{"rowid": 201, "text": "7-E.\nDR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an\nappeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-\nfamily residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b\n(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,\nsubject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-\nrelated permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval\nin July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,\ninterior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the\ndwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 202, "text": "7-F.\nUP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request\napproval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station\nbetween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The\nsite is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the\nservice station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales\nassociated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during\ndelivery. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service\nstation was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good\nneighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.\nMr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation\ncould become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution\nfrom cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want\nextra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential\nfor increased crime.\nMr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed\nconcern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed\na 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall.\nMr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour\noperation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this\napplication was a request for modification for the operating hours allowed for the gas station. He\nnoted that the notion of a sound wall was interesting, and added that the gas station faced into the\nproject, not out onto the street. He noted that many residential gas stations operated 24 hours a day,\nand because the grocery store was open 24 hours, there would be eyes on the gas station. They\nwould adopt security monitoring, and a teller window would be open for after-hours operation.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani noted that she did not feel comfortable with a 24-hour gas station in this center.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he would not favor a sound wall, but that a landscaped berm might\nwork.\nMr. Piziali noted that he could not support a 24-hour gas station use, and noted that Park Street had\n24-hour gas stations. He did not want homes to view the 24-hour use. He would favor a minor\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 203, "text": "change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.\nMr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an\namendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of\n6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 204, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda\n(CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the\nproposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video\nManiacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD\n(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\n(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nMs. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were:\n1.\nThe dome element was eliminated;\n2.\nThe aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and\n3.\nThe roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda\nTheater.\nMs. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear\naluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the\njoining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able\nto attend this meeting.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed\nCineplex on the overhead screen.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island\nwould continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot\nwould be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project\nwas too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would\nbe financially viable.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would miss the view\nof the Oakland Hills, and did not want that kind of change in Alameda. She noted that the design in\npeople's environment was very important. She suggested building retail uses and incorporating it\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 205, "text": "into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five\nyears.\nMs. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with\nprojected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church\nis taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested\nbuilding an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering\nplace. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory.\nShe believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented.\nMs. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted\nthat there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been\nresponsive to public and Board requests.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a\nbusiness owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project\nbelonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that\nover 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda\ndeserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character\nbetter.\nMs. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many\nmeetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the\nretail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about\nthe design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce\nAnderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design\nshould be made. He believed this report had been glossed over by staff. He displayed an illustration\nof the project, and noted that the transom windows were misaligned.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he has\nbeen very critical of the design from the beginning. He was very concerned that the City would be\nsaddled with a regrettable design. He believed that Bruce Anderson's comments had been treated on\nthe same level as public comment, and added that HAB had been very critical of the design, which\nwas also not apparent. He noted the walls made of precast concrete would be very suitable for Art\nDeco. He strongly urged that more design elements be included in this project so that it would not be\nso plain.\nMs. Holly Rose, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that this project overwhelmed the\nintersection in a claustrophobic manner. She did not like the aesthetics of the building.\nMs. Melody Marr, CEO Chamber of Commerce, noted that the community had been waiting a long\ntime for this theater. She noted that the visitors and tax revenue were needed badly in Alameda,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 206, "text": "particularly to support police and fire services.\nMr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure\nwas also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown.\nMs. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her\nconcerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one\nscreen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but\ndid not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new\nstructure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She\nbelieved that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not\nlike the design at all.\nMs. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A\nand 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that\nmany Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the\nrecipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that\nthere were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they\ndid not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the\nmain adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to\nits original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more\ndistributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design.\nMs. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or\nwatched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only\nrecently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close\nto the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbor Bay if the City wanted the revenue. She\ndid not believe the decision must be made at this time, and believed that there was more information\nto be heard.\nMs. Birgitt Evans, 2829 San Jose, spoke in opposition to this item, and complimented staff on\nsummarizing her comments on June 13, 2005. She agreed with Bruce Anderson's Section 106\nreview, as well as HAB's comments on the design of the Cineplex. She noted that four out five\nmembers of the HAB recommended that the architects \"go back to the drawing board.\" She\ncomplimented the project architects on their Deco-style cinema in Livermore, and would like to see\na design like that in Alameda. She particularly liked the strong vertical elements. She noted that\nmost proponents of the Cineplex had a vested financial interest in it. She believed that Alameda\nshould have a better design for such a major project.\nMr. Anders Lee spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this could be a much better design, and\nstated that there was considerable public opposition to this design.\nMr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item. He did not like the proposed design, and would\nfavor the designs suggested by the other speakers. He would like a smaller-scale theater such as the\nOrinda Theater. He believed the transit congestion on and off the Island would not attract visitors\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 207, "text": "from other communities.\nMr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and\nparking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired\nwhether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a\nsmaller and more aesthetically pleasing design.\nMr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design\nwas a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an\nelaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw\nsuch as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of\npressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the\nbenefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments.\nRose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the\nrestoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized\nmovie theaters.\nMr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen\nthis design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed\nconcern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not\nlike the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make\ntheaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He\nexpressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He\nexpressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural\ncenter for the performing arts in Alameda.\nMr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in\nopposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired\nabout the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the\nparking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the\ntraffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda.\nMs. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis,\nwhich had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis\nwhen it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available.\nMs. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in\nthe middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was\nchanging, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would\nbe appropriate. She did not like the design.\nMs. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of\nscale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic\ncongestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 208, "text": "this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to\nrenovate the proposed design in the future.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking\ngarage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much\ndetail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure\nthe historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and\nwould like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.\nMr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about\nthe design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and\nthat the design issues be addressed at this hearing.\nMr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that\nperspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on\nthe street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.\nMr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised\nquestions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-\nof-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He\ncomplimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed\nthe staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this\npoint before such open issues were resolved.\nMr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a\nmore modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater\nwith more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.\nMs. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was\nspeaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was\nbased on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that\nthe staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She\ngenerally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible\nor harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be\ncelebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to\nconsider changing the design.\nMs. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of\nAlameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how\ngood design can bring people together.\nMr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.\nHe noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 209, "text": "communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to\nthe community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the\nsuccess of downtown businesses.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted\nthat the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA\nbusiness owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended\nthe architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received.\nMr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10-\nscreen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it.\nHe noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been\neight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located\nand oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other\nbusinesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to\nAlameda.\nMr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted\nthat he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the\nproject, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that\nthere would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very\nconcerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the\nproject.\nMr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He\nnoted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public\ninput. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown\nbusinesses. He believed the design was acceptable, and complimented staff on incorporating the\nrequested changes.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nPresident Cunningham thanked the public for its comments, and noted that financial issues were\nwithin the City Council's purview, not the Planning Board's. Because a quorum of four Board\nmembers was required for an up-or-down vote, he requested a straw poll of the Board members to\ndetermine whether they wished to move the discussion forward.\nMr. Lynch noted that a number of different ideas regarding the value and design of this project had\nbeen heard. He was not inclined to deny this project because he believed the City was getting close\nto a workable project. He respected the emotions felt by members of the public, and was ready to\nmove forward with this project. He encouraged Alameda citizens to continue to be involved with the\nprocess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 210, "text": "Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the\nproject. He supported the project at this point.\nMs. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of\nstarting again with the design.\nVice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was\none of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library\nand the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final\ndecision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City\nCouncil, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly\nbelieved that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have\nliked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to\nrevisit the Long's issue with City Council.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings\nshould be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed\nconsiderably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's\nresponse to the 106 findings.\nMr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and\nPSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which\nmay dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example\nmay overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant\nevolution of the City.\nMr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate\nthat increased acceptance into his decision-making process.\nMr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Planning Board's comments,\nand if the Council wished to redirect it to the Board, that would be fine.\nPresident Cunningham believed the aversion to the blank panels would be a major part of the\nBoard's comments to the Council.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the HAB has\nalready provided their comments and given a certificate of approval for the historic Alameda\nTheater; that element would not be within the Planning Board's purview.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Mr. Lynch replied that the Board did not have the ability\nto scale the project back; the Board may either approve or deny the project.\nMs. Harryman advised that if the Board approved this item, it would only go to Council if someone\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 211, "text": "appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and\nglass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's\nrecommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in\nmany tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the\ntheater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording\nto be modified to provide for a base.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum\nclad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings.\nVice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings\nhad an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she\nwould prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be\ndeleted.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer\nshould be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the\nsignage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft\nResolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board.\nVice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be\nmonotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions.\nVice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and\nbelieved that the shade should fall on the Long's parking lot; she believed it was important to\nrespond to the public's concerns.\nMs. Eliason noted that because the Cineplex was a permitted use, the Board would not be asked to\nconsider any operational limitations. However, the Board will consider operational limitations for\nthe parking garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding how questions and concerns regarding operational\nissues for the theater could be voiced, Ms. Eliason suggested that could be expressed before the City\nCouncil; those concerns will also be reflected in the record.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 212, "text": "Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the\nowner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened.\nMs. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at\nvarious times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become\naccustomed to the operation.\nVice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central\nAvenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a\nbike lane.\nMs. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and\nto have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place.\nVice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street fa\u00e7ade; she\nnoted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the\ndetailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms.\nOtt recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is\npart of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance,\nand that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along\nCentral as part of the City's ordinance.\nMr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall\nenough to soften the building.