pages
18,746 rows sorted by date
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
date (date) >30 ✖
- 2019-09-12 78
- 2021-07-06 51
- 2021-03-11 47
- 2019-12-18 45
- 2016-01-05 40
- 2017-07-18 40
- 2021-09-07 40
- 2010-06-15 39
- 2018-07-10 39
- 2010-07-27 38
- 2016-02-16 37
- 2017-07-05 37
- 2018-06-05 36
- 2005-05-17 35
- 2012-06-06 35
- 2018-05-09 35
- 2020-07-21 35
- 2021-03-16 35
- 2021-11-16 35
- 2006-12-05 34
- 2007-01-02 34
- 2017-11-07 34
- 2021-07-20 34
- 2005-07-19 33
- 2020-05-19 33
- 2007-12-04 32
- 2009-10-20 32
- 2010-04-20 32
- 2016-02-02 32
- 2016-03-01 32
- …
Link | body | date ▼ | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,1 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 1 | CITT OF MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 (Revised 2/7/06) DATE: Thursday, February 24, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. Roll Call: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Committee Members (CM) K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe (late) Absent: Committee Member (CM) Cecilia Cervantes Staff: Suzanne Ota, ARPD Director Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM) Pat Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Christina Bailey, Cultural Arts Specialist (CAS) 2. Approval of Minutes A. Minutes of Meeting on January 18, 2005 On page 3, paragraph 1, CM Rosenberg asked that the following be added to the last sentence, "for the purpose of assessing communications." VC Lee suggested a stylistic change for future minutes. She would like to see Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Member be abbreviated similar to that of staff members' titles. M/S/C Rosenberg/Wolfe (approved) "That Minutes of Public Art Advisory Committee Meeting on January 18, 2005 be approved." Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe Absent (1) - Cervantes 3. Oral Communications (Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. PAAC Meeting 1 Minutes February 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,2 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 2 | 4. Written Communications None. 5. Old Business A. Continued Discussion of Public Art Annual Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) Director Ota discussed that PAAC should prioritize issues that are most important in the Annual Plan. C Huston asked when the Plan should be presented to the City Council. Director Ota stated that it could be presented during July 2005 (new fiscal year). C Huston wanted to clarify that the Annual Plan being developed is for 2004-2005, six (6) months behind schedule. One issue that could be addressed would be to raise the 1% or $150,000 cap. CM Wolfe stated that the cap is unfair to smaller developers; since they pay one-percent and larger developers only pay $150,000. CM Rosenberg suggested that the Plan include short and long-term goals, including the PAAC's communication with non-profits. C Huston stated that she would like to move from draft-form of the Plan to a working document; this would include having agendas that reflect the Committee's top priorities. She went on to ask Staff to provide an easel and pad of large paper for PAAC to write down ideas; Staff stated that could be done. Director Ota explained that there is a discrepancy in the definition of the Public Art Allocation requirement for renovation projects. The building official is interpreting it technically and the two departments are not in agreement. RS Russi stated that the phrase in question is "50% of the replacement cost of the building" (30-65.3c). In doing research with the City Attorney's office and looking at other cities' ordinances, it appears that either an added definition or simpler, more direct language should be incorporated. Staff will come back to PAAC with samples once they are agreed upon by Building and Recreation Departments and the City Attorney's Office. - Mission Statement PAAC members discussed specific wording for Alameda Public Art Program's mission statement. VC Lee stated that the mission statement should include a short, punchy sentence with objectives. Staff will work to compile all suggesti… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,3 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 3 | subject to the Public Art Ordinance. Projects that are currently in process or will be soon include: Bay Ship & Yacht, Bridgeside Center, Harbor Island Complex, Park & Webster Streetscape Projects, Blanding Street Work/Live project, South Shore Center, and Washington Park Recreation Building. CM Rosenberg asked if Staff could provide a map of Alameda's existing and proposed public art projects. RSM Lillard stated that Staff would get a map. B. Continued Discussion of Public Art Donation Policy - (Discussion Item) In regards to the donation of items, RSM Lillard explained that there are common criteria for their acceptance between cities. Criteria include: - Outlines and responsibilities for installation and maintenance - Procedures for establishing the title and ownership - Provisions for dispensation for the work C. Consideration of Request to Fund Art Centers with the Public Art Allocation Funds - (Discussion/Action Item) Pat Colburn, from Alameda Art Center, and Lynn Faris, from Alameda Civic Light Opera, attended the meeting. Ms. Faris expressed her interest in learning how, or if, public art funds will be distributed to local non-profits. C Huston explained that developers would ultimately present plans to the City for the art they would like to place. PAAC will approve or decline the art based on the established guidelines of quality and accessibility. She went on to state that there is no direct link between arts organizations and the Public Art Fund. However, the developer may choose to use the allotted money to create performance or exhibition spaces. CM Rosenberg stated that the developer could choose to place the money in the in-lieu fund. If this is the case, PAAC could then create a competition for non-profits to compete for said funds. C Huston explained that RSM Lillard had previously stated the funds could not be used for on going operating costs. Director Ota explained that money collected through the Ordinance could be placed in one of two pots. First, developers can put their public art allocat… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,4 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 4 | should have a disclaimer that the ARPD and PAAC do not necessarily endorse any of the organizations. C Huston stated that the PAAC had previously asked that the Alameda Art Center create a "Wish List." This would include expenses that they want the in-lieu funds to cover. C Huston stated that the guidelines stress that the developer place public art that is exceptional in nature and not part of an existing structure. CM Wolfe added that it also needs to be accessible to the public. Director Ota stated that the requirements are in place to create public art opportunities. Ms. Colburn expressed her frustration and asked why the money needs to be spent on something new, and not on an existing organization. She stated that local non-profits are viable community assets and are struggling to make ends meet. She asked if there were any plans to rewrite the ordinance to benefit local non-profits. C Huston stated that PAAC would not be the ones to rewrite the Ordinance. CM Rosenberg stated that PAAC would be evaluating communication with non-profits in the future. C Huston stated that there would be a Call for Entries when in-lieu funds become available. Ms. Faris expressed her desire to compete for any funds that become available in the future. 6. New Business A. Discussion and Review of Public Art Documents and Forms - (Discussion Item) - RFP/RFQ RS Russi explained that he researched documents from different cities; some documents were very detailed and others were not. The sample documents included in the agenda packet are very generic, and can be modified for each unique project. CM Wolfe suggested that the RFP include wording from the Guidelines, as well as, a concept statement. CM Rosenberg stated that there should be a section for each of the three areas in the Ordinance: on site projects, on site cultural programs, and on site art spaces or cultural facilities. Director Ota stated that Alameda modeled its Ordinance after the cities of Pasadena and Long Beach. Staff should look at their wording for more examples. V… | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf,5 | PublicArtCommission | 2005-02-24 | 5 | B. Summer Activity Guide Articles by PAAC Members - (Discussion Item) RS Russi stated that the staff is in the process of compiling information for the Summer Activity Guide. The staff wants PAAC to submit a piece about their work by March 10th or earlier. Director Ota stated that the Cultural Arts section would have fewer pages in this edition. C Huston asked VC Lee to help her formulate the article. 7. Oral Communications, General C Huston stated that a list of future tasks and priorities should be developed. RS Russi stated that Staff would flesh out and reorganize the Annual Plan. Director Ota thanked PAAC and ARPD staff for their hard work and diligence over the past year. PAAC thanked Director Ota for her commitment to the Public Art Program. 8. Committee Reports - Webster & Park Streetscape Projects - CM Wolfe None. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PAAC Meeting 5 Minutes February 24, 2005 | PublicArtCommission/2005-02-24.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf,1 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-02-24 | 1 | Social Service Human Relations Board Minutes of the Regular Meeting Thursday, February 24th, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:43pm. Present were Vice-President Chen, Members Wasko, Bonta, and Hanna. Absent were Members Hollinger Jackson and Flores-Witte and staff were Beaver and Brown. New member Dennis Hanna gave a brief introduction and his background. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January 27, 2005 meeting minutes were approved. M/S Chen, Wasko and unanimous with Hanna abstaining being new. RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE ALAMEDA SERVICE COLLABORATIVE MEETING IN MARCH - President Franz reported that the ASC meeting would provide an opportunity to inform CBO's about the survey being developed by the Assessment and Awareness workgroup. A motion and second (Wasko/Bonta) to co-sponsor the Alameda Services Collaborative luncheon was approved 6/0. RECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE FESTIVAL OF FAMILIES IN MAY - Member Wasko reported that in the Childcare Workgroup previously sponsored a successful Child Care Fair and the Family Services Workgroup feels a larger venue is appropriate for the event this year. Southshore Center has agreed to host the event on Saturday, May 7th from 1:00pm - 4:00pm. Southshore Center sponsors the "Earning for Learnings" program to benefit Alameda schools. All purchases at Southshore can be credited to a local school, and the winning school will receive their check at the Festival of Families. There will be a big effort to get CBO's to this event. Southshore will be handling all of the marketing and staging for the performances. There will be a charge for organizations, agencies and non-profits for a table at the event, and they are asking for donations in the community. The needs assessment survey participants will possibly win prizes or gift certificates. Southshore will provide an empty storefront for surveys to be filled out with the help of volunteers. They already have commitments from Wilma Chan and Alice Lai-Bitker's offices. The Board's … | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf,2 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-02-24 | 2 | Minutes of the SSHRB, February 24, 2005 Page 2 Franz explained that the Workgroup priority is to rework the Needs Assessment and make it a living document. The Family Services Workgroup is participating and would like the survey to be available for the Festival of Families event in May. With approximately 30,000 households in Alameda the surveys could be a useful tool for identifying service issues. We could also find out what other CBO's do to gather information. The survey might be posted online so it could be tallied as you go, instead of having to re-enter the data. The Workgroup is exploring the use of focus groups to gather and distribute the information. Franz invited SSHRB members who haven't yet joined a Workgroup to participate in this process. Family Services Workgroup: Reported under Item 4. Sister City Workgroup: Vice-President Chen reported that the Workgroup is very busy. A delegation from the Hunan providence will be visiting Alameda on March 2nd. Council Member Matarrese and Mayor Johnson have agreed to be in attendance. The Workgroup is working to establish a "rapid response" process for welcome traveling delegations. Two groups from Wuxi are scheduled to arrive in the next couple months. President Franz motioned to re-open 3-C and asked the Board to reallocate another $300 ($500 total) to purchase items for visitors with funding coming from Workgroup fundraising activities. A motion allowing staff to identify and purchase small souvenir items up to $300 for visiting delegations (Bonta/Wasko) was approved 6/0. BOARD AND STAFF COMMUNICATION, NON-AGENDA Staff distributed an email invitation from the Alameda County Human Relations Commission to participate in a meeting regarding the formation of a Countywide anti-hate effort. Member Hanna agreed to go and report back at the March Board meeting. President Franz reported that five separate CBO's are working together for fund raising on the Mayor's Race this year, and asked that the Board consider honoring this collaboration as an example of diverse c… | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-02-24.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf,1 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2005-02-28 | 1 | COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF February 28, 2005 Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Gwynne, Longley-Cook, McGaughey, Absent/Excused: McCoy, Steffens Guests: Anne Steiner 1. MINUTES: The minutes of January 24, 2004 where approved with the following corrections: 1) Attendance - change Commissioner McCoy from present to absent, add Commissioner Steffens as present, and 2) Oral Communications, Item #1 - change "Commissioner Charles Bunker will inform the Commission on the status of the Disaster Plan" to " Disaster Registry." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Commissioner Toby Berger shared an article that appeared in the Oakland Tribune that Mark Breimhorst had been named the executive director of the World Institute on Disability (WID). WID is an Oakland based nonprofit research and public policy center promoting the civil rights and full societal inclusion of people with disabilities. She suggested the commission might want to have Mr. Breimhorst make a presentation. 2. Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission on the proposed school parcel tax per an article in the Alameda Journal. Currently there is a senior citizen exclusion on the existing parcel tax and would like that there be an exclusion for disabled persons. 3. Commissioner Jody Moore informed the commission that the month of February is Autism Awareness Month and that next year the commission or City could recognize this with some kind of activity. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that the commission promotes the month of October as Disability Awareness Month and that this year 's activities could include autism. 4. Commissioner Gina McGaughey will provide the commission with written copies of Disability Rights Advocates open door pamphlet. 5. Secretary received a note from Mayor Beverly Johnson requesting that a commissioner volunteer to serve on the Alameda County Commission on Aging. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook volunteered. 6. Secretary informed the commission that there will be a groundbreaking ceremony for the… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf,2 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2005-02-28 | 2 | Commission on Disability Issues February 28, 2005 Minutes Page 2 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Bus Shelter (Buena Vista Avenue fronting Marina Cove): Chair Ed Cooney and secretary Ed Sommerauer briefed the commission on the new bus shelter at Buena Vista Avenue in front of the Marina Cove development (between Paru Street and Ohlone Street). The location was acceptable. 2. Disaster Registry Program: Commissioner Charles Bunker briefed the new members about the disaster registry program. Currently there are 16 disabled citizens registered in the program. Additional participants will be sought through advertising (i.e. Meals on Wheels, AP&T Flash newsletter, etc.). 3. Webster Street Renaissance Construction Status: Commissioners Gina McGaughey and Charles Bunker briefed the commission on their meeting with the City construction inspector and contractor in maintaining sidewalk accessibility for the visually impaired and wheelchair/walker users along Webster Street and the side streets during construction of the Webster Street Renaissance project. Commissioner Alysa Chadow stated that a guide dog is trained to walk perpendicular across the street and that any sidewalk detouring which is parallel to and within the street pavement area creates confusion to the dog. Guest Anne Steiner informed the commission that the City of Berkeley has guidelines for pedestrian detouring. Secretary informed the commission that pedestrian accessibility is required at all times during construction and it is the contractors' responsibility to maintain access to the approval of the City. Secretary will contact Berkeley. 4. Solicitation Policy: In response to Commissioner Angela Steffens' question at the January meeting "Does the City have a solicitation policy on distribution of flyers within public sidewalk areas", the secretary informed the commission that City's Municipal Code Sections 6-2-2 and 6-2-3 prohibits distribution of handbills and advertising material unless the recipient is asked and willing to accept the handbill. OLD BUSINESS: 1. P… | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf |
