the types of\nimprovements they would like to see. The resulting concept plan addresses safety\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 6, "text": "result, numerous recommendations of the Plan focused on establishing pedestrian connections\nthrough the school property and the adjoining park. The completion of these improvements\nwould require coordination and the potential exchange of property between the City and the\nschool district. Other improvements recommended for the area near Chipman Middle School\ninclude the realignment of the Pacific/Marshall intersection, and the re-design of the school's\ndrop-off area and parking lot.\nMr. Smiley noted that the feasibility of implementing a raised crosswalk across Pacific Avenue in\nfront of Chipman Middle School would depend on the traffic volumes utilizing this corridor to\naccess the planned development Alameda Point.\nCommissioner Knoth noted that for pedestrians there are important connections between this\nneighborhood and the proposed school in Bayport and to Encinal High School. He asked about\nthe possibility of an elevated pedestrian crossing over Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Staff\nHawkins responded that people tend not to use such facilities if they create a less direct route for\ncrossing the street.\nMr. Smiley noted that the Plan called for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the\nnorthern boundary of the neighborhood (south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway) through\nthe establishment of a linear park. The City's Long-Range Transit Plan also identifies this route\nas a potential transit corridor.\nChair Knox White noted that the illustrations in the Plan include marked crosswalks at several\nlocations where crossings are currently prohibited. He recommended that the City attempt to\nmake intersections as pedestrian-friendly as possible and look for opportunities to permit legal\ncrossings. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and recommended installation of new crosswalks\nwhere possible.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment\nJon Spangler stated that staff had insisted that two travel lanes would be required in each\ndirection along Pacific Avenue/Marshall Way/Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, by adding a median,\nthe existing wide curb lane would be eliminated, making this route more difficult for bicyclists to\nuse. He noted that an earlier version of the proposed design called for three lanes - one through\nlane in each direction with a shared turn lane in the center - and bike lanes.\nPublic Comment Closed\nChair Knox White and Commissioner Knoth both indicated that they supported Mr. Spangler's\nrecommendation of one travel lane in each direction on Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific.\nCommissioner Parker said that the configuration recommended by staff, with four through lanes,\nis required to accommodate the anticipated traffic demand associated with the development at\nAlameda Point.\nChair Knox White suggested that the three-lane configuration with striped bike lanes be\nimplemented until the actual traffic demand warranted the additional travel lanes. Commissioner\nKrueger agreed, and stated that long-term needs should not limit near-term improvements. Staff\nHawkins stated that Public Works had determined that two travel lanes would be required in each\ndirection to accommodate the future traffic at Alameda Point, but that staff did not specifically\npreclude the installation of bike lanes.\nCommissioner Parker asked if the developer of the Harbor Island Apartments could be required\nto relocate the sidewalk so that it would no longer be behind the parking area.\nStaff Hawkins responded that the carports will be removed as part of the renovations. She noted\nthat since the existing buildings are only being modified, the City cannot compel the developer to\nmake such changes. She also noted that Poggi Street is privately owned, but there is a public\neasement for the sidewalks.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the bus routes depicted in the Plan need to be updated. Mr.\nSmiley agreed that any recent changes needed to be incorporated into the Plan, and stated that\ntransit improvements may also have to be modified if the locations of the major transit stops\nhave changed.\nCommissioner Parker moved to continue the meeting. The motion was seconded\nby\nCommissioner Schatmeier. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.\n8.STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMarch 23 Joint Meeting with APAC: Estuary Crossing Workshop, 6:30 Start Time\n9.ADJOURNMENT\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-02-23", "page": 8, "text": "The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2005\\0305\\022305minutesfinal.do\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf"}