\nM/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the Final design\nreview, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of\nOak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following\nmodifications:\n1.\nThe blank panels will be resolved;\n2.\nClear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable;\n3.\nLow-E clear glass will be used;\n4.\nA base for retail spaces will be provided;\n5.\nThere will not be recessed openings on retail spaces;\n6.\nThe lighting plan prepared by a lighting designer will be returned to the Planning\nBoard;\n7.\nThe added brick veneer will be retained;\n8.\nThe brick veneer will be variegated as specified on the material board;\n9.\nThe end caps will be deleted;\n10.\nThe shading study will be returned to the Planning Board if there will be shading on\nSanta Clara; and\n11.\nA sign program will be brought to the Planning Board.\n12.\nThe additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 213, "text": "8-B.\nUP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New\nCivic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit\nand Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-\nspace parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the\nVideo Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD\n(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\n(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Ott summarized the staff report.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage\nfrom Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger\nsite. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He\nexpressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would\nreduce that risk.\nMs. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and\nnoted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda\nwhere people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets.\nMs. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of\nDirectors had voted unanimously in favor of this design.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He\nnoted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the\nlower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted some sort of depression in the wall\nso the posters could be inserted in them. He suggested the use of opaque spandrel glass around the\nperimeter, with the movie posters exposed inside. He believed the use of variegated brick on the\nCineplex would be an improvement, and suggested that it be used on the parking garage as well.\nMr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe this was a true Art Deco\ndesign, and believed that it was too large for the site. He did not like the design of the parking\ngarage.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJune 27, , 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 214, "text": "Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the\ngarage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City.\nMr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure\nbecause of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand\nwhy the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise.\nHe expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the\ndesign be reduced.\nMr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were\nprimarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not\na nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be\nadded for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress\nand egress would be easy for people.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned\nabout its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were\nfiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City\nto reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid\nback by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as\nwell. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how\nmany people would buy monthly passes for the garage.\nMr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was\nconcerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed\nthat would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable.\nHe noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in\nconstruction. He inquired where the employees would park. He noted that the City was invoking\neminent domain against the owner of the Alameda Theater, and inquired why that could not be\ninvoked against Long's for the portion of their parking lot that would make this garage publicly\nacceptable.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, read an excerpt from the Alameda Journal entitled \"More\nParking is Not Always the Answer:\"\n\"Oak Street between Central and Lincoln Avenue should be Alameda's civic center.\nThat was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities\nand urban design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute\non City Design. The area from historic Alameda High School to the new main library\nto be built at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue could be a vibrant area that will bring\nresidents together.\n\"Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the City could improvise to get\nthe feeling of an open gathering space into the existing compact area, the group told\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJune 27, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 215, "text": "Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended\nnot building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design\nprofessionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will\ndestroy the Civic Center.'\nMs. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the\nBoard to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open\nspace, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt\nfrom The Whole Building Design Guide:\n\"Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone\nstructure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This\nhas given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the\nexisting urban fabric.\n\"However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed\nfar more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of\ngood parking design\n\"Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the\ncountry. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the\nsurrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding\narchitecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process.\"\nMs. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She\nsuggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with\nthe addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with\nrespect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested\nthat people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not\ngenerally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the right place for the parking garage. He would\nrather see the garage without a Cineplex than a Cineplex without a parking garage. He inquired what\nthe City would do when the parking structure is declared obsolete, perhaps before the bonds were\npaid off. He inquired about the City's exit strategy regarding what would be done with an empty\nCineplex when technology makes it obsolete in the future.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Leslie Little noted that a number of years ago, a parking assessment was performed in the\ncentral business district in which a number of different locations were analyzed to accommodate\nfuture parking. A number of public lots were examined, but they did not have the dimensions to\naccommodate that use. The three top sites were prioritized, and the site was identified as the single\ngreatest priority; it included the Long's parking lot at the time, which yielded 508 parking spaces.\nShe noted that after 6 p.m., the parking structure would be free. She described the payment method\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nJune 27, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 216, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to\nappropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556]\nwas withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-553) Library Project Update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief update.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in\nthe internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe negative.\nMayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas\nthat are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in\nother areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the\ncosts for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether\nthe costs are in the contract.\nThe Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for\nconstruction administration; any changes are covered under\nconstruction administration; the percentage of change orders\nattributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney\nat the end of the project.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were\nconstruction administration changes and whether the changes have\nalready been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work\nwould result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project\nManager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 217, "text": "for oversights.\nThe Project Manager responded that the Architect does not\nvoluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the\ninsurance policy.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for\nthe firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall\nand staircase could be potential claims.\nMayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the\npublic is very impressed with the process.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with\nthe caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate\n$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major\ninroads have been made on the ferry service.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number ]\n( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on November 15, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52\n(05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff\nFunds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the\nBridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for\nexpenditures incurred. Withdrawn.\n(*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit\nPlan. Accepted.\n(*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center\nWorkstations. Accepted.\n(*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance\nAnnual Review. Accepted.\n(*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 218, "text": "Review. Accepted.\n(*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and\nFire services. Accepted.\n(*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for\nthe 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.\n(*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire\nContract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for\nexclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex. Accepted.\n(*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount\nof $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus\nSoftware, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview\nSoftware. \" Adopted.\n( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, \"Authorizing the Purchase of\nStorage Area Network System Using the State of California\nDepartment of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive\nBid Award. \" Adopted.\n(*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, \"Authorizing the Execution and\nDelivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow\nAgreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the\nAcquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment\nfor the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of\nDocuments Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the\nTaking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the\nTransactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-565) Resolution No. 13913, \"Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as\na Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land\nDevelopment Seat) \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nTrevithick with a certificate of appointment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 219, "text": "Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City\nCouncil, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.\n***\n(05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of\noptions to increase funding for preventative maintenance of\ninfrastructure.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back\nto the Council at mid-year.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer\ntax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per\nthousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal\napproximately $180,000.\nMayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter\nthe Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would\nlike to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home\nprices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for\ndeferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the\nshortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through\nthe transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;\ninquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and\ndeteriorate over time.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nrecommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term\nstrategy which would be folded into the ten-year model.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only\nband-aids.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 220, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more\nstrategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year\nbudget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a\ncertain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax\nincreases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the\npublic has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the\nlibrary, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]\nthat have been made over the past five to seven years should not\nhappen again.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once\nwould not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of\nincreasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be\napproached through a public process; sidewalks are the most\ncritical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and\nsafety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and\nnecessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve\nis an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be\nconsidered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under\nbudget because of department head vacancies; there should be an\nanalysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair\nprojects have been scheduled.\nThe Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently\nscheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing\ncould be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year\nsidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between\nthe\ncriticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.\nMayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk\npriorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of\nsidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether\nthere should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for\nstreets] because of potential injuries and costs.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the total payment of\nsettlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a\nlow of $10,000 during the last four years.\nMayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made\nbecause the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded that he was not aware of any.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 221, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems\nto be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been\nreceived.\nThe Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;\nRedwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was\nwaiting for a report back from staff on the product.\nMayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product\nsaves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed\nconsideration should be given to drawing down on some of the\nreserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.\nThe City Manager stated that staff could project and identify\nwhether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,\nusing part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for\nstreets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for\nstreets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are\nreviewed.\nThe Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was\ndeveloped to address trees planted years ago which were not the\nmost desirable for long term.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural\nattrition.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that\nidentifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which\nidentifies trees with non-invasive roots.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated\nstandards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have\nLiquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda\nthan in other cities because of the value of large trees.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 222, "text": "drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance\nhas grown experientially over the last four years.\nThe Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep\ngrowing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth\ncould be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund\nreserves.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the\nreserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not\nfunding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done\nfor a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on\nthe reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is\nalready designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%\nto 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease\nrevenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted\nover to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue\nredevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital\ndollars could pay for improvements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars\ncould be done.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored\nwith caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to\nexplore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a\nreport on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a\ndetailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,\nsidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader\ncommunity involvement in the process; moving forward was important.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the\nbeltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to\ndiscuss the transfer tax with staff.\nThe City Manager stated that an election would need to be held\nbecause taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet\nwith the Board of Realtors.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the\namount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's\ntransfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's\ntransfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 223, "text": "The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for\nCharter cities is $9.47.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could\nbe unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is\nimportant; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects\nthat would provide benefit.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to\nmake adjustments.\nThe City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff\nrecommendation regarding current funds so that streets and\nsidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be\ninitiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the\nreserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated\nfunds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty\nyear scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial\nprojection.\nMayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that\nbudget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.\nThe City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating\nadditional revenues should also be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be\nreflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking\nthe money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further\ndeterioration.\nMayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-\nyear review and decisions would be made then; there should be an\non-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be\ndeferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be\nestablished as a standing rate in the budget processi determining\nhow projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be\ndone if other funds become available is an important segment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of\ndrawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current\nbudget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 224, "text": "redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)\nprovide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the\ntransfer tax.\nMayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,\nsidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred\nmaintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are\nvery valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed\nin the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to\ninclude reviewing the other assessment districts and the\nestablishment of landscaping and lighting districts.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to\ninclude an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt\nunless it was necessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a\nseparate issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time\nexploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was\nsomething the Council would like to review as a solution to the\ndeferred maintenance when the item was brought back.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an\nOff-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the\nsame as his request for analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated\nthat determining how much time would be spent on the matter should\nbe determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and\nwould not be able to vote on the matter tonight.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of\nthe Plan.\nMayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the\nHenry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include\nan Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit\nof deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 225, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of\ntime on the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as\nnecessary to do a thorough job.\nMayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be\nidentifying the Henry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the\nmotion.\nThe City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval\nof the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an\nanalysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of\nreserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under\nbudgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new\nsources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring\nan adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda\nReport on the Henry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include\nreviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of\nlandscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the\nPlanning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and\nresponsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ;\nstated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a\ncomprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the\nefforts to make informed decisions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the\nfeedback: the Planning Department and Development Services\nDepartment staff is top notch.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available\non- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 226, "text": "for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is\ndone.\n(05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces\narose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services\nindicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the\nPark Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like\nthe study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is\nthe current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;\npotential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail\nand being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,\nincluding ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good\nprice anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not\nbe used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was\nbought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be\nreviewed in the parking study.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting\nthe in lieu fee be raised.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and\nmight need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an\nestablished parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the\nowners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail\nat the site and put the burden back on the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger\ncontext of parking structures for the downtown areas having half\nof every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown\nplanning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more\nstrategically. money going towards parking structures could be\nemphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.\n(05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the\ntree lighting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well\nreceived.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested\nthat the lights go on at dark.\n(05-571) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 227, "text": "of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park\nCommission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements\ntackled.\n(05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him\nabout the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of\nrevenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested\nbackground data on the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nregular meeting at 10:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 228, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property\nFleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community\nImprovement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price\nand terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to\nprepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 229, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney\n(05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda.\n(05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:\nKaren Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management\nEmployees.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the\nCouncil discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal\nCounsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel\n;\nregarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a\nbriefing and gave direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 230, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority\nMembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of\nAlameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-\n551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved\napproval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved.\n(*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with\nKomorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount\nby $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction\nadministration services for the Civic Center parking garage.\nAccepted.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint\nMeeting at 8:03 p.m.\n***\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 231, "text": "AGENDA ITEM\n(05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive\nAnnual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,\nAuditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with\nVehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed\nupon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-\n05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement\nSystem Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year\nended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant\nPrograms Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,\nCommunity Improvement Commission basic component unit financial\nstatements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements\nfor the year ended June 30, 2005.\nThe City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria\nGiannell, Maze & Associates.\nThe External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial\nstatements and management recommendations\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits\nand Miscellaneous Revenues.\nThe External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of\nten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and\nchanges in the fund balance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase\nfrom 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.\nThe External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and\nForfeitures.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital\nOutlay have declined since 1996.\nouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why\ngeneral expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since\n2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred\nbecause of budget cuts.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 232, "text": "increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in\n2005.\n ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthe External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to\nwhich the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures\nincluded pension costs.\nThe External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total\nexpenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;\nthe growth was not substantial.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why\nthere was a major increase in the General Government and Payments\nto Other Agencies expenditure.\nThe External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred\nseveral years back within the general government which resulted in\nexpenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether\na statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.\nThe External Auditor responded that a separate report could be\nprovided.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was\ncollected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund\nwas noted.\nThe External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an\nEnterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the\nCash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total\namount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been\ndeferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.\nThe External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have\nbeen deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 233, "text": "Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in\n1996.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether\nthe 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External\nAuditor responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have\nbeen discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that\nhas been accomplished has been done without increasing the total\ndebt service.\nThe External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten\nyears have not been easy; more is being done with less.\nMayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual\nsalaries.\nThe External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board\n(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented\nfor major funds.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were\nincluded in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference\nbetween the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office\nexpenditures; stated the original budget for professional and\nadministrative services was reduced significantly expenditures\nwere almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is\nneeded.\nThe External Auditor responded the increase in professional and\nadministrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated\nbudget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthere were other improvements or further decay from the previous\naudit.\nThe External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;\ncapital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n4\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 234, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthe improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to\nwhich the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also\ncontributed to the improvement.\nThe External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have\nadjustments.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the\nExternal Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in\nadministrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;\nstated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.\nThe External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost\nof the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was\nthe cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting\nstandards.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to\nfund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ;\ninquired whether one department charging another department was\nconsidered an inter-fund transfer.\nThe External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one\ndepartment charging another department is not considered moving\nbudgeted resources.\nMayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and\nallocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.\nVice  ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether\nthe ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police\nand Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.\nThe External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the\nobligation outpaces the funding.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the\nchallenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City\nservices too much.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n5\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 235, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there\nwas a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to\nprevent the problem from reoccurring.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and\nreport back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the\nmatter.\nThe External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding\nthe employees reporting directing to the City Council which are\noutside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's\nelected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney\nand City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.\nMayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;\nsignificant changes were made under the direction of the Interim\nCity Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that\nshe has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance\nDirector worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing\nprevious issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work\nwith the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a\nsystem in place was a good idea.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the\nlouncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n6\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 236, "text": "ensure that internal finances are controlled.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having\nthe City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether\nthere was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.\nMayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be\ninvolved.\nThe City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape\nand improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year\nstudy would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance\nDirector was in the unenviable position of being at the same level\nas other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance\nDirector periodically to address issues.\nThe City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the\nCity Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was\ncomfortable with identifying issues with other departments;\ndiscussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.\nThe City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.\nMayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;\nthere have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined\nthe City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that\nshe looks forward to the ten-year projection.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval\nof accepting the submitted reports.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n7\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 237, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n8\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 238, "text": "GITY\nOF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 3:30 P.M., JULY 30, 2012\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:30 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Trustees: Marie Gilmore, William Soderlund, Robert Follrath and Holly\nBrock-Cohn\nAbsent: Trustee: Nancy Elzig\nStaff: Fred Marsh, Controller, Finance and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative\nTechnician, Human Resources\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 30, 2012 was moved for approval by\nMember Follrath and seconded by Member Soderlund. Passed 4-0\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending June 30, 2012\nand City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for\nthe Period Ending June 30, 2012 from Fred Marsh, Controller. Member\nFollrath moved to accept the report, which was seconded by Member\nSoderlund. Passed 4-0\n4-B\nBoard Members were reminded to watch the training video regarding the\nSunshine Ordinance and to turn in their signed Sunshine Ordinance\nDeclaration.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 239, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, July 30, 2012\nPage 2\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nHolly S.COL\nHolly Brock-Cohn,\nHuman Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 240, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.\nMember Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community\nPlanning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and\nCollateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from\nPrivate Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.\nChair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair\nJohnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.\nChair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from\nthe SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director\nexplained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City\nand that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay\nany invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and\nAPC.\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple\ntimes to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and\npayments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit\nagainst SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal\nrequired APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to\nwhich Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through\nthe binding arbitration process.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 241, "text": "Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000\non an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like\nto require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.\nMember Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,\nand of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member\nGilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs\ninformation into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained\nthat the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.\nTraditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for\nAlameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning\ncost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available\nfunding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for\nthe pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their\nremedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also\nrequested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not\nproprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on\nNov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of\nthe activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the\nrecord of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of\na cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to\nrecommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment\nof Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is\ntaking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request\nfor Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and\ninfrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 242, "text": "ARRA Secretary", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 243, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-021) - Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for\nhis twenty-six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by\nconsensus.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide\nCommunity Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-030] was removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the\nDecember 5, 2006 minutes. ]\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire\nDepartment for the review and recommendation on the sale of\nemergency generators [paragraph no. *07-028].\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *07-022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 244, "text": "Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City\nCouncil Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006\nminutes. ]\n(*07-023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.