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf,3 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2005-02-28 | 3 | Commission on Disability Issues February 28, 2005 Minutes Page 3 of 3 visually impaired and/or hearing impaired as to narrow and that the language should be broadened to cover all areas of disability. A motion carried to disband the sub-committee and create a new sub-committee consisting of commissioners Toby Berger, Adrienne Longley-Cook, Gina McGauhey and Alysa Chadow. Secretary asked the commissioners if they could assist in updating the City's contact resource list. Commissioner Gina McGauhey volunteered. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, March 28th in Room 391, City Hall. Sincerely, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Ed Sommerauer Associate Civil Engineer ES:lc G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0228min.doc | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:08 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. McNamara 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and McNamara. Board member Piziali was absent. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III Allen Tai, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 14, 2005, as presented. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-C. Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, stated that he was in favor of Item 7-C., and did not wish to speak. President Cunningham stated that because of the length of the agenda, and the fact that the March 14, 2005, agenda did not have any items, there was a general consensus to continue Item 8-D to the March 14, 2005, meeting. M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-06 to approve Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 3 | 7-B. Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-07 to approve a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 4 | 7-C. ZA05-0002, 842 Central Avenue, Central Cinema, Applicant: Mark Haskett (DV). The Applicant seeks approval to continue to operate a movie theater with up to 49 seats in the C- 1, Neighborhood Business District where a movie theater use is not currently allowed as a permitted use or as a use regulated by Use Permit. The Planning Board will review and take action on the following options associated with continued use of this movie theater: 1) Consideration of a Zoning Use Determination that a "Boutique Theater" defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater" is sufficiently similar to what is allowed pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code section 30-4.8(c)(7) which allows by Use Permit "Theaters with live performances that are in combination with other permitted uses." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" is consistent with what is allowed by A.M.C. section 30-4.8(c)(7), then the applicant will apply for a Use Permit at a future meeting; or 2) Consideration of an Amendment to Section 30-4.8 (c) to add "Boutique Theater" as a use regulated by Use Permit in the C-1 zoning district. "Boutique Theater would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." If the Planning Board determines that a "Boutique Theater" could be an appropriate use in the C-1 zoning district, the zoning amendment will be forwarded to Council for adoption and the applicant would need to return to the Planning Board for a Use Permit following adoption of the amendment by Council. {Staff requests a continuance to the meeting of April 11, 2005 pending an Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA)} M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of April 11, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Plannin… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 5 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this study session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton could not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer. President Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received. M/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, requested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He noted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding the interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he requested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect should be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines. Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that he was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording in the draft gu… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 6 | Ms. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, believed that the corner where the theater is located is a major feature of Alameda; she expressed concern about excessive massing and blank walls with respect to the theater. She suggested that the large blank wall adjacent to Long's be covered with a mural duplicating the view of what would be lost. She would like to see the round corner included in the structure. She did not believe that three-minute speaking time was sufficient for speakers with detailed presentations. Mr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, believed the massing model made the building look as if it were bursting at the seams, and that it pushed out in all directions. He believed that community opinion was overwhelmingly against the "big box" look. He supported some reference to the old building in the new design, and did not see that in this design. Ms. Annie Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this design, and did not believe it was beautiful enough for Alameda. She would prefer to see the design created by Timothy Flueger to be restored to its former glory. She believed the upstairs balcony should be restored, like the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland. She expressed concern about the amount of parking that would be needed, and did not believe the proposed parking garage would be sufficient. Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, AAPS, generally supported this item. She expressed concern about the two-foot and three-foot projections of the second floor, particularly the projection at the lobby which she believed would seriously detract from the rounded corner. She did not support the idea of notching the building back so that people in the lobby could see the round perforated decorative screen. She did not like the use of metal can letters in the signage; she suggested that neon signage would be in keeping with the Deco design of the original building. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, did not believe the design of the proposed theater was at all attractive, and believed that … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 7 | from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than contemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual balance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The three-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not believe the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should be a continuous façade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box signs or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to accommodate any large crowds. Mr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to better use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City. He believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an economically viable project. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building, not the historic building. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied that approximately 1,100 seats would be installed. Vice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development deal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building. Ms. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and added that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended to become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the process. Mr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the allocation of public dollars was within his purview as a B… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 8 | Mr. Lynch believed that it was very important to discuss this project at the front end. President Cunningham believed that a great deal of valuable comments had been made, and that would be sufficient to start crafting a more developed design. He expressed concern about the corner, as well as the seam between the new cinema and the old theater. Vice President Cook expressed concern that the new design would interfere with the rounded nature of the old architecture evident on existing theater. Ms. McNamara agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed strongly that Mr. Buckley's ideas should be seriously considered. She believed the new architecture should reflect the surrounding architecture that appears in the neighborhood. Referring to Mr. Buckley's photos, Mr. Lynch liked the manner in which the massing was broken up, particularly with the parking garage within the City of Walnut Creek. Ms. Mariani agreed with the other Board members' comments, and cautioned against the building becoming a large, protruding box on the corner. She requested redlined versions of future documents so revisions could be easily noted. President Cunningham summarized the comments by the Board and the public: 1. A large monolithic box on the corner are not acceptable, whether or not the two-foot projection was included; 2. The rosette on the front corners of the existing theater is a very important element of the existing architecture; 3. Internally illuminated box signage or individual can letters should be avoided; 4. The design guidelines don't give clear direction as to how the signage would relate in the retail area; 5. Some language should be added regarding the parking garage and the big wall, to ensure the designer and contractor are aware of the community's aversion to a large blank wall; and 6. Provisions for a mural or some articulation of this blank wall should be included, as suggested by Ms. McNally. President Cunningham noted that Mr. Buckley's comments were very valuable, particularly with respect to elimina… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 9 | M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Planning Board Minutes Page 9 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 10 | 8-B. R04-0002, UP04-0013, V04-0018, DR04-0101: 1410 Everett-Mary Applegate (DV). Public hearing to reconsider a Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. The project also requires the rezoning of an approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building. The lot would be rezoned from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. The lots at 2501 Central Avenue and 1410 Everett Street are zoned C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. Four separate actions are sought by the Planning Board: 1. A recommendation on a conformance rezoning; 2. A decision on a Use Permit; 3. A decision on a Variance for a second driveway; and 4. A decision on a Design Review for the new building being proposed. Ms. Altschuler advised that this item had been appealed to the City Council, who returned the case to the Planning Board for second review in response to expressed concerns related to the wording of the public notice. She advised that the original notice was listed as 1410 Everett, the address for the original clinic. However, the expansion would occur on a site that is addressed off of Central Avenue. City Council directed staff to bring this item back before the Board as a de novo hearing, and all four items will be heard as if they were new items. She reviewed the items for the Board, and emphasized that the rezoning was intended to conform to the intent of the General Plan for that site. The conformance rezoning was separate from any expansi… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 11 | Mr. Steve Busse, operations manager for Park Center Animal Hospital, noted that Dr. Applegate is his wife. He summarized the history of this application, and displayed a presentation of the design on the overhead screen. He noted that he spoke with Tom Matthews, who lives across the street from the property; as a result of the discussion, he presented City Council with a modified signage plan that featured a backlit sign and a change in the elevation on Central Avenue. He also attempted to contact the individuals who spoke at the Council meeting to get their feedback, clarify any misunderstandings, and better understand their concerns. He noted that only one person (Joe Meylor) agreed to meet with him; his primary concern was with the noticing, and he was also concerned about the building's design. He believed that the neighborhood alert that had been distributed to the neighbors was a major reason why no one wished to meet with him, and added that it was inflammatory and inaccurate. He stated that the allegations of criminal activity in the neighborhood was completely without foundation. The clinic was not open 24/7, and the staff report clearly stated the hours of operation. Mr. Busse noted that the square footage of the building requires 22 parking spaces, and 23 spaces have been included. A large curb cut would be removed, which would replace 2 to 3 on-street parking spaces. He noted that most of the animals they treated would be in the hospital for a few hours, and they did not operate a boarding facility; customers would be able to allow their pets to stay at the facility only if they were existing veterinary customers, and usually because they had medical concerns about their pet. They will continue to observe their written dog-walking policy, which includes maintain dogs on-leash, walking only on public sidewalks, and maintaining the dog on public property. They will pick up their droppings, as well as other droppings that they see while walking; he noted that their efforts resulted in fewer droppings, no… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 12 | Mr. Jim Miller, 2508 Crist Street, noted that he was originally opposed to this project; after hearing the applicants' response to the neighborhood concerns, he is now in support of this project and rescinded his stated opposition to the project. Mr. George Borikas, 1500 Gibbons Drive, noted that he owned the four-unit apartment building displayed by the applicant. He inquired what his rights as a landlord would be if a tenant sued him for failing to provide "quiet enjoyment" because of any excessive noise from the clinic; he inquired whether the City would pay for his defense should he have a problem with a tenant. Mr. Erin Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he was the author of the neighborhood alert. He emphasized that he was not trying to close the clinic down, and read his written statement into the record: "I'm here to ask you to deny the Use Permit for this project. You sent out approximately 175 notices to the people in the neighborhood. These notices were to inform people that there is going to be a decision made by the Planning Board that can negatively affect their way of life. In essence, you're asking these people how they feel about this project, and that their opinions would drive the decision of the Planning Board. In two short weeks, my neighbors and Iknocked on a few doors and explained to the residents what was being proposed on the corner of Central and