pages
18,746 rows sorted by date
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date ▼ | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf,1 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-01-27 | 1 | Social Service Human Relations Board Minute of the Regular Meeting Thursday, January 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL - President Franz called the meeting to order at 7:40pm. Present were Vice President Chen, Members Wasko, Flores-Witte, Bonta, Hollinger Jackson. Staff were Beaver and Brown. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The December 8, 2004, special meeting minutes were approved. M/S Flores-Witte, Bonta, and unanimous with Hollinger Jackson abstaining. The January 6, 2005 Special Meeting minutes were approved. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte and unanimous with President Franz abstaining. An introduction by Member Hollinger Jackson. She gave a brief description of her background and work experience. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST TO REVIEW SENTINEL FAIR HOUSING SURVEY AND REPORT - Executive Director of Sentinel Fair Housing (SFH) Mona Breed, provided an overview of her agency, and gave a presentation regarding the testing process, including training, use of forms, questionnaires, etc. Sentinel Fair Housing is a private Fair Housing agency that was started 20 years ago by the Urban League and civil rights leaders. Breed has been the Director for the past 10 years. Sentinel was selected to monitor Denny's Restaurants under consent decrees of the U.S. Court, and was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to train testers for a national discrimination study by the Urban Institute. Breed stated that the standards and competencies of Sentinel are uncontested, and described the basic characteristics of discrimination testing: Testers: Testers are private citizens and members of various protected classes (race, religion, sexual orientation, disabled, etc.) Testers come from a variety of places, for example, Sentinel just trained 40 University of San Francisco law students as testers. Applicants are screened prior to training, including a criminal background check and credit check; then Ms. Breed personally reviews all applicants. Testers must be able to be recognized as the protected class they will represent in the test, e… | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf,2 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-01-27 | 2 | SSHRB Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005 Page 2 However, since it was not complaint-based, they had no basis to conduct specific testing. . Later, when they heard fears and concerns from Harbor Island Apartment (HIA) tenants seeking housing in the wake of the HIA terminations, they felt it was important to follow up to see if differential treatment was taking place. All testers participate in a practice test before going out on a paired test. When a test is conducted, the "protected" tester goes to tested unit first, followed by the "unprotected" tester. The testers are not told why they are going or what they are testing; they do not know each other nor do they ever see or communicate with each other. Following the rental application/interview both testers fill out their respective forms and are interviewed separately by Sentinel staff to determine if the protected tester got negative, discouraging information/feedback while the unprotected tester got positive and encouraging feedback. If a test involves a different agent or contact at the rental unit, the test is invalid and the responses are eliminated. Based on results of the test, Sentinel asks the client if they would like to pursue further action. The client will then file an administrative complaint with HUD Fair Housing and Employment Office (FHEO) and/or file a lawsuit. Less then 1% of all complaints get to this stage. A sample test was provided and Ms. Breed went over the sample, explaining the differences in questions, availability of units, and mannerisms when dealing with each tester, and differences in the terms and conditions of the lease. The sample demonstrated how a minority (protected) tester had been asked many more questions than the majority (unprotected) tester being asked only "when did she want to move in?" In the Alameda study, 25 complete tests and 25 complete analyses were conducted. Sentinel sent educational letters to owners/agents of units where discriminatory practices and/or differential treatment were found. The response … | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf,3 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-01-27 | 3 | SSHRB Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005 Page 3 If more funding, Sentinel would expand training for property owners in the Section 8 Voucher Program to provide at least 3 hours of fair housing training. Sentinel would follow up on a suggestion to ask local papers to publish fair housing information and a referral number in the Rentals section of the local newspapers and asking realtors to publish similar inform in their office handouts. Once the study was publicized in the papers the responses from various property owners increased. The finding of differential treatment in Alameda (44% of the tests) is higher than the national average of 26%. However, it should be looked at in the context of what was happening, e.g. the HIA terminations. The protected tester is always slightly more qualified that the unprotected applicant, thereby making the differential treatment easier to spot. Board. Mr. Richard Rudloff, a local owner of several Section 8 units in Alameda for 35 years addressed the Board. He stated he has not read the rental study being discussed but wanted to address the question "what could the City Council do to assist landlords in providing fair housing? He stated that landlords are required to have a business license and because Sentinel has great pamphlets, he suggested sending appropriate mailings for landlord training if funding is available. He went on to suggest a way to obtain funding would be to require a business license on all single-family dwellings that are rented out. They are currently exempt from the ordinance. He stated that the Housing Authority will give Section 8 termination notices to landlords for 30 days, yet give Section 8 tenants 60 days. There are misperceptions about Section 8 tenants as renters. He hasn't ever had a late check from a tenant, or no check from Housing Authority. Anything this Board could do to assist the landlord situation would be appreciated. He hasn't ever attended a workshop, but would for Section 8 specifically. Under discussion, Wasko stated the method… | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf |
SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf,4 | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard | 2005-01-27 | 4 | SSHRB Meeting Minutes, Thurs., January 27, 2005 Page 4 WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS AAWG - Nothing to report, has not had a meeting. FSWG - Member Wasko asked about a menu for distributing the needs survey, and is there a timeline? She reported about the Festival of Families to partner with Southshore for a Spring event in early May. And using this event to get survey's filled out could maybe work. The event will have community performers (kids), and parent education. Southshore will donate raffle certificates, maybe use those as fill out a survey & get a raffle ticket. They are exploring the possibility of a shuttle bus during the hours of 1pm - 4pm from the West End. Volunteers will be available. Friendship City - Vice President Chen reported there is still no contact with Sweden and Japan regarding connecting those Sister City ties. We are expecting and inviting a group and delegation in late February or mid-March. He is working on formalizing a response team to handle administrative work and to also forming a Subcommittee who have ties to Wuxi, 30 persons to handle the logistics and responses. A fundraiser dinner raised on Saturday, January 9th raised approximately $4,000. This group has an opportunity to participate in a Chinese New Year event on Bay Farm Island in mid-March. He asked everyone to think about Alameda type gifts for visitors of China. RECOMMENDATION TO RENAME FRIENDSHIP CITY WORKGROUP AND APPROVE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PENDING WORKGROUP ACTIVITIES - There are substantial requirements for becoming a sister city and the Board would like to know what they are. M/S Bonta, Flores-Witte, 6/0. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - Member Wasko reported the vouchers for childcare will decrease to poverty level due to budget constraints (federal). President Franz - The VITA site at Chipman needs volunteers. Flores-Witte will volunteer on Feb. 5th, Feb 12th and Feb 19th , March 5th, and April 9th & April 12th. Beaver - The ACCYF had asked the Mayor for support with Season Non-Violence on Feb 1st, and extended t… | SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2005-01-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006--7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06-029) - Mayor Johnson encouraged the Alameda High School students and Troup 73 Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local government; stated the City has good job opportunities. (06-030) Proclamation declaring February 3, 2006 as "Wear Red for Women" Day in Alameda. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation; stated the proclamation would be forwarded to the American Heart Association. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] ( *06-031) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on January 3, 2006. Approved. ( *06-032) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,585,271.93. ( *06-033) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment Policy. Accepted. (*06-034) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute the fifth amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and fourth amendment to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement by and between the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 2 | Authority, the Port of Oakland, and the City of Oakland for the Cross Airport Roadway Project (Ron Cowan Parkway) Accepted. ( *06-035) - Recommendation to accept and authorize recording a Notice of Completion for the Bayport Stormwater Pump Station System Improvements. Accepted. (*06-036) Recommendation to authorize execution of a lead-based paint hazard reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Accepted. (*06-037) Resolution No. 13920, "Approving the Application for California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-038) Resolution No. 13921, "Appointing Michael B. Cooper as a member of the City Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and (06-038A) Resolution No. 13922, "Appointing Dora J. Dome as a member of the City Social Services and Human Relations Board. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Dome. (06-039) Resolution No. 13923, "Commending Alameda Police Lieutenant Bob Cranford for his contributions to the City of Alameda. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson read the Resolution. The Acting Police Chief accepted the Resolution on behalf of Lieutenant Cranford and expressed Lieutenant Cranford's appreciation for the Resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 3 | (06-040) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Bayport Alameda Community Building and Park Project. The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation. The Acting Recreation and Park Director presented drawings outlining the schematics for the proposed park site. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the restrooms would be separate from the community building. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the restrooms would be separate for park access. Councilmember deHaan stated the adjacent school property area has asphalt; inquired whether the area would be accessible at all times, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed trees are appropriate for the climate, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be adequate drainage. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated adequate drainage has been stressed throughout the design process. Mayor Johnson inquired whether sprinkler systems would cover the infield area. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the specifications would address specific sprinkler systems for the site. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the older parks have a lot of tree root issues; inquired whether root guards were considered. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative stated the design team was very conscience of tree type and placement. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage of the multi-purpose room, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded 1,700 square feet. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 4 | Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms were comparable in size. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed multi-purpose room would be larger than most. Councilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for the baseball and softball fields. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would depend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could be held at the same time for age groups under 12. Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources. The Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from project revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit participation, and tax increment. Mayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also. Mayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great success; the City and School District benefit when resources are pulled together. The Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be the first park built since Tilden Park in 1993. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II (Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced. The Development Services Director provided a brief report. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business districts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in the past, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 5 | Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with having only one neighborhood representative; he would prefer to have two at- - large neighborhood representatives neighborhoods are impacted business district representatives might not be Alameda residents. Mayor Johnson stated that she understood the Commission's role to be marketing, not daily management. The Development Services Director stated the permitting process would not change deposits are provided for police services. Mayor Johnson stated that times were restricted when filming was done on the bridge; police officers were present; pedestrians were notified of detours; the Commission's role should not be coordinating the activities. The Development Services Director stated that the Business Development Division Coordinator would work as the staff liaison to coordinate various activities; the Commission would help with inquiries and marketing; the State has developed a program to educate neighborhoods and raise awareness. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated filming has been done on her street over the last few years; the film production company sent someone out to explain the filming process; stated that the experience was positive. Councilmember deHaan stated that his neighborhood had mixed reviews with the filming processi the neighborhood needs to be involved with handling location requests. Mayor Johnson stated having someone familiar with the historical areas of Alameda is important. The Development Services Director suggested reducing the number of members with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three, adding a resident with knowledge of historic districts, and changing the "neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society representative" to "neighborhood member" Councilmember Matarrese suggested all members be Alameda residents, except business representatives. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some film industry people work for employers in town and should be able to be considered; the bulk of the Commission should be Alameda residents… | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 6 | Alameda residents. The Development Services Director stated that the initial terms could be shortened to no longer than two years. Councilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services Director; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the number of business representatives could be reduced; he would prefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative. The City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be revised. Mayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two years. The Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and two years. Councilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought down to nine members. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the proposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the "neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society representative" to "neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood member with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the majority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten terms to one and two year staggered terms) Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. The Development Services Director provided a brief report. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he supports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the community; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a growing issue. Jim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 7 | net services special consideration should be given to organizations that provide education along with services; a disaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income families. Robert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on the public service needs employment, transportation, and child care are needed in addition to improving access to affordable housing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S four focus areas guide in the decision making. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance issues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the final Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather information about extraordinary maintenance. Mr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the focus information on proposed improvements is provided to residents; resident input is requested. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding was available. The Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for housing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted and approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of improvements needed over the next 20 years. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in developing criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance of the organizations receiving the grants should align with the SSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and goals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing should include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need to be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the proper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into the measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is expected. Councilmember deHaan in… | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 8 | The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a new scope of work and information would be provided to Council. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to receive more than the $1.3 million grant. The Development Services Director responded next year's total budget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds from loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million; program revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately $200,000. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care of the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services Department's funding portion takes care of housing over and above the Housing Authority. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental rehabilitation. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority has used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does not plan to use the funding this year. Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out with the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are reviewed periodically. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative; stated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net provider participation is unbelievable. Mayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 9 | (06-043) Brien Burroughs, Glass Eye Media, stated that he is producing an independently financed television pilot at City Hall on Thursday and Friday barriers sometimes come up when filming at government sites; all his contacts in Alameda have been great ; stated he appreciates the support. (06-044) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated there is corruption in the Planning Department a resolution was passed by the Council on June 21, , 2005 which required the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to his home to conduct a specific soil test prior to receiving design review; the testing was submitted; the design review was approved and has been appealed to the Planning Board; he is unable to get a fair hearing with the Planning Board; staff refuses to provide accurate information; the City denies using the wrong section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the development; he received a $100 invoice to file a new form with the State; he received a $1600 invoice, which includes over five hours to discuss the project with City Attorney's office; the facts are undisputable; urged members of the Council to appeal the decision of the Planning Board. Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Lynch should communicate his concerns with the City Manager. Mr. Lynch stated that he spoke with the Acting Assistant City Manager on Thursday and has not received a reply. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that he spoke to Mr. Lynch, the Planning Department staff, and City Attorney's office last week; he still has one more person to contact; he will get back to Mr. Lynch. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06-045 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Continued. (06-046) Councilmember deHaan stated streetscape funding was discussed at the last Council meeting he hopes that electrical provisions have been included to allow for embedded pedestrian lights [ on Park Street] between Central Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue when funding is available. ( (06-047) Councilmember deHaan stated … | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at the corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down, but nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are needed to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain amount of time. Councilmember deHaan requested information on applicable ordinances. The City Manager stated that information would be provided to the Council. (06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory was discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider establishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City can set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are purchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as natural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number of single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought back to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles should follow. (06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is important ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to indicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned over the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no longer usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs should be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely important. The City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being reviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided to Council. Councilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for using hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established vehicles should be replaced in a logical manner. (06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use policy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance; the current policy is not compliant. The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting the policy. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 Januar… | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 11 | ADJOURNMENT (06-051) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. in a moment of silence for City Employee Matt Plumlee's family loss. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 12 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006- -6:05 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m. ] Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-025) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda. Rosemary McNally stated that she was not a party to the lawsuit, but had followed the Cineplex project since the Historical Advisory Board meeting in 2005; cited the Indemnificatior Clause in the Disposition and Development Agreement with the developer, Kyle Connor questioned why the City is paying for Mr. Connor's defense costs when the City says it does not have enough money for services. The City Attorney responded that the developer has his own attorney; the City has a large investment risk in the project and chose to retain its own counsel in order to best protect its own interests in the project. Ms. McNally thanked the Council for clarification and submitted copy of her statement for the record. (06-026) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. *** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m. (06-027) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney. . Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened Special Meeting 1 Alameda City Council January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 13 | and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council discussed the case and stated staff would provide an Off-Agenda Report on the upcoming process; regarding Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators; regarding City Attorney, the Council gave direction to labor negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting 2 Alameda City Council January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 14 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006 -7:29 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present : ouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. Agenda Item (06-028) Resolution No. 13919, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Repair of the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike, along Shoreline Park, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. " Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requested funding was for interim repair, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when full repair would be completed and what the plan was for preventive maintenance. The Public Works Director responded the schedule for the full repair was being reviewed; larger ripraps would be added to strengthen the armoring of the slope; the design process would take approximately two to three months because a lot of surveying is required; funding is the big issue; the estimate is approximately $2 million for the riprap. Mayor Johnson inquired whether information has been provided to the public. The Public Works Director responded the area has been barricaded, and warning signs have been posted. Mayor Johnson requested that additional signs be posted along Shoreline Park to provide information on the seawall restoration and to thank the public for their patience. Councilmember deHaan stated the damage occurred because of high tides ; inquired whether further deterioration was evident. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 15 | The Public Works Director stated the entire length of the seawall has been inspected; the interim repair would take care of significant deterioration; the intent is to beat the high tides forecasted for the end of the month. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether erosion occurred in other areas. The Public Works Director responded the $500,000 should cover all areas that need repair. Mayor Johnson inquired whether periodic inspections are conducted. The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated future periodic inspections are being considered. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Governor added Alameda County to the disaster list; inquired whether funding would be available for the repairs. The Public Works Director responded that staff was working with the County and Office of Emergency Services (OES) to secure Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the deterioration was standard or the result of circumstances. The Public Works Director responded that the current situation is extremely accelerated; a resident raised the issue in March; staff examined the area in April and determined that immediate attention was not needed. Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully budget issues would not prevent performing a temporary fix if the City witnessed some deterioration. Mayor Johnson stated that issues should be called to the Council's attention if something similar arises. Councilmember deHaan thanked the Public Works Director for planting trees in front of Alameda College on Appezzato Parkway. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 16 | Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 January 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf,1 | PensionBoard | 2005-01-31 | 1 | OF CITY OF ALAMEDA California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD 4:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005 ALAMEDA CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA CONFERENCE ROOM 391 1. The meeting was called to order by Chair Beverly Johnson at 4:43 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Trustees: Beverly Johnson, Nancy Elzig, Robert Follrath, William Soderlund and Karen Willis. Staff: Amy Ho, Supervising Accountant, Finance. Absent: none. 3. MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2004 were reviewed. Robert Follrath motioned to accept the minutes as presented, Nancy Elzig seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Robert Follrath asked to pull the consent calendar for discussion on an error he found under 4-A a. The dollar amount shown on the agenda ($262,255.28) did not match the dollar amount shown on the December 27, 2004 "Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending December 31, 2004" memo from the Chief Financial Officer. After a brief discussion, it was determined that the CFO's memo had the correct dollar amount of $264,255.28. While reviewing the Pension Payroll memo, it was also noticed that under the December-04 heading, the total figure had an extra digit ($268,1218.91) and should have been $268,218.91. Amy Ho will correct the "Pension Payroll - Quarter Ending December 31, 2004" memo, ask the CFO to sign off, and then redistribute. 4-A. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004: a. In the amount of $ 264,255.28 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" | PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf |
PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf,2 | PensionBoard | 2005-01-31 | 2 | City of Alameda Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Pension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005 Page 2 4-B. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004: a. In the amount of $ 261,681.79 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1067, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. 4-C. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2004: a. In the amount of $ 264,960.47 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S. b. In the amount of $ 3,258.44 for the members under Pension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S. Robert Follrath motioned to adopt the consent calendar with the corrections as noted, William Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote. 5. AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. On a motion by Member Soderlund and seconded by Member Elzig, the Chief Financial Officer's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police and Fire Pension Funds for the period ending December 31, 2004 was accepted as presented; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote. 5-B. In the absence of CFO Juelle-Ann Boyer, Member Willis spoke to the issue of erecting new flagpoles at City Hall. She stated that during a conversation with the Interim City Manager, he indicated that due to our current budget shortfall, timing was not good to consider purchasing new flagpoles. Member Follrath, being an active participant in varied community groups, said that he would put out feelers, and maybe help to raise the money for the new flagpoles, but would need a cost estimate as a starting point. Member Willis will follow-up with the Public Works Director to obtain a more definitive figure. This item is to be continued at the next Pension Board meeting. 5-C. Member Follrath motioned to accept, with sincere regrets, the memo from the Human Resources Director notifying of deaths of 1079 Pensioners. Member Soderlund seconded; all were in favor and passed with a 5-0 vote. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no oral communications. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" | PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf |
PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf,3 | PensionBoard | 2005-01-31 | 3 | City of Alameda Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Pension Board - Monday, January 31, 2005 Page 3 7. PENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD) There were no communications from the board. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Willis, Human Resources Director Secretary to the Pension Board Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" | PensionBoard/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:21 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05-047 - ) Proclamation declaring January 30, 2005 through April 4, 2005 as A Season for Nonviolence in the City of Alameda. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Pat Dilks of the Children's Learning Center representing the Youth Collaborative. Ms. Dilks thanked the Council for their support. (05-048) - Update on the new main library project. The Project Manager submitted a timeline and provided an update on the project. Mayor Johnson inquired when the construction budget would be submitted, to which the Project Manager responded that the construction budget was set by the $17.4 million contract. Mayor Johnson inquired when the spending schedule would be provided, to which the Project Manager responded that a schedule would be provided this month. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the steel prices were locked in before the end of 2004, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the rebar subcontractor withdrew because of bankruptcy. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 05-049], and the Resolution Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [paragraph no. 05-054] were removed from Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 2 | the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] (05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings held on January 18, 2005. Mayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not absent. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council Meeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61. (*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted. (*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half Moon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas Generation. Accepted. (*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, "Authorizing the Application to CalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for Improvements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach. Adopted. (05-054) Resolution No. 13813, "Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I." Adopted. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of- way for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 3 | involves the exercise of the right to purchase the entire Alameda Belt Line property, not just the 22-acre site. Mayor Johnson stated that the purchase of the right-of-way for the linear park was separate from the down zoned area [Measure D, 2000]. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the curb on Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway was under the City's jurisdiction, to which the Public Works Director responded the street from curb to curb is within the public right-of-way Councilmember deHaan inquired whether improvements have been made to the area, to which the Public Works Director responded that there were no improvements on the south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway because the City only owns the area to the curb; the Alameda Belt Line property runs from the back of the curb to the fence line. ouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*05-055) Resolution No. 13814, "Approving Submittal of a Revised Application, Incorporating a Flat Parking Lot and Budget Adjustments, to the Office of Library Construction Under the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS ( 05-056) - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300 square foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings, with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related resolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the C-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning Districts. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. Applicant : Park Centre Animal Hospital. The Supervising Planner provided a brief overview of the project. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether rezoning from R-5 to C-C would make the existing property conform to the General Plan designation, to which the Supervising Planner responded in th… | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 4 | 4 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 5 | receive notification live within 300 feet regardless of the Everett Street or Central Avenue address. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether someone would be unaware that Central Avenue was involved if they did not review the plans, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether use permits run with the current proprietor or with the property, to which the Supervising Planner responded that use permits run with the land; stated use permits do not change the zoning. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the notice is valid, to which the City Attorney responded that the notice complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code and the current practices of the Planning Department. Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the dog walking practices. Mr. Busse stated that currently the dogs are walked on the existing bank property as well as in the neighborhood. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dogs are boarded, to which Mr. Busse responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is design latitude on the Central Avenue side, to which Mr. Busse responded enhancements have been made; additional latticework is being added. Councilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with trees covering the sign. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether landscaping was one foot from the lot line and five feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Busse responded that there would be a five foot two inch landscape buffer from the existing sidewalk. Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the project Design Review is the only issue before the Council; good improvements have been made. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the notification. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project should be re- noticed, and Design Review should be sent back to the Planning Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 6 | Board. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as liking the design, especially the changes the architect has made ; she is concerned about the noticing issue. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not including the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have caused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the project delay. Councilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design does not fit the residential character of the neighborhood; arguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the existing structure; the project is a positive step. Councilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the Planning Board for proper notification. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went on record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to the Planning Board was to allow proper notification. (05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial; and (05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning District to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not introduced. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Proponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital. Opponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 7 | Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the Planning Board for proper notification. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m. * Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be heard before the discussion regarding options for relocation assistance [paragraph no. 05-059]. (05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX, Development Regulations. Lars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that PSBA supports establishment of the ordinance. Mayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor but would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade, Regency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton, Dog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA. Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting the staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue operating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-059) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction, demolition and condominium conversion in the "West End Atlantic Corridor Area" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway). Proponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham, Alameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association (HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 8 | Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael John Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre, Alameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista United Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold Fong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda. Neutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig Miott, Alameda. Opponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property Owner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green, Alameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO; Merle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda resident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda resident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors; Harry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management Don Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and Lindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda Association of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO; Hanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident and RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda resident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha Erdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident and RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke, Bonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County. (05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese moved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on a project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and Santa Monica; … | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 9 | other than an ordinance that speaks to short notice mass evictions and voluntary relocation assistance. Mayor Johnson requested staff to determine how local and State statutes could be put to better use; stated the maintenance and quality of life issues at the Harbor Island Apartments could have been handled better. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has not met one person who has defended the 15 Asset Management Group's action; requested staff to review whether there is a hole in the condominium conversion ordinance and whether there is an attempt to circumvent the ordinance; the proposed ordinance does not address the impact of not providing a reasonable, fair amount of public notice for vacating the complex completely; the Alameda Unified School District is trying to close a gap of over a million dollars ; perhaps the 15 Asset Management Group should pay an impact fee; the Harbor Island Apartment issue will not be resolved soon; encouraged investment and improvement in the West End; stated process should include social impacts. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the goal should be preventing a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again; the question is how to go about it; the City needs to work to enforce current laws the former residents suffered greatly; West End residents need to know that they are just as important as residents in other sections of the City; landlords have stated that the proposed ordinance will not work from their standpoint i challenged the landlords to work with the City and the residents and come up with a way of preventing the situation from happening again; stated steps need to be put in place to have it happen sooner rather than later. Councilmember deHaan stated that redeveloping the West End will cause displacement; a good social eye is needed for what is occurring the City knew that something was going astray; a wedge has been driven between the landlords and tenants; the size of the Harbor Island Apartments makes it difficult to manage; the property cannot afford to be ke… | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 10 | Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work together and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been offended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of quantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a half, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the complex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were being decertified because standards were not being met; requested the City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code Enforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de- certification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to react should there be another large complex that is spinning in the same fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation. Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not been strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on enforcement. Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island Apartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3 Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to Alameda, whether State or local. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other cities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities have been effective. Mayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a policy utilizing existing ordinances. Councilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft voluntary relocation assistance. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised public awarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord representatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and discuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants' ideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in developing ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again. Mayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the committee be brought back to Council at the next City Council meet… | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 11 | Counci lember Matarrese clarified that the motion was to direct staff to: 1) provide a compilation of indicators relating to crime, Code Enforcement, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-certification which would enable the Council to develop a policy on how to react, and 2) provide a framework for a committee which would include defining what happened at the Harbor Island Apartments and how to prevent the situation from happening again. Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog's voluntary relocation assistance draft should be included. Counci lmember Daysog stated the proposed committee could review his suggestion. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-061) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated the City Attorney received a copy of the State law on rentals two years agoi noted Committees, except those she has chaired, often do not sunset on time; stated landlords would get together to respond to Councilmember Gilmore's challenge [to come up with a something to prevent a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again] . (05-062) Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda, thanked Councilmember Daysog for returning property he left in the Chambers at a previous meeting. (05-063) Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that he could provide Council with copies of the rental housing laws. (05-064) Arch Woodliff, Alameda, noted that he chaired the committee which dealt with rent in 1974 and first founded the Rent Review Advisory Committee. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board. [Partial term expiring June 30, 2007] Mayor Johnson nominated Dennis Hanna for appointment to the SSHRB. (05-066) - ) Vice Mayor Gilmore request staff to provide information on the cost for filing an appeal; stated Mr. Barni indicated his Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 12 | Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 13 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 -6:45 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : ( 05-044) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Younger-Wunar, Inc. V. City of Alameda. (05-045) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Younger-Wunar Inc. V. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions were given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions were given to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 14 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA ITEMS JOINT ACTION: (05-046CC/05-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that the report shows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the Fiscal Year and recommended adjustments. The Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view; matters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8 million deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented at the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated revenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget the estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and appropriations. Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired how much of the projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which the Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million. Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether there would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that a budget adjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of $4.8 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious problem. ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 15 | Councilmember/Commissioner/BoardMember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION: 05-006CIC) Resolution #05-133, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS, Inc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs) Adopted. Lars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the resolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic Alameda theatre. Duane Watson encouraged building the parking structure. Debbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution. Robb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in moving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the Alameda theatre, and the new theatre complex. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre project has been a long time coming. Chair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the theatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be taken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 2 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 16 | Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 17 | MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (05 5-01) - Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement Corporation Meeting of February 3, 2004. Board Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Board Members Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions : Board Member deHaan - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meeting at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Alameda Public Improvement Corporation February 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf,1 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-02-02 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2-A Wednesday, February 2, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004. 2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004. 2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of California's Closed Military Bases. Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese. 3. PRESENTATION 3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning. Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments. Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the action… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf,2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-02-02 | 2 | On Saturday, Jan 22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull. Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings. Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well. Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments independent of those workshops. Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what they might have said. Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5 million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent @ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process. Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf,3 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2005-02-02 | 3 | 5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed. This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February 3, 2005 at 6:30 pm. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March 23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February 18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss transportation with a BART liaison committee. Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda. Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma… | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,1 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 1 | MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM Vice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. Secretary Altschuler called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair McPherson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmember Tilos. STAFF PRESENT: Secretary Altschuler, Leslie Little Development Services Director, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: Remove Item 1 from agenda per the City Attorney's office. (see below.) MINUTES: M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005 with corrections. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only) None. ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action) 1. Certificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential structure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued from 9-9-04) Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the City Attorney's office contacted the State Historic Preservation Office for guidance regarding the listing of the property and procedure of processing the Certificate of Approval. We were advised that it was inappropriate for the Historical Advisory Board to list the site on the Historical Building Study List, or consider a Certificate of Approval for demolition because the building was already demolished and no longer meets any of the criteria for being considered as a historic resource. Thus, rather than being a historical preservation issue for Historical Advisory Board consideration, the scope of work permitted under the issued building permit is in question. Staff requests that the Board remove this item from the agenda. Minutes of February 3, 2005 Regular His… | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,2 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 2 | M/S (Miller, Lynch) to remove this item from the agenda. 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries. 2. Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, informed the Board that Staff would like direction from the Board regarding the proposed rehabilitation and construction of the 2 story multiplex and the 352 space parking structure. She expects the project should be ready for a Planning Board public hearing in mid March. Michael Stanton, consultant, gave a presentation which included a brief history of the theater and showed the Board what is proposed. He informed the Board that the lobby and auditorium of the Alameda Theater will be restored to look as it did in 1939 when it opened for the first time. The second floor of the lobby, will also be restored. The balcony area is not included in this first phase. The marquee will be restored as well. In designing the new Cineplex, it is noted that, according to the guidelines from the Secretary of Interior, new construction should be clearly differentiated from the existing historic building. There will be retail on the street level corner of Central Ave. and Oak Street. There are four theaters proposed on the second level and three theaters proposed for the ground floor. The proposed 352-parking garage will not only serve the Theater, but all of Park St. It is designed so that it can be easily expanded in the future. Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment. Richard Rutter, AAPS, felt that the design should emphasize a vertical articulation, not horizontal. The materials used should be high quality such as pressed brick or terra cotta. The parking garage should not look like a parking garage. AAPS felt that the previous parking garage proposal pr… | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,3 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 3 | Leslie Little stated that the DDA would be ready for hearing sometime in March. The City Council has taken action to allow staff to purchase the Video Maniac's parcel. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board a request for Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations relating to the seismic strenghthening of the front façade, the new openings between the theatre and the new Cineplex, and the new opening for the concession stand. Ms. Altschuler also noted that the community would also have chance to speak at the Planning Board hearings. The Board thanked Leslie Little and her team for a nice presentation and they all look forward for this project to begin. REPORTS: 3. Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the City Council directed staff to agenize a review of the Work/Live Ordinance by the Planning Board, the Historical Advisory Board and the Economic Development Commission. The Council asks the Historical Advisory Board to review the Ordinance in general, with specific focus on whether the ordinance protects historic buildings, and whether the Ordinance should be changed to expand the geographic limitations on work/live studios to include other portions of the City such as the Park Street or Webster Street Commercial Districts, more of the Northern Waterfront area, or Alameda Point. Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment. Dick Rutter, AAPS, feels that the Ordinance should state that the kitchens should not be located near the work area. He feels that this Ordinance is a good tool in preserving Historical Buildings, and that it should be extended to include the former Navy Base. He also stated that Measure A is an issue that the community should be educated on. Chair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened Board discussion. Boardmember Miller feels that the Work/Live Ordinance is not a threat to Measure A, and has no problem expanding this to Alameda Point. Chair… | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,4 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 4 | Board member Lynch asked staff to find out how much the Work/Live permit would cost, how the permit would be enforced and would the occupant be advised of any limitations. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the Work/Live permit fee has not yet been determined. There would be an individual use permit required for each project, as well as a business license for each use. A deed restriction would also be required. If an applicant is in violation of the conditions of their use permit, it can be revoked by the Planning Board. M/S to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. (Miller/Lynch) 3-0-2. Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion carries. 4. Consideration and possible recommendation to the City Council to revise the definition of demolition in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Altschuler began by informing the Board that it has become more difficult for Staff to determine whether a project meets the Historic Preservation Ordinance's definition of demolition which states that demolition occurs when 30% of the value of the building is removed. This definition has been challenging to administer because the meaning of "value of the building" can have many interpretations, thus there is no clear indication when a proposal includes a demolition and when it does not. For example, if the value of the building is based upon assessed value, two identical buildings could have a different assessed value (depending upon when it was last sold or whether it has Proposition 13 protection), and a larger portion of a building with a higher assessment could be removed before a demolition would occur. If value was dependent upon the cost of the work or materials, then more of a well-maintained, well- constructed property could be removed than a deteriorated one before the removal would meet the definition of demolition. Staff has reviewed the definition of demolition for a number of jurisdictions. Most have language similar to that for the City of Davis which states: "Demolition" means for the purpose of … | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,5 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 5 | Staff has prepared two Alternatives for the Board to consider. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this would require a recommendation to City Council to change to the Historic Preservation Ordinance Allen Tai, Planner II, presented two different examples of projects for the Board to review and determine which they feel should be considered a demolition under the current definition. Chair McPherson wished to remind the community that this Board is not saying no to all demolitions, but would like applications to come before the Board so they can have the chance to look at it prior to demolition. Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that she feels that as a result of 1025 Fair Oaks and 1104 Oak St; the 30% (of the value) rule is not fair to anyone involved. 30% of a home worth $800,000.00 is $240,000.00 which could be a huge demolition. She is in favor of Alternative #1. Rosemary McNally stated that she is leaning more towards more that 5% of the front of the building. She also stated that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Francie Farinet. AAPS, is in favor of Alternative #2. She is not sure what the solution should be. Chuck Miller stated that it is obvious that there needs to be clear guidelines. He feels that the front should be separate percentage from the rest of the house. In most houses the front façade is only around 20% of the house. He also feels that the roof is very important architecturally and should be taken seriously. Chair McPherson closed public comment and opened Board discussion. Board member Miller asked which alternative would be best for staff. Ms. Altschuler stated that the purpose of either alternative is to have a better discussion with the applicant regarding if a demolition permit is necessary. Chair McPherson stated she is leaning towards Alternative #1 but would like staff to add verbiage to include roof removal as part of the definition. M/S (Miller/Lynch) to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 3-0… | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf,6 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2005-02-03 | 6 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Boardmember Lynch informed the Board that she received an e-mail from Elizabeth Johnson regarding the Alameda Point Community Workshop that will be held on March 3, 2005, which is the same time as the Regular HAB meeting. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this meeting will be hosted by the Planning Board and that Staff will look for an available night to hold a Special HAB meeting. Chair McPherson stated that she spoke to Bill Norton, Interim City Manager, regarding specific interests that the Historical Advisory Board might have. She would also like to staff to agenize permit fee'e relating to Historic Preservation for a future meeting. STAFF COMMUNICATION: Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that her last official meeting as their Secretary would be April 7, 2005. She also stated that we are currently in the process of interviewing for the Planner III position and hopes that it will be filled prior to her leaving. Ms. Altschuler will be devoting most of her remaining time to working on the Development Code revisions and completing the Guide to Residential Design. Ms. Altschuler also thanked AAPS for helping with the graphics for the Guide. She stated that Allen Tai would most likely be the "Interim" Secretary to this Board until the Supervising Planner position is filled. ADJOURNMENT: M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 pm. Respectfully Submitted by: Judith Altschuler, Secretary Historical Advisory Board G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc Minutes of February 3, 2005 Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting 6 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf |
LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf,1 | LibraryBoard | 2005-02-09 | 1 | Minutes of the ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD February 9, 2005 The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Ruth Belikove, Vice President Karen Butter, Board Member Mark Schoenrock, Board Member Alan Mitchell, Board Member Absent: Leslie Krongold, President Staff: Library Director Susan Hardie, Secretary Jenna Gaber, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Board member Mitchell MOVED approval of the Consent Calendar. Board member Butter SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by a unanimous voice vote. An asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar. A. *Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the month of February 2005. Accepted. B. *Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of January 12, 2005. Approved. C. *Library Services Report for the month of December 2004. Accepted. D. *Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2003-04 Library expenditures (by fund) through January 2005. Accepted. E. *Bills for ratification. Approved. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Main Library Project Update and Ground Breaking Board member Butter asked about the budget for the Main Library project. She was concerned about the negative $569,044 shown in the Revenue/Expenditures column. She also said, and other Board members agreed, that this budget format is difficult to understand. Library Director Hardie agreed that this budget is not easily understood, and said she would speak with the Project Manager to see whether the format could be improved. She also assured the Board that the project is not overspent. On the subject of reports to the Board, members are disappointed that Mr. Haun is not reporting directly to them. Library Director Hardie explained that the Library Board is receiving exactly the same information as the City Council gets each month from Mr. Haun. She said that this is the reporting format that the City has decided on, and mentioned that the presentations are broadcast on City cable. Dr. Mitchell asked … | LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf |
LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf,2 | LibraryBoard | 2005-02-09 | 2 | Library Director Hardie handed out invitations to the groundbreaking ceremony. She stated that the Library is spending a minimal amount of money on this ceremony. The State Librarian and Wilma Chan have agreed to speak at the ceremony. NEW BUSINESS A. Library Building Team (M. Hartigan) The building team did not met this month. B. Alameda Free Library Foundation (R. Belikove) Vice President Belikove stated that the Foundation had their second dinner party with the fundraising consultants. Their goal is to raise $500,000. C Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen) Molly Skeen reported that there will be a clearance book sale at the "O" Club on the President's Day weekend. D. Library Building Watch (L. Krongold) Library Building Watch did not meet this month. F. Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response. None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) Marc Lambert asked if there would still be money to upgrade the branch libraries. Library Director Hardie answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lambert handed out an invitation for a library support event on Friday in San Francisco. LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Vice President Belikove commented on the newspaper article regarding the Berkeley Library's purchase of a $650,000 RFID system to track their books. Board member Butter commented on Unique Management Services. She wonders if it is very beneficial to the library. Library Director Hardie stated that it is teaching patrons that they need to return their books. She feels that it is a very useful in having library items returned in a timely manner along with their unpaid fines. UMS promises that their invoices will always be less than the money we collect. If at anytime invoices exceed revenues, the balance of invoices which exceed revenues will be waived by UMS. Vice President Belikove commented on another article regarding banning gay books in Alabama. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Library Director Hardie reported on Day in the District to the Board. Vice President Belikove, Marilyn As… | LibraryBoard/2005-02-09.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,1 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 1 | MINUTES OF RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION ALAMEDA RECREATION & PARKS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2005 1327 Oak St., Alameda, CA 94501 (510)747-7529 DATE: Thursday, February 10, 2005 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Third Floor, Room 360 Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Jo Kahuanui, Commissioners Christine Johnson, Georg Oliver, and Bruce Reeves Staff: Suzanne Ota, Recreation & Parks Director Dale Lillard, Recreation Services Manager (RSM) Fred Framsted, Recreation Supervisor (RS) Absent: None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve Minutes of December 9, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Meeting. M/S/C REEVESIJOHNSON (approved) "That the Minutes of December 9, 2004 be approved with the addition that the cell tower container should be reduced in height." (on page 2, paragraph 7) In Favor (4) - Ingram, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves Absent (0) - Abstention (1) - Kahuanui Approve Minutes of January 13, 2005 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting. M/S/C JOHNSON/KAHUANUI (unanimously approved) "That the Minutes of January 13, 2005 be approved." In Favor (5) - Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves 1 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, February 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,2 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 2 | 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.) None. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks - (Discussion/Action Item) RSM Lillard provided the 2005 Fee Schedule and Surveys for the Recreation and Park Commission's review. Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, Alameda Babe Ruth, and Alameda High School representative stated that the groups he represents donate a lot of time and materials to help keep the fields that they use in good condition. Charging a per player charge may influence the Boards of the different organizations as far as how much they will be willing to donate. He commented that what extent will the Boards be willing to invest grant monies, if they are paying the per player charge. The Commission needs to keep their registration fees in mind. Nino Borsoni, Alameda Soccer representative, stated that Alameda Soccer has invested over $350,000 to date. Conceptually the group understands what is driving the fee, but feels that the Sports Advisory Committee needs more information and better research. Questions raised were: What is the operating budget? What are the groups bringing in? And, how does that offset the budget? A lot of the youth play multiple sports. Will they be charged multiple times for the different sports they are playing? Conceptually the group understands the fee and is not opposed to it, but want to make sure that there is equity consideration. They groups would like to see more research done before the fee is implemented. Commissioner Reeves stated that between soccer groups represented by Mr. Borsoni and baseball teams represented by Mr. Matthews that is approximately 98 percent use of the fields. So assuming Mr. Reeves wanted to go out and play baseball with a group of friends, he would not be able to because the fields would be in use by these groups. These … | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,3 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 3 | use. Mr. Reeves would like to hear an alternative. Mr. Borsoni stated that an alternative would be installing sports turf. He would like to see some long-term planning. Mr. Matthews stated that the partnership that has been established is not on paper, but has significant monetary value especially in the maintenance part of the budget. The groups have supported a lot of the maintenance costs by volunteers, volunteer labor (e.g., fencing, etc.). If the grants that the groups provide were taken away, if there is even a $10 per play charge, the Department would still be way behind in the money needed to pay for the budget. Phil Woodward, Alameda Girls Softball representative, stated that he agreed with Mr. Borsoni and Mr. Matthews. It is We understood that they are users of these facilities and the concern is that if these charges move forward they want to know that there is insurance that these fees are marked for maintenance and maintenance only. Dave Johnson, Alameda Football Association representative, stated that he agrees with Mr. Borsoni, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Woodward. Mr. Johnson stated that the fees from all groups would be approximately $10,000 per year and asked if that is enough for the maintenance of the fields. If $5 is not enough what is the plan. Director Ota stated that it is estimated that it would be approximately $20,000. RSM Lillard stated that is based on the groups playing two seasons. A credit back could be an option depending on groups volunteering time and funds. Jean Sweeney, Alameda resident, stated that in the future she would like to see a fee for overnight camping in a Beltline Park. Chair Ingram stated that it seems that Alameda groups are doing much more with volunteers and providing donations to help maintain the fields than other cities and asked if that was the case. RSM Lillard stated yes, Alameda groups do much more than groups in other cities. Mr. Johnson stated that the Alameda Football Association would like to donate $2,500 toward the $10,000 cost for maintenance. Commissio… | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,4 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 4 | "That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. " Approved (5): Ingram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves M/S/C REEVES/KAHUANUI (Approved) That the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved: BASKETBALL Adult $610.00 Resident Team Fee $660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee SOFTBALL Adult $620.00 Resident Team Fee $670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee FLAG FOOTBALL Adult $598.00 Resident Team Fee $615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee SWIM LESSONS $ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident ($50 for two-week session) $ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident ($60 for two-week session) SWIM TEAMS USE FEE Hourly Rate: $5/hr./youth & adult (currently) $11/hr./youth (beginning January 2006) $12/hr./adult (beginning January 2006) $12/hr./youth (beginning January 2006) $13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006) TENNIS Adult Group Lessons $ 11/hour Junior Group Lessons $ 11/hour Private Lessons $ 42/hour YOUTH Day Camp $120/week - Hidden Cove $135/week - Trails End $ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care $ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care Preschool $ 4/hour YOUTH SPORTS Fall, Winter, Spring 4 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, February 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,5 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 5 | - Football $ 75/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee) - Basketball $ 65/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee) - Soccer $ 60/Season (additional $10 Non-Resident Fee) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Continued Discussion and Consideration of Request from Mayor and City Council to Develop a Park Use Policy - (Discussion Item) RSM Lillard reviewed the draft proposal that was included in the Commission packet. Commissioner Johnson commented that the document was very well done and addressed the items that the Commission had identified. Commissioner Ingram stated that the document was good but added that he wanted to make sure that the finished product included wording similar to #4 in the City of Seattle example regarding recovery of associated costs. RSM Lillard agreed to incorporate the item and to bring the next revision back to the Commission in April. B. Discussion and Selection of Joint Meeting Dates with City Council - (Discussion/Action Item) RSM Lillard informed the Commission that the City Clerk's Office had contacted staff with regard to scheduling the Annual Joint Meeting with Council. It was originally proposed to meet on a Wednesday evening in March, but the Council is unable to attend any of those dates. The Clerk's office is now attempting to schedule a date in April. C. Discussion of Annual Commission Goals, Objectives, and Accomplishments Including Park Master Plan - (Discussion/Action Item) RSM Lillard reviewed the draft copy of the Commission Goals and Objectives with the Commission. After discussion the following items were included under Accomplishments and Goals: Accomplishments Completion of the Marina Water Front Park Renaming of the former Officers' Club in honor of former Vice-Mayor Albert H. Dewitt Approval of the Public Art pieces for the Library Project Inclusion of the Water Station in the Drainage Project at the Dog Park Opened discussions for use of Alameda Point fields by local youth organizations Continue growth towards increasing cost recovery through introduction of new Programs Goa… | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,6 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 6 | A. Park Division See attached Activity Report. B. Recreation Division See attached Activity Report. C. Mastick Senior Center See attached Activity Report. D. Other Reports and Announcments 1. Status Report on Northern Waterfront Committee (Commissioner Oliver) The Northern Waterfront Committee has been disbanded. 2. Status Report on Alameda Point Golf Course Design Committee (Vice Chair Reeves) No report at this time. 3. Status Report on Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) (Chair Ingram) Chair Ingram stated that on Thursday, March 3rd, , at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall there will be an Alameda Point Community Workshop. The presentation will focus on the four most frequently raised issues in the previous two workshops: historic preservation, transportation, Measure A, and financial feasibility. 4. Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner Johnson) No report at this time. 8. STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS RSM Lillard stated that in the Fall 2004 staff completed preliminary work on drainage for the Dog Park. There is a second Phase which is a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to put in some extensive drainage. The project is in the design phase at this time. There is $30,000 allocated for the drainage portion of the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that there were some funds donated for agility equipment for the Dog Park. RSM Lillard stated that the agility equipment is custom built and is pending staff gathering information. Harry Hartman expressed concern about having fresh water stations. RSM Lillard stated that fresh water stations are included in the drainage project. It is hoped that the project will be completed by the summer. Any communication that can be given to the Dog Park users would be helpful. 6 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, February 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf,7 | RecreationandParkCommission | 2005-02-10 | 7 | 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL 10. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA 11. SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING Thursday, March 10, 2005 12. ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m. 7 Recreation & Park Commission Mtg. Minutes Thursday, February 10, 2005 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service | RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:03 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Ms. Mariani 3. ROLL CALL: President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali. Also present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David Valeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein, Development Services. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005. M/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as presented. AYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara) 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION: Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized for the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the Board members to provide written comments sooner. Mr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing requirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments. He noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to Planning Board Minutes Page 1 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 2 | invite communication and participation from the public. Vice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting materials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 3 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. TM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the resolution and on the agenda. Ms. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed due to the discrepancy. M/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 4 | 7-B. UP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central Avenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall painted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole along the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground equipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground equipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure and above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of January 24, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on the Regular Agenda. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the March 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach on the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did not approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed publicly. Mr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was speaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted that since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired whether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped that American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the softball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of the public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Jason Peary, project manager, Am… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 5 | Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various technologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to know why this site is critical to the applicant's operation. Ms. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the next hearing. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005. AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,6 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 6 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted that the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had three components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new seven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352- space parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design elements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to show the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components working in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the members of the development team. Mr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a variety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles. Ms. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history, approach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and layout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the theater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades. Mr. Stanton noted that this would be one o… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,7 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 7 | retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater should be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to read as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street. The design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and Articulation: 1. The second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to bring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street. 2. The strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in the new design; 3. The design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter the pedestrians in the street; 4. The frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should be left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street; 5. All mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and 6. The individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the property line to improve the general massing of the theater. The lighting recommendations were: 1. The overall lighting should be subdued and indirect; 2. The canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the public sidewalk; 3. Concealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section; 4. Exterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and 5. Lighting will be available in a vacant retail space. The signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent with the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels, glass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be available to the developers. Mr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at the next meeting. He noted that ga… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 8 | Page 8 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 9 | speak. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main auditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to accommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be evoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for the renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for construction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of acquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate. President Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had integrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable original fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on the exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of the big box and emphasizing the vertical elements. Vice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards the library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become available to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby with a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block. Ms. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage exits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns. Vice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls. Regarding public art, Ms. Little noted that … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 10 | to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore. President Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft protection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers Church, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden opportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the existing community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important. Mr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot function without the historic theater. Vice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she suggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it "shall project two feet over the sidewalk"; Mr. Stanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that the false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice President Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of the exterior materials. President Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions as they pertain to the project. Ms. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware of the signage requirements in Alameda. Mr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used more often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket queuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage. Mr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return for another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail; No action was taken. President Cunningham called for a five-minute recess. Board mem… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 11 | 8-B. Theater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the Theater Overlay District designation. Mr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the zoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft Resolution. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet. Ms. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week. M/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 11 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 12 | 8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank Mulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement action on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling unit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances to legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include: a. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is required for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story. b. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty feet is required. c. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between the main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required. d. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot landscaped separation is required. e. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is approximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum of ten feet. f. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation between the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped separation is required. g. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units. Mr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major Design Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code Enforcement. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was surprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure w… | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 13 | President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they conform to the Alameda Municipal Code. Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr. Piziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized that the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required findings. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and Major Design Review. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 13 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 14 | 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the workshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly encouraged. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: a. Presentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop. Mr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of the issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop to be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised that the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated having a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by summer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial feasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end of March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the Estuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's General Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run. Mr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints, challenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues … | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-02-14 | 15 | M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. AYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Ms. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use discussion. Mr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 February 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note: Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02 p.m. to travel on City business. ] Absent : None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05-072) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to designate the City of Alameda as an official "Coast Guard City. " Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef and Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy League. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast Guard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral Breckenridge. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with a correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *05-073) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 1, 2005. Approved. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular meeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead of p.m. ( *05-074) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 2 | (*05-075) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted. ( *05-076) Resolution No. 13815, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. " Adopted. (*05-077) Resolution No. 13816, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . Adopted. (*05-078) Resolution No. 13817, "Amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by Establishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control Clerk. " Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-079) Resolution No. 13818, "Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Hanna with a Certificate of Appointment. (05 -080 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created; Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2-9.3 (Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced. Mayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase because there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course, including the new clubhouse; having two more members would help with the workload; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea. The Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large operation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major changes at the golf course that require financial overview in the next few years. Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was lowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park Commission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 3 | Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are established by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make changes boards established by Charter would be difficult to change. Councilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides flexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard. Mayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-081) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P. W. 10-02-13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the Merged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the new streetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but are state-of-the-art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete Alameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the Contract. Mayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster Street Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any complaints. Councilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire sidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made regarding Park Street. The Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park Street is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending into the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street sidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which would be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 4 | money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin earning interest to mitigate the reduction. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired how the liability would be covered. The Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 5 | the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover any State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state the bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the State. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no impact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to deal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year. Mayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was very interesting and a good strategy. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue and appropriations. The Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget adjustments. Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. The Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing emergency medical coordination. The Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance overview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS, which is the medical authority responsible for administering licenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and quality assurance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS budget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives a copy of the budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which the Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 6 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy. The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the County reviews compliance with protocols and licensing. Mayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to determine why it is so expensive to be part of the system. The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with more detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in mutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual aid assistance from outside agencies. The Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to enter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response (AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and Alameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided and received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in Oakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often times it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR takes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the Advanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money back from the County contract. Mayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for ambulance service is set by the County contract the City should charge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher than the cap set by the County the City should review the rates charged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to charge more to recover service costs from users. The Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum charge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to charge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not pay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not charged more and only charges a prevailing rate. The Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased permit fee could be charg… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 7 | Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors would remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total reduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions in non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the budget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on the General Fund reserves for the fiscal year. Mayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December; inquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million. The Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased another $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council, resulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate funds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager, Chinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately $256,000 impact. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional Firefighters would have an impact on overtime. The Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would start the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in salaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not be a net benefit for the current fiscal year. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in future years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was required to be set aside. The Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside for accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the total accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10 million. The Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5 million required in set aside and removing loans to other funds, the amount remai… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 8 | reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State governments have deficits other cities are making staff reductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per month; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is due to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in the PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments have not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be raised significantly. Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being made without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has been a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be brought in line with economic realities; the City might face equally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City needs to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will be integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow the City to postpone dealing with the situation. Councilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to implement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next four or five years; the City needs to be prepared. Councilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were needed; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent overtime and short staffing issues. The Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two positions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but he is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is absolutely required. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in police and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the streets. The Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced in a department without recognizing that there will be an impact; both the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort to have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay in processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill following officer promotions, there will be an impact. Co… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 9 | 9 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City has to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service levels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed, information should be brought to Council before the situation is an emergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its services; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft priorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library services are intangibles that prevent the need for additional police officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to ensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole. Acting Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity of the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of the issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the best decision given the resources available; the City needs to continue to get out the word because sooner or later the average citizen will be impacted. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider direction to review terminating the police boat water services; stated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay property taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as well; that he would like to have options to help find an alternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or some other service levy that can be presented to the public; the matter should be brought back to the Council. Councilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million budget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time expenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole in the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA budget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is reviewing alternatives. The Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the ARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development Services Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA budget as m… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 11 | ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-084) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop would be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held February 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around the West End. (05-085) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged residents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda stated sales tax revenues need to increase. (05-086) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone to attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event February 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-087) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area Governments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos on the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend the meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen to the discussion. (05-088 ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to the League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been involved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he would be willing to be the City's representative. Acting Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 12 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M. Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmember/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent : Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (05-070CC/05-007CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Name of cases Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V. Alameda Belt Line. Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 13 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M. Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-071) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non- Sworn. Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to Labor Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,1 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 1 | ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sandré Swanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room #360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue. 1-A. Roll Call Roll call was taken and members present were: Chair Sandré Swanson, Vice Chair Tony Santare, Secretary Betsy Gammell, Commissioner Anthony Corica and Commissioner Bob Wood. Absent: None. Also present were General Manager Dana Banke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee. 1-B Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 19, 2005 The Commission approved the minutes unanimously. 1-C Adoption of Agenda The Commission approved the agenda unanimously. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3. AGENDA ITEMS: 3-A Approval of Management Practice for Golf Complex Volunteer Marshal Program (Action Item). The item was tabled until the next regular meeting. 3-B Update on Golf Complex Clubhouse Capital Improvement Project (CIP). The General Manager reported that he has met with Interim City Manager, Bill Norton, to discuss the project. Back in November 2004 the approval of the contract for design services for the project with the Dahlin Group was pulled off the City Council Agenda. The possibility of purchasing the plans from the City of San Mateo's Poplar Creek clubhouse have been discussed as a cost saving effort. The building is smaller than originally desired for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, although it is very functional and aesthetically pleasing. It would still be advisable to have the Dahlin Group oversee the Master Plan for the project. The General Manager has contacted the City of San Mateo and they are willing to discuss the purchase of the plans although no price has been determined and | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,2 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 2 | Dahlin Group who actually designed the clubhouse at Poplar Creek is still interested in doing the Master Plan. Definite savings would be seen by purchasing the plans although other factors exist. The sites are different and that needs to be taken into consideration. Minor changes would be made to the plans to give it originality and personalize it to the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, but to change the plans too much would not take full advantage of purchasing the plans. The purchase of the plans would also help with community support due to the fact that the building is constructed and functioning removing the concern over how it would look and function. The feasibility of the underground cart storage has been removed from the plans due to the instability of the soil and the cost involved. The General Manager has also been in contact with Bob Haun of the City of Alameda's Development Services Department. Mr. Haun is currently overseeing the new library project and the General Manager is hopeful that he could be brought on to help with the clubhouse project. The General Manager at Poplar Creek, Tim Heck has mentioned he is more than willing to meet with the Golf Commissioners and answer any construction questions they may have. 3-C Discussion on Practice Area for the Golf Complex Driving Range. The General Manager reported that over the past month the Golf Commissioners have gone out to the Driving Range and the Mif Albright Course to visualize the potential plans for a new practice area. Commissioner Wood drew up a design and gave it to the Golf Commission. He explained the plan is to use the first and ninth holes on the Mif Albright Course and redesign that course. A new tee would be placed east of the current 1st green and trees along the slough would be removed to open up the area and the 2nd green would become the 1st green. A new tee would be placed on #5 and that hole would be cut in half, the hole is currently 191 yards and represents the greatest hazard on the course. A new green would be placed on #9 also a… | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,3 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 3 | All of the tee areas have been aerated and top seeded and should be in good shape for the spring. The tee renovations will be done in house by the Maintenance Department. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A Golf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee. The Head Golf Professional reported that the Pro Shop has been redesigned to make it more inviting for the customers and it flows better. The large double doors behind the counter will now be open for customers | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,4 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 4 | and there will be three ways to enter. 4-B General Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and operational activities for the month at the Golf Complex. The General Manager reported that the Golf Complex is working to improve customer service in all areas. The reorganization of the Pro Shop and staff are being done to provide a friendlier atmosphere. Also reported was that the Mayor has proposed an ordinance to increase the Golf Commission from five (5) members to seven (7) members. The ordinance was approved by the City Council at their meeting last night. The approval still needs to go through another approval and then a 30-day waiting period prior to the appointment of the new Golf Commissioners. The meetings will need to be held in a larger area, possibly the City Council Chambers. The Senior Golf Club has about 120 members and held a General Meeting this month, which was well attended. The Golf Complex is looking into additional advertising and is considering an ad in the Japanese Yellow Pages and Golf Today magazine. Another advertising avenue being sought is at SBC Park in San Francisco. The advertising will be in a partnership with Poplar Creek Golf Course and will be seen by 7 million people over the spring and summer. The cost for the advertising is approximately $8,000 for the year. 4-D Beautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich. Mrs. Arnerich reported that three groups are waiting to schedule tree plantings. Also reported was that the local television station that televises the City Council meetings has the Golf Commission meeting listed at 7:30 pm not 7:00 pm. The General Manager will see that it is corrected. 5. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS 5-A Long-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson. Chair Swanson stated that in reference to some of the long range plans discussed that the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is an institution and we need to maintain the character of it. Customers may need to pay a bit more to secure that experience. Chair Swanson also reported that he has met with … | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,5 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 5 | individual entered the maintenance yard on a bicycle and stole a pickup truck and some tools. One of the maintenance works had left the keys in the truck and since it was the weekend and a limited crew was working, no one was in the yard. The vehicle stolen was a 1993 Ford pickup and a police report was filed. The vehicle has not yet been found. 5-C Maintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice Chair Santare. Secretary Santare stated that he is please with the schedule of work to be done on the tees. 5-D Golf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Corica. Commissioner Corica reported that total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 31% for the month of January 2005 as compared to January 2004, with play also down by 31%. The large decrease in play is in part due to the increase and severity of the rain days (14) during the month. For fiscal year 2004-2005, play is down 12% and revenue from golf is down 3%, as compared to fiscal year 2003-2004. Most Bay Area courses have experienced similar or larger declines in play. All ancillary services were slightly below from last January with the exception of the sale of monthly and annual tickets. The Golf Complex showed a loss for the month of $117,318 for the month and a net profit of $94,255 for the first seven months of fiscal year 2004/2005, down about $195,000 from the last fiscal year. The City of Alameda has included a charge for Return on Investment (ROI), which goes into the General Fund. 5-E New Clubhouse, Complex Entry and General Design and Construction Issues, Commissioner Wood. Commissioner Wood stated that the financial state of the Golf Complex could very well delay the approval of the Clubhouse Project. The General Manager stated that the Mayor, City Council and citizens really want to see the project proceed. The project needs to be scaled down to fit into the budget of the Golf Complex for the project to succeed. The additional improvements bundled into the CIP could be done over time and not all at once. The positive a… | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf,6 | GolfCommission | 2005-02-16 | 6 | None to report. 7. OLD BUSINESS None to report. 8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Included in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department showing the surcharge payment for January 2005 of $7,483. The year-to-date total is $99,494 for the fiscal year 2004/2005 to the General Fund. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. | GolfCommission/2005-02-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. 1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: Jeff Knoth Patianne Parker John Knox White Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50) Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works Carol Beaver - Division Manager, Development Services Andrew Thomas - Supervising Planner, Planning and Building 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Parker moved approval of the December minutes, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 3.AGENDA CHANGES 4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4A. TMP Subcommittee Appointment: Grid System and Strategies for Implementation Chair Knox White proposed that the existing subcommittee that developed the draft TMP policies remain in place for the implementation portion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The Commissioners supported this recommendation. 5.ORALCOMMUNICATIONS-NON-AGENDIZEDI - ITEMS None. 6.OLD BUSINESS 1 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 2 | 6A. Updated TMP Schedule Staff Bergman presented the staff report and described staff's recommended revisions to the previously approved TMP schedule. He noted that the bicycle plan update would be the first of the modal plans to be undertaken, and suggested that the effort be coordinated with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) effort to update the countywide bicycle plan. He stated that CMA staff have indicated that the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan would have to be submitted by the summer, so it would not be possible to complete the City's plan update in time. Therefore, staff recommended that the bicycle plan update proceed on two tracks: 1) identify projects to be recommended for inclusion in the countywide plan, and 2) undertake the complete update of the plan. This would enable the timely submittal of the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan, which would help enhance Alameda's efforts to compete for grant funds. Chair Knox White indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee of two commissioners to oversee the development of the bicycle plan update. He also requested that staff prepare the new TMP schedule in a revised format, so that all tasks would be in chronological order. Staff Bergman responded that this would be done. Commissioner Parker moved approval of the staff recommendation to revise the TMP schedule, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4. 6B. Task Force Recommended Draft TMP Policies Staff Bergman stated that the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies had been prepared by the TC subcommittee - consisting of Chair Knox White, Commissioner Schatmeier, and Commissioner McFarland. The subcommittee received input from the TMP Task Force and City staff. Staff comments were listed in the draft document, below the subcommittee's recommended policies. Staff Bergman stated that the draft document is now being brought to the full TC for additional input and approval of a final set of po… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 3 | enhanced by providing more opportunities for the public to voice its comments, rather than have it be an agenda item at a single Transportation Commission meeting. Chair Knox White stated that this issue would be addressed as part of the bicycle master plan. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the TMP policies as modified by the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. 7.NEW BUSINESS 7A. Alameda Point Land Use Impacts on Transportation Staff Thomas gave a presentation on the anticipated transportation system impacts of the proposed land uses at Alameda Point. He noted that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee would be hosting two upcoming meetings: 1) on March 3, which would focus on land use issues, and 2) March 23, which would be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and would focus on transportation issues. Both meetings will be televised. Two additional workshops will be scheduled before June. Staff Thomas noted that if the conveyance process with Navy goes smoothly, that starting in the summer of 2005, the City will enter an 18-month entitlement and environmental review process for Phase lof the project. Staff Thomas noted that the policies for Alameda Point were established in the mid-1990s in the community reuse plan. The policies were incorporated into the General Plan in 2003, but in accordance with the housing element and concerns about transportation through the tubes, a greater proportion of the project now consists of housing. The revised development concept also reflects the improvement in the residential housing market. Staff Thomas cited two major policies driving the Alameda Point project: 1) reintegrating Alameda Point into City; 2) the project would not rely on General Fund, so the development needs to pay for itself. He noted that the costs of the development would be considerable, for example, there is an estimated $300-350 million to upgrade or replace infrastructure. There will also be significant e… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 4 | the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined The transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of the project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered: shuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute headways during peak hours "eco-pass": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be able to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge water taxi service to Oakland queue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes transit barge Commissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit network, rather than being stand-alone services. Staff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include: BART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda Light rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly available, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not serve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco. Aerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San Francisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram connects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be difficult getting this option approved. Staff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and alignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best candidates by June and study the feasibility of those options. 7B. Work/Live Regulations Commissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation for work/live development as opposed to purely residential Staff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data. Commissioner Parker stated that … | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 5 | Jon Spangler expressed his support for the work/live regulations, and urged the TC to support maintaining the current policy. Public Comment Closed 7C. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study Staff Bergman provided an overview of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, which was funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy received separate funding for work on this project, and has been taking the lead on the public outreach component. Staff Bergman noted that the Trail would consist almost entirely of facilities identified in the General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed Trail would be largely located within the corridor formerly served by the Alameda Belt Line railroad, extending from Main Street to Tilden Way, and include the following features: serve a variety of users by utilizing both on-road and off-road facilities enhance access to key destinations, including planned development at Alameda Point, former FISC (Fleet Industrial Supply Center) site, proposed development in the Northern Waterfront area, and the renovated Bridgeside Center design would permit the potential development of a rail corridor land acquired and bike lanes constructed in conjunction with extension of Clement Avenue, which the City hopes to develop as a continuous route from Tilden Way to Atlantic Avenue Commissioner Parker asked if the proposed routes would undermine the ultimate goal of shoreline route. Staff Bergman responded that the Staff Bergman noted that the City has applied for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for funding for the first phase of the Trail, from Main Street to Webster Street. Staff Bergman stated that Lucy Gigli of BikeAlameda had expressed concerns regarding the proposed striping and lane widths on Clement Avenue. He distributed the letter from Ms. Gigli to the Commissioners. Mr. Spangler noted that there is an additional former railroad right-of-way east of Constitution Way that connects to the former FISC site, which could… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 6 | result, numerous recommendations of the Plan focused on establishing pedestrian connections through the school property and the adjoining park. The completion of these improvements would require coordination and the potential exchange of property between the City and the school district. Other improvements recommended for the area near Chipman Middle School include the realignment of the Pacific/Marshall intersection, and the re-design of the school's drop-off area and parking lot. Mr. Smiley noted that the feasibility of implementing a raised crosswalk across Pacific Avenue in front of Chipman Middle School would depend on the traffic volumes utilizing this corridor to access the planned development Alameda Point. Commissioner Knoth noted that for pedestrians there are important connections between this neighborhood and the proposed school in Bayport and to Encinal High School. He asked about the possibility of an elevated pedestrian crossing over Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Staff Hawkins responded that people tend not to use such facilities if they create a less direct route for crossing the street. Mr. Smiley noted that the Plan called for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the northern boundary of the neighborhood (south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway) through the establishment of a linear park. The City's Long-Range Transit Plan also identifies this route as a potential transit corridor. Chair Knox White noted that the illustrations in the Plan include marked crosswalks at several locations where crossings are currently prohibited. He recommended that the City attempt to make intersections as pedestrian-friendly as possible and look for opportunities to permit legal crossings. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and recommended installation of new crosswalks where possible. 6 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 7 | Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment Jon Spangler stated that staff had insisted that two travel lanes would be required in each direction along Pacific Avenue/Marshall Way/Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, by adding a median, the existing wide curb lane would be eliminated, making this route more difficult for bicyclists to use. He noted that an earlier version of the proposed design called for three lanes - one through lane in each direction with a shared turn lane in the center - and bike lanes. Public Comment Closed Chair Knox White and Commissioner Knoth both indicated that they supported Mr. Spangler's recommendation of one travel lane in each direction on Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific. Commissioner Parker said that the configuration recommended by staff, with four through lanes, is required to accommodate the anticipated traffic demand associated with the development at Alameda Point. Chair Knox White suggested that the three-lane configuration with striped bike lanes be implemented until the actual traffic demand warranted the additional travel lanes. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and stated that long-term needs should not limit near-term improvements. Staff Hawkins stated that Public Works had determined that two travel lanes would be required in each direction to accommodate the future traffic at Alameda Point, but that staff did not specifically preclude the installation of bike lanes. Commissioner Parker asked if the developer of the Harbor Island Apartments could be required to relocate the sidewalk so that it would no longer be behind the parking area. Staff Hawkins responded that the carports will be removed as part of the renovations. She noted that since the existing buildings are only being modified, the City cannot compel the developer to make such changes. She also noted that Poggi Street is privately owned, but there is a public easement for the sidewalks. Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus routes depicted in the Plan need to be updated. Mr. Smiley agreed that any recent changes needed to be incorp… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 8 | The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0305\022305minutesfinal.do 8 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
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]) );