\n(*07-024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment\nPolicy. Accepted.\n(*07-025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for\nthe Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P. W.\n03-06-08. Accepted.\n(*07-026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights at Various\nLocations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07-04-07, Federal ID:\nSTPLH-5014 (025) . Accepted.\n(*07-027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer\nEnterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000,\nincluding contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation\nfor the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No.\nP.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.\n( *07-028) - Resolution No. 14057, \"Authorizing and Approving Sale of\nEmergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins\nWest, Inc. for $832,000. Adopted.\n( *07-029) Resolution No. 14058, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City\nCharter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of\n$66,545.00.\" Adopted.\n(07-030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, \"Joining\nthe Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the\nCalifornia Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept\nApplications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment\nProceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City\nof Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Adopted.\nThe Business Development Division Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to\nsmall-scale - development.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 245, "text": "The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could\nparticipate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds\nbefore.\nThe Business Development Division Manager responded the City has\nnever carried bonds for private development.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high\nparticipation level.\nThe Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is\nnew; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because\nthe Program provides an economic tool for future development.\nMayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would\nbenefit the community.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*07-031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map\nTract 7846 (TM06-0006) for the purpose of establishing eight\nresidential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista\nAvenue within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. and\n(*07-031A) Resolution No. 14060, \"Approving Tentative Map Tract\n7846, TM06-0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential\nLots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. \"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington\nHomes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05-002), Rezoning\n(R05-004), Master Plan (MP05-001), Tentative Map (TM05-002), and\nadoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS05-0003) for\ndevelopment of forty new, detached single-family residences, and\nrelated utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an\nappeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and\nDesign Review permits (PD05-02) The project site is located at the\nnorthwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051-2099\nGrand Street;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 246, "text": "(07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, \"Adopting the Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the\nGrand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of\nGrand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145).\n\"\nAdopted;\n(07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, \"Approving General Plan Amendment\n(GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land\nUse Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to\nSpecified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and\nAssociated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified\nMixed Use Designation. Adopted;\n(07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning\nProperty Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street\nfrom M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed\nUse Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced:\n(07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01\nfor a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,\nRecreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,\nLocated Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres\nof Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the\nOakland Estuary. Introduced\n(07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, \"Approving Tentative Map, TM05-\n0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and\nthe Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and\n(07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, \"Upholding Planning Board Approval\nof Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for\nGrand Marina Village. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt\npath.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the\nasphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist\nbetween the asphalt and other materials.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the\nmaintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand\nMarina.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be\nrequired; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt\nwould not last as long as concrete.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 247, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on\nthe Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the\nlandscaping and improvements.\nMayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to\nPeter Wang.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require\nMr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded he was not sure.\nMayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would\nprefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure\nproper maintenance.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad\ntrail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal\nServices District.\nThe Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the\nRecreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal\nServices District.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to\nreplicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.\nThe Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the\nGrand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required\nto maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every\nlease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that\nhe did not know.\nThe Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to\nmaintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could\nmake maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation\nin the Grand Marina lease.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to\nerode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 248, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan\ncondition that would require that the Grand Marina residential\nproject be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular\nparks; the condition could be expanded to include that the\nHomeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of\nthe parks.\nMayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a\nsafety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for\nmaintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired\nwhether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.\nThe Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City\nand Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan\nentitlements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability\nto pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nThe Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.\nThe Architect provided a video presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan\nLachman, Alameda Development Corporation.\nOpponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter,\nAlameda.\nNeutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nFollowing the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the\nBayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not\nconsidered for the proposed project.\nThe Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build\nbecause of insurance; stated the proposed project has great\narchitectural quality; height diversity is good.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 249, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the\nBayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the\nproposed sidewalks would be wide enough.\nThe Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot\nminimum width.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a\nfive-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nsome Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for\nthe Bayport homes.\nMr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of\nincome; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of\narea medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based\non 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based\non 90% of area medium income.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association\nwould cover all maintenance, including the path.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop-\nupsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she\nprefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not\nlike slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers\nbetween two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition\nfor the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that\nwould require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;\nstated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that\ncuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every\nhouse could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and\naffordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than\nprevious developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the\nthird floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the\nMarina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo\ncondition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and\nmatches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of\nHibbard Street.\nCouncilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;\nstated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path\nnarrows at certain points; she is concerned with pedestrian safety.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square-foot third story has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 250, "text": "any functionality beyond architectural diversity.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two\nadditional rooms.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third\nstory into the roofline.\nThe Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant\non roof design.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the\nthird-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is\ndirected to do.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.\nBuckley's examples.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in\nthe condition.\nMayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the\nchanges explicit; stated the design changes are significant\ninquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning\nBoard for review.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the\nApplicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three-\nstory buildings, only additions.\nMayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.\nThe Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where\nthe third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story\nwall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design;\nthe third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street.\nMayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.\nThe Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the\nMurano project design.\nThe Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go\nback to the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 251, "text": "used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency;\ninquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square-foot lots,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to\nMeasure A.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with\nMeasure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every\nparcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some\nform of public access easement; the overall project is well within\nMeasure A density requirements.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to\nmaximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot\nconfigurations but is not something he would highly recommend.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity\nto try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely\nredesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for\nHibbard Street instead of full trees.\nThe Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;\nstated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to\neventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the\nMarina Cove development.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the\nstreet.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down\nHibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or\nnot to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have\naddressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer\nnot to have palm trees.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review\nhow the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should\nensure the design is detailed, not bland.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 252, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition\nto include the Grand Street elevations.\nMayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided\non Grand Street.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would\nprovide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed\nbecause of utilities.\nMr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third\nstory as close to the Murano project as possible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction\nbetween the market rate and affordable home designs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty\nnew Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an\nAP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the\nconditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and\nintroduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1)\nthe\nPlanning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the\nthird floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project\nin Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and\nChristopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate\nslider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to\nthe Alameda Landing project.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's\ndecision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101\nShoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the\neight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded\napproximately ten to twenty units.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.\nThe Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;\nstated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 253, "text": "Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Matz, The Directly Affected\nHomeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and\nCharles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz)\n.\nOpponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Karen Stern, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the\neight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two-story.\nMr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on\nthe second story the bedrooms are downstairs.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;\nsome Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;\ninquired whether the replanted trees are proper.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has\nbeen working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter\nto the homeowners.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for\nthree different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the\npreferred tree.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;\ninquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program\nallows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;\nstated recently Council restored the funding; catch-up needs to be\ndone; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all\nresidents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have\nbeen pruned severely.\nThe Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is\nvery hardy and comes back rapidly.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 254, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning\nbecause trees are important to the City.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to\npolice tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are\nunderway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted\nby how trees are infilled.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and\nvisit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees\ninquired whether the trees could be moved.\nThe Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the\ntrees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very\nexpensive.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the\nsame issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;\nshe does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees\nperiodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing\ntrees cyclically.\nThe Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan\nreference is not the section that addresses when trees should be\nremoved; the section addresses how trees are selected.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has\nbeen suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;\nthe Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of\ngreater importance; view restoration can be accomplished now is\nthe time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees\nare planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive\nand help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree\ninfilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure\nwhether views would improve if the trees are replaced.\nMayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been\nreplaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting\nareas\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 255, "text": "The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be\ndone at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree\nMaster plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.\nMayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as\npossible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have\nexisting trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a\nprecedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred\nwith Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the\nMaster Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning\nevery year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first\nand fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at\nthe homeowner's expense.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the five-year pruning policy would\nbe re-instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees\ndown to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City\nfunds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners\nwants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would\nbe born by the homeowners.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the\ntrees to bring the trees back into proportion.\nMayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree\nunless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the\nnormal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs\nupdating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing\navenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and\ninvolving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the\nintervening years.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works\nDirector's decision with direction for staff to work with a\ncertified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and\nfullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the\nMaster Tree Plan.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time\nher front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty\nyears; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and\npruning trees.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 256, "text": "direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate\nProtection Campaign Task Force.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail\nand Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees\nare in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for\nShoreline Drive.\nMayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail\narea on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review\nand update would occur before or after the proposed infill.\nThe Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be\nreviewed as part of tree placement.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be\nimposed if a homeowner removes a tree.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-034) ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big\n-\nBox Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.\nThe Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard,\nAlameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve\nfunds for infrastructure improvements he has a hard time spending\nreserve money on a study inquired whether the study could be\nfunded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not\nsupport taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business\nDevelopment Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been\nencumbered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from\nfunds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business\nDevelopment Manager responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 257, "text": "The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the\nprocess of re-evaluating the budget opportunities do not exist to\nfund the study in the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda\nLanding or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are\nrelevant to the big box study.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the\nPlanning Department impact fees.\nThe City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money\nwas budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from\nanother source.\nThe Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to\nbe reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for\nAlameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be\nappropriate, but not one hundred percent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to\nsupport the projects.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City\nhas full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff\nsalaries are paid by the developer ; the developer funded a retail\nimpact analysis as part of the entitlement process for\napproximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix\nrecommendations\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required\nfor proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different\nfrom a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some\ngoals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would\naddress whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible\nwith existing retail.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other\nimpacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 258, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there\nshould be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the\nquestion; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a\nstudy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be\nreviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne\nCenter ; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is\nunknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify\nalternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.\nCouncilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not\nbe used for the study stated the study should not duplicate\nprevious studies; all studies should be pulled together for a\ncomplete picture.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has a City-wide Retail Strategic\nPlan.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission\nwas requested to update said plan.\nMayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would\ncome out of the study.\nCouncilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide\nany new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study\nif it is needed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004\nCitywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community\nImpact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,\nhealth benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard\nfor a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds\nfor the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese'\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to\nconvene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate\nconclusions and recommendations that may include an additional\nstudy if needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements\nneed to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be\ninvolved in discussions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 259, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-035) Ordinance No. 2960, \"Approving Development Agreement DA-\n06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition\nCorporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development\nCorporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet\nof Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000\nSquare Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space\nand 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. \" Finally\npassed.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and\nis easily understood he appreciates the time and thought that\nstaff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to\nfunding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been\ndetermined.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nsuccess criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the\nTDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and\nPlanning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled\nto begin discussions on January 31.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with\nentitlement changes most mitigations are not just for people in\nAlameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address\nthe issue.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nminimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the\nnew, mixed-use project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be\nresolved before developments are in place.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndeveloper has stated that the minimum Phase One components would\ncost more than what would be collected stated Condition 11 lays\nout the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the\nproject was approved on December 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 260, "text": "regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda\nPoint.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese':\ncommending staff.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and\nsubmitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities conference and orientation for new\nCouncilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the\nsessions provided a good overview of best practices in City\ngovernance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and\nland use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be\nfavorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;\nencouraged Council to participate in the July conference.\nMayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend\nthe July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try\nto schedule Councilmembers to attend.\nThe City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25\nthrough 28.\n(07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the\nLeague of California Cities East Bay Division representative.\nContinued to February 6, 2007.\nVice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve\nalso.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the\nEnvironmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging\nregulations such as global warming.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 261, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the\nAirport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her\nknow their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.\n(07 -039 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and\nTelcom (AP&T) consultant report was published in the newspaper\nrequested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and\nrecommendations after the public workshops.\nThe City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the\npublic is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for\nThursday and Saturday a voice over Internet protocol is one of the\nconsultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the\nfirst quarter.\n(07-040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that\nAlameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have\nthe matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.\n(07-041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but\nis only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP&T workshop\nmeetings be available to the public through webcasting.\n(07-042) - Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session\ninformation be released on Alameda Point negotiations.\n(07-043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a\nmechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the\nboots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at\nAlameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.\nMayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to\nreview the issue in the past suggested that a phone number be\nplaced on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a\ncertain number of hours.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 262, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 263, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam -\n1.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project Construction update.\nThe Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation\nwould be poured.\nThe Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in\nphases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working\nforward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap\nwith the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking\ngarage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value\nengineered items not presented in July.\nThe Development Manager responded all value engineered items were\non the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top\nslab was eliminated and does not affect the fa\u00e7ade.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the\nprecast spandrel panels in the July report.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 264, "text": "The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a\ndeduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance\nwould be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be\nused, leaving approximately $300,000.\nThe Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the\nreserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into\nconsideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more\ncontingency was not used, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value\nengineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away.\nThe Development Manager responded value engineering was considered\nwhen the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the\noriginal price was higher; stated very little value-engineered\nchanges are anticipated for the Cineplex.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an\nimpact on the Cineplex.\nThe Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ;\nstated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether\nthe changes constitute substantial changes to design review.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building\nDirector would review the changes, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule\nsince Cineplex funding is not in place.\nThe Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are\nnoted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on\nschedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by\nthe end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented\nto Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction\nstarts.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 265, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion\ntimeline is March or April 2008.\nThe Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November\n2007 is the anticipated completion date.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a\nproblem once the Cineplex construction starts.\nThe Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and\nthe developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is\ntight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers\nshould be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month;\nOveraa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater\nmezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on\nan on-going basis.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes\ncome back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be\nmade.\nCommissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set.\nChair Johnson called the public speakers.\nRichard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value-\nengineered changes itemized in Attachment 3.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage \"at\nrisk\" details.\nChair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items\noutlined by Mr. Buckley.\nThe Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices\nare secured for six months in addition to some items that may be\nadded later.\nChair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are\npossible.\nThe Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private\nfunding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six\nmonths from now.\nThe Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 266, "text": "from the day the price was received from the Contractor, which was\nlast week.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the steel galvanizing issue needs to be\naddressed now.\nThe Development Manager stated the City's Architect does not feel\nthat the project's integrity would be compromised by deleting the\nsteel galvanizing.\nChair Johnson stated the Commission would be able to make decisions\nwhen items are brought back.\nCommissioner deHaan requested that the Development Manager provide\na list of items [value engineering add back ] to be considered along\nwith a timeline.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested: 1) an Off Agenda Report on the\nvalue engineered items, 2) any Cineplex and parking garage exterior\ndesign changes be approved by the Commission, and 3) a timeline\noutlining when decisions need to be made for adding back value\nengineered items; stated a decision would need to be made prior to\npouring concrete on whether to use galvanized steel versus painted\nsteel.\nThe Development Manager clarified that all the column bases have\ngranite tile.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 267, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-018) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases One.\n(07-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9 ; Name of case: Attari V. City of Alameda.\n(07-020) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-\nSworn. Not discussed.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action\nwas taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a\nbriefing and gave direction to the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 16, 2007", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 268, "text": "CITY\nOF\nof\nTERRA\nORATEL\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nJoyce McConeghey Vice President\nDimple Kanji, Board Member\nKathleen Kearney, Board Member\nSara Strickler, Board Member\nAbsent:\nAmber Bales, President\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of January and\nFebruary, 2022.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of January 12, 2022.\n*C.\nModified Library Services Report for the Months of December, 2021 and January, 2022.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY21/22 Expenditures by Fund for January and February,\n2022.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of January and February, 2022.\nDirector Chisaki reported that the City's mask mandate will end on Monday, March 14, 2022. Face\nmasks will be strongly encouraged within city buildings. The Dewey's Friends Caf\u00e9 opened on\nFebruary 14, 2022. Eating is allowed outside in the courtyard only. In-person Children's\nprogramming will begin the week of April 4. Ticketing system may be used to control the number\nof people attending. The Grogu Library Card campaign is going well. The water bottle fill stations", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 269, "text": "Page 2 of 3\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nMarch 9, 2022 Meeting\nhave been installed at the Main Library. The branches will have their installation completed within\nthe next week. The Red Cross Blood Drive was held yesterday in the Stafford Room, and it went\nsmoothly. The next drive will be on May 10, 2022. The Hotspot lending program is moving forward.\nThe contract was signed yesterday and the program is expected to launch in mid-April. The\ninternment camp grant and the Japantown marker project are slowly moving forward.\nThere are no changes to the Draft Minutes of the January 12, 2022 Library Board Meeting.\nBoard Member Kearney moved to accept the Consent Calendar. Board Member Strickler\nseconded the motion, which passed with a 4-0 vote.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nCurrent and On-Going Library Activities (J. Chisaki)\nAdult Services book clubs have been virtual, and it has not been decided when they will return to\nin-person programming. Teen programs have been in-person since there have been no more\nthan 15 attendees and they can be spread out. Tech. Services Supervisor, Marlon Romero,\nwelcomes input from the board members on changes to the Library's webpage. Staff is\ndiscussing changing library hours. Any changes wouldn't start until the new fiscal year. Board\nMember Strickler asked if the change to the hours would be extending or limiting hours. Director\nChisaki responded that it would be a reshuffling of the existing number of hours. The City has\nhired a firm to help organize its Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) program. Employees will be\npulled for interest groups, focus groups, and steering committees. Director Chisaki is pushing to\ninclude part-time staff for more diversity.\nB.\nAmerican Rescue Plan Funding - Hotspot Lending Program (J. Chisaki)\nThe Hotspot contract has been signed. Next steps include receiving the equipment, creating\npolicies and procedures, and obtaining packaging. The launch is expected in April.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nFriends of the Library (J. Chisaki)\nThe Caf\u00e9 has opened. The bookstore has opened and is named Books for Friends (BFF). There\nwill be a pop-up book sale on Saturday, March 12, 2022 in the Stafford room. The bookstore will\nopen Thursday, March 17, 2022. It will be open Thursday - Saturday from 12:00 - 4:00 pm. The\nFriends are continuing with virtual docent tours and author talks. They have hybrid programs in\nthe future.\nB.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nNone.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 270, "text": "Page 3 of 3\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nMarch 9, 2022 Meeting\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Kearney is working at the Friends pop-up book sale and at the new bookstore.\nBoard Member Kanji asked if the Friends are doing set up for the book sale on Friday or if they\nare doing a soft run. Director Chisaki responded that they are setting up on Friday. They will be\nbringing boxes over from storage, unboxing books, and arranging the tables.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 271, "text": "Chy\nOF\nRE\nRATER\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD\nOCTOBER 11, 2006\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nKaren Butter, President\nRuth Belikove, Vice President\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nLeslie Krongold, Board Member\nAbsent:\nMark Schoenrock, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonth of October 2006. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of September 13, 2006.\nApproved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of August 2006. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2005-06 Library expenditures (by\nfund) through September 2006. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for ratification. Approved.\nBoard Member Mitchell questioned the expenditures in Equipment Acquisition which put\nthe Library $16,000+ over budget in that account. Staff will re-direct the charges so they\nappear under the appropriate line item.\nPresident Butter inquired about bottled water services. Library Director Chisaki said the\nservice would not be continued for the Main Library once the move was complete, however,\nthe branches will continue the service due to their aging facilities.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 272, "text": "Page 2 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\nPresident Butter also asked about an increase in the collection budget. Director Chisaki\nindicated that the Library had received a 2% increase. She had been hoping for more;\nhowever, because of staffing additions, the collection increase was low. Chisaki remarked\nthat when mid-year budget adjustments come around, there will be several areas she will\nrequest increases for. A lot of additional expenditures have arisen with the new building\nthat were unexpected. As an example, 6 new phone lines have been added to help monitor\nsecurity and AED equipment. Another concern will be the late billing received from the\nAlameda Unified School District for utilities charges. The Library will still be liable for\nseveral months' worth of charges later this year, perhaps into next year, depending on how\nthe billing cycle works out. The recent payment of $50,000 to AUSD for space rental will\ncarry us through the month of November; no further charges to this account are expected.\nBoard Member Mitchell mentioned an article he had read about a bomb planted at a library\nin Salt Lake City. Mitchell inquired as to whether we would have security monitoring\nequipment in the new library. Director Chisaki responded in the affirmative - there will be\nvideo cameras strategically placed around the building, and will show on monitors at the\nCirculation Desk. The cameras are not recorders, however.\nPresident Butter wanted to know how statistics would be calculated going forward due to\nthe changes occurring. Supervising Librarian David Hall is currently looking into how\nnumbers will be extracted from our new systems.\nPresident Butter asked about a payment that had been made to Tapes Unlimited, and was\nbilled to janitorial supplies. Recording Secretary Merrick explained that Tapes Unlimited is\nthe dba name for Alameda Office Supply. The City purchases both office and janitorial\nsupplies from this entity on a regular basis. Alameda Office Supply gives a 30% discount to\nthe City of Alameda.\nBoard President Butter asked for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.\nBoard Member Mitchell so moved; Board Member Krongold seconded the motion which\nwas carried by a 4-0 vote.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nMaterials Security and Inventory System - Update (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki stated that the tagging process continues and is nearing completion.\nThe RFID gates arrived and have been installed. They were tested then de-mounted\nfor safety purposes. With all the contractors, equipment and opening day collection\nmovement going through the area, there was the real possibility of damage to the\ngates. The gates are also installed at the branches, but won't be operational until the\nMain goes live. The project is moving forward very well.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 273, "text": "Page 3 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\nB.\nMeeting Room Use Policy - Final Review (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki sent out the room use policy in the board packet once again as the\nCity Attorney's office made some language changes and additions. President Butter\nasked about groups setting up and putting away chairs, etc. for their meetings.\nDirector Chisaki explained that depending on how large the group is might\ndetermine whether or not we would require them to do this. Mostly it would be for\ngroups that have some very specific idea on how they want things set-up.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about item 13 regarding advertising or selling of\nproducts or services being prohibited. Director Chisaki explained that for instance,\nif you were giving a lecture and wanted to sell your book to a participant that would\nbe okay. However, you could not leave any books, business cards, etc. behind in the\nconference room - all items must be cleared away when leaving the room.\nBoard Member Krongold made an inquiry about the rooms that are non-reservable\n(the small study rooms). If you are using one of these rooms and you want it for a\nlonger period, you could stay in there as long as nobody else wants to use the room.\nThe Reference Desk will be in charge of the sign-ups for these rooms.\nBoard Member Butter asked about item 9 regarding decoration restrictions in the\nconference rooms. The language comes straight from Park & Recreation's room use\npolicy. The language will be revised slightly to direct meeting room patrons to use\npush pins on the tackable wall surfaces, and not use other wall surfaces.\nPresident Butter asked for a motion to accept the Meeting Room Use Policy with\nchanges. Board Member Mitchell so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded,\nand the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.\nPresident Butter asked Director Chisaki to provide an update at the January 2007\nBoard Meeting and note any problems that have been encountered with meeting\nroom use. In six months, the Board will re-review the policy and make any\nnecessary changes.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nBranch Library Report (A. Benzie-Youssef)\nSupervising Branch Librarian Arta Benzie-Youssef was in attendance to give the\nBoard an update on how the branches were coping during the closure of the Main\nLibrary. Benzie-Youssef first thanked the Board for inviting her to the meeting. She\nwent on reminding the Board of the two-week Main Library closure earlier in the\nyear when the RFID tagging process was underway. This was a good \"trial run\" for\nthe branches to see how they would do when the lengthier Main closure occurred.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 274, "text": "Page 4 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\nDuring the March closure, circulation at the West End Branch increased by almost\n2,500 items over the same period last year, and at Bay Farm Island, over 1,300\nitems. Hours had not been extended, and it was quite rainy which tends to depress\ncirculation. During the current Main closure, West End hours were extended to\ninclude Sundays, 1:00-5:00, and Bay Farm is open on Fridays, 9:30-5:30. All Main\nLibrary reserves are being picked up at the West End, and all Main check-ins are\nbeing handled there as well.\nSome reference items are now at the West End - the Reference Department is sorely\nmissed. Lots of questions on local history, etc. are difficult to answer without them.\nAt the heart of the operation now are the Library Aides. They make sure everything\ngets back on the shelves quickly, and with increased circulation there is a lot more to\nthis. The Aides have also been doing a great job at keeping the shelves in order, and\nBenzie-Youssef is very pleased with this.\nThe biggest challenge for the branches is the lack of phones. More specifically, with\nthe Main being unreachable, it is very difficult to help with delinquent collections,\nobituaries, homebound items, etc.\nThe branches will pick up some extra staff now to help with the increased demand\nfor services. Between the two branches, there is a Library open 7 days a week.\nBenzie-Youssef suspects that after the new Main opens, it will be very quiet at the\nbranches, as everyone is so excited about the new building opening.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nBoard Member Mitchell was very disappointed that there were not firmer plans in\nplace for the Gala. It was as if the Foundation was still trying to figure out what to\ndo. Director Chisaki said that is usually how the meetings go. They are now\nmeeting every week, and at last weeks meeting they were still going sideways. Part\nof the problem is there is no set agenda, and when they get off the subject being\ndiscussed, they don't come back to it.\nThe Foundation is halfway to their goal of selling 300 tickets. Now that the event is\ndrawing closer, ticket sales are picking up. Letters encouraging attendance have\ngone out to Board and Building Team Members, Department Heads and Council\nMembers. No comps are being offered, so everyone pays their own way. The\nFriday edition of the Alameda Journal is supposed to have an ad on the Gala and\ninformation on how to purchase tickets.\nThe banner advertising the Gala, Grand Opening and Family Day events will go up\nover Central the last two weeks of October. The supplement for the opening will", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 275, "text": "Page 5 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\ncome out on October 20th The invitations for the Grand Opening still aren't quite\ndone, however. The graphic designer has put together some really nice drafts, but\nthe invitations aren't at the printer yet. Foundation members will go into the Library\nright after the docent training on October 24th and put the shelf tags in place.\nThere have been donations of water, some wines and hors d' oeuvres from local\nrestaurants for the Gala. There will be music in four different areas in the building.\nThe architect, Tom Hacker, will be attending and he may be asked to speak. Yuki\nNagase, artist of the Oracle of the Tree behind the circulation desk, and the Cadence\nof the Water limestone medallions on the outside of the building, will be in\nattendance as well.\nAll the posters advertising the Gala have been distributed around town. There are\nplenty of bookmarks and pamphlets still available, which won't be any good after\nthe Gala event.\nC.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)\nFriends President Molly Skeen was not in attendance for the meeting, so Director\nChisaki spoke in her place. The book sale the previous weekend at the O'Club\ngrossed $13,000. $8,000 came in on Friday night alone. It was a very nice turnout.\nThere were 100 boxes of children's books because two elementary schools weeded\ntheir collections. The Friends beautiful new book bags were on sale as well.\nD.\nLibrary Building Watch (M. Merrick)\nRecording Secretary reported that because of having no office equipment to speak of\ndue to the move, it wasn't possible to release an issue of the Library Building Watch.\nMerrick is hopeful, however, of getting one more issue out prior to the Gala and\nGrand Opening events, to make them fresh in people's minds.\nBoard Member Krongold suggested having something visible at the Gala so people\ncould sign up to receive the newsletter. Perhaps people could just drop a business\ncard if they were interested. Having some copies of previous issues displayed was\nalso suggested.\nE.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nDirector Chisaki indicated that there were no speak-outs this month from either the\nbranches or the Main Library prior to it closing.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 276, "text": "Page 6 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nLi Volin was in the audience and mentioned that she went to the Independent Booksellers\nAssociation the prior weekend for an author signing. She brought along the new Friends\nbook bag and it was decided that it rated number two from the assortment that day. The\nonly bag scoring higher had pockets for a cell phone and water bottle on the outside.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Butter commented that she received information on The Hummingbird's Daughter\nbecause she was on the San Francisco Friends group mailing list. There was a nice\npamphlet describing how book clubs could participate, discussion questions, etc. Director\nChisaki said the \"One Book Program\" is definitely something she would like to see happen\nat the Alameda Free Library as well. There are generally events all year long relating to the\nbook that's being promoted, such as themed and cultural programs, etc. The Friends and\nFoundation have already expressed their interest in assisting with this endeavor. President\nButter said the Board would also be interested in participating in any way they could.\nPresident Butter requested that \"Selection of Art for the New Library\" be put on the agenda\nfor the November meeting.\nBoard Member Mitchell mentioned one library that had a swashbuckling theme for their\nreaders and it was very well received, probably due to the Pirates of the Caribbean movie\ncoming out at the time.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nDirector Chisaki spoke about how well the building was coming along. It is the third day of\nthe collection move, so books can now be seen through the front window. The Library has\nnot experienced any problems with the moving company, Doubleday. Circulation\nSupervisor Laura Chaquette is the lead for the move, and deserves a lot of the credit for how\nsmoothly things are going. The staff furniture was delayed, which delays installation of\ncomputers and phones. The furniture did arrive and is being installed now. Everything\nseems to be right on schedule.\nThe invitations have not been delivered to the printer yet as the speaker list is still being\nfinalized. Director Chisaki was uncertain if she should speak herself. The board\nencouraged Chisaki to do so, perhaps at the end of the program to thank everyone for\ncoming out. Board Member Krongold said that it might be the first time the public in\ngeneral would see her, so she might want people to know who she is.\nBoard President Butter inquired if all board members would be attending the Grand\nOpening ceremony. The members present responded in the affirmative, and Director\nChisaki said that Member Schoenrock, who was absent, would be there as well.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 277, "text": "Page 7 of 7\nMinutes of the\nLibrary Board Meeting\nOctober 11, 2006\nADJOURNMENT\nBoard President Butter called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Board\nMember Mitchell so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded the motion, and it was\ncarried by a 3-0 vote. (Vice President Belikove left the meeting at 8:02 p.m.)\nThe next meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board will be held in the new Main Library.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki\nLibrary Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board\nThis meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 278, "text": "MINUTES OF THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION\nMONDAY\nOCTOBER 1, 2012 - - -\n7:00 P.M.\nThe meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Jensen, Oddie, Peterson, Spanier,\nand Wong - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n2-A. Matthew James Fitzgerald, Alameda, introduced himself.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nApprove the May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes.\nCommission Jensen moved approval of the minutes with correction to the spelling of her\nlast name on page 3.\nFollowing Commissioner Spanier's comments, the City Clerk clarified that agendas\nneed to go out twelve days before a City Council meeting; stated a noticing complaint\ncould be filed before a meeting is held.\nCommissioner Wong seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n3-B. Receive a Status Update on the Public Records Index.\nThe City Clerk stated the Public Records Index is required by the Sunshine Ordinance\nand would be posted on the City's website to inform people about the types of\ndocuments maintained in each department; the Sunshine Ordinance requires that\ndocuments be labeled \"Open,' \"Partially Open,\" or \"Has been determined Exempt;\" the\nlist has been drafted and staff is finalizing the documents' open or exempt status; the\nIndex would be brought back to the Commission once the status has been finalized.\nCommissioner Jensen inquired whether current City website documents would need to\nbe categorized or just the new documents, to which the City Clerk responded all\ndocuments would be categorized.\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\n4-A. Commissioner Peterson discussed the public's lack of awareness of the\nCommission; stated the Sunshine Ordinance should be added to the Open Government\nsection on the website; future meeting dates should be on the calendar now; that he is\nstill concerned with not having Commissioners' email addresses on the website; he\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n1\nOctober 10, 2012", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 279, "text": "does not believe public correspondence should go through the City Clerk's office but\nshould go directly to the Commission; not having Commissioners' email addresses on\nthe website by now is inexcusable and unacceptable; that he has addressed said\nconcern with the Deputy City Manager.\nCommissioner Jensen concurred with Commissioner Peterson; urged adding\nCommissioner e-mail addresses and fax number on letterhead; stated Commissioner\nemail addresses should be unique rather than using the City Clerk's office email\naddress to ensure continuity and privacy.\nChair Oddie noted the Commission's meeting date and minutes are listed on the City's\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Petersen stated no one attended tonight's meeting; that he does not\nunderstand why Commission meeting dates are only calendared on the City's website\nshortly before a meeting.\nThe City Attorney stated Commissioner Petersen's concern [regarding email addresses]\nwould be restated to the Deputy City Manager; a major revamp of the City's website is\nunderway; domain names have been discussed; clarified that the City Clerk is the\nrepository of all City records and complaints need to go through the City Clerk's office.\nChair Oddie inquired whether any complaints have been filed, to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the negative; stated a meeting would have been scheduled if a complaint\nwas filed.\nCommissioner Jensen requested that the City Clerk's email address be placed on the\nnext agenda.\nThe City Clerk stated all agendas contain said contact information.\nADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Wong moved approval of adjourning the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nCommissioner Jensen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\n2\nOctober 10, 2012", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 280, "text": "CITY\nOF\nTERRA\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nMarch 14, 2007\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nKaren Butter, President\nRuth Belikove, Vice President\nLeslie Krongold, Board Member\nAbsent:\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nMark Schoenrock, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonth of March 2007. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of February 14, 2007.\nApproved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of January 2007. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2006-07 Library expenditures (by\nfund) through February 2007. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for ratification. Approved.\nPresident Butter noted there was not much fluctuation in Children's check-outs, and\nDirector Chisaki concurred. Butter then asked if there was any way to capture statistics for\nOverdrive, which is the Library's on-line audio book feature, sponsored by Califa. Director\nChisaki believed that information should be available, and will ask Technical Services\nSupervisor David Hall if he can pull that out of the system.\nPresident Butter asked for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Member\nKrongold so moved; Vice President Belikove seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0\nvote.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 281, "text": "Page 2 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMarch 14, 2007\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nThere were no comments from the public, so Director Chisaki took this opportunity to\nintroduce the Board to the new Supervising Librarian for Adult Services, Annemarie Meyer.\nMs. Meyer spoke briefly of her background, and indicated she had several great and\nwonderful ideas she would like to implement, one of which is the \"One Book, One\nCommunity\" type of program.\nDirector Chisaki mentioned that they were looking into possible grant funds from a website\nsponsored by Hamburger Helper called \"My Hometown Helper\" to assist with the cost of\nthis program. $15,000 is awarded every month to community groups to help with special\nprojects or needs. One of the requirements to get this grant money is a 501(c)(4) IRS status,\nso Director Chisaki is sending out feelers to other Alameda groups to see if there is an\ninterest in partnering with the Library in this effort.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nDonations Policy for the Main Library (J. Chisaki)\nPer direction from the Board, Director Chisaki had expanded the introductory\nparagraphs to contain more information about the Friends and Foundation. After a\nbrief review, Board President Butter asked for a motion to accept the policy as\npresented, which was given by Vice President Belikove, seconded by Member\nKrongold, and carried by a 3-0 vote. Director Chisaki will add an adopted by date at\nthe bottom of the policy.\nB.\nBranch Upgrades and RFP's (J. Chisaki)\nCouncilmember Matarrese had requested an operations and branch status update\nwhich was provided by Director Chisaki via an off-agenda report. The $1.5 million\nleft over from Measure O funds has been invested in graduated accounts of 1 year,\n18 months and 2 years. We are still waiting for the final closeout from the State to\ndetermine the exact amount of funds available. Once that has happened, and it is\nknown how much will be spent on a consultant, the balance of the funds will most\nlikely be invested so they can earn interest.\nOne popular improvement suggested would be the addition of laptop computers that\ncould be used within the branches through wireless access. It seems that the only\nlibraries with this amenity are schools and universities. It is unknown how this\nwould work within a public library system, so Director Chisaki is still looking for\nmore responses to her inquiry from that sector.