Everett. In the short time, we gathered a list of signatures, almost 50 people that are within the notification boundary. The other 10 on this list are on the close outskirts of this boundary. If we had more time, this list would be a lot bigger. This is almost 25% of the notification list that have spoken out with some concern about this project. The concerns range from obviously my concerns of the dogs being exercised in the neighborhood, the scale and size of the actual building that close to the residential neighborhood. And although there are 23 parking spaces, it is going to have an impact on the… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 13 | When there are 50 neighbors against an applicant, I would hope that you would see the light and deny this Use Permit. Let's remember the intended use of this actual plot is not approved in its zone. That is why they need a Conditional Use Permit; that's why they're here for that permit. We are here to discuss whether that would be okay, and clearly, I think it is not. Furthermore, if you decide to give them this Use Permit, at the very least, there should be a condition written into it that says they must conduct all business, specifically the dog walking, in a commercial zone, not in the residential zone next door. So, if they're going to be doing business in a commercial zone, all of their business should take place there. This new facility, although they say it does not exercise dogs in the neighborhood, on the layout of the actual facility that was given to you before, there are 21 kennels in this facility for dogs. Out of 21 dogs at full capacity, I think quite a few of these dogs are going to be exercised every day. IfI had my dog there, Iwould hope that it got out at least once a day. Currently, I view this all day long out my front window. They walk the dogs, right in front of my house and down Regent. And whether they say they do or do not, they do. They pick up after the dogs, but you cannot extract urine from my lawn. It is detrimental and a healthy hazard." Ms. Heather Beales, 2452 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She was concerned that most of the supporters of this application did not live directly across the street from the site, as she did. She expressed concern that the activities and lighted sign of the hospital encroached on the quiet enjoyment of her home; she was also concerned about the potential noise of the exercise area, as well as the increased traffic on Central Avenue. She did not question the character of the applicants, but did not believe this was the appropriate location for this use. Mr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, 1522 Park Street, spoke in support of this applicat… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 14 | Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current renting space on that site. Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant. Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood, and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with. Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the neighborhood. Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private prope… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 15 | was important for the health care of the animals. He noted that the business was located in a commercial area with surrounding homes. Dr. Genevieve Manchester-Johnson, DVM, Associate Veterinarian, Park Center Animal Hospital, 16863 Los Banos Street, San Leandro, wished to respond to the residents who believed the applicants would act in an irresponsible manner. She read the oath taken by all veterinarians: "Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, Isolemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge. I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence." Dr. Manchester-Johnson stated that everyone at Park Center took their oath very seriously, and added that keeping the neighborhood clean was a very large part of that commitment. She stated they would never consider walking an animal that would pose a health risk to other animals or people; to suggest so would be utterly against their oath. Ms. Helen Mohr Thomas, 3011 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this project; she had taken her pets to the center for 10 years and received excellent care. She believed the business was an asset to Alameda. She believed the expansion would greatly improve the physical appearance at Everett and Central, especially the elimination of the long-abandoned minibank. She believed the expansion would also provide a valuable service to the community. Mr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this application, and was pleased that the project offered more parking than was required. He noted that the rezoning would bring the parcel into compliance with the General Plan, as well as its inte… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 16 | Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use. Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their business was not a kennel. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue. The property line is 4'2" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas. Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely due to their business model. Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal. Mr. … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 17 | M/S Cook/Lynch and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to rezone the approximately 7,800 square foot lot currently developed as a parking lot located between the bank building and the adjacent condominium building property from R-5, General Residential Zoning District, to C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District to establish consistency with the General Plan. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- 0 President Cunningham stated that he believed this was a very good project, and supported it wholly. He understood the neighbors' concerns, and suggested that conditions be crafted to help mitigate the issues of dog exercise and waste in the neighborhood. He did not believe the veterinary hospital should be held accountable for other dog owners' actions in the neighborhood. Ms. Altschuler advised that she had spoken with the business owners regarding that issue, and suggested that the Board discuss that point with the applicants. She suggested that a compromise be reached on whether the dogs may be walked only in the commercial areas. She noted that it would be difficult to distinguish between an employment of the hospital and another person walking a dog unless some identifying garb were to be worn. Mr. Lynch noted that he was a strong proponent of the revitalization of Park Street, and acknowledged that many people walked their dogs in that area. He would not support a restriction requiring the dogs be walked only in a commercial district because of the number of dogs in the area; it would be an unenforceable restriction. He suggested that the pets being cared for wore a band that would identify them as patients of the facility. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the other veterinary hospitals in Alameda were adjacent to residential uses, with the exception of the facility on Webster Street. She noted that this neighborhood must accommodate both residential and commercial uses, and that both uses need to co-exist; she did not believe the design should be a residential design. She would like respo… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 18 | a Variance to allow two driveways to provide ingress/egress to the proposed 23 space parking lot to serve the vet clinic use. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Dr. Applegate advised that they did not plan to have an internally illuminated sign, and added that it got dark before 5 p.m. in the winter. She would like to have a backlit sign on Everett Street so that the sign may be read, but that they did not want to have bright lights in the neighborhood. M/S Cook/Mariani to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to change Condition 10 to require that the sign along Central Avenue will not be illuminated; site illumination would be acceptable. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Lynch/Kohlstrand to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-08 to approve the Design Review (DR04-0101) for the construction of a new 5,300 sq. ft. veterinary clinic on a lot currently developed with a vacant bank building which would be demolished located at 2501 Central Avenue. The existing veterinary clinic located at 1410 Everett Street would be demolished and developed as a parking lot. The proposed 23 space parking lot can be accessed from either Central Avenue or Everett Street. AYES - 5 (Piziali absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 18 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 19 | 8-C. PD04-0004/DR04-0113, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Alameda Multifamily Ventures, LLC (AT). The applicant seeks Design Review and Planned Development approval for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16- car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue, within an R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development District. Mr. Tai summarized the staff report, and described the modifications to the design and elevations. Since the packet had been sent to the Planning Board, the applicants and staff met to revise some of the conditions related to the trash enclosures. He advised that on page 4, the first sentence of Condition 12 should be deleted and substituted with, "The applicants shall comply with AMC Subsection 20-2.1, which currently requires the owner or occupant of any premise is to subscribe and pay for all integrated waste collection.. Mr. Tai advised that Condition 13 was revised to state that "the applicants shall comply with Section 21-2.1, which currently requires that collection of solid waste from residential areas... " The public hearing was opened. Mr. Chris Auxier, applicant, stated that they would be available to respond to questions. Mr. Michael Yoshii, Pastor, Buena Vista United Methodist Church, and Renewed Hope Housing Advocates, noted that he attended the West End Community Improvement Project. He noted that the mass evictions highlighted the need to coordinate the social impact on the community, with respect to the intent to make physical improvements in the neighborhood. He noted that the impact on the schools was very important, particularly regarding the anticipation of new residents and new students. He believed the community needed to be mended following these difficulties. Ms. Lorraine Lilly wished to address the human factors following the actions of the 15 Group and the Harbor Island apartment complex, and stated tha… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 20 | Ms. Modessa Henderson, 465 Buena Vista #105, spoke in opposition to this item and noted that she had lived at the site for 30 years. She inquired what kind of tenants would live at the complex, and stated that it had been a family-oriented complex. She believed that there was a great need for activities for children, if families were to return to the complex. She would like some design accommodations for the disabled, such as first-floor apartments. Ms. C. Landry, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had lived in Harbor Island for a number of years, and was displaced following the evictions. She believed the improvements were superficial, and believed the plumbing system and sprinklers should be fixed. She noted that several units had not been repaired following fires. President Cunningham requested a motion to extend the meeting to a time certain. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani whether this item could be continued to the following Board meeting, Mr. Brandt replied that if continued, the project would be deemed approved if no action were taken under the time limits of State law. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to extend the meeting hours to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Reginald James, 1501 Grand Street #E, expressed concern about the physical conditions of the site, and did not believe the site was up to code. He noted that one woman had been boarded up in her apartment. He was pleased to see an alternative to the valet garbage plan, and suggested that a half-court basketball court be installed. He believed the parking should be addressed more thoroughly, and would like to see a rooftop terrace; he expressed concern about the state of the fire sprinklers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding how the ADA regulations related to this project, Mr. Shaun Alexander, project architect, replied that any existing project had issues to grapple with, and added that this project was exempt… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,21 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 21 | In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding recourse available to tenants if a property falls into disrepair (such as following a repair in an existing apartment), Mr. Brandt advised that would be a violation of the Housing Code. Mr. Alexander noted that many of the fires in recent history were the result of arson, not of electrical problems. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she had difficulty reconciling the complaints of the residents with the statements that the buildings were up to Code. Mr. Brandt advised that there were extensive site visits to the property in November 2004. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior of the building, Mr. Alexander noted that they were in for permit for interior improvements on the project and that they must conform to all Alameda and State codes. Mr. Lynch believed the City was missing a tremendous opportunity to benefit many families in Alameda, and did not believe this was a Measure A issue. He noted that the remodel did not speak to possible physical changes that could provide a more live able environment to families, which he believed was a gross oversight by the City. Vice President Cook appreciated some of the changes made to the design in response to the Board's comments. She expressed concern that the use of architectural elements were not fully utilized to create more individuality in the buildings; some of the structures still looked monolithic. She noted that the use of entry pylons still connoted the gated effect, which she had opposed in the earlier sessions. She was still uncomfortable with the design, and did not believe sufficient changes had been made since December 2004. Ms. McNamara believed some of the wording in the staff report could be improved, and noted that page 4, Items 6 and 7, stated that "The applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department as an effort to try and improve public safety in the facility." She did not believe that wording held the applicant accountable for not complying, and believed that stronge… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,22 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 22 | Ms. McNamara wanted to ensure that the relationship between the Police Department and the applicant did benefit the citizens of Alameda, and would rebuild the credibility for public safety in that area. Mr. Tai advised that that condition stated that it would be to the "satisfaction to the Chief of Police and the Planning and Building Director," and there would be sufficient flexibility to require compliance on these recommendations. Mr. Lynch believed that Ms. McNamara referred to the property management aspects of this project. Ms. McNamara believed that staff's condition of approval requiring a landscape and common area maintenance agreement between the property owners and the City to ensure diligent maintenance should be an ongoing effort. She believed the ongoing maintenance of the property was critical to the success of the project and the surrounding area. President Cunningham suggested the addition of a maintenance agreement for the swimming pool, and believed that was central to the development. Mr. Tai advised that page 5 contained a condition relating to the landscape and common area maintenance agreement, which is recorded with the property at the County Recorder's office. The applicants would be required to maintain the property; if that did not happen, the City would have the right to make the improvements at the applicants' cost. The common area included the swimming pool, the proposed tot lots and other play areas, and all the other open space. Ms. Mariani noted that she was not prepared to approve this project. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that changing the approach towards trash containment was generally a good change, but that it was unfortunate to see the huge trash container at the end of the walkway near Fifth Street. She would like to see that container relocated to a less visible area. She believes that the project sponsor had made some compromises, and added that there were still residents in the complex. She believed it was extremely important to ensure the buildings were not in disrepair. Mr… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,23 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 23 | new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center. He spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 ("hold harmless"), and understood that it meant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the approval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to any other issues not related to this approval. M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design Review and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. AYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 23 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,24 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 24 | 8-D. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement- in-kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 24 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,25 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 25 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department Planning Board Minutes Page 25 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf,26 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 26 | These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 26 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005- -7:30 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:08 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES (05-091) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096] would be addressed at a later date. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar, excluding the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096]. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *05-092) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005. Approved. ( *05-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,454.99. (*05-094) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the third calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted. ( *05-095) Recommendatior to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 1 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 2 | federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. Accepted. (05-096) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Not heard. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-097) - Resolution No. 13820, "Commending Recreation and Park Director Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda. Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson read the Resolution and presented it to Suzanne Ota; stated that Ms. Ota has done an outstanding job. The Interim City Manager presented Ms. Ota with flowers. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she started her service to the City working with the Recreation and Park Department she always appreciated Ms. Ota's enthusiasm, energy and "can do" spirit. Councilmember Daysog stated that Ms. Ota brings so much joy to so many parts of the community. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City would miss Ms. Ota; as a citizen as well as a Councilmember, he appreciates the great job that Ms. Ota has done. Councilmember deHaan stated that Ms. Ota should feel very comfortable in her accomplishments. (05-098) Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05-0001/R 05-0001 Zoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater Overlay Districti and (05-098A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T- Theater Combining District) ; and Repealing Subsection 30-6.23(2) (b) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. Continued to March 15, 2005. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 2 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 3 | (05-099) Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in the City of Alameda. The Interim City Manager outlined the suggested structure and mission of the Task Force; stated the Task Force would meet on a regular basis and report back to the Council within 90 days. Carol Martino, Alameda, stated that she would like to serve on the Task Force. Steven Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that the matter should not overly politicized to ensure progress is made and there is a balanced committee. Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association, volunteered to serve on the Task Force. Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenants Association, stated that new laws are necessary to protect tenants; suggested that the committee have two Harbor Island Tenant Association representatives and two ar-large tenants. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the nominations would be made. Mayor Johnson responded that she would like to receive input from Council; that Council should submit names for potential Task Force members. Councilmember Daysog stated there should be a specific period of time for application submittals. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Task Force would be an informal committee, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. (05-100) Ordinance NO. 2936, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership Appointment ; Removal) and 2-9.3 (Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission) Finally passed. Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 3 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 4 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-101) Martin White stated that the Development Services Department provided moderate income housing for the Bayport housing development at 110% of the median income but cut off at 80% of the median income; redevelopment law does not allow for cut offs; stated he met with the Director of Development Services about the matter. Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide Council with a report on the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that moderate income, by definition, is 80% to 110% of median. (05-102) - Hallemariam Alema, Alameda, stated that he won the lottery for moderate income housing in the Bayport housing development; he has an income of $64,000 and has been disqualified. Mr. Alema's wife stated that the Development Services Director is unable to provide reasons for the disqualification. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the couple won the lottery; the range for moderate income is 110%; $64,000 is below the range and is the reason for disqualification. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-103) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has volunteered to serve as the City's representative and Vice Mayor Gilmore has volunteered to serve as the alternate. louncilmember Matarrese moved that Councilmember Daysog serve as the City's S representative for the League of California Cities East Bay Division and that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the alternate. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog stated that the East Bay Division meeting he attended two weeks ago was very nice. (05-104) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looks forward to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 4 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 5 | providing Council with a report on the AC Transit Council Liaison Committee Meeting held last Thursday. (05-105) - Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan wanted the matter of increasing the number of members on the Recreation and Parks Commission brought back to Council. Councilmember deHaan responded that the Commission could address the matter. (05-106) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased that trash containers are being changed at bus stops and throughout the business districts; inquired what was the reason for the change and who provides the maintenance; that he is concerned that the surfaces could be graffitied. The Interim City Manager responded that City staff maintains the containers. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether maintenance is part of the garbage contract, to which the Interim City Manager responded the garbage contractor empties the containers. (05-107) Mayor Johnson requested that the theatre design guidelines and schedule update be brought back to Council at the next City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 5 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 6 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. (05 5-089 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1429 Oak Street; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and County of Alameda; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the Real Property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 7 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P. M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. (05-008) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1435 Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074-0427-005-01) ; Negotiating parties : John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community Improvement Commission Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to Real Property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 8 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: ( 05-090 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of cases : Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and 177448] Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission gave direction to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 9 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005--7:27P.M. Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (05-009) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of February 15, 2005. Approved. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Chair Johnson abstained from voting on the January 18 Minutes. ] AGENDA ITEM (05-010) Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive Director to execute a standard grant agreement. Chair Johnson stated that Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) requested that she convey that PSBA is in full support of the staff recommendation. Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , urged support of the staff recommendation; stated that additional areas would be cleaned; noted there will be a Farmer's Market every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. starting June 8, 2005. Chair Johnson congratulated WABA for the success of the streetscape project. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by Special Meeting Community Improvement commission March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 10 | unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMEN'T There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement commission March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,1 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 2, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 5-A 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005. 2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005. Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0. 3. PRESENTATION 3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable for transfer and phasing. Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is expected as was experienced in the pa… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 2 | stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than two much, too fast. Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number of different options. Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that kind of transportation solution. Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail. The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals. Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge. Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail. Chair Johnson mentioned that the Sa… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,3 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 3 | Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4-A. Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for Building 167. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice- president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at the last ARRA board meeting. Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point, with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent. When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent per square foot. Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based upon the 90% of fair market value … | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,4 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 4 | Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the $34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the shortfall about $36M. Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's ) argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable (triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value. He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with economic reality and fair market value. Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal was to establish the fair market value. Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter propos… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf,5 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-03-02 | 5 | 5. ORAL REPORTS 5-A. Oral report from APAC. Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting. 5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School - preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of these activities is something the public should be very interested in. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics. 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Frankel ARRA Secretary 5 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 1 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting Monday, March 3, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 6:30 p.m. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Beverly Johnson, President Andrew Cunningham and Chair Lee Perez welcomed everyone to the workshop. 3. ROLL CALL: Mayor Beverly Johnson, Andrew Cunningham, Anne Cook, Rebecca Kohlstrand, Lee Perez, Diane Lowenstein, Elizabeth Johnson. Also present were Andrew Thomas, Steven Proud, Project Manager, Jim Adams, ROMA Design Group, Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, Frederick Knapp, Page & Turnbull, Melissa Boudreau, Page & Turnbull (Project Manager), Jim Musbach, Economic Planning Systems, Andrew Barnes, Economic Real Estate Consultant, Matthew Ridgeway, Fehr & Peers, Seleta Reynolds, Fehr & Peers, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. 4. PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR ALAMEDA POINT Mr. Andrew Thomas noted that ROMA Design Group would make a presentation, and public comment would be taken after the presentation. He noted that the results of the community discussions held at the previous two workshops were available on the City website. He noted that a Preliminary Draft Development Concept would be developed soon, based on a financially feasible development concept for the Base. Development alternatives would also be explored. He described the future timeline of the development and environmental review process, and encouraged public feedback regarding the information on the website. He encouraged residents to take advantage of the Base tours provided by the City. Mr. Walter Rask, ROMA Design Group, presented a PowerPoint presentation. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION A community member noted that the O Club was a beautiful building that needed upgrading, and that it had historic value. He believed it was worth keeping, and believed the Big Whites were more trouble than they were worth. Mr. Thomas noted that the O Club served as a functioning social center in Alameda. A community member th… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was being presented. Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important part of the economic analysis. A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He inquired about the $22 million deficit. Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed. Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and explained the expenditures needed to service the project. A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non- Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods, establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning principles, and was disappointed in the design. A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs. Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of revenue to offset the costs. A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and property sales, and how the money was made up. Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible for putting in the backbone infrastruc… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired about the Phase I development, and the housing density in that phase. She inquired whether there would be any innovative or eco-friendly architecture. Mr. Walter Rask noted that the density would be approximately 12 units per acre, which was roughly comparable to Bayport. He noted that there would be no walls, and that the blocks would be exterior-oriented; there would be no gated portions of the neighborhood. The buildings would feel very public and friendly in nature. There was an overall goal of the project to achieve sustainability objectives; green building measures and recycling would be used. A community member supported retaining the Enlisted Men's Quarters, and believed that turning them into condos may bring more diverse populations into Alameda. She inquired about the contamination on sites for non-Measure A and commercial uses. Mr. Rask displayed the mixed use areas, and noted that conventional housing would not be possible in that area if there was groundwater contamination. A community member inquired about the groundwater and soil contamination, and suggested that those areas not be developed until the contamination was cleaned up. Mr. Russell noted that the contamination in the Phase I area was relatively minor, and described its nature in detail. A non-Measure A-compliant design would allow for podium parking on the ground, with the residences on top; the chemicals would never reach the residences. Among the chemicals were dry cleaning solvent, nail polish remover, gasoline. A community member inquired whether PAHs were in the ground water. Mr. Thomas replied that they were not water-soluble and were not a groundwater issue. A community member inquired about how malleable the wildlife refuse was to being moved. Mr. Proud noted that the issue of wildlife transfer is an issue of property transfer between agencies, to the Veterans Administration rather than Fish & Wildlife. A community member no… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 4 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired what kind of planning overview was used to create community activity hubs, and did not see those hubs in this plan. Mr. Adams described the 1400 housing units, and noted that a series of smaller retail center could not be supported. Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that there was an assumption that the grade must be raised due to the 100-year flood, and suggested the use of a levee. He inquired how 115,000 square feet of retail was derived, and how much of the anticipated retail demand from the residential uses would be absorbed by that retail. Mr. Thomas noted that the levee question was examined, and that they decided to raise the level instead, rather than create a seawall along the edge of the site. He noted that would create a visual barrier to the water. Mr. Proud noted that they had to compact the bay mud to accept more load. Mr. Rask noted that they did not wish to overbuild the retail spaces, nor did they wish to cannibalize other retail areas in Alameda. A community member noted that the new residents would also need libraries, schools and youth centers, and inquired where they were included in the plan. Mr. Thomas replied that community centers were programmed into the project, including the O Club and the original Navy Mess Hall. Police and fire services were included in the financial pro forma, as well as a small library. He noted that once the planning became more solidified, they would address the impact on the school district in more detail. A community member noted that the Big Whites would involve an expensive process, and inquired why they were included in the non-Measure A option if they would handicap the option. Mr. Rask noted that they had not reconciled all the elements of that plan yet, and they were working with the first version of the financial details. A community member noted that she was recently appointed to the HAB, and had taken the tour, which she believed was very illuminating… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 5 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Adams noted that several sites were identified for being suitable for churches, and pointed them out on the site plan. A community member thanked staff for exploring Measure A and mixed use possibilities. He expressed concern about the phrase "less clean housing," and took offense to the concept and the language. Mr. Proud reassured the audience that that wording was not intended to cause offense, and described the Restoration Advisory Board's role in site remediation. He added that they did not blindly follow the Navy's directives. He noted that part of the cleanup process may be privatized, and that unsuitable sites would not be used to residential reuse. Mr. Adams noted that lead paint had historically been used at Alameda Point, and that demolition of such buildings and remediation was very closely regulated. He noted that lead was not easily water-soluble, and that it could easily be scraped from the surface of the soil. A community member inquired how they determined the value from the sale of the land. Mr. Proud described how the residential land values were determined, and added that the master plan developer was instrumental in that determination. Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, inquired why the $54 million for the affordable housing component was a public cost, and believed that should be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Thomas noted that was a developer cost and part of the overall financing of the project. Mr. Rask noted that it was a project cost, not a public cost. A community member inquired about the different traffic scenarios and whether the cost of traffic was figured into the project costs; he inquired whether the low traffic scenario would lead to increased savings. He inquired whether any information was available on the price ranges for the market-rate units. Mr. Rask noted that the typical single- and multi-family house trip generation analysis was used. Mr. Bill Smith noted that he had information about a… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board required by law would be provided, or if more would be provided. She inquired about Mr. Adams' definition of "eco-friendly." She recalled Mr. Proud's comments about landfill on the flood plain, and whether that would be eco-friendly. Mr. Thomas noted that the actual affordable housing breakdown would be provided at the next workshop. Mr. Adams noted that much work must still be done in terms of defining the standards that will be put in place for green building and eco-friendly design. He noted that this piece of land was being recycled, and that they were exploring the idea of transit-oriented development. Their goal was to create a development that would depend on transportation means other than the automobile. He noted that the standards for building materials and energy use were still being developed. Ms. Eve Bach inquired whether there was an assumed reduced income expectation on the affordable housing, and whether that amount to a double accounting. Mr. Rask replied that it was shown as a cost because the revenues do not cover the cost of building the unit. He noted that they were being sold for less than what they cost. Ms. Bach inquired about the estimated acreage and cost of parking would be, and whether the supporting studies would be available online. Mr. Adams, ROMA, replied that there was a vast amount of information, and noted that requests for backup information could be made at his email address. He noted that the project required parking for the viability of each land use was used in the analysis. Each unit had its own parking, whether in garages or parking structures. A community member inquired whether institutional controls and land use restrictions would be attached to Phase I. He found it difficult to believe that the impact to the school district was not included. Mr. Peter Russell replied that Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance already applied to all of Alameda Point. There may be additional institutional controls i… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board A community member inquired whether there would be any further delay in the transfer of the Base, and noted that in 1997, the Big Whites were sold to them as a major part of the project. He believed the project was too packed together, and added that he had served on the Base during his military career. He was shocked at the state of several historic buildings that had been vandalized before the property was taken over. Mr. Proud noted that the delay in the conveyance would have a significant impact on project economics. They had worked very cooperatively with the Navy with respect to Alameda Point, and their open approach during negotiations would be beneficial to the conveyance transfer. A community member inquired whether the 1% for public art was included in the overall cost. Mr. Thomas indicated that it was. A community member expressed concern about the middle-income units, and noted that the Warmington Homes were no longer middle-income homes. Ms. Lucy Gigli inquired about the comparison of the value of the difference properties on the site. She expressed concern that the multifamily units were all bunched together, which increased the density of those blocks. She would like to see pockets of multifamily housing, as well as an evaluation of the mixing of the retail uses, and noted that Bayport and Coast Guard Island don't have any corner stores or cafes. Mr. Thomas noted that there were combination duplex/small retail possibilities. A community member inquired what an in-law unit was. Mr. Thomas replied that it was a small unit on the same lot, usually a loft or one-bedroom unit. She suggested that the name be changed because in-law unit implied a non-approved unit. Mr. Thomas noted that the in-law terminology would be changed to "secondary unit.' PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED. President Cunningham noted that it was important to clearly identify the goals of the land use, and that there were some misunderstandings about the use. He s… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Ms. Konrad expressed concern that the Community Reuse Plan and the General Plan both call for walkable neighborhoods on Alameda Point, and did not see that in this plan. She believed that neighborhood centers should be developed so residents could walk to them. She believed the open space should be usable. Mr. Lee Perez thanked the audience for their comments, and noted that the web page contained a great deal of information on the project. He encouraged the residents to remain proactive in communicating with staff and commissioners during this process. Mr. Thomas invited additional public comments to be addressed to the City by phone, mail or email. He noted that the entire presentation and maps would be posted on the website. He noted that the Navy always attended the RAB meetings. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the April 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 3_Spec.dod Planning Board Minutes Page 8 March 3, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |
LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf,1 | LibraryBoard | 2005-03-09 | 1 | Minutes of the ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD March 9, 2005 The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Leslie Krongold, President Ruth Belikove, Vice President Karen Butter, Board Member Mark Schoenrock, Board Member Absent: Alan Mitchell, Board Member Staff: Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Board member Butter MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member Schoenrock SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote. An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar. A. *Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the month of March 2005. Accepted. B. *Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of February 9, 2005. Approved. C. *Library Services Report for the month of January 2005. Accepted. D. Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures (by fund) through February 2005. Accepted. E. Bills for ratification. Approved. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Main Library Project Update Library Director Hardie stated that the contractor is ready to start construction of the new Main Library on March 15th Equipment and trailers are being moved onto the site starting tomorrow. Board member Belikove thanked the Library Director for all her hard work to get to this point. NEW BUSINESS A. Donor Recognition Board member Butter stated that the art sub-team met prior to the Library Board meeting. A draft policy on donor recognition is being drawn up for the Library Board to review. The Board will then make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. The team felt that it is time to move forward on the medallions that are being placed on the exterior of the new main library. | LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf |
LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf,2 | LibraryBoard | 2005-03-09 | 2 | B. Library Building Team (M. Hartigan) Library Director Hardie stated that the Library Building Team will meet on April 7th. C. Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove) Board member Belikove reported that the solicitation letter that was sent out was not as profitable as the one sent out the previous year. A sub-committee was formed to decide how to handle donations that come in. No events have been planned yet. D Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen) Molly Skeen reported that the Friends book sale at the "O" Club raised over $9,000. Ms. Skeen thanked the Library Director for helping the Friends reserve the "O" Club. The next book sale will be in June. On March 19th the Junior Friends will have a storytime at the Bay Farm Branch Library. On April 26th the Friends will sponsor author Pam Chun at the Interim Main Library. E. Library Building Watch (L. Krongold) Leslie Krongold reported that the next newsletter will go out this month. There will be a Library Logo meeting on March 10th She feels that the team is coming close to a final logo. F. Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response. Library Director Hardie responded to 12 input/feedback forms regarding: patron complaint about being harassed by another patron with pornographic images at the computer station; patron concern about the library purchasing a book that only one person has requested; please purchase the following DVD's Requiem for a Dream, Last Exit to Brooklyn, Belle Époque, Bettlejuice, Harry Potter, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Friends, Horatio Hornblower Series, Final Analysis, The Art & Skill of Public Speaking, and A Cinderella Story. Please purchase books on travel; and, please remove the Travel Holiday sticker from the magazine section since we no longer subscribe to it. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) None. LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Board member Butter commented that several libraries have purchased access to the Overdrive audio book collection. She asked if the Alameda Library wo… | LibraryBoard/2005-03-09.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf,1 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-03-10 | 1 | MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos. STAFF PRESENT: Secretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger. MINUTES: M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with corrections. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only) None. ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action 1. CA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to removal a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24" diameter and large low-angled trunks that extend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family residence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Allen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He informed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items. The first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge of the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family dwelling. Minutes of March 10, 2005 Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting 1 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf,2 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-03-10 | 2 | Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate a new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal of the existing front façade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is brought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942. Staff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit and that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as stated in the draft Resolution. Vice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment. Ivan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the fence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the recommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to eliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also informed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and to preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the rear of the new building. Vice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion. Boardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick. She also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also feels that this structure should not be referred to as a "craftsman" style because there are no "craftsman" style elements on the existing or proposed structure. Vice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed new house. Mr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate any problems. Mr. Tai stated … | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf,3 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-03-10 | 3 | Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is that most likely only one will survive. Ms. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many years ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be replaced. M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live Oak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries. M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an existing 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries. REPORTS: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Boardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding Alameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District and would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting. STAFF COMMUNICATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm. Respectfully Submitted by: Justice Judith Altschuler, Secretary Historical Advisory Board G:\PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc Minutes of March 10, 2005 Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting 3 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,1 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 1 | MINUTES OF RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION ALAMEDA RECREATION & PARKS MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2005 1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501 (510)747-7529 DATE: Thursday, March 10, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioner Bruce Reeves Staff: Dale Lillard, Acting Director Christa Johnson, Assistant to the City Manager Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM) Fred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Absent: Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Oliver 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve Minutes of February 10, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting. M/S/C REEVESIKAHUANUI (approved) In Favor (3) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves Absent (2) - Johnson, Oliver "That Minutes of February 10, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting be approved.' 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 1 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, March 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,2 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 2 | 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of Cross Alameda Trail Project - (Discussion Item) Barry Bergman, Program Specialist for Public Works Department, gave a presentation on the Cross Alameda Trail Project. In December 2003, the Association of Bay Area Governments awarded the City of Alameda a grant of $53,000 to conduct a feasibility study for the Cross Alameda Trail. The proposed trail extends from the intersection of Appezzato Memorial Parkway to Tilden Way a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. Mr. Bergman presented a detailed summary of the project and answered questions from the Commission. Mr. Bergman explained that the Public Works Department is soliciting input from a variety of City boards and commissions and any comments they may have could be directed to him at the Public Works Department. Chair Ingram thanked Mr. Bergman for his informative presentation. B. Presentation on West End Improvement Project - (Discussion Item) Carol Beaver, Community Development Division Manager, and Michael Smiley, BMS Design Group, provided to the Recreation and Park Commission a presentation on the West End Improvement Project. The West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Project was funded by the City Council as part of the FY 2003-04 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan in July 2003. The boundaries of Census Tract 4276 define the neighborhood, which was selected based on census data indicating the greatest number of low-income households in the City, observations of blighting physical conditions, and continuing efforts to improve the physical and social environment in the area through various community partnerships and the Harbor Island Task Force. Pending acceptance of the Plan by the City Council at its April 19, 2005 meeting, the Plan will provide a conceptual frame work for public improvements in the neighborhood over the next five or more years. Some of the improvements will need to be refined to meet technical requirement and changing conditions over time. Approximately $400,000 in CDBG Funds is availabl… | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,3 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 3 | everything that does not move could be told to not do this. Mr. Smiley stated that would be a good idea. Commissioner Reeves stated that too many signs will ruin the effect. Mr. Smiley stated that the Committee did not get into those types of details. This conceptual plan is a broad plan. Commissioner Reeves asked if utilities would be put underground. Mr. Smiley stated underground utilities are very expensive. The Committee has not specifically recommended that the utility lines should be underground. Mr. Smiley gave a Power Point presentation on the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan. A major component of the Improvement Plan is providing better access from the walkway between Woodstock Park and Chipman School. This will give greater access to the area for the Fire Department and the public. Commissioner Reeves stated that if the Committee is looking for land for more parking they will not get much support from this Commission. We are looking for more parkland and not giving it away for parking. Ms. Beaver stated that there was a perception within the neighborhool that this is a way to reconfigure the parkland that provides an amenity to the users of the park by providing them access. There was a sense that this was not actually trading off parkland for parking but was having parkland that was different. That would access to and kind of opening up the park for better use and accesibility to the neighborhood. It enhances use and provides better access to the park. Ms. Beaver stated that the West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Conceptual Plan can be used as a guide for west end improvements and nothing is set in concrete. Chair Ingram stated that the City should not use the bus shelter that is located near Morton Street on Buena Vista. It is located right in front of someones home and in the middle of the sidewalk. At the corner of Atlantic and Webster, in the dead spot, there is a used car lot. Have there been any conversations been held with the person who owns that car lot. Ms. Beaver stated that the… | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,4 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 4 | Ms. Beaver in Development Services. C. Revised Site Plan for Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park (American Tower Corporation) - (Discussion Item) Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager from Community Development, gave a presentation regarding the revised plan for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility at Washington Park. Mr. Knopf reviewed the revised plan for placement of a cell tower in Washington Park. He stated that the new plans call for the tower to be relocated to the southeastern corner of the field (down the left field line) and for the structure housing the equipment to also be moved down the foul line. Mr. Knopf informed the Commission that the item will come back to them for final approval after it appears on the Planning Board Agenda. D. Consideration of Proposal for Placement of a Cell Tower at Mastick Senior Center - (Discussion Item) Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager from Community Development, provided a presentation regarding a request by Sprint Telecommunications to place a cell tower in the parking lot at Mastick Senior Center. The 45' pole and equipment shelter will be located in the western corner of the existing parking lot. The parking lot will be reconfigured to limit the impact on spaces available. Sprint will provide (at their cost) an additional light on the tower to improve the overall lighting of the parking lot. In addition, sprint will pay a yet to be determined lease fee to the Senior Center. Ms. Krause informed the Commission that the Mastick Advisory Board has already reviewed and approved the plan. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion/Action Item) Acting Director Lillard provided a review of the proposed draft of the Long-Term Park Use Policy as requested by Council. He informed the Commission that the changes and clarifications they had requested at last month's meeting have now been included. M/S/C REEVESIKAHUANUI (approved) "That the Long-Term Park Use… | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,5 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 5 | the previous meeting were now included in the document. The Commission discussed and reviewed the goals and objectives. M/S/C REEVES/KAHUANUI (approved) "That the Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments be approved." Approved (3): Ingram, Kahuanui, Reeves Absent (2): Johnson, Oliver C. Status Report on the Sports Advisory Committee's Recommendation regarding Field Use Fees - (Discussion/Action Item) Acting Director Lillard informed the Commission that as they had requested at the previous meeting, staff has met with the Sports Advisory Committee and begun drafting a policy to develop a per player fee. A draft has been developed and, once finalized at a future meeting, will be brought before the Commission for approval. 7. REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR A. Park Division See attached Activity Report. B. Recreation Division See attached Activity Report. C. Mastick Senior Center See attached Activity Report. D. Other Reports and Announcments 1. Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair Reeves) No report at this time. 2. Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram) No report at this time. 5 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, March 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf,6 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-03-10 | 6 | 3. Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner Johnson) No report at this time. 8. STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS None. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL Acting Director Lillard stated that the Alameda Point Multi-Use Field is now open for play. 10. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA 11. SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING Thursday, April 14, 2005 12. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 p.m. 6 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, March 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-03-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 1 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:05 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. McNamara 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, and McNamara. Board members Lynch, Mariani and Piziali were absent. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Planner III David Valeska, Leslie Little, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005. Mr. Cormack advised that staff distributed revised pages of the minutes to the Board; page 3, Item 7- A reflected the change of number of parcels from nine to 16 parcels. Pages 19 and 20 contained corrected wording for the motions to more accurately reflect the Board's intentions. M/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2005, as presented. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION None. Mr. Sam Caponio, 1316 Hanson Street, expressed concern about the limited ingress and egress from the Island and the state of the infrastructure. He noted that the traffic congestion had been serious for some time, and would like to see the issue of Island access and infrastructure be agendized for Board discussion. President Cunningham noted that there would be a Transportation Commission public hearing on March 23, 2005. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) President Cunningham advised that the applicant requested continuance of this item, and that the motion from the last meeting must be rescinded because it did not reflect the applicant's request of the City. Mr. Cormack advised that the item was readvertised for this meeting. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to rescind the prior action taken by the Planning Board at the meeting of February 28, 2005, and to continue this item to the meeting of March 28, 2005. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 3 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which prepared the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that with Ms. Kohlstrand's absence from the discussion, there would not be sufficient Board members to act on this item at this time. Ms. Cormack advised that because Mr. Lynch had not yet arrived, there would not be quorum for this item, and suggested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A. President Cunningham advised that public testimony would be heard, and that no action would be taken by the Board. The item would be heard by City Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2005. Ms. Little provided a status update on the theatre design following the last public testimony and Board comments. She noted that concerned parties would like the word "contemporary" to be removed from any description of the building; the balance of the definition came from the Secretary of the Interior's standards, including the word "contemporary." Item C-3 specified a general vertical emphasis, and she did not believe that there was community consensus regarding that design element. Item C-4 addressed the lobby projection on the second floor, and she believed that element has engaged people's imaginations about the additional activity at the theater. Other issues included studying the public space along Oak Street, widening the sidewalks; public parking and a bike route would be accommodated along the street. Bike r… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 4 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, noted that he was not speaking for the AAPS at this time, and noted that Oak Street was very narrow. He believed that Oak Street was overloaded with pedestrians and bicycle traffic, and that the traffic on Oak Street would become more congested. He suggested that the City pick up an underdeveloped strip of land from Video Maniacs to Santa Clara in order to widen the public right-of-way on the street. Mr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they submitted comments to the Board and summarized the significant issues. He did not want the design to be too modernistic. Regarding his discussion with Cynthia Eliason regarding the Secretary of Interior standards, Ms. Eliason raised the question whether the Cineplex and the parking garage were actually subject to those standards; she would check with the City Attorney regarding that question. He suggested that all references to those standards be deleted. He suggested that the reference to the 20-inch projection continue to be deleted in the document. AAPS believed the upper-level lobby was a potentially intrusive element that would upstage and block views of the historic theater. He suggested that the sidewalk be at least 12 feet wide. He noted that Attachment 3 addressed a parking garage in Stanton, Virginia, and would be a good model for the subject garage. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He would like Oak Street to be changed into a pedestrian mall by removing the parking; this would be necessary for bike safety. He supported lockable bike lockers in the garage, Ms. McNamara left the meeting at this time. Ms. Elizabeth Krase, 2520 Chester Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the Secretary of Interior's standards applied to the Cineplex, but not the garage. She believed the projections on Central Street did not comply with those standards. She believed the r… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 5 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board progress on the project. Vice President Cook agreed, and would like the architecture team to solve the issues of the projections. She agreed with Ms. Krase that the rosette was very important. She would like more information on the view impact of the projection. She did not favor design by committee, which would result in a hodge-podge design. No action was taken. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 6 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 8-B. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement-in- kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. (Continued from the meeting of February 28, 2005.) Mr. Cormack advised that this item had been before the Board previously when Phase I of the Development Code revisions were reviewed. Five items were deferred to Phase II at that time. He noted that before the Phase II items were taken before the City Council, a Customer Service Committee for the Permit Center had been organized; they identified the Code Amendments as being important and requested time to address the Board. The parking issue would be the primary focus; the Mayor suggested that tandem parking be examined during Phase II review. He advised that Council had not yet seen the Board's previous recommendations on Phase II. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, advised that the Customer Service Improvement Group included two AAPS members who had submitted comments. AAPS requested that the changes be amended to modify the off-street parking requirements for single-family houses only to allow any parking, including tandem parking within the first 20 feet of existing driveways, as measured from the front property line. Such parking is currently prohibited, but rarely enforced. The second change requested by AAPS is to delete the existing required one- to five-foot-wide landscaping strips between driveways and property lines, fences, buildings and street… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item. President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback. Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this proposal was to still require the 7'-0" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr. Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that. Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its citizens. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that this item would have to be advertised for public… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 8 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Cormack inquired whether the Board would consider amending the section of the Code which required two additional feet of sideyard for two stories. The five-foot minimum sideyard for one story could also be the standard for a two-story building. Anything less than five feet that was nonconforming would be allowed to use the (k) & (1). Vice President Cook believed that a conforming sideyard that is to be built higher is not as much of a problem as a nonconforming sideyard to be increased in height, which would create a very narrow setback; the additional setback would allow adequate light at the property line. Ms. Altschuler stated that would allow for the shading study to prove whether or not the second story would impact the neighbors. Ms. Kohlstrand would like the setback requirements to be more equitable, and would support a second-story setback that matched the first-story setback. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding shading, Ms. Altschuler replied that shading would not be as critical for a bathroom as for a living room. She noted that design solutions were available to neighbors to mitigate shading effects. A house with a conforming setback would not require shadow studies. She added that staff would create a summary of the Board comments to be included the next time the Development Code is examined. She noted that most (k) & (1) issues brought before staff were generally resolved equitably between the neighbors, and she expected that trend to continue; very few issues have been brought before the Board. The Board had no concerns regarding Building Height Limits and the Definition of Replacement-in- Kind. Regarding parking, Ms. McNamara did not support deleting the 20-foot parking restriction requirement, but was open to reducing it to a 10-foot requirement in order to increase parking. President Cunningham advised that he advocated tandem parking, and believed it would relieve the City's parking pressure… | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 9 | is appropriate, which he believed was onerous. He believed that a one-foot strip was sufficient. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt the Building Height Limits, and the Definition of Replacement-in-Kind as recommended by staff. The remaining items would be brought back to the Planning Board after further review by the Customer Service Committee. AYES - 4 (Lynch, Mariani, Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Kohlstrand left the meeting after Item 8-B. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 10 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali was not in attendance to present this report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the March 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. G:\PLANNING\PB\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes.05\March 14_Minutes.DO Planning Board Minutes Page 10 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES (05-110) - Mayor Johnson presented the Resolution Commending Captain Rich McWilliams [paragraph no. 05-112] prior to the Consent Calendar. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05-111) Proclamation declaring March 2005 as Red Cross Month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Jim Franz, American Red Cross. Mr. Franz stated that the Red Cross has a wonderful partnership with the City; noted that Mayor Johnson accepted the Good Neighbor Award for the City's support of the Red Cross a couple of months ago. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (05-112) Resolution No. 13821, "Commending Alameda Police Department Captain Rich McWilliams for His Contributions to the City of Alameda. " Adopted. Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Captain Rich McWilliams. Captain McWilliams thanked the Council for the kind words; stated that it has been a pleasure to work for the City. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to adopt Zoning Regular Meeting 1 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 2 | Ordinance Text Amendment ZA03-0003 [paragraph no. [05-115 ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] (*05-113 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting held on March 1, 2005. Approved. (*05-114) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,660,114.93. (05-115) Recommendation to adopt Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, ZA03-0003, - Citywide Guide to Residential Design. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that the guidelines are a good tool for the public and staff to utilize; urged adoption. Elizabeth Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) , stated that the guidelines are long overdue; urged adoption. Kevin Frederick, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines. Janelle Spatz, AAPS, stated that AAPS supports and encourages adoption of the guidelines. Ross Dileo, Alameda, urged endorsement of the guidelines. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines. Denise Brady, AAPS, stated that the guidelines have been in the works for a very long time; urged adoption. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese thanked staff for developing the guidelines; stated the guidelines are very comprehensive and provide some good guidance; noted that the window section of the guidelines prohibits use of aluminum windows stated Regular Meeting 2 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 3 | certain materials should not be prohibited as technology and materials progress; the focus should be on the design and appearance criteria, not the material. The Supervising Planner stated that a new fiberglass window has been manufactured which is superior to the wood clad windows in many ways; the guidelines are intended to be a living document and can be amended; staff is recommending adoption of the guidelines for a year. Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the community for the time, energy, and effort given to the guidelines stated that the guideline pictures are useful for understanding what is and is not permitted. The Supervising Planner thanked AAPS for all of their input. Mayor Johnson stated that staff was working on the guidelines when she was on the Planning Board years ago; stated a voice vote, rather than ordinance, is a good process. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-116) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and/or Designee to send letters opposing the proposed suspension of mandated cost reimbursements. Accepted. (*05-117) Resolution No. 13822, "Upholding the Planning Board's Decision to Readopt ZA04-0002 to the Webster Street Design Guidelines, Known Henceforth as the Webster Street Design Manual. " Adopted. Councilmember deHaan commended the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) for taking the lead; urged the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) to adopt a similar guideline. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-118) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04- 0014 to permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be used as a dwelling unit. The site is located at 1608 Santa Clara Avenue within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant Michele and Frank Mulligan; and (05-118A) - Resolution No. 13823, "Upholding the Planning Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04-0014 to Regular Meeting 3 Alameda City Coun… | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 4 | permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be used as a dwelling unit. " Adopted. The Supervising Planner gave a brief oral report. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board made a recommendatior to Council, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the Planning staff denied the variances. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents ( In favor of Appeal) : Frank Mulligan, Appellant (submitted handout) i Jeff Kassow, Alameda: Walter DeCalle, Alameda; Christina Locklear, Alameda. Opponent (Not in favor of Appeal) : Leo Beaulieu, Alameda. After Mr. Mulligan's comments, Councilmember deHaan inquired how Mr. Mulligan obtained the referenced photo album, to which Mr. Mulligan responded that the trustee provided him with the album. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit provided to Council is the one on file with the Planning Department, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the "SFD" notation on the permit is for the use of the lot. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was anything at the location before the structure was built. Mr. Mulligan responded that he did not know; stated there may have been a garage, but no driveway. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any records that indicate that there was a previous garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded there was a permit for demolition of a garage dated April 1984; a second permit for a new garage was issued in June of 1984 and finaled in October 1984. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City issued plumbing and mechanical permits which would be necessary for a kitchen and a bathroom, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated that a dwelling unit could not have been built on a zero property line in 1984; inquired whether building a dwelling unit with a garage permit would have been legal in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative; the permit would lack the rear and side … | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 5 | dwelling unit requirements. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board was concerned that the structure did not meet building codes; inquired what would happen if Council denied the variances. The Supervising Planner responded that the property owner would need to re-institute the garage use that was approved in 1984, extend the driveway to the garage, remove the French doors, install a garage door, and remove the kitchen and bathroom. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a garage could have a residential unit, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the structure does not comply with the set backs for a dwelling unit; noted that garages are allowed to sit on two property lines; stated placing a dwelling unit on two property lines would never have been approved in 1984; that she has seen countless situations where people apply for a permit, the inspector finals the permit, and then plumbing and electrical are installed after the fact; she has a great deal of sympathy for the property owners, but approval of the appeal would send a message that the permitting process does not need to be followed. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the appraisal form was in error, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she has not seen the appraisal form. Councilmember Matarrese stated there might be safety factors involved because plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits were not obtained; that he has sympathy for the property owners ; the real estate agent and appraiser are at fault. Mayor Johnson stated that she also has sympathy for the property owners; Council would be very arbitrary to approve the construction after the fact. Councilmembel deHaan inquired whether the structure could stay in place as a legal garage. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; there may be some openings that are too close to the property lines and may need to be closed; some of the plumbi… | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 6 | have been permitted in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she did not know. Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished the rules were otherwise; it is difficult to make things right for the property owners. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05 -119 - ) Public Hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ZA05- - 0001 and Rezoning R05-0001 to create a Theater Overlay District and rezone certain properties to the Theater Overlay District; and (05-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T- Theater Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. The Management Analyst provided a brief report. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson stated that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce, submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0001 and Rezoning R05-0001. Proponent (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA. Opponent (Not in favor or ordinance) : Gary McAffe, Alameda. After Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance would have an impact on the Central Cinema, to which the Management Analyst responded in the negative; stated the proposed ordinance pertains to multi-screen cinemas. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting 6 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 7 | (05-120) Public Hearing to consider a Citywide Zoning Text Amendment ZA04-0001 to review and revise Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-6, Sign Regulations, clarifying current regulations and establishing internal consistency with various Alameda Municipal Code sections with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to Window Signs and (05-120A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Introduced. The Supervising Planner gave a brief report. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a medical office not in a commercial area is allowed to have a temporary sign, to which the Supervising Planner responded A-frame and I-frame signs are not permitted anywhere in Alameda. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed ordinance was for all retail areas, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Sherri Stieg, WABA. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City does not have the resources to walk down each business district street to enforce the ordinance; the City is counting on and expecting PSBA and WABA to help clean up the signage in town. Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the retailers are going to have a rude awakening; enforcement of the proposed ordinance needs to be implemented fairly. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed ordinance is primarily for signs facing outward and not inside signs, to which the Supervising Planner responded that signs which are part of the interior décor would not be considered to be a sign. Councilmember deHaan stated that tonight is monumental; thanked staff for all of their work. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 8 | Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-121) - Recommendation to approve the Theatre Design Guidelines and presentation of conceptual parking structure designs. The Development Services Director provided a brief summary. Mayor Johnson inquired how wide the sidewalks are on Central Avenue, to which the Development Services Director responded 14 feet i stated sidewalks on Oak Street are 8 feet. Mayor Johnson stated that the design guidelines provide a sense of what the community would like to see when the architects come back with actual plans. Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the timeline. The Development Services Director responded the design guidelines could be attached to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) ; the DDA should be finalized within the next couple of days for public display and a hearing in April; noted that the public hearing notice for a DDA is extensive and lengthy. Councilmember Matarrese inquired the impact of not including the guidelines in the DDA. The Development Services Director responded having the guidelines as part of the DDA gives it more importance. The City Attorney stated that the DDA does not have to have any attachments. Mayor Johnson stated if the guidelines are not adopted tonight, they would not be attached to the DDA or the DDA would be delayed. The Development Services Director stated Council could adopt the guidelines separately. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to have the guidelines attached; that she is prepared to go forward with the approval of the design guidelines. Councilmember deHaan stated that the scope of the architect's desires should not be limited; inquired whether there would be two or three different design concepts. Regular Meeting 8 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 9 | The Development Services Director responded that the developer would start with conceptual plans, submit an application to the Planning Department, and the design review process would begin; she is not expecting multiple concepts to be submitted. Mayor Johnson noted that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce, submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of the Theatre Design Guidelines. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that it appears there will be a traffic impact on Oak Street; suggested considering making Oak Street be increased to 60 feet wide. Nick Petrulakis, Alameda, urged moving forward with the guidelines. Scott Brady, Alameda, stated that he was concerned that the guidelines are overly specific in terms of architectural design elements. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, stated that the preliminary review is a good idea; outlined AAPS's suggested changes to the guidelines. Chuck Millar, Alameda, stated that he was concerned with the proposed contemporary design. Mayor Johnson requested the Development Services Director to respond to the design issue. The Development Services Director stated the design was done by an environmental group to study the mass and make a judgment about whether or not it fits within the contexts and is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards; stated there has been a lot of community concern because of the image the environmental planner created to do basic evaluation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a review by the State was required to determine impacts on surrounding historical areas. The Development Services Director responded a review would not be needed if Federal funding were not used. Councilmember Daysog stated the Historical Advisory Board and other interested groups should have input. Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, submitted a handout ; stated that she welcomes the rehabilitation of the historic theatre with reservations. ; she is concerned with the projected overhangs. Regular Meeting 9 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 10 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the projected overhangs would overwhelm the historic theatre, to which Ms. Krase responded in the affirmative. Kevin Frederick, Alameda, stated that no consideration, thought, or respect has been given to Alameda; noted the proposed design is bizarre. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there have been any designs from the architect, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether designs were presented at last night's Planning Board meeting, to which the Development Services Director responded the developer had his architect work on some of the concepts to clarify questions. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the community is reacting to the mass of the structure; noted overhangs would block the views down the street. Debbie George, Alameda, stated the theatre is positive for Alameda; urged moving forward. Al Wright, Alameda, stated that he was extremely happy to have a theatre in Alameda soon. Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the public has had ample opportunity to provide input; urged the process not be delayed and adoption of the guidelines. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to take out the word "contemporary" from the guidelines he does not see the need to give that type of general guidance; without the Cineplex, the theatre would rot in place; stated nothing is lost by taking out the word "contemporary. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; inquired whether omitting the word "contemporary" has any negative impact, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is ample time to massage the design once the true design is presented; that he can accept the design guidelines. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is the strongest advocate of the theatre; inquired whether the retail spaces would be part of Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 11 | the developer's operation. The Development Services Director responded that there are two projects: 1) the potential historic restoration project conducted by the City, and 2) the multiplex and retail stores, which would be constructed and owned by the developer; the developer would own and lease the retail spaces. Councilmember deHaan stated the mass must remain for the theatre; inquired whether there would be the ability to design without the protrusions by removing retail square footage. The Acting City Manager responded that staff would need to review the matter and return to Council. Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe that there is any need for signage other than the renovated marquee noted that vertical accent latitude should be left to the architect. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the community and staff have taken their best shot at the design guidelines; design guidelines are not going to be perfect, especially in the abstract. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation with removing the word "contemporary" from the Theatre Design Guidelines. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he sees the design guidelines as a platform that allows more discussions involving members of the Historical Advisory Board; the guidelines do not lock the City into bad design; there is a major challenge ahead in trying to have an economically viable theatre which minimizes the projection problem at the same time. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has been working on the theatre project for years and has been very supportive; thanked staff for all of their work. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that the Transportation Commission review traffic issues on Oak Street and provide Council with recommendations as soon as possible. Regular Meeting 11 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 12 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-122) Mina Talebzadeh, Alameda, requested the City to recognize Spring Equinox as a day of peace and harmony. Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Talebzadeh to provide language for a proclamation Gina Mariani was not present but wanted to be on record in support of Ms. Talebzadeh's request. (05-123) Michael J. McGhee, Volunteer Veterans Advocate, submitted a letter; stated that the City currently offers services for veterans but there is no office or City official assigned to coordinate the services urged the City to appoint a committee to investigate veterans' services, to clarify the City's jurisdiction over veteran programs, and create a City office of Veterans Affairs for benefits. (05-124) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he and Audrey Lord Hausman, co-founder of Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, will be training at a conference in April; stated that it is wonderful to see the Alameda Police Department enforcing pedestrian rights and safety. (05-125) Al Wright, Alameda, stated that on several occasions the American flag has been improperly displayed in front of City buildings flags flown at the Police Department are not consistent with City Hall; stated that he objects to the American flag being flown at half mast to honor local citizens; stated that all flags on City property should be in compliance with when the President of the United States directs the flag to be flown at half mast ; requested that Council direct staff to issue appropriate directives to all departments. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-126) Councilmember Daysog stated that the Chipman Middle School Drum and Flag Corps requested a City flag for display in parades. (05-127) Councilmember Daysog stated there is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is moving forward with an initiative regarding urban casinos; requested staff to analyze the initiative and provide a recommendation as to whether Council should support the initiative. (05-128) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Transportation Commiss… | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 13 | information on transportation remediation efforts at Bayport. Councilmember Daysog noted data indicates that transportation solutions have to be citywide. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 13 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 14 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 6:35 P. M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (05-011) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case Community Improvement Commission V. Rite Aid Corporation, Thrifty, Payless, Inc. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing from Legal Counsel and instruction was given. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 15 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-108) Conference with Real Property Negotiator - Property: 2900 Main Street; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda and Alameda Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained briefing and instructions were given to Real Property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 16 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : ouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( 5-109CC/*05-012CIC) Recommendation to approve a form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement between University Avenue Housing and Alameda Point Collaborative. Approved. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 17 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:34 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-129) Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Title: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the performance of the City Manager. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 18 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:35 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-130) Public Employment - Title: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed recruitment of the new City Manager. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf,1 | GolfCommission | 2005-03-16 | 1 | ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room #360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue. 1-A. Roll Call Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Anthony Corica and Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: Vice Chair Tony Santare. Also present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee. 1-B Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 16, 2005 Item added in 3-C, line 23. Although through discussion, the Golf Commissioners voiced opposition to the idea. The Commission approved the addition and the minutes unanimously. 1-C Adoption of Agenda The Commission approved the agenda unanimously. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3. AGENDA ITEMS: 3-A Approval of Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program (Action Item). The General Manager passed out the revised Draft Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program to the Golf Commissioners. The purpose of this management practice is to establish and clarify procedures regarding Golf Complex volunteer marshal work hours, schedules, activities and benefit package. It is required that the Chuck Corica golf professional staff establishes peak and non peak seasonal work schedules and activities for the volunteer marshal force. Marshals will help the golf professional staff monitor and enforce the policies of the golf course such as, pace of play, checking for customer receipts and golf cart etiquette. Marshals will work in the capacity as volunteers and services | GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf,2 | GolfCommission | 2005-03-16 | 2 | will be used for the best interest of the golf patrons and staff of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The schedule will be posted prior to each season; November through March and April through October. The seasonal schedule is subject to review annually. The number of marshals on staff will vary depending on the needs of the business. Staffing will include a cart attendant, a tee marshal for each course, and at least one (1) roving marshal for each course. Volunteer marshals shall work six (6) hours each week November through March. Volunteer marshals shall work eight (8) hours each week April through October. Volunteer marshals shall sign the Marshal Shift Log Book at the start and end of each scheduled shift. Volunteer marshals shall make every attempt to arrive on time for their scheduled shift. It is the responsibility of the marshal to find a suitable replacement when on leave. The work activities will include monitoring the pace of play: Monday through Friday tee times before 9:00am, the round should be 4 hours or less, after 9:00am 4.5 hours or less. On Saturday, Sunday and Holidays tee times before 8:00am, the round should be 4 hours or less, 8:00am - 11:00am, 4.5 hours or less, and after 11:00am 5 hours or less. The marshal's are to record one (1) finishing time each hour in the pace-of-play logbook and enforce CCGC golf course and USGA rules book policies regarding safe play and etiquette. Volunteer marshals shall receive the following Golf Complex benefits, playing privileges, including cart usage, Monday through Friday anytime. On Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays after 12:00pm and/or as business permits. Playing privileges, including cart usage, will be allowed Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays with a paid group. Mif Albright course and Driving Range privileges anytime as business permits (Limit 1 bucket per day). Employee food discounts during scheduled work shifts. (Approval of L&H). A Pro shop discount of 20% on non-sale soft goods. Special Orders cost plus 5% with prior management approval. The suggestion… | GolfCommission/2005-03-16.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );