pages
12 rows where "date" is on date 2009-09-10
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 1 | MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 1. CONVENE: President Ezzy Ashcraft called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Zuppan 3. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board members Cunningham, Kohlstrand, and Zuppan. ABSENT: Vice-President Autorino, Board members Cook and Lynch. 4. MINUTES: Minutes from the meeting of August 24, 2009 (Pending) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: The applicant requested that item 9-A be continued to the meeting of October 12, 2009. Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand to continue the item to the October 12, 2009 Planning Board meeting. Motion passes 4-0. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 6-A Future Agendas Staff provided an overview of the upcoming projects. 6-B Zoning Administrator Report No hearing was held on September 1, 2009. 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Sekhon, owner of the Seven Eleven convenience store at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street, expressed concern with the addition of another convenience store that would introduce additional competition to existing businesses and have a negative impact on the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Shamar, a youth non-profit organization member, expressed concern that the establishment would sell tobacco products which would have negative consequences for the youth of the community. He urged the applicant to develop a business that would be an asset to the community. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. Page 1 of 4 | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 2 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A Use Permit - PLN09-0253 - 1623 Park Street - Abdulmalik Harbi. The applicant requests use permit approval to operate a convenience store within 300' of a residential zone district. The proposed convenience store specializes in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products, plus it will offer snacks, beverages, gifts, novelties, candy, and printed materials such as newspapers and magazines. The applicant requested continuance of this project to the October 12, 2009 Planning Board Meeting. Board member Cunningham motioned, seconded by Board Member Kohlstrand, to continue to the item to October 12, 2009. Approved 4-0. 9-B Municipal Code Amendment - City of Alameda A Municipal Code Amendment to amend the Alameda Municipal Codes Sections 30-36 and 30-37 related to Design Review. (Study Session). Staff presented an overview of the proposed changes. President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period. Mr. Baker, Alameda resident, urged that the proposed Design Review amendments continue to serve in the capacity as gatekeeper in order to prohibit extensive alterations to historic and architecturally valuable buildings. He also encouraged the Planning Board to carefully review the proposed exemptions and recommended that an aggressive cost recovery schedule be implemented. Mr. Rutter, Alameda resident, spoke about the need to maintain the requirement for design review for wireless antennas and solar arrays, so that such features do not negatively impact the aesthetic quality of a building or a neighborhood. Ms. Matherson, Alameda resident, urged the board to maintain design review requirements for window replacements on buildings built after 1942. Ms. Hurt, Alameda resident, proposed using the national standard for declaring a building "historic' (50 years or older) instead of 1942 and pointed out the need for window design review on historic homes as windows are an important architectural feature. She stressed the need for public education and outreach on historic preservation. Mr. Buckley… | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 3 | following the WABA Guidelines and continuing to consult with WABA. Mr. Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), spoke in favor of the storyboard requirement and would like to see that a provision be made in the design review process that would require projects within the Park Street Business district to also receive PSBA approval prior to submittal to the City. PSBA also endorses retaining the standards for projecting signs. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Board member Cunningham endorsed the concept that the applicants carry the cost of staff time to review projects and asked for a comparison to other jurisdictions' permit fees and noted support for a public notification process that would be primarily carried out by the applicant. President Ezzy Ashcraft endorsed a time and material charge for all projects, regardless of its scope. Several Board members provided comment on the notification process and indicated support for notification proposal # 3 listed in the staff report. Staff was also encouraged to develop guidelines for erecting story poles and netting, which would reduce the need for extensive notification on some projects. The Board asked staff to return with window replacement guidelines, and an updated list of exempt projects and criteria for the replacement of architectural elements and features. They also recommended that the department initiate an online permit submittal process to minimize additional demands on staff time and resources. Board Member Zuppan suggested that online notification and posting of public hearing notices be considered and asked that staff evaluate the technological requirements and cost implications that would be involved with the online posting of these notices. Board Member Kohlstrand requested that the design review process include the PSBA and WABA organizations, as well as other organizations that would like to be included. Board member Cunningham asked that staff clarify which projects would be subject to des… | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2009-09-10 | 4 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. Page 4 of 4 | PlanningBoard/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,1 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 1 | NOTICE OF MEETING ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING DATE: Thursday, September 10, 2009 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman Staff: Dale Lillard, ARPD Director Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM) Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Absent: Commissioner Gina Mariani 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting Minutes. M/S/C BROWN/RESTAGNO "That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of May 14, 2009 be approved." Approved (3): Brown, Kahuanui, Restagno Abstention (3): Cooper, Sonneman Absent (1): Mariana Approval of August 13, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting Minutes. M/S/C COOPER/KAHUANUI (approved) "That the Minutes of Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of August 13, 2009 be approved." Approved (5): Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman Abstention (1): Ogden Absent (1): Mariani | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,2 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 2 | 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of FY 2009-10 Budget for the Alameda Recreation & Park Department- (Discussion Item Only) Director Lillard provided an overview of the FY 2009-10 Budget for the Recreation & Park Department. This new budget is in a different format. Budget is much more detailed/clear by breaking out all of the budget categories. This will be a much more effective tool to monitor the budget. Budget has been approved by City Council. Pat Bail, Alameda resident, asked if there will be any more loss of staff. Director Lillard stated not at this time. We will have to see what the State does for FY 2010-11. Planning for FY 2010-11 will begin soon. B. Status of East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW monies - (Discussion Item Only) Director Lillard provided the Commission information on the request from the Alameda Boys & Girls Club for $2 million of the Measure WW monies for the construction of their new facility. This item went to the City Council at their meeting on September 1, 2009. There were a number of speakers and questions that came out of that meeting. There are a number of questions regarding the eligibility of the project, cost, etc. Council has asked staff (Interim City Manager & ARPD Director) to meet with East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and come back to Council on September 15, 2009 with answers to some of their questions. This item will be on the September 15, 2009 City Council Meeting Agenda. There will be EBRPD representatives at the meeting to answer any additional questions. The Interim City Manager will provide answers to the original questions that the Council asked at their meeting on September 1, 2009. Discussion will be opened and then Council will take whatever action they choose. Commissioner Kahuanui as… | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,3 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 3 | Chair Ogden asked if Council has any idea how ARPD will maintain the parks if they take the $2 million of funds away? Is that any part of their consideration? Director Lillard stated that he is sure it will be, but has not asked them that question directly. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. REPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR A. Park Division No report at this time. B. Recreation Division No report at this time. C. Mastick Senior Center No report at this time. D. Other Reports and Announcements None. 8. STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS None. 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL None. 10. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA None. 11. SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, October 8, 2009 12. ADJOURNMENT 7:14 p.m. Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. 3 Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009 | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,4 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 4 | NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES DATE: Thursday, September 10, 2009 TIME: 7:15 p.m. PLACE: Room 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA 94501 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Terri Ogden, Recreation Commission Chair, called meeting to order. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Terri Ogden, Vice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike Cooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman Staff: Dale Lillard, ARPD Director Jackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM) Patrick Russi, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Absent: Commissioner Gina Mariani 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Measure WW Funding - (Discussion/Action Item) Chair Ogden opened the discussion for the speakers. Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident and Estuary Park representative, stated that the Estuary Park Committee has come before the Recreation & Park Commission before to discuss the need for funds to develop/purchase Estuary Park. At that time the Commission told the Estuary Park Committee that the projects on the Measure WW list were so important that they had to come first. Now we go to the City Council Meeting and find out that the Measure WW project list is not so important and that we have to spend funds on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. Nobody is at this meeting to say anything against the Alameda Boys & Girls Club, but they are a private organization and our parks need the funds. There are parks all over this State that are crying for money. The Council has no business even considering giving this money to a private organization when this money was voted for by the people to serve all of our citizens. If | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,5 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 5 | we start doing this how are Alameda citizens going to feel about future bond issues for parks and that they cannot trust the fact that if they vote for the money to go to parks the money will be there. The Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline representatives look forward being able to have a bond issue to get money for Estuary Park and Alameda Beltline projects. Ms. Freeman would hate to see this idea put in jeopardy just because we want to give money that belongs to the people to a private organization. Joseph Woodard, Alameda resident, provided a copy of a letter that he sent to EBRPD protesting the monies being given to the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. For the record, at the Council Meeting on September 1, the number of speakers for and against the Boys & Girls Club receiving the money was about equal. The Alameda Boys & Girls Club managed to pack half of the Council chambers with employees and Board Members. The people speaking against the idea were not employees of anyone, but were private citizens. People who voted for the bond issue thought that it was to be used for parks. You have maintenance projects and certainly have new acquisitions that are very important. This opportunity is absolutely unprecedented with regard to the Alameda Beltline, where a large park space will be purchased for less than $1 million and now money is being proposed to be diverted to a private organization. This is unconscionable and hopes that the Recreation & Park Commission will do everything in their power to oppose it. Barbara Kerr, former Councilmember and Alameda resident, stated that a group went to EBRPD for a sub-committee meeting and after spoke to Mr. Rasmussen (grant manager). The committee was very sympathetic, but the grant manager was not. She expressed a criticism that this is something that needs to be remedied. Mr. Rasmussen was basing his decision on the Alameda Boys & Girls Club and only on what the Boys & Girls Club had told him. Ms. Kerr was surprised at his resistance. She recommends that the EBRPD, through what… | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,6 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 6 | Rebecca Redfield, Alameda resident, stated that her son attended the Alameda Boys & Girls Club until they recently closed. She has moved to where the potential park was going to be in the warehouse area on Clement Avenue and had moved there based on the planning map and hopes there will be a park in that area. We have been working hard and putting energy toward acquiring funds toward this park and now suddenly the Alameda Boys & Girls Club thinks they should get the money. This is a step backward in the dream for a park in that area. Jean Sweeney, Alameda Beltline representative and Alameda resident, stated that she was one of the participants in the meeting with Mr. Rasmussen and the Ecology panel. The people on the Ecology Panel were a little dismayed that Mr. Rasmussen would send an e-mail favoring a Boys & Girls Club project. They did not seem to think that it would fit within a category. The Panel stated that the process is not to have it referred by City Council. The process is to have an open meeting where everybody can discuss what they want to do with the funds. This is City money and a City decision and a decision to be made by the City Council. The projects are sent to the Council, the City then takes them to Mr. Rasmussen who then consults with EBRPD lawyers to find out if the projects are eligible. To short cut them/the process by having a communication between George Phillips and Mr. Rasmussen based on Mr. Phillips own material is patently unfit. Mr. Rasmussen sat there and stated that anybody can go to the Boys & Girls Club, it is free. Ms. Sweeney stated that we all know that is not true. He (Mr. Rasmussen) did not even know where the Boys & Girls Club was located until she showed him the location. He did not know that the building does not include a field for recreation and that they are going to depend on Woodstock Park for their outdoor field and activities. He did not know that the Boys & Girls Club was really a social development organization and not a recreation organization. He did not know… | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,7 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 7 | in the park, on the play apparatus in the parks. She has talked with the Director about park improvements and the list is extensive. It should be a priority in all of our minds that our greatest asset is our children. While she thinks that the Boys and Girls Club is a great program, they have the ability through their non-profit to raise funds. She understands that they are in threat of losing their grant if they do not receive the $2 million. Ms. Bail suggested possibly loaning the Boys and Girls Club the funds with a decent interest rate (this does not mean she is in favor of the suggestion) to be paid back. To give the Boys and Girls Club the $2 million out-right is just not in the books. We need the money for our parks and for recreation. Someone had said that Ms. Kerr had written an initiative for potentially more park monies. But, in all the years that Ms. Bail has worked with parks and recreation the ARPD has been the ugly step child. All of the City monies have gone to redevelopment, none has gone to recreation and parks which in her mind is one of the more important things we can do in this community. When you receive funds it is important to keep it in our hands because we do not know when we will receive any more funds. For recreation and parks it is very questionable that they will ever get any more funds. Ms. Bail urged the Recreation and Park Commission to write a very strong worded letter to Council. Ms Bail stated that she will be doing her lobbying against their proposal. She feels that the Boys and Girls Club has the ability to go out and raise their own money, hit up their own sources, and/or go to their national club. Ms. Bail also feels that the City should never support the School District's problems with their recreation monies. They have their own ability to raise their taxes. We are all paying additional taxes for the Schools. The City of Alameda, particularly the Recreation and Park Department, needs to protect their resources and funds. We need to make it very clear to City Council that… | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf,8 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2009-09-10 | 8 | 1,2010. Recreation and Park Commission discussed the Alameda Boys & Girls Club project and whether they felt it qualified to be on the list of Measure WW funded projects. Commissioner Brown suggested sending a letter to City Council with the Commission's recommendation. M/S/C KAHUANUI/RESTAGNO (approved) "That the Recreation and Park Commission will send a letter to Council stating that the Commission strongly urges the City Council to respect the directive of the voters who supported Measure WW. The voters approved (with their votes) the allocation of funds (through Measure WW) to maintain, acquire and improve the city's Recreation and Parks facilities and grounds." Approved (6): Ogden, Restagno , Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Sonneman Absent (1): Mariani 4. ADJOURNMENT Recreation & Park Commission Special Mtg. 5 Minutes - Thursday, September 10, 2009 | RecreationandParkCommission/2009-09-10.pdf |
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]) );