\nThe draft RFP Chisaki wrote looks for a consultant who would help the Library do a\nlong-range plan, projecting facilities development both 5 and 10 years down the", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 282, "text": "Page 3 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMarch 14, 2007\nroad, including operational costs, provide a written recommendation, etc. Chisaki\nwill inquire with the City Attorney if it would be a violation of the Brown Act to e-\nmail a copy of the RFP to the members of the Board. If it is okay, she will e-mail a\ncopy of the RFP to each board member for their review to keep the process moving\nforward.\nMember Krongold asked about the cost, and Director Chisaki said she had included\na request within the RFP that asks for a detailed description of the fee structure. By\nseeing what the Library would be individually charged for, there might be an option\nto throw out some things that could be lived without, or perhaps add in other things\nthat would be more beneficial in the long run.\nChisaki has a list of consultants that other libraries have used and will send each of\nthem an RFP, as well as advertise the search on the City and Library web pages and\nlist serves on the internet. Vice President Belikove will provide a name and contact\ninformation of someone in Alameda who would be interested in this opportunity.\nPresident Butter suggested talking with the Planning Department to ensure that the\nLibrary is given consideration in the City's Master Plan for the Alameda Point\ndevelopment piece. Director Chisaki promised to do SO.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nFoundation member Marc Lambert said their next meeting would occur on the\nfollowing Monday. Director Chisaki announced that the Foundation will celebrate\nNational Library Workers Day in April, and a group picture will be taken at the all\nstaff meeting to be held on March 29.\nThe Foundation continues to work on the shelf tags which now go up quarterly.\nMember Krongold asked if signage was being fabricated for the Community\nMeeting Rooms which are to be named after Regina K. Stafford. The Foundation\nwill be working with their graphic designer, Cairdea, on this item. A ribbon-cutting\nceremony was suggested once the signage was in place.\nVice President Belikove inquired how the Foundation was raising money. Director\nChisaki said the Foundation is currently looking for a venue to do a fall fundraiser.\nThey will also host a \"Foundation Board Night\" to raise interest in joining, and a\nChamber mixer in January 2008. The Foundation has invested the money they\nalready have in graduated accounts so it is no longer sitting in a non-interest bearing\nchecking account.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 283, "text": "Page 4 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMarch 14, 2007\nB.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)\nFriends President Skeen started by giving a big thank you for the March 6\nproclamation given at the City Council meeting. The committee working on the\n\"Celebration of Friends\" event on March 24 has come up with celebrity reads,\nballoons, string music in the Caf\u00e9 and a small book sale from Ann Muir's estate as\nentertainment. Director Chisaki mentioned there would also be a 2 hour cartooning\nworkshop held in the Teen Room.\nThe Friends and Foundation are teaming up to celebrate National Library Workers\nDay on April 17 by providing box lunches for the staff. The Caf\u00e9 has been named\n\"Dewey's Friends Caf\u00e9\", and they are currently working on publicity and signage.\nSomeone had stolen some of the Caf\u00e9 money, so the Friends were thinking of\nstepping up their security and possibly getting a safe. The next book sale will be on\nthe first weekend in May.\nVice President Belikove asked Friends President Skeen if they would be placing\nsome kind of greenery around the building for the celebration on March 24. Skeen\nindicated they would be using balloons as decorations. Belikove indicated an\ninterest in seeing plants and flowers in the building on a regular basis to give it more\nwarmth.\nC.\nLibrary Building Watch (M. Merrick)\nRecording Secretary Merrick had nothing to report.\nD.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nA request was made to bring back the old system of the sticky note with the date due\nstamped on it. That system had been discontinued to prevent repetitive motion\ninjuries to staff, and because people were either stealing the date stamps or changing\nthe dates so they were in error. A local video of Neptune Beach was also requested,\nwhich turns out to already be in the Library collection.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard President Butter spoke about the CALTAC workshop she had attended. Susan\nHildreth, State Librarian, was also present and gave a speech. There were different break-\nout groups that talked about strategizing on how to get support to build a new library, new\nservices and how to make libraries relevant for communities of today, such as bringing in\ngaming opportunities for teens. Director Chisaki indicated that she and staff had already\nstarted looking into this particular idea. Notes were taken from each group that will be\nposted on the CALTAC website for review. The expected attendance had been around 80,\nbut approximately 40 people actually showed.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 284, "text": "Page 5 of 5\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMarch 14, 2007\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nLegislative Day is coming up on April 18th. SB156 is the new $4 billion construction bond,\nand will have its first hearing on March 28 by the Senate Education Committee. Personal\nletters of support at this point would be very useful. The minimum award amount has\nincreased from $50,000 to $500,000, and the maximum award increased from $20 to $30\nmillion. There will be no priority given to previous applicants, so everyone starts on an\neven playing field.\nThe number of requests from other cities to visit the new Main Library is increasing daily.\nPleasanton will visit on March 24, the same day the Friends celebration will be going on.\nChisaki had attended the room use policy lecture in San Jose and it was a disappointment.\nThe focus of the lecture was to highly recommend that when writing your room use policy,\nmake sure to get your City Attorney's opinion.\nDirector Chisaki passed around the handout she had created which outlined interesting facts\nabout the Main Library construction, what is contained in the building, etc. The Board gave\na few suggestions on improvements to the brochure, which will be incorporated with other\nfacts Project Manager Bob Haun had asked to be included as well.\nADJOURNMENT\nBoard President Butter called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Vice\nPresident Belikove so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded the motion, which carried\nby a 3-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki\nLibrary Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board\nThis meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 285, "text": "CITY\nof\nof\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCatherine Atkin, President\nKathleen Kearney, Board Member\nNancy Lewis, Board Member\nGertrude Woods, Board Member\nSuzanne Whyte, Vice President\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of July and August 2016.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 13, 2016.\n*C.\nLibrary Services Report for the Months of June and July 2016.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY16/17 Expenditures by Fund for July and August 2016.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of July and August 2016.\nDirector Chisaki informed the Board that the last Strategic Plan update is through 2019 and doesn't think\nthere are any revisions necessary.", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 286, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nSeptember 14, 2016 Meeting\nThere was a small end of summer reading ceremony with approximately 150 children. Next year the\nprogram will start at the beginning of June and finish at the end of July with the end of summer reading\nceremony at the beginning of August before the children go back to school. There were approximately\n250 participants in the teen/adult summer reading program. The format of their program changed from\nstrictly reading to collecting experiences. The library set up some experiences such as a tour of Crispin\nBakery, a tasting at Alameda Island Brewery, drinks at American Oak, and various park walks.\nLast fiscal year the library held over 1,000 programs. The speed friending program was very successful.\nThere was great feedback and participants requested it be held on a regular basis. The craft programs for\ntweens have been going well. Next month, there is a Star Trek anniversary day and a Star Wars party and\nparticipants are welcome to come wearing a costume.\nJon Kerpel is retiring from the Art Committee. We don't know if there is a volunteer to step up and take\nover the position. Director Chisaki noted that the Friends of the Library offer program funding to the Art\nCommittee for and pay for refreshments at the art receptions.\nThe library will be closed from 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. for staff to attend the Citywide Employee\nPicnic/Benefits Fair tomorrow.\nHallie Fields has settled into the Teen Librarian position beautifully. Dawn Boyer has taken over running\nclasses in the computer lab. Open lab is averaging 25 participants.\nThere was an article included in the Board packet from Publishers Weekly about Graphic Novels. Eva\nVolin was interviewed because she is recognized as a national expert in graphic novels. She has already\nbeen contacted by Publishers Weekly for another article. She frequently moderates panels, is a frequent\ninvitee to Comic-Con.\nThere were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the July 13, 2016 Library Board meeting.\nBoard Member Woods moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Kearney seconded the\nmotion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nIntegrated Library System: Status Report (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki informed the Board that everything is moving forward and is on schedule. There were\nsite visits last week. The system is projected to go live in December. It is anticipated that the library will\nclose for two days to finish the migration. If possible, it will be completed without any disruption to the\npublic.\nNEW BUSINESS", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 287, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nSeptember 14, 2016 Meeting\nA.\nNew Logo for the Library (J. Chisaki)\nSince the Friends of the Library and the Alameda Free Library Foundation have merged into one group,\nthey are in the process of rebranding and creating a new logo. The goal is for the library and the Friends\nto have similar logos. The library will create a new logo and the Friends will design one that is\ncomplimentary. The Board will choose the final design of the library's logo. Director Chisaki expects to\nhave a design to show the Board at the next meeting.\nB.\nFriends of the Library/Alameda Free Library Foundation (L. Engh and K. Butter)\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library President, Luzanne Engh, stated that the merge was official on July\n1, 2016. It is no longer a membership organization and any donor will become a \"Friend.\" All\nfundraising activities, such as the book sales and the concerts will continue. The new group has developed\na mission and adopted bylaws. The Friends are using a temporary logo for the upcoming anniversary\ncelebration and will later work with the library on creating a permanent logo. The 10th anniversary\ncelebration will include two days of activities over the weekend of November 5 & 6. There is a\nfundraising concert at Rhythmix Cultural Works on Sunday, November 6th. Tickets are $60 and proceeds\nwill go to the purchase of three digital community boards at each library. Live at the Library starts this\nSaturday and approximately 100 out of 120 tickets have been sold. Friends of the Alameda Free Library\nVice President, Karen Butter, is working on a redline version of the Gifts Donation Policy and will have a\ndraft for the Board to review by the next meeting in November. Luzanne gives credit to both\norganizations because the transition went smoothly. There are 15 members of the board, including\nDirector Chisaki. Last Saturday, there was an event for the 10th anniversary celebration which had 10-\nyear-olds participate in a 10-year-old birthday photo in front of the library. There we 50 participants and\nmany volunteers. The event went smoothly and was enjoyable. Luzanne gave a big thanks to all, Bob\nHaun, Al Wright, Director Chisaki and Honora Murphy for the success of the event.\nC.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nA patron commented that Playaway books are great and requested more titles including sci-fi and fantasy\nbooks. The patron also requested more headphone books. Supervising Librarian, Cosette Ratliff\nresponded that Playaway audio books circulate well, so the library is always looking to add more.\nUnfortunately, library versions of Playaway books are very expensive and not all titles are available. We\nbuy as many as we can afford in as many different genres that are available, so keep an eye out for new\ntitles throughout the year and if you see any that we don't have let us know.\nA patron requested more books by Margaret Frazer. Supervising Librarian, Cosette Ratliff thanked the\npatron for the suggestion and responded that we currently have six of the Sister Frevisse mysteries. The\nlast one was published in 2012. Since this series is so old, we won't be purchasing more to complete the\ncollection. We don't have the room and there are too many new mysteries coming out every year. We will\nask the Friends to keep an eye out for any paperback copies we can add in. Two other options for you are", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 288, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nSeptember 14, 2016 Meeting\nto get a San Francisco Public Library card as they have a number of older copies from the early 2000's so\nyou can get a SFPL card and check out the books or we can request the via inter-library loan. They are\nalso available as Kindle books on Amazon for $4.99.\nA patron was playing Pok\u00e9mon Go and turned the corner and walked into the bike repair station. She\nadmitted it was her own fault because she was looking at her phone when she cut the corner. The library\nhas installed a wooden bench on the Lincoln Street side of the building that forces traffic to take a wider\nturn around that corner. The bench provides a place to sit and also helps to deter others from walking into\nthe bike repair station.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nDirector Chisaki mentioned that the library hosts a quarterly blood drive. Every appointment was filled\nand on average, 24 units is collected at each drive. The library hosts the most successful drive in the area.\nThe city is embarking on a one year campaign called Love our Island. The kickoff is tomorrow at 5:00\np.m. at the steps of City Hall. Tuckers Ice Cream has created a new flavor called, \"Love our Island,\"\nwhich will only be available for the year of the campaign. T-shirts, car magnets, buttons and window\nclings have been made for the campaign. The City has launched a Facebook page which has a link to\norder the t-shirts online. The community is encouraged to post pictures of anything they love about\nAlameda and use the hashtag #LoveOurlsland.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 289, "text": "and\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, March 8, 2012\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Joe Restagno, Vice Chair Lola Brown, Commissioners Ann Cooke, Bill\nDelaney and Bill Sonneman (late)\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nPatrick Russi, ARPD Recreation Supervisor\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Delaney had a question about the 02-09-2012 meeting. Commissioner\nSonneman had said he would sit on the interview panel for the ARPD Director position, and\nDelaney asked if that had already taken place. Recreation Supervisor Russi said that the\ninterviews were scheduled to be held later on in the month.\nApprove Minutes of February 9, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular Meeting\nM/S/C\nDELANEY/BROWN (unanimously approved)\n\"That the minutes of the February 9, 2012 Recreation & Park Commission Regular\nMeeting are approved.\"\nApproved (4):\nRestagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\nNone.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nCommissioner Delaney spoke about the Council meetings that had taken place the previous\nevenings. There had been discussion about the Golf Course and the City's athletic fields, and\nDelaney was wondering why the Recreation & Park Commission had not been involved with\nthese issues prior to those meetings. He was disturbed that there is a sub-set to the sports\ngroup that are putting out literature communicating the fact that the North Loop area has\nalready been defined as a sporting field, and it has not. Delaney asked the Commission if the\nother members were concerned about these independent groups developing now and talking\nabout maintaining some of these facilities once they get built. Delaney has met some of the\npeople, and although they seem very nice, he wonders if they are qualified, capable and\ncommitted to such an undertaking for the long-term.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012\n- 1-", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 290, "text": "Chair Restagno said this was a good observation and he sees the situation as being very\nsimilar to what happened when the Boys and Girls Club got some of the Measure WW money\nwithout first having come to the Recreation & Park Commission. They had gone straight to the\nCity Council, and Restagno thinks the same thing has happened here, referring to a letter\nregarding the new sports group that the Commission had never seen. Restagno suggested\nthat if they all feel similarly, as a Commission they could write a letter to the Council and\nrequest to see a copy of that letter.\nVice Chair Brown said she was concerned as she had attended a Sunshine Ordinance\nmeeting to understand the transparency in government the City is trying to achieve. An\naudience member at the February Commission meeting had come up and asked if there was\nanother youth sports organization being formed. The Commission had responded to the\nindividual that there was nothing happening that they had heard of. If the City is supposed to\nbe a transparent organization, then they should have informed the Recreation & Park\nCommission about the letter so they could have knowledge of what is going on.\nCommissioner Delaney said it sounds appropriate that the Commission send a letter to City\nManager Russo stating their thoughts in a productive, collaborative way, ensuring that\neveryone understands what the role of the Commission should be. Delaney had watched the\nTuesday night meeting on television, and had attended the Wednesday night meeting in\nperson, and a lot of the things he heard concerned him in regards that the Commission had no\nknowledge of what is going on. Delaney suggested that either Mr. Russo could come to their\nmeeting next month and speak with them, or maybe a couple board members might go and\nmeet with Russo.\nChair Restagno said he would draft a letter and pass it by the Commission to see if they had\nany thoughts to add. He wants the City Manager and Council to know this is of concern to the\nCommission and he will also ask to see a copy of the originally referenced letter.\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nPark Master Plan (Discussion/Action Item)\nRecreation Supervisor Russi welcomed Gail Donaldson of Gates & Associates who\ngave a presentation on selected sections of the Park Master Plan. Ms. Donaldson\ntalked about changes that had been made and also introduced the Urban Greening\nsection of the plan. Representatives from Public Health Law and Policy were also in\nattendance and spoke on the Urban Farm and Garden portion.\nAfter the presentations, Chair Restagno asked the Commission if they had any other\nquestions, comments or recommendations. The next step would be to take the plan to\nCity Council, and Ms. Donaldson said it should be on the agenda for their first meeting\nin April. Recreation Supervisor Russi stated that they are looking for the Commission's\napproval of both the Park Master Plan and Urban Greening portion.\nCommissioner Delaney wondered if individual recommendations should be made on\nparts of the plan that had several options. Recreation Supervisor Russi said that Gates\n& Associates had done a very comprehensive job of providing many options, and he\nadvised that when each opportunity arises, the Commission could give individual\nrecommendations, but right now they should be approving the plan as a whole.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012\n2-", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 291, "text": "M/S/C\nBROWN/DELANEY (unanimously approved)\n\"That the Park Master Plan be approved.\"\nApproved (5): Restagno, Brown, Cooke, Delaney, Sonneman\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\nA.\nPark Division\nB.\nRecreation Division\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcements\nRecreation Supervisor Russi spoke about various activities going on in the department. At\nKrusi Park, some trees were removed and other demolition done in preparation for the\nremodeling project. The pool heater at Emma Hood was also re-built.\nIn the recreation world, the big event coming up is the Splash into Spring Egg Scramble which\nwill take place on Saturday, March 31. The event is a collaborative effort between EBRPD, the\nRotary Club and ARPD, and typically draws between 1,500 and 2,000 participants. This year\nthere will be a \"green theme\" with a mobile fish exhibit from EBRPD as well as some beach\nexploration going on. In addition to the traditional chocolate, healthier snacks such as pretzels\nand bag carrots will also be in the mix to provide a more well-rounded offering.\nSwim lessons are coming up and adult basketball is already underway. Softball registration\nwill begin in mid-April following Spring Break, and Little League opening day will be Saturday,\nMarch 10. It's quite a busy world for recreation right now getting ready for summer activities.\nMastick Senior Center as always has wonderful programs going on. Mayor Marie Gilmore will\ngive a State of the City address on March 13; an art exhibit of works created by Mastick\nmembers will continue through May 1; and, there will be a presentation by Douglas Borchert\non the America's Cup. Commissioner Cooke added that the Alexander Technique program\nrun by instructor Lenka Fejt is very good, and well worth taking advantage of.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012\n- 3-", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 292, "text": "8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nChair Restagno thanked Vice-Chair Brown for her comments on Tuesday evening, as they\nwere well stated. Also, in keeping with the green theme, Restagno asked if future Activity\nReports could be produced two-sided; Recreation Supervisor Russi will pass that along.\nChair Restagno spotted Recreation employee Sandi Bertero in the audience and asked her\nwhat camp will be like this year. Ms. Bertero gave some details, saying camp would survive\nanother year, thanks to community support, and encouraged Commission members to come\nout and visit. Bertero then commented about the reorganization; she knows it will affect the\ndepartment and asked the Commission to do what they can. Chair Restagno suggested the\nCommission do a park tour, possibly visiting the camp site sometime during the summer.\nVice-Chair Brown reiterated that in regards to the issue that Commissioner Delaney had\nraised, she really wants to make sure that the Commission is as accessible as possible and\ntransparent as well. She feels that the letter previously mentioned about the new sports group\nin town had to have had some information in it gleaned from someplace else, so she wants to\nmake sure the Commission is at least a party to anything going forward.\nCommissioner Sonneman had arrived after the discussion about this letter, so Chair Restagno\nbriefed him on the conversation and the result of their decision to send a communication to the\nCity Manager, copying City Council members as well. Commissioner Cooke asked Chair\nRestagno why the City Council would accept this without it having first gone through the\nRecreation Commission. Restagno had no idea why this had happened and said this is\nexactly why their letter is so important, as there had been at least one major issue in the past\nwhere the Commission had been bypassed.\nJon Pecson, Field Coordinator for the Alameda Soccer Club, came forward and urged the\nCommission to send the afore-mentioned letter, because right now there's an effort by a group\nto try to manage the fields. This is related to the budget to help alleviate some of those issues.\nMr. Pecson believes that ARPD does a good job of managing and maintaining the fields, and\nanytime you give that control up to someone else, it could be done well, or it could be done to\nserve one sports organization instead of the sports community as a whole.\nMr. Pecson went on to say that they had formed a group to bring four new fields to Alameda -\ntwo grass and two artificial - to help support the sports complex idea. This would enhance the\nwhole idea of revenue generation, keeping groups and competitions here. Mr. Pecson asked\nto get on the agenda for next month's meeting. He and two well-respected former city officials\nwill be in the group to help bring this idea along.\nChair Restagno said it's important if the sports complex moves forward, it should collectively\nbenefit all the different youth sports programs that use fields. Commissioner Sonneman\nsaid\nthat's their mission - to represent all, not just select groups.\nRecreation Supervisor Russi will mention the presentation to the Director, and cautioned Mr.\nPecson that due to the Sunshine Ordinance, their information must be received in a timely\nmanner so it can be put on next month's agenda.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\n11.\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE:\nThursday, April 12, 2012\n12.\nADJOURNMENT\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes - Thursday, March 8, 2012\n4-", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 293, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 17,2014- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(14-249) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution establishing integrated waste\nrates [paragraph no. 14-263 was continued to July 1, 2014.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-250) Proclamation Declaring June 21 and 22, 2014 as Relay for Life Alameda Days.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 7:14 p.m. and returned at 7:16 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Leverton, Event Chair.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-251) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced the USS Hornet Annual Field Day\nevent would be on June 28th and 29th.\n(14-252) Rion Cassidy, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about the impacts of the\nDel Monte warehouse proposal, specifically noticing and permit parking.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-253) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 20,\n2014. Approved.\n(*14-254) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,118,813.90.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 294, "text": "(*14-255) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended March\n31, 2014. Accepted.\n(*14-256) Recommendation to Award Contract for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year\n2014-15. Accepted.\n(*14-257) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,885.144.50 and\nAllocate $471,286.13 in Contingencies to MCK Services, Inc. for Repair and\nResurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 33, No. P.W. 02-14-04. Accepted.\n(*14-258) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,299,000 and\nAllocate $195,000 in Contingencies to Dixon Marine Services, Inc., for Alameda South\nShore Lagoon Dredging, No. P. W. 11-13-26. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-259) Resolution No. 14932, \"Reappointing Marguerite Malloy as a Member of the\nCivil Service Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 A) Resolution No. 14933, \"Appointing Elizabeth Kenny as a Member of the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 B) Resolution No. 14934, \"Reappointing Timothy Scates as a Member of the\nGolf Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 C) Resolution No. 14935, \"Appointing Chee Chan as a Member of the Historical\nAdvisory Board.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 D) Resolution No. 14936, \"Appointing John Piziali as a Member of the Historical\nAdvisory Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 E) Resolution No. 14937, \"Reappointing Catherine Atkin as a Member of the\nLibrary Board.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 F) Resolution No. 14938, \"Reappointing David Burton as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 G) Resolution No. 14939, \"Reappointing Kristoffer K\u00f6ster as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted;\n(14-259 H) Resolution No. 14940, \"Reappointing William Delaney as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 !) Resolution No. 14941, \"Appointing Mario Mariani as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted;\n(14-259 J) Resolution No. 14942, \"Appointing Ruben Tilos as a Member of the\nRecreation and Park Commission.\" Adopted.\n(14-259 K) Resolution No. 14943, \"Appointing Audrey Hyman as a Member of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 295, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted; and\n(14-259 L) Resolution No. 14944, \"Reappointing Jennifer Williams as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented certificates of appointment\nto Ms. Kenny, Mr. Scates, Mr. Piziali, Mr. Burton, Mr. K\u00f6ster, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Tilos and\nMs. Hyman.\n(14-260) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nPacific Automated, LLC for Five Years with an Additional Five Year Option in a Portion\nof Building 25 Located at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-261) Recommendation to Authorize the Establishment of a Basic Life Support (BLS)\nAmbulance Transport Program as a Regular Service of the Alameda Fire Department's\n(AFD) Emergency Medical Services Division.\nThe Fire Chief provided a handout and gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue payments lag up to a year, to which the Fire\nChief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the one year payment lag is typical for Advanced\nLife Support (ALS) ambulance service.\nThe Fire Chief responded ALS takes a third less time to collect than BLS; stated BLS\ndeals with MediCal and MediCaid, which are more careful to prevent fraud.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff time to collect payments is programmed\ninto the expenditure, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe Fire Chief continued presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 296, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired how cost recovery translates to revenue generation,\nspecifically market share and potential.\nThe Fire Chief responded revenues were over estimated at first; stated the goal is\nseven transports per day; adding a second ambulance captures more transports per\nday; transports are run five days per week, 10 hours per day; there is potential to add\nevenings and weekends in the future; based on market share, Alameda has definitely\nhit goals and will establish new goals including obtaining contracts for skilled nursing\nfacilities services; the revenue and cost sharing will be caught up this year; there is\nalways a billing lag.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether 45% of the outstanding collection would be\nreimbursed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated if $100,000 is\nbilled, $45,000 payment is expected.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department is recovering cost, to which the\nFire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fiscal year 2012-13 was a wash; the\ncurrent year will be a net positive, which will grow in the future; the department has\ngood partners and good support.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage applies to private companies.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not know the prevailing wage situation.\nThe City Manager stated the City is not contracting with other providers, the providers\nare contracting with the City.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether prevailing wage would change the outcome, to\nwhich the City Manager responded that he did not think it would; stated there is an\nexchange; prevailing wage applies when people are hired to do work.\nThe City Attorney stated she will look into the issue and provide an answer later.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether prevailing wage is viewed as a competitive advantage\nor disadvantage.\nCouncilmember Tam responded prevailing wage levels the playing field.\nThe Fire Chief stated there is no law in Alameda County for exclusivity; Alameda\nCounty Emergency Medical Services (EMS) can choose to give exclusive operating\nareas for BLS transport; EMS chooses not to; Alameda's past ALS contract included\nexclusivity for Alameda; however, exclusivity was negotiated out of the current contract.\nCouncilmember Tam stated no exclusivity makes the prevailing wage issue moot;\ninquired whether there would be a change in the reimbursement, or increase in usage,\nas a result of being a participant in the community paramedics program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 297, "text": "The Fire Chief responded Alameda is one of 11 pilot cities selected for the program; the\nscope issues will be reviewed; there will be more training for paramedics to provide\nrelief for patients with chronic illnesses; patients will not be readmitted because\nparamedics will provide intervention before going to the Emergency Room.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated service calls are\nreceived 24 hours a day, seven days a week.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if additional certifications are provided to the EMTs, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Department wants\nEMTs to be successful, graduate, and become full time Fire or Police Officers.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how Alameda decides which independent contractor to\nuse.\nThe Fire Chief responded the process needs to be evaluated; stated Alameda Hospital\nreceives priority; service can be scheduled in advance; as calls come in, independent\ncontractors are used.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the Alameda BLS program would be a\ncollaborative partner or competitor with the County.\nThe Fire Chief responded the County is reviewing contracts for efficiency and\neffectiveness, both of which the City can offer; stated Alameda does not want to over\ntax the current situation and neglect the needs of the community; Alameda needs to\nevaluate the County's expectations; with a clearer understanding of the County's needs,\nthere is opportunity to increase business and assist the County.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the City would be self-sustaining without a\ncontract if it becomes a competitor to the County.\nThe Fire Chief responded hopefully; stated the answer will be known moving forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the community values the service; inquired whether\nthere is enough data to decide to make the pilot program permanent.\nThe Fire Chief responded the pilot program is expiring at the end of the month; stated\nFire would like to make the program a regular part of its services; if the program does\nnot make sense for the City, another decision could be made.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the program is worthwhile; California is ahead of other\nstates with the Affordable Care Act; Alameda has an aging population and the service is\ngeared towards them; inquired whether most of the transports are on the Island.\nThe Fire Chief responded most transports originate on the Island.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 298, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the transports tax the two ambulances now,\nto which the Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the program is still in early\nstages and will need monitoring to determine issues.\nProvided background information and outlined the benefits of the service: Debi\nStebbins, Alameda Hospital.\nCommented on the excellence of the service and all it does to get patients to the Wound\nCenter: Beth Brizee and Sophia Telmo, Alameda Hospital Wound Care.\nOutlined his experience as a former employee of the program: Myles McMillian, former\nBLS employee.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished there were more data\npoints for Council to evaluate the program as a business entity and the effect and\nlasting impact of the additional ambulance; he knows the Fire Chief will be vigilant in\nmonitoring and ensuring the success of the program; he supports the program.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that the matter be brought back to Council in one year to\nevaluate the progress and impacts of the program.\nCouncilmember Chen and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed to amend the motion to\ninclude a report back to the Council in one year.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-262) Recommendation to Approve Parking Improvements for Park Street and\nWebster Street Shopping Districts.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:25 p.m. and returned at 8:28 p.m.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Coordinator and Assistant Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated it appears the parking goal for Webster Street has already been\nmet; Webster Street does not have the same side-street business pattern as Park\nStreet; that she suspects the red indicates inadequate parking for residents rather than\nfor business; she is interested in seeing more data; inquired whether the electronic sign\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 299, "text": "that counts spaces has the capability to say \"Full\", to which the Public Works\nCoordinator responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the parking sign has a lot of information for drivers to process.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated there is too much\ninformation on the parking sign; that she would like to see Lot C across from Theatre\nreconfigured to be more accommodating and efficient; she likes the electronic sign for\nthe parking garage; inquired why kiosks were not chosen.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded residents did not express a dislike for kiosks,\nbut rather a preference for the smart meter; kiosks are more expensive; Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) and Webster Street Business Association (WABA) prefer\nthe smart meter; smart meters did not exist five years ago and have become more\npopular.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a need for more bike parking, but bike lockers\ntake up lots of space; more bike parking encourages people to use bikes instead of\ncars.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the garage is underutilized; suggested moving the 13\nspaces from the Oak Street and Alameda Avenue gravel lot into the garage, and\nrepurposing the lot; a best and highest use for the lot should be found.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated that he would definitely look into the suggestion.\nMayor Gilmore complimented staff for an excellent report which provides a lot of\ninformation; inquired whether there was any feedback regarding why the bike rack in\nfront of Lot C is unpopular.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquired what day of the week and time the photo of the\nbike rack in Lot C was taken, to which the Assistant Engineer responded he does not\nrecall.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Assistant Engineer stated staff had the\nsame thoughts about the unpopularity of the bike rack in Lot C; stated staff will collect\ndata on bike rack parking.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there were any suggestions about how to\ndeter jay walking, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded there were no great\nideas about deterring jay walkers.\nStated PSBA unanimously supports the staff recommendation; signage at Lot C should\ndirect people to the parking garage: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of staff recommendation with the direction to look\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 300, "text": "at repurposing some of the lots to achieve parking goals.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\nMayor Gilmore requested an off agenda report on additional Webster Street data.\n(14-263) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.\nfor Rate Period 13 (July 2014 to June 2015). Continued to July 1, 2014.\n(14-264) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14945, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.\" Adopted.\nMayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]\n(14-265) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14946, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments,\nMaintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' \" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the allocation from reserves needed to\ncover expenses is expected to be reduced after there are more homes at Marina Cove.\nThe Public Works Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated the\nformation of the Community Facilities District will be presented on July 15th\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-266) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14947, \"Confirming the Webster\nStreet Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Levying\nan Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 17, 2014", "pages_fts": 14037, "